The 2017 HAMISH_MCTAVISH Predictions Thread

CLAPTON

Herzlos wrote: »

Why the low 10's of thousands?

I think we should allow in as many as we need and/or pay into the state.

we need zero immigration but there seems many good reasons for allowing some : exceptional people, refugees, some relatives of residents etc

Herzlos

So you're happy with a gradual population decline with a lower percentage of workers?

How low do you want to see the population go?

I can sort of understand the urge to stop London getting worse, but there's a lot of the UK that isn't London, and some of that is suffering from quite serious population decline.

CLAPTON

Herzlos wrote: »

So you're happy with a gradual population decline with a lower percentage of workers?

How low do you want to see the population go?

I can sort of understand the urge to stop London getting worse, but there's a lot of the UK that isn't London, and some of that is suffering from quite serious population decline.

I do indeed think the whole world would be better off with fewer people;
undoubtedly that would cause issues but then so does population growth

the quality and quantity of housing, rail transport, road overcrowding etc isn't determined by the ratio of old to young,
the balance of trade isn't determined by the ratio of old to young
the quality of life isn't determined by that ratio either.
young immigrant get old and become part of the perceived 'problem' in a few years.

your solution assumes endless borrowing and endless ponzi population growth which is clearly unsustainable over the longer term

I have no particular target for a stable population but stop significant growth would be a good start.
We really don't need another few million cafes, restaurants, nailbars etc.

Conrad

Herzlos wrote: »

So you're happy with a gradual population decline with a lower percentage of workers?

How low do you want to see the population go?

I can sort of understand the urge to stop London getting worse, but there's a lot of the UK that isn't London, and some of that is suffering from quite serious population decline.

I'd be very happy with a lot smaller population, and guess what there are prosperous nations out there with far smaller populations.


Don't hit me with the very quaint pensions Ponzi scheme argument, it's too inane to warrant a reply


I care passionately about wild Britain, but I know for some everything begins and ends with the Human swarm


GLOBAL WARMING; It's the 'liberals' pet concern, but I've gone cold on it. Why should I care if they don't? They want as many people on-planet, living long as possible and want all to enjoy a western living standard. The resultant environmental pressures are epic, so why on earth they focus on GW without addressing the great concern of over-population is bizarre.


They celebrate third world low consumption citizens coming to Europe to become high consumption western citizens. Yay, lets all increase our consumption 10 fold.

BobQ

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Maybe so but it takes 10 years to train as a Doctor and 14 years as a Surgeon. Planning for the growth in population needed to start 25 years ago.

It di I agree, but we are where are. The problems of today are solved in the long term by training doctors and nurses for the future. But in the short term we need to allow immigration to cover for the skills we currently lack.

Graham_Devon

BobQ wrote: »

It di I agree, but we are where are. The problems of today are solved in the long term by training doctors and nurses for the future. But in the short term we need to allow immigration to cover for the skills we currently lack.

The problem isn't as much a lack of doctors - many home grown doctors move abroad. It's simply poor work/life conditions compared to places like New Zealand and Oz.

kinger101

Conrad wrote: »

GLOBAL WARMING; It's the 'liberals' pet concern, but I've gone cold on it. Why should I care if they don't? They want as many people on-planet, living long as possible and want all to enjoy a western living standard. The resultant environmental pressures are epic, so why on earth they focus on GW without addressing the great concern of over-population is bizarre.

What makes you think liberals want more people on the planet? I think you've been misinformed.

BTW - a countries population tends to reach a steady state once it has reached a high standing of living. If Africa was like Western Europe, their population wouldn't be increasing at 2.5% per year.

CLAPTON

kinger101 wrote: »

What makes you think liberals want more people on the planet? I think you've been misinformed.

BTW - a countries population tends to reach a steady state once it has reached a high standing of living. If Africa was like Western Europe, their population wouldn't be increasing at 2.5% per year.

there does appear to be a class of 'liberals' that want the population of the UK to continue to grow by massive immigration, as otherwise they passionately believe we will collapse into poverty and decay.
It is true these holier than thou liberals normally don't / won't discuss what happens to the 'donating' countries nor are happy to discusss the longer term impacts.

which type of liberals are you thinking about?

kinger101

CLAPTON wrote: »

there does appear to be a class of 'liberals' that want the population of the UK to continue to grow by massive immigration, as otherwise they passionately believe we will collapse into poverty and decay.
It is true these holier than thou liberals normally don't / won't discuss what happens to the 'donating' countries nor are happy to discusss the longer term impacts.

which type of liberals are you thinking about?

Well, liberals have often lead the way in promoting birth control. Often in the face of very strong opposition from very conservative elements of the Christian Right.

I'll be happy when the world reaches a steady state, but sudden population declines can cause demographic timebombs, particularly when it's people of working age who leave a country. I know importing labour only kicks this into the long grass, but anyone truly concerned by this can either finance their own retirement or place their faith in some GDP money tree.

CLAPTON

kinger101 wrote: »

Well, liberals have often lead the way in promoting birth control. Often in the face of very strong opposition from very conservative elements of the Christian Right.

I'll be happy when the world reaches a steady state, but sudden population declines can cause demographic timebombs, particularly when it's people of working age who leave a country. I know importing labour only kicks this into the long grass, but anyone truly concerned by this can either finance their own retirement or place their faith in some GDP money tree.

clearly importing people actually simply transfers the problem from richer countries to poorer countries.
liberals are very good at ignoring the consequences of their theories.
what you are 'happy' with is irrelevant : whats matters are the facts and consequences.