British culture - Is there any such thing?
Discussion
Ashfordian said:
It is a Ponzi scheme as it continues to add to the pensioner population size when today's increased working population ages, thus requiring a larger worker population and repeat. I can't believe you are so blinkered and short sighted not to see this!
Pensioners are not immortal, you don't need a continuously growing worker population if the population structure is stable and provision is affordable. You get a problem when you arrange the provisions for the elderly based on a transiently favourable ratio of workers to pensioners.Our population pyramid is not a pyramid. Immigration can mitigate to some extent, and is a tool in managing the problem, but not the whole solution.
crankedup5 said:
IMO managed decline of U.K. will continue regardless of which colour tie happens to be in No 10.
Massive structural changes in the work sectors are already in motion, those jobs requiring monotonous repeat / rinse motions from the human hand being taken on increasingly by automation. AI is also majoring in the workplace replacing those desk jockey jobs. Maybe we won’t be needing to import all those unskilled and semi skilled workers?
Who knows where this major change may lead?
Many are very highly skilled ie those that develop the AI to which you oft refer. Massive structural changes in the work sectors are already in motion, those jobs requiring monotonous repeat / rinse motions from the human hand being taken on increasingly by automation. AI is also majoring in the workplace replacing those desk jockey jobs. Maybe we won’t be needing to import all those unskilled and semi skilled workers?
Who knows where this major change may lead?
Nomme de Plum said:
crankedup5 said:
IMO managed decline of U.K. will continue regardless of which colour tie happens to be in No 10.
Massive structural changes in the work sectors are already in motion, those jobs requiring monotonous repeat / rinse motions from the human hand being taken on increasingly by automation. AI is also majoring in the workplace replacing those desk jockey jobs. Maybe we won’t be needing to import all those unskilled and semi skilled workers?
Who knows where this major change may lead?
Many are very highly skilled ie those that develop the AI to which you oft refer. Massive structural changes in the work sectors are already in motion, those jobs requiring monotonous repeat / rinse motions from the human hand being taken on increasingly by automation. AI is also majoring in the workplace replacing those desk jockey jobs. Maybe we won’t be needing to import all those unskilled and semi skilled workers?
Who knows where this major change may lead?
Nomme de Plum said:
Can you not do basic sums? We have 68M population in the UK and at 200K per year increase that's 5 years per million. At 300K it is 3.3 years per million. So depending whether you choose 80M or 85M an increase of 12M or 17M respectively. I sincerely hope you can work out how many years that will take. Clue. It's more than 50 years if 85M and nearly 40 years for 80M.
Do you still want to talk about stupidity?
Now do the sums maintaining your worker/ pensioner ratio as that was your point only a few posts ago.Do you still want to talk about stupidity?
The nonsense above is not what you were arguing and unsurprisingly seem to be stepping back from your argument now that the reality of your position has been presented to you!
Edited by Ashfordian on Thursday 15th February 11:31
otolith said:
Ashfordian said:
It is a Ponzi scheme as it continues to add to the pensioner population size when today's increased working population ages, thus requiring a larger worker population and repeat. I can't believe you are so blinkered and short sighted not to see this!
Pensioners are not immortal, you don't need a continuously growing worker population if the population structure is stable and provision is affordable. You get a problem when you arrange the provisions for the elderly based on a transiently favourable ratio of workers to pensioners.Our population pyramid is not a pyramid. Immigration can mitigate to some extent, and is a tool in managing the problem, but not the whole solution.
Your graphics ignore your position of maintaining the worker/ pensioner ratio. When you do this via worker population increases, as is your argument, you get a Ponzi scheme...
Edited by Ashfordian on Thursday 15th February 11:32
Ashfordian said:
ATG said:
It's not a Ponzi scheme because it has a perfectly economically viable equilibrium end state. All an increase in immigration does is make the domestic demographic change less of a shock. Stop calling it a Ponzi scheme. It isn't one.
It is a Ponzi scheme as it continues to add to the pensioner population size when today's increased working population ages, thus requiring a larger worker population and repeat. I can't believe you are so blinkered and short sighted not to see this!We already have a couple of idiots advocating that an 85m UK population is easy. Don't become one of them!
Ashfordian said:
Nomme de Plum said:
Can you not do basic sums? We have 68M population in the UK and at 200K per year increase that's 5 years per million. At 300K it is 3.3 years per million. So depending whether you choose 80M or 85M an increase of 12M or 17M respectively. I sincerely hope you can work out how many years that will take. Clue. It's more than 50 years if 85M and nearly 40 years for 80M.
Do you still want to talk about stupidity?
Now do the sums maintaining your worker/ pensioner ratio as that was your point only a few posts ago.Do you still want to talk about stupidity?
The nonsense above is not what you were arguing and unsurprisingly seem to be stepping back from your argument now that the reality has been presented to you!
The population growth is as i stated. It is simple sums. The working non working ration does not come into. It's unfortunate you do not understand this simple bit of analytics.
There is no way using a 200K or 300K net migration per year one can reach 85M in the next 12 years. In fact even if there were to be no deaths it would only add a further 6.6M.
I hope you don't need to do sums for a living.
Nomme de Plum said:
You are mixing two different subjects. The ratio is determined by working versus non working population. This is completely separate to population growth either natural or via immigration. They both could end up in ether same place.
The population growth is as i stated. It is simple sums. The working non working ration does not come into. It's unfortunate you do not understand this simple bit of analytics.
There is no way using a 200K or 300K net migration per year one can reach 85M in the next 12 years. In fact even if there were to be no deaths it would only add a further 6.6M.
I hope you don't need to do sums for a living.
You told me in 2036 that pensioner to worker ratio would be 387/1000, compared to 305/1000 in 2016.The population growth is as i stated. It is simple sums. The working non working ration does not come into. It's unfortunate you do not understand this simple bit of analytics.
There is no way using a 200K or 300K net migration per year one can reach 85M in the next 12 years. In fact even if there were to be no deaths it would only add a further 6.6M.
I hope you don't need to do sums for a living.
This requires a 9m increase in the working population to maintain said ratio.
You were never arguing 200k/300k net migration until the real population numbers of your stupidity were pointed out.
crankedup5 said:
Without wishing to be involved to deeply in this debate of population / worker / pensioner levels, I do find it surprising that participants are making assumptions, it seems to me, that the major changes that I have briefly mentioned will have little impact upon the issues at hand.
Have a play with thishttps://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunit...
Ashfordian said:
Only a few posts ago you were arguing to maintain the worker/ pensioner ratio.
Your graphics ignore your position of maintaining the worker/ pensioner ratio. When you do this via worker population increases, as is your argument, you get a Ponzi scheme...
The graphics are historical data and a projection. The point of posting them was to illustrate the way that the structure can change. You have people entering the population (either by birth or migration in) and leaving it (either by death or migration out). If the sum of those factors remains the same over time, you have a stable structure, not one which is constantly changing shape as ours is. If you have a stable structure, you can arrange terms for provision for the elderly funded by the working in a way which is affordable and sustainable. It's not a Ponzi situation because the people paying in eventually get paid out on the same terms they provided for others. Bringing people in to help stabilise the structure eases the transition. It doesn't necessarily imply an ever growing population. Your graphics ignore your position of maintaining the worker/ pensioner ratio. When you do this via worker population increases, as is your argument, you get a Ponzi scheme...
otolith said:
The graphics are historical data and a projection. The point of posting them was to illustrate the way that the structure can change. You have people entering the population (either by birth or migration in) and leaving it (either by death or migration out). If the sum of those factors remains the same over time, you have a stable structure, not one which is constantly changing shape as ours is. If you have a stable structure, you can arrange terms for provision for the elderly funded by the working in a way which is affordable and sustainable. It's not a Ponzi situation because the people paying in eventually get paid out on the same terms they provided for others. Bringing people in to help stabilise the structure eases the transition. It doesn't necessarily imply an ever growing population.
That is not what you were arguing though. You were arguing for the worker/ population ratio 'solution' that creates a Ponzi scheme. I'm guessing this is a backtrack from you now you have seen the reality in real numbers?Ashfordian said:
Nomme de Plum said:
You are mixing two different subjects. The ratio is determined by working versus non working population. This is completely separate to population growth either natural or via immigration. They both could end up in ether same place.
The population growth is as i stated. It is simple sums. The working non working ration does not come into. It's unfortunate you do not understand this simple bit of analytics.
There is no way using a 200K or 300K net migration per year one can reach 85M in the next 12 years. In fact even if there were to be no deaths it would only add a further 6.6M.
I hope you don't need to do sums for a living.
You told me in 2036 that pensioner to worker ratio would be 387/1000, compared to 305/1000 in 2016.The population growth is as i stated. It is simple sums. The working non working ration does not come into. It's unfortunate you do not understand this simple bit of analytics.
There is no way using a 200K or 300K net migration per year one can reach 85M in the next 12 years. In fact even if there were to be no deaths it would only add a further 6.6M.
I hope you don't need to do sums for a living.
This requires a 9m increase in the working population to maintain said ratio.
You were never arguing 200k/300k net migration until the real population numbers of your stupidity were pointed out.
You asked how people before the UK became full. I said we could take 200K- 300K per annum and also the UK as a whole could cope with 80 or 85M provided infrastructure was grown to suit. 40 or 50 years is a pretty long time to get stuff in place.
I also asked what you would say if in lieu of immigration out natural birth rate was much higher and resulting in population increases along similar lines. How would you deal with it?
I'm not actually seeing much in the way of solutions from you.
Crippo said:
I knew this thread would end up about immigration. It’s very premis by the OP was an attack on British Culture. How offensive to ask if there is such a thing. Of course there is a British culture. Just like there are many other cultures, every Nation state has its own Culture. It’s also not a completely fixed thing and of course it also has its historical story and customs very deeply embedded. Of course immigration will shape the culture given enough time.
Okay, if you believe that there is, of course, a British Culture, and it's offensive to even question the fact, I assume you won't have any problem providing a definition of it on which all are agreed?My premise was absolutely, categorically 100% NOT an attack on British Culture. If it was an attack on anything, it was on people who use the protection of British Culture as a reason for stopping immigration, but then can't actually define what it is, what's unique about it, and how they cope with the fact that every single person born here will be able to point to certain groups of foreigners with whom they share far more common ground than they do or ever will with certain groups of people born here.
Ashfordian said:
otolith said:
The graphics are historical data and a projection. The point of posting them was to illustrate the way that the structure can change. You have people entering the population (either by birth or migration in) and leaving it (either by death or migration out). If the sum of those factors remains the same over time, you have a stable structure, not one which is constantly changing shape as ours is. If you have a stable structure, you can arrange terms for provision for the elderly funded by the working in a way which is affordable and sustainable. It's not a Ponzi situation because the people paying in eventually get paid out on the same terms they provided for others. Bringing people in to help stabilise the structure eases the transition. It doesn't necessarily imply an ever growing population.
That is not what you were arguing though. You were arguing for the worker/ population ratio 'solution' that creates a Ponzi scheme. I'm guessing this is a backtrack from you now you have seen the reality in real numbers?Nomme de Plum said:
Yes i did say the ratio would change in line with those numbers. I would respectfully ask you re read my post as I made no such suggestion that the population would need to increase to maintain the ratio. That is your calculation. I actually went on to mention tax rate increases. Please re read the post exchange of 0910 this morning.
You asked how people before the UK became full. I said we could take 200K- 300K per annum and also the UK as a whole could cope with 80 or 85M provided infrastructure was grown to suit. 40 or 50 years is a pretty long time to get stuff in place.
I also asked what you would say if in lieu of immigration out natural birth rate was much higher and resulting in population increases along similar lines. How would you deal with it?
I'm not actually seeing much in the way of solutions from you.
You did not state we need to maintain said ratio but there was implication via your tax increases question. And others, who have no backtracked raised the question about said ratio.You asked how people before the UK became full. I said we could take 200K- 300K per annum and also the UK as a whole could cope with 80 or 85M provided infrastructure was grown to suit. 40 or 50 years is a pretty long time to get stuff in place.
I also asked what you would say if in lieu of immigration out natural birth rate was much higher and resulting in population increases along similar lines. How would you deal with it?
I'm not actually seeing much in the way of solutions from you.
The birth rate of the UK will not increase while the current societal, environmental and infrastructure issues exist. And making this worse by further increasing the population is definitely not the solution.
Simply, we need to let the current baby boomer population bulge pass through the system. And they need to accept that the burden needs to be spread more equally hence they will have to contribute more. Future generations of pensioners are never going to be as well off as the current generation so this is a perfectly fair societal solution.
Nomme de Plum said:
crankedup5 said:
Without wishing to be involved to deeply in this debate of population / worker / pensioner levels, I do find it surprising that participants are making assumptions, it seems to me, that the major changes that I have briefly mentioned will have little impact upon the issues at hand.
Have a play with thishttps://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunit...
My interest is really around what impacts upon migration AI will hold.
Nomme de Plum said:
Ashfordian said:
Nomme de Plum said:
Why are you plucking numbers out of the air? 2036 is just 12 years away. It is this government that allowed our economy to be unbalanced and now take immigrants from further much afield, not that it is in principle a bad thing. Much economic development can be driven by the expertise gained elsewhere. We previously had immigration from EU much of which may have been more temporary.
I see nothing wrong with 200k net increase into the UK annually maybe even 300K, excluding students. If after graduating some of those students remain then they count toward the total allowance.
Could we cope with 80m or even 85M yes easily provided investment in infrastructure is adequate and that it is a gradual increase. 85% of people live in urban areas anyway so impacts little on all the other space we have.
I notice you have made no actual suggestion as to how we in the UK reduce the non working, pensioner, versus working population ratio. It equates to an additional 27% as per the predication above and that excludes knock on costs of the NHS being able to do more year on year with consequent cost.
So how will you manage this?
I am not plucking numbers out of the air. I am using your numbers but displaying them as real population numbers. I know this undermines your argument but then yours is such a stupid position to hold.I see nothing wrong with 200k net increase into the UK annually maybe even 300K, excluding students. If after graduating some of those students remain then they count toward the total allowance.
Could we cope with 80m or even 85M yes easily provided investment in infrastructure is adequate and that it is a gradual increase. 85% of people live in urban areas anyway so impacts little on all the other space we have.
I notice you have made no actual suggestion as to how we in the UK reduce the non working, pensioner, versus working population ratio. It equates to an additional 27% as per the predication above and that excludes knock on costs of the NHS being able to do more year on year with consequent cost.
So how will you manage this?
You think that the UK can easily provide infrastructure to 85m people
. Using your numbers we would need to add the population of London (Metropolitan area) over the next 12 years And you challenge me as to how we would manage it
.
You really have no clue. Your view does not consider take account reality and you are in danger of being laughed off PH because of your stupidity. You define the Population Ponzi Loon!
Do you still want to talk about stupidity?
Not that we have any need to, but we could grow to 120M population in the UK and still have a lower population density than the Netherlands currently has now, but according to Ashfordian, we're "full"!
He also ignores the fact that total population will plateau as increases in life expectancy do so, because that too counters his silly "Ponzi scheme" idea.
On top of that, he has yet to say if he'd be willing to work to 75 to reduce the number of immigrants needed.
It'll just go on and on and on... The basic driver seems to be "how do I stop foreigners coming here without appearing too xenophobic".
Ashfordian said:
You did not state we need to maintain said ratio but there was implication via your tax increases question. And others, who have no backtracked raised the question about said ratio.
The birth rate of the UK will not increase while the current societal, environmental and infrastructure issues exist. And making this worse by further increasing the population is definitely not the solution.
Simply, we need to let the current baby boomer population bulge pass through the system. And they need to accept that the burden needs to be spread more equally hence they will have to contribute more. Future generations of pensioners are never going to be as well off as the current generation so this is a perfectly fair societal solution.
I find an approach that stating that future generations of pensioners will never be as well of as utterly depressing and unambitious. Surely the whole purpose of our existance is to help our children have a better education and life and add to the overall wellbeing of society. When they come to retire then it seems reasonable that their life in retirement should be better than current retirees. The birth rate of the UK will not increase while the current societal, environmental and infrastructure issues exist. And making this worse by further increasing the population is definitely not the solution.
Simply, we need to let the current baby boomer population bulge pass through the system. And they need to accept that the burden needs to be spread more equally hence they will have to contribute more. Future generations of pensioners are never going to be as well off as the current generation so this is a perfectly fair societal solution.
Fortunately i believe in this regard at least the politicians we have chosen have this common aim along with improving life for everyone from cradle to grave. Surely this is embedded in our culture.
I have seen the evolution of our culture over the 69 years of my life and on balance i still think we are in a good place despite currently some serious economic woes which are not remotely immigration based.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff