Yellow jacket freedom fighters spreading to London

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

kabayiri wrote: »

Soon there will be no bank branch in our village. Looking at other towns in the area, this picture is being repeated.

Bank cashiers were redeployed previously, but without the branches their numbers will decrease.

Hundreds of thousands of people used to work in typing pools. The advent of computers has replaced all of them.

Sure...

But they all got jobs doing other things.

As history shows time and time again through multiple technological revolutions, when employment in some sectors declines, employment in other sectors increases.

Hence, and quite demonstrably, employment today is at a record high and unemployment is at a record low.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

We simply cannot continue to depend on a high rate of population growth, it is not practical.

I'm not advocating population growth.

I'm simply stating the obvious, that we need to at least breed at the replacement rate, or we need to import workers to replace the ones we fail to breed.

Do you not understand the meaning of 'replacement rate'?

kabayiri

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

We simply cannot continue to depend on a high rate of population growth, it is not practical. There would come a time when we could no longer breathe or eat because we would have concreted over most of the country.
...

It's the process of change which interests me.

Recent decades suggest that we don't seem so happy with inflating the population numbers.

The response by the authorities when it comes to building the required infrastructure is often too little/too late.

Then, there's the issue of where the growth is happening. ONS predictions suggest that 2m more will be in London by 2025.

If you thought London was crowded now...

They might rebrand the place as MegaCity One though, and create a whole load of new Judge Dredd jobs to police the place :rotfl:

itwasntme001

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

That's not entirely true.

We should at least aim for replacing ourselves on a 1 to 1 basis.

And after that we can deal with (as we have been for decades) the consequences of growth in average life expectancy, which has finally started to slow and by some reports may have ended.



We've already been coping with a changing mix as we've been underbreeding for many decades, 30 years ago there were 5 workers for every 1 pensioner, today there are just 3.

But the decline is now beyond our ability to cope, employment is at record highs, the average tax burden is higher than it's been for decades, unemployment is at record lows, there are labour shortages across huge sections of the economy, etc, and the situation is rapidly worsening.

Ive got a few solutions that should work well and provide a wonderful solution if implemented together:


- Automate and streamline government jobs as much as possible so these jobs are done by capital and not labour. This will reduce the tax burden massively. The now jobless public labour force can fill the jobs in the private sector that are not being filled. Less need for immigration.



- Force existing unemployed british nationals who are collecting benefit money to fill the unfilled jobs (by cutting benefit payments). This will also lead to lesser need for immigration to fill the jobs. Would have less of a strain on public services from roads to hospitals which means less tax burden.


- Scrap student loans for uni for degrees that serve no purpose like media studies and gender studies. Only have funding for degrees that are crucial for the economy - mainly in sciences, medicine, law etc. A very small % of people doing Chemistry say actually end of making a career in Chemistry or a related field. Therefore even scrap funding for these crucial degrees upto what is needed (i.e. get rid of rubbish unis - those who are good and you would want to make a career out of it you would want them to go to a top uni anyway). This will mean kids enter the workforce earlier, earn earlier, less need for low skilled immigration, less tax burden to fund student loans and all this would help these kids have kids themselves earlier as well.



- Only import people who are needed by this country to fill jobs and start innovative businesses after the above is all done.

michaels

Nasqueron wrote: »

We wouldn't need EU migration if British people would do the jobs like fruit picking and hotel cleaning. I saw figures today that around 80,000 seasonal EU workers do farm work in the UK, if these jobs were being taken up by British people they wouldn't need to come here.

No if we didn't import low skilled workers those industries that currently employ them would have to pay more to attract local workers, some would become uneconomic and close down but overall wages for lower skilled workers would rise making society fairer.

If the only way we can grow strawberries in the UK is via minimum wage imported workers then perhaps we shouldn't be growing strawberries here?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Nasqueron wrote: »

We wouldn't need EU migration if British people would do the jobs like fruit picking and hotel cleaning.

That's not entirely true - most EU workers are not fruit pickers and cleaners - but there is a grain of truth in there that Brits just do not want to do a lot of jobs that migrants will do.

I saw figures today that around 80,000 seasonal EU workers do farm work in the UK, if these jobs were being taken up by British people they wouldn't need to come here.

There just aren't enough unemployed British people to do all the jobs EU workers do. There is a shortage of British people. From 50 years of underbreeding.

To put it in perspective, there are currently roughly as many job vacancies as there are people on the dole. So if dole claimants were better qualified and willing to move around the country for work in theory there could be zero people on it.

And more widely there are almost three times as many EU workers as there are people who say in the unemployment survey that they'd like a job but don't have one.

So if you removed all the EU migrants, you'd have millions of job vacancies and Zero available staff to fill them.

Well, actually, what would really happen is the economy would tank and many businesses would fail due to a lack of labour and reduced spending from having fewer people, but hopefully you get my point...

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

michaels wrote: »

No if we didn't import low skilled workers those industries that currently employ them would have to pay more to attract local workers, some would become uneconomic and close down but overall wages for lower skilled workers would rise making society fairer.

There aren't enough local workers to go around at any price.

As there is a shortage of people from 5 decades of underbreeding.

Therefore many of those businesses would close down, reducing tax revenue, and worsening the national debt.

If the only way we can grow strawberries in the UK is via minimum wage imported workers then perhaps we shouldn't be growing strawberries here?

Why?

itwasntme001

michaels wrote: »

No if we didn't import low skilled workers those industries that currently employ them would have to pay more to attract local workers, some would become uneconomic and close down but overall wages for lower skilled workers would rise making society fairer.

If the only way we can grow strawberries in the UK is via minimum wage imported workers then perhaps we shouldn't be growing strawberries here?

The definition of low skilled labour means that they should be earning less then a more skilled labour. Therefore inequality must exist in a fair economy/society. How do you know the level of wages of low skilled labour is unfair?

michaels

itwasntme001 wrote: »

The definition of low skilled labour means that they should be earning less then a more skilled labour. Therefore inequality must exist in a fair economy/society. How do you know the level of wages of low skilled labour is unfair?

Exactly, the middle class shouldn't have to pay more for their cleaners, dog walkers and barista coffees, we just need to import more workers from lower wage strictly EU countries in order to keep those wages and thus prices down. The middle classes already have nice houses in affluent areas within good school catchment areas so the pressure put on housing and infrastructure for the low skilled native born isn't their problem - it just means lots of demand for their HMO btls - lovely jubbly.

Herzlos

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

We simply cannot continue to depend on a high rate of population growth, it is not practical. There would come a time when we could no longer breathe or eat because we would have concreted over most of the country.

Indeed we can't, but we need to solve the problem properly, instead of cutting off the population growth we need which will bring the timebomb forward. Some kind of joined up strategy, with decent support for people as they are which is efficient for those that are still working.


It might be getting better anyway, since as I understand it, average life expectancy in the UK is decreasing now anyway: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-45638646

Now, I know a lot of people seem to think we should concrete over the country, but we need green for food, for producing oxygen and for our psychological wellbeing among other things. Look at some of the African countries and multiply that by a thousand if you think that an ever increasing population would be good for this country.

Something like 2% of the country is 'concrete', and a lot of it isn't suitable for farming or leisure. We've got huge areas of wasted space; bungalows, derelicts, brown belt and so on.



There are many cities around the world with much higher population densities, so the problem absolutely isn't population numbers; it's pure infratructure.


The Africa example is a new one, but totally bizarre. Look at New York or Tokyo; much denser populations, much better infrastructure.