British culture - Is there any such thing?
Discussion
QJumper said:
From what I can see, it's a mixture of the economy putting people off, as well as women choosing to defer settling down and having children while they pursue a career. Of course some (many) of the latter hit their thirties and forties still single, and then struggle to find a suitable partner.
Contraception, birth control, easy access to abortion, and equal opportunities and pay, have certainly led to more freedom and choices for women, which is a good thing. The unforeseen consequences of those choices are that many women now have to work, where previously it was a choice. The shift in social dynamics that equality brought also means that women are encouraged to compete with men, as individuals; whereas the previous goal in society was for men and women to co-operate, in pursuit of a family.
It's not just women's choices though, but men's too. Contraception has enabled women to pursue sex more freely, meaning that men have to offer less for it. Previously a man had to commit to at least a relationship, if not marriage, in order to get sex, whereas now it's freely available on a decent first date. Couple that with the ease of divorce, mostly initiated by women, and there's little incentive for men to get married, let alone have kids.
As for sustainable population growth numbers, it's also worth noting that in 1960, there were around 14k abortions in the UK, whereas today it's around a quarter of a million. Most of these are through choice rather than health reasons. Now choice is a good thing, but often that choice is either due to financial hardship or pursuing a career, rather than not wanting a child. If there was better support for women in this regard then we'd likely not have to import so many people.
Ultimately freedom of choice is a good thing but, without any understanding of the unforeseen consequnces, it's not an informed choice, and one that often leads to regrets.These freedoms have certainly provided many benefits for women, but the resulting choices have also boxed them into a corner of circumstances that have tempered those benefits with a matching level of disadvantages. It has led to a series of societal changes that have resulted in not only a declining birthrate, but a division in society. A division in which men and women's goals and desires are no longer aligned, but often at odds with each other.
What a very strange post. Yes both men and women can now have sex more easily without commitment. Men were always in control of that situation but now a woman can make the choice. Contraception, birth control, easy access to abortion, and equal opportunities and pay, have certainly led to more freedom and choices for women, which is a good thing. The unforeseen consequences of those choices are that many women now have to work, where previously it was a choice. The shift in social dynamics that equality brought also means that women are encouraged to compete with men, as individuals; whereas the previous goal in society was for men and women to co-operate, in pursuit of a family.
It's not just women's choices though, but men's too. Contraception has enabled women to pursue sex more freely, meaning that men have to offer less for it. Previously a man had to commit to at least a relationship, if not marriage, in order to get sex, whereas now it's freely available on a decent first date. Couple that with the ease of divorce, mostly initiated by women, and there's little incentive for men to get married, let alone have kids.
As for sustainable population growth numbers, it's also worth noting that in 1960, there were around 14k abortions in the UK, whereas today it's around a quarter of a million. Most of these are through choice rather than health reasons. Now choice is a good thing, but often that choice is either due to financial hardship or pursuing a career, rather than not wanting a child. If there was better support for women in this regard then we'd likely not have to import so many people.
Ultimately freedom of choice is a good thing but, without any understanding of the unforeseen consequnces, it's not an informed choice, and one that often leads to regrets.These freedoms have certainly provided many benefits for women, but the resulting choices have also boxed them into a corner of circumstances that have tempered those benefits with a matching level of disadvantages. It has led to a series of societal changes that have resulted in not only a declining birthrate, but a division in society. A division in which men and women's goals and desires are no longer aligned, but often at odds with each other.
You have missed one of the most important points of being a couple. That is for two people to want to enjoy each other's company and have shared aims. This may or may not include children. So to say a man and a woman goals are not aligned is just not true although those who have become separated or divorced will know the alignment is not always permanent.
Posters seem to be focusing on just the Uk but the evidence is that even in conservative and not highly developed countries once females get access to contraception they are able to take control of their lives in a way they could not before and the birth rate falls. Child mortality is also a big factor.
This is a much healthier place to be as two people decide to be co dependent rather than the female being subservient to the male. Of course this ignores same sex couples.
It is not for anyone to demand a female have a child or children or not . It must always be her and her partner's decision. People can be encouraged through the tax and benefit system if a particular society decides so.
This digresses from the subject of this thread which is British Culture and I still maintain immigration has overwhelmingly contributed to British culture. It's what's been happening for a few thousand years
Nomme de Plum said:
Immigration has made the UK a better and wealthier place over many decades. Some of those immigrants do jobs UK workers refuse to do particularly in the care and service sector.
I see nothing wrong with having to compete for a role. We do it at the company level for contracts of whatever type and we do it at the personal level. Nothing stops a person being better than the competition.
Is it not ironic that people expect fierce completion for goods and services but have an aversion when they have to compete themselves. That sounds very left wing to me.
The only result from not having competition is a gradual degradation of expertise and professionalism. We should never let this happen.
We are short of Doctors nurses care workers and many other positions remain unfilled. Hospitality has struggled to keep going partly due to lack of staff.
I hope xenophobia never becomes part of British Culture and we continue to welcome people into the UK and help others that are oppressed in their own countries.
I've been listening to the Lord's debates on the Rwanda bill. The Lords are exemplyfing what is and I hope remains part of British Culture. Integrity and Justice and adhering to conventions that we ourselves helped create. That to me is the essence of being British.
I hope the Government's proposals are roundly defeated or amended substantially as currently they are very anti British in nature.
That is indeed one of the puzzling things. Opposition to migrant labour has traditionally been from the left in the vast majority of countries (including ours for most of the past few centuries), but now you see those opposed to it - despite the fact that they're still using the same justifications about driving down wages or taking people's jobs altogether - have all recently started trying to gaslight those who are happy to have economically motivated migration into believing that it's actually them who are left wing! It's most perplexing! I see nothing wrong with having to compete for a role. We do it at the company level for contracts of whatever type and we do it at the personal level. Nothing stops a person being better than the competition.
Is it not ironic that people expect fierce completion for goods and services but have an aversion when they have to compete themselves. That sounds very left wing to me.
The only result from not having competition is a gradual degradation of expertise and professionalism. We should never let this happen.
We are short of Doctors nurses care workers and many other positions remain unfilled. Hospitality has struggled to keep going partly due to lack of staff.
I hope xenophobia never becomes part of British Culture and we continue to welcome people into the UK and help others that are oppressed in their own countries.
I've been listening to the Lord's debates on the Rwanda bill. The Lords are exemplyfing what is and I hope remains part of British Culture. Integrity and Justice and adhering to conventions that we ourselves helped create. That to me is the essence of being British.
I hope the Government's proposals are roundly defeated or amended substantially as currently they are very anti British in nature.
Nomme de Plum said:
What a very strange post. Yes both men and women can now have sex more easily without commitment. Men were always in control of that situation but now a woman can make the choice.
You have missed one of the most important points of being a couple. That is for two people to want to enjoy each other's company and have shared aims. This may or may not include children. So to say a man and a woman goals are not aligned is just not true although those who have become separated or divorced will know the alignment is not always permanent.
Posters seem to be focusing on just the Uk but the evidence is that even in conservative and not highly developed countries once females get access to contraception they are able to take control of their lives in a way they could not before and the birth rate falls. Child mortality is also a big factor.
This is a much healthier place to be as two people decide to be co dependent rather than the female being subservient to the male. Of course this ignores same sex couples.
It is not for anyone to demand a female have a child or children or not . It must always be her and her partner's decision. People can be encouraged through the tax and benefit system if a particular society decides so.
This digresses from the subject of this thread which is British Culture and I still maintain immigration has overwhelmingly contributed to British culture. It's what's been happening for a few thousand years
It doesn't digress at all, as the nature of interpersonal dynamics very much affects culture.You have missed one of the most important points of being a couple. That is for two people to want to enjoy each other's company and have shared aims. This may or may not include children. So to say a man and a woman goals are not aligned is just not true although those who have become separated or divorced will know the alignment is not always permanent.
Posters seem to be focusing on just the Uk but the evidence is that even in conservative and not highly developed countries once females get access to contraception they are able to take control of their lives in a way they could not before and the birth rate falls. Child mortality is also a big factor.
This is a much healthier place to be as two people decide to be co dependent rather than the female being subservient to the male. Of course this ignores same sex couples.
It is not for anyone to demand a female have a child or children or not . It must always be her and her partner's decision. People can be encouraged through the tax and benefit system if a particular society decides so.
This digresses from the subject of this thread which is British Culture and I still maintain immigration has overwhelmingly contributed to British culture. It's what's been happening for a few thousand years
Nothing strange about it all, it's a reality. Men were never in control of sex. Women largely control (and still do) whether sex takes place, and men control if a relationship does. Sex is transactional, and historically women made a relationship the price of sex, for obvious reasons, due to the risk/cost of pregancy. Now that the risk/cost is removed, sex is easier for men, as they don't have to commit to anything.
Nor did I say that women should be subservient to men, in fact I said that freedom of choice and opportunity is a good thing. What I did say though was that it has resulted in fewer people choosing to be co-dependent, which is also reality. It also leads to fewer people choosing the responbility of having a child dependent upon them. Both of which lead to a declining birthrate.
Of course no one should demand that anyone has a child, and I never said that. I agree that ease of divorce is also a good thing in terms of individual choice, but all the evidence shows that it has negative outcomes for any chidren involved, which also adversely affects society. I simpy said that the increases in choice have led to more people opting not to have a child. Nowhere did I pass judgment on anything, and only pointed out the consequences of them, which are real and evident.
I also agree with you that this could be mitigated by the tax and benefits system, and thus point the finger not at the increases in freedom and choice, but the failure to foresee those consequences, and take the corresponding measures to address them.
QJumper said:
It doesn't digress at all, as the nature of interpersonal dynamics very much affects culture.
Nothing strange about it all, it's a reality. Men were never in control of sex. Women largely control (and still do) whether sex takes place, and men control if a relationship does. Sex is transactional, and historically women made a relationship the price of sex, for obvious reasons, due to the risk/cost of pregancy. Now that the risk/cost is removed, sex is easier for men, as they don't have to commit to anything.
Nor did I say that women should be subservient to men, in fact I said that freedom of choice and opportunity is a good thing. What I did say though was that it has resulted in fewer people choosing to be co-dependent, which is also reality. It also leads to fewer people choosing the responbility of having a child dependent upon them. Both of which lead to a declining birthrate.
Of course no one should demand that anyone has a child, and I never said that. I agree that ease of divorce is also a good thing in terms of individual choice, but all the evidence shows that it has negative outcomes for any chidren involved, which also adversely affects society. I simpy said that the increases in choice have led to more people opting not to have a child. Nowhere did I pass judgment on anything, and only pointed out the consequences of them, which are real and evident.
I also agree with you that this could be mitigated by the tax and benefits system, and thus point the finger not at the increases in freedom and choice, but the failure to foresee those consequences, and take the corresponding measures to address them.
Apologies if i misunderstood where you were coming from. Nothing strange about it all, it's a reality. Men were never in control of sex. Women largely control (and still do) whether sex takes place, and men control if a relationship does. Sex is transactional, and historically women made a relationship the price of sex, for obvious reasons, due to the risk/cost of pregancy. Now that the risk/cost is removed, sex is easier for men, as they don't have to commit to anything.
Nor did I say that women should be subservient to men, in fact I said that freedom of choice and opportunity is a good thing. What I did say though was that it has resulted in fewer people choosing to be co-dependent, which is also reality. It also leads to fewer people choosing the responbility of having a child dependent upon them. Both of which lead to a declining birthrate.
Of course no one should demand that anyone has a child, and I never said that. I agree that ease of divorce is also a good thing in terms of individual choice, but all the evidence shows that it has negative outcomes for any chidren involved, which also adversely affects society. I simpy said that the increases in choice have led to more people opting not to have a child. Nowhere did I pass judgment on anything, and only pointed out the consequences of them, which are real and evident.
I also agree with you that this could be mitigated by the tax and benefits system, and thus point the finger not at the increases in freedom and choice, but the failure to foresee those consequences, and take the corresponding measures to address them.
The only slight disagreement is that men could and did have have sex and deny responsibility for any pregnancy. This was very commonplace and back street abortions and sending young women away/ forced adoptions was also commonplace. it is only very recently that paternity could be proved.
Nomme de Plum said:
Apologies if i misunderstood where you were coming from.
The only slight disagreement is that men could and did have have sex and deny responsibility for any pregnancy. This was very commonplace and back street abortions and sending young women away/ forced adoptions was also commonplace. it is only very recently that paternity could be proved.
No worries The only slight disagreement is that men could and did have have sex and deny responsibility for any pregnancy. This was very commonplace and back street abortions and sending young women away/ forced adoptions was also commonplace. it is only very recently that paternity could be proved.
I also agree with you that men could always have sex and deny responsiblity, which was kind of my point regarding why women were much more protective regarding sex. So perhaps I didn't express that as well as I might have.
I suppose what I was getting at is that the birthrate was largely reliant on the fact that people wanted sex, and sex resulted in children. In fact it's precisely the reason that nature made sex pleasurable. That's no longer the case, as both men and women can freely engage in sex without chidren even being a consideration. That freedom of choice, for both, is a good thing, but has inevitably contributed to a declining birthrate.
272BHP said:
But what do we do when our immigrants have no interest in diversity and inclusivity?
The problem is just as much when they do adapt to our culture.Immigration from places like India was in part welcomed because they had higher birthrates to make up for our falling one. However, within a couple of generations they quickly became westernised and started having smaller families.
QJumper said:
272BHP said:
But what do we do when our immigrants have no interest in diversity and inclusivity?
The problem is just as much when they do adapt to our culture.Immigration from places like India was in part welcomed because they had higher birthrates to make up for our falling one. However, within a couple of generations they quickly became westernised and started having smaller families.
That makes it sound like the falling Western birth rate is a complete individual lifestyle choice.
Having said that, the infant mortality rate in India is 7.5x that of the UK, so continuing to procreate at the same rate would make for some pretty massive families!
Nomme de Plum said:
Immigration has made the UK a better and wealthier place over many decades. Some of those immigrants do jobs UK workers refuse to do particularly in the care and service sector.
I see nothing wrong with having to compete for a role. We do it at the company level for contracts of whatever type and we do it at the personal level. Nothing stops a person being better than the competition.
Is it not ironic that people expect fierce completion for goods and services but have an aversion when they have to compete themselves. That sounds very left wing to me.
The only result from not having competition is a gradual degradation of expertise and professionalism. We should never let this happen.
We are short of Doctors nurses care workers and many other positions remain unfilled. Hospitality has struggled to keep going partly due to lack of staff.
I hope xenophobia never becomes part of British Culture and we continue to welcome people into the UK and help others that are oppressed in their own countries.
I've been listening to the Lord's debates on the Rwanda bill. The Lords are exemplyfing what is and I hope remains part of British Culture. Integrity and Justice and adhering to conventions that we ourselves helped create. That to me is the essence of being British.
I hope the Government's proposals are roundly defeated or amended substantially as currently they are very anti British in nature.
You're allowing your cap to slip. I was never in doubt of your motives or that of the other muppet, but you are supporting wage suppression of your fellow countrymen. Really not a good look!I see nothing wrong with having to compete for a role. We do it at the company level for contracts of whatever type and we do it at the personal level. Nothing stops a person being better than the competition.
Is it not ironic that people expect fierce completion for goods and services but have an aversion when they have to compete themselves. That sounds very left wing to me.
The only result from not having competition is a gradual degradation of expertise and professionalism. We should never let this happen.
We are short of Doctors nurses care workers and many other positions remain unfilled. Hospitality has struggled to keep going partly due to lack of staff.
I hope xenophobia never becomes part of British Culture and we continue to welcome people into the UK and help others that are oppressed in their own countries.
I've been listening to the Lord's debates on the Rwanda bill. The Lords are exemplyfing what is and I hope remains part of British Culture. Integrity and Justice and adhering to conventions that we ourselves helped create. That to me is the essence of being British.
I hope the Government's proposals are roundly defeated or amended substantially as currently they are very anti British in nature.
Absolutely no problem with competition, if it is held on a level playing field, but when it is distorted by wage suppression it does lead to a degradation of expertise and professionalism in the resident population over the longer term.
Ashfordian said:
Nomme de Plum said:
Immigration has made the UK a better and wealthier place over many decades. Some of those immigrants do jobs UK workers refuse to do particularly in the care and service sector.
I see nothing wrong with having to compete for a role. We do it at the company level for contracts of whatever type and we do it at the personal level. Nothing stops a person being better than the competition.
Is it not ironic that people expect fierce completion for goods and services but have an aversion when they have to compete themselves. That sounds very left wing to me.
The only result from not having competition is a gradual degradation of expertise and professionalism. We should never let this happen.
We are short of Doctors nurses care workers and many other positions remain unfilled. Hospitality has struggled to keep going partly due to lack of staff.
I hope xenophobia never becomes part of British Culture and we continue to welcome people into the UK and help others that are oppressed in their own countries.
I've been listening to the Lord's debates on the Rwanda bill. The Lords are exemplyfing what is and I hope remains part of British Culture. Integrity and Justice and adhering to conventions that we ourselves helped create. That to me is the essence of being British.
I hope the Government's proposals are roundly defeated or amended substantially as currently they are very anti British in nature.
You're allowing your cap to slip. I was never in doubt of your motives or that of the other muppet, but you are supporting wage suppression of your fellow countrymen. Really not a good look!I see nothing wrong with having to compete for a role. We do it at the company level for contracts of whatever type and we do it at the personal level. Nothing stops a person being better than the competition.
Is it not ironic that people expect fierce completion for goods and services but have an aversion when they have to compete themselves. That sounds very left wing to me.
The only result from not having competition is a gradual degradation of expertise and professionalism. We should never let this happen.
We are short of Doctors nurses care workers and many other positions remain unfilled. Hospitality has struggled to keep going partly due to lack of staff.
I hope xenophobia never becomes part of British Culture and we continue to welcome people into the UK and help others that are oppressed in their own countries.
I've been listening to the Lord's debates on the Rwanda bill. The Lords are exemplyfing what is and I hope remains part of British Culture. Integrity and Justice and adhering to conventions that we ourselves helped create. That to me is the essence of being British.
I hope the Government's proposals are roundly defeated or amended substantially as currently they are very anti British in nature.
Absolutely no problem with competition, if it is held on a level playing field, but when it is distorted by wage suppression it does lead to a degradation of expertise and professionalism in the resident population over the longer term.
I am completely content with my position. We created a company that excelled and evidences that those immigrant employees added immense value from which we all benefited. We were not alone. I suggest if you look at many businesses, research, science and technology centres when some of the staff are immigrants. Those companies compete globally for the best people which is as it should be. It drives excellence.
By your logic you would advocate compulsory birth control if our population was growing organically without immigration. It is of course utter nonsense.
I see no point in discussing this further with you as no government is going to ban immigration or refuse genuine asylum seekers entry. Fortunately we saw the back of Oswald Mosley, Enoch Powell's vile view never really got traction and Tommy Robinson ( Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon) EDL and the BNP, was convicted of numerous crimes. Farage has created division in the UK and helped suppress our economy through Brexit. so It seems Reform may suit your politics.
None of what these vile people stood for should ever form any part of British Culture. Fortunately to date their views do not.
Having ridden the line between western and Eastern cultures, somethings that stand out about British culture to me (and may also align with "European" culture) -
-Politeness/manners/constantly apologising or saying thank you (something alien in some eastern cultures, and probably why they are seen as rude at times).
-Queuing
-Formalities
-pubs
-small talk (usually weather related)
-Obsession with the weather
-Fondness for roasts/gravy/sausage based dishes.
-Civic pride
-Rambling
-Dogging(
)
-Dog ownership
-Reluctance to make a fuss (whether that's to make a complain of celebrate birthdays/weddings)
-Possessiveness of parking spots
-Allotments / general fondness of gardening and growing things.
-Yearning for going on cruises.
A important note, however, is how a lot of this doesn't necessarily apply to larger cities, where they have their own distinct subcultures (often the opposite of the list above).
-Politeness/manners/constantly apologising or saying thank you (something alien in some eastern cultures, and probably why they are seen as rude at times).
-Queuing
-Formalities
-pubs
-small talk (usually weather related)
-Obsession with the weather
-Fondness for roasts/gravy/sausage based dishes.
-Civic pride
-Rambling
-Dogging(
) -Dog ownership
-Reluctance to make a fuss (whether that's to make a complain of celebrate birthdays/weddings)
-Possessiveness of parking spots
-Allotments / general fondness of gardening and growing things.
-Yearning for going on cruises.
A important note, however, is how a lot of this doesn't necessarily apply to larger cities, where they have their own distinct subcultures (often the opposite of the list above).
Ashfordian said:
Absolutely no problem with competition, if it is held on a level playing field, but when it is distorted by wage suppression it does lead to a degradation of expertise and professionalism in the resident population over the longer term.
We do tend to be a soft touch with regards to the degradation of standards and expertise in certain sectors.https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/feb/14/nh...
Billy_Rosewood said:
-Dogging( )
Your experiences may have differed to mine / I may have led a sheltered life ) Billy_Rosewood said:
A important note, however, is how a lot of this doesn't necessarily apply to larger cities, where they have their own distinct subcultures (often the opposite of the list above).
Liverpool and Manchester being in close proximity, but quite different (possibly hard to define...), being good examples. Ashfordian said:
Nomme de Plum said:
Immigration has made the UK a better and wealthier place over many decades. Some of those immigrants do jobs UK workers refuse to do particularly in the care and service sector.
I see nothing wrong with having to compete for a role. We do it at the company level for contracts of whatever type and we do it at the personal level. Nothing stops a person being better than the competition.
Is it not ironic that people expect fierce completion for goods and services but have an aversion when they have to compete themselves. That sounds very left wing to me.
The only result from not having competition is a gradual degradation of expertise and professionalism. We should never let this happen.
We are short of Doctors nurses care workers and many other positions remain unfilled. Hospitality has struggled to keep going partly due to lack of staff.
I hope xenophobia never becomes part of British Culture and we continue to welcome people into the UK and help others that are oppressed in their own countries.
I've been listening to the Lord's debates on the Rwanda bill. The Lords are exemplyfing what is and I hope remains part of British Culture. Integrity and Justice and adhering to conventions that we ourselves helped create. That to me is the essence of being British.
I hope the Government's proposals are roundly defeated or amended substantially as currently they are very anti British in nature.
You're allowing your cap to slip. I was never in doubt of your motives or that of the other muppet, but you are supporting wage suppression of your fellow countrymen. Really not a good look!I see nothing wrong with having to compete for a role. We do it at the company level for contracts of whatever type and we do it at the personal level. Nothing stops a person being better than the competition.
Is it not ironic that people expect fierce completion for goods and services but have an aversion when they have to compete themselves. That sounds very left wing to me.
The only result from not having competition is a gradual degradation of expertise and professionalism. We should never let this happen.
We are short of Doctors nurses care workers and many other positions remain unfilled. Hospitality has struggled to keep going partly due to lack of staff.
I hope xenophobia never becomes part of British Culture and we continue to welcome people into the UK and help others that are oppressed in their own countries.
I've been listening to the Lord's debates on the Rwanda bill. The Lords are exemplyfing what is and I hope remains part of British Culture. Integrity and Justice and adhering to conventions that we ourselves helped create. That to me is the essence of being British.
I hope the Government's proposals are roundly defeated or amended substantially as currently they are very anti British in nature.
Absolutely no problem with competition, if it is held on a level playing field, but when it is distorted by wage suppression it does lead to a degradation of expertise and professionalism in the resident population over the longer term.
As I see it, you're massively limiting immigration, so there are far fewer people to fill vacancies, demand for workers increases dramatically, and so, therefore, do wages, yes?
for higher wages!!! Except...1. You've just increased the costs of British businesses, so they're going to have to pass those costs on to British consumers, meaning inflation. Inflation invariably impacts the poorest the most, so well done, you've increased low paid workers' take home pay, even if the purchasing power of their new take home pay has actually fallen in real terms.
2. Problem 1 is going to be even further compounded because you've just made British businesses less competitive on the global stage, so their exports will fall and they'll need to try and make up even more of their losses from the British public.
3. Although I suppose looking on the bright side, a fair number of British companies would go bust under those circumstances, so to an extent the economy would just contract until we got back to a level where they could pay wages low enough to compete in the global economy again.
Kermit power said:
So how do you see the future going in your world?
As I see it, you're massively limiting immigration, so there are far fewer people to fill vacancies, demand for workers increases dramatically, and so, therefore, do wages, yes?
for higher wages!!! Except...
1. You've just increased the costs of British businesses, so they're going to have to pass those costs on to British consumers, meaning inflation. Inflation invariably impacts the poorest the most, so well done, you've increased low paid workers' take home pay, even if the purchasing power of their new take home pay has actually fallen in real terms.
2. Problem 1 is going to be even further compounded because you've just made British businesses less competitive on the global stage, so their exports will fall and they'll need to try and make up even more of their losses from the British public.
3. Although I suppose looking on the bright side, a fair number of British companies would go bust under those circumstances, so to an extent the economy would just contract until we got back to a level where they could pay wages low enough to compete in the global economy again.
Let's look at how well your Population Ponzi scheme has done in recent years:As I see it, you're massively limiting immigration, so there are far fewer people to fill vacancies, demand for workers increases dramatically, and so, therefore, do wages, yes?
for higher wages!!! Except...1. You've just increased the costs of British businesses, so they're going to have to pass those costs on to British consumers, meaning inflation. Inflation invariably impacts the poorest the most, so well done, you've increased low paid workers' take home pay, even if the purchasing power of their new take home pay has actually fallen in real terms.
2. Problem 1 is going to be even further compounded because you've just made British businesses less competitive on the global stage, so their exports will fall and they'll need to try and make up even more of their losses from the British public.
3. Although I suppose looking on the bright side, a fair number of British companies would go bust under those circumstances, so to an extent the economy would just contract until we got back to a level where they could pay wages low enough to compete in the global economy again.
- NHS waiting lists are longer
- Infrastructure condition is worsening eg roads, trains, etc
- Public services are in increased demand thus meaning there is less to go around.
- Flooding is increasing as we concrete over more land
- Class sizes are rising
- GP appointments are heading the way of NHS Dentistry.
etc, etc
Recent facts show your approach is not working, and is failing and making life worse for those who reside in the UK. And you want to continue making things worse. We need less of people like you and your failing approach to society!
Ashfordian said:
Kermit power said:
So how do you see the future going in your world?
As I see it, you're massively limiting immigration, so there are far fewer people to fill vacancies, demand for workers increases dramatically, and so, therefore, do wages, yes?
for higher wages!!! Except...
1. You've just increased the costs of British businesses, so they're going to have to pass those costs on to British consumers, meaning inflation. Inflation invariably impacts the poorest the most, so well done, you've increased low paid workers' take home pay, even if the purchasing power of their new take home pay has actually fallen in real terms.
2. Problem 1 is going to be even further compounded because you've just made British businesses less competitive on the global stage, so their exports will fall and they'll need to try and make up even more of their losses from the British public.
3. Although I suppose looking on the bright side, a fair number of British companies would go bust under those circumstances, so to an extent the economy would just contract until we got back to a level where they could pay wages low enough to compete in the global economy again.
Let's look at how well your Population Ponzi scheme has done in recent years:As I see it, you're massively limiting immigration, so there are far fewer people to fill vacancies, demand for workers increases dramatically, and so, therefore, do wages, yes?
for higher wages!!! Except...1. You've just increased the costs of British businesses, so they're going to have to pass those costs on to British consumers, meaning inflation. Inflation invariably impacts the poorest the most, so well done, you've increased low paid workers' take home pay, even if the purchasing power of their new take home pay has actually fallen in real terms.
2. Problem 1 is going to be even further compounded because you've just made British businesses less competitive on the global stage, so their exports will fall and they'll need to try and make up even more of their losses from the British public.
3. Although I suppose looking on the bright side, a fair number of British companies would go bust under those circumstances, so to an extent the economy would just contract until we got back to a level where they could pay wages low enough to compete in the global economy again.
- NHS waiting lists are longer
- Infrastructure condition is worsening eg roads, trains, etc
- Public services are in increased demand thus meaning there is less to go around.
- Flooding is increasing as we concrete over more land
- Class sizes are rising
- GP appointments are heading the way of NHS Dentistry.
etc, etc
Recent facts show your approach is not working, and is failing and making life worse for those who reside in the UK. And you want to continue making things worse. We need less of people like you and your failing approach to society!
Kermit power said:
Can we really call it "Westernised"?
That makes it sound like the falling Western birth rate is a complete individual lifestyle choice.
Having said that, the infant mortality rate in India is 7.5x that of the UK, so continuing to procreate at the same rate would make for some pretty massive families!
I dunno, I just meant that they quickly adopted the local approach of having fewer children.That makes it sound like the falling Western birth rate is a complete individual lifestyle choice.
Having said that, the infant mortality rate in India is 7.5x that of the UK, so continuing to procreate at the same rate would make for some pretty massive families!
It is an individual lifestyle choice, isn't it?
chrispmartha said:
You've been gaslighted to believe that that's all down to immigration though.
What's your solution then when all those issues are down to the increasing population? Stick your head in the sand?We need to stop the population Ponzi scheme until those and the other issues are in reverse/resolved.
Ashfordian said:
Absolutely no problem with competition, if it is held on a level playing field, but when it is distorted by wage suppression it does lead to a degradation of expertise and professionalism in the resident population over the longer term.
I agree that it suppresses wages, but in some ways that's deliberate. That can be addressed though by unravelling elements of our capitalist system and having stronger unions and collective bargaining.In theory, at least in economic terms, we could manage without immigration, and a declining population. One way would be to make businesses responsible for paying the pensions of workers when they retire. I said it earlier, but businesses benefit from parents and goverment raising and educating chidren to become viable workers and consumers, as well as providing the environment and infrastructure in which they can operate. No reason for them not to pick up the tab when those workers reach the end of their working life.
Ultimately the issue isn't immigration, or a declining population, it's the economic system we choose to adopt.
Ashfordian said:
Let's look at how well your Population Ponzi scheme has done in recent years:
- NHS waiting lists are longer
- Infrastructure condition is worsening eg roads, trains, etc
- Public services are in increased demand thus meaning there is less to go around.
- Flooding is increasing as we concrete over more land
- Class sizes are rising
- GP appointments are heading the way of NHS Dentistry.
etc, etc
Recent facts show your approach is not working, and is failing and making life worse for those who reside in the UK. And you want to continue making things worse. We need less of people like you and your failing approach to society!
Lets start with NHS waiting lists: "The total elective waiting list in April 2012 was 2.5 million; by August 2017 this had increased to 4.1 million – this is the highest level for the waiting list since 2007. The increase in activity is affected by changes in clinical practice, not just increased demand.- NHS waiting lists are longer
- Infrastructure condition is worsening eg roads, trains, etc
- Public services are in increased demand thus meaning there is less to go around.
- Flooding is increasing as we concrete over more land
- Class sizes are rising
- GP appointments are heading the way of NHS Dentistry.
etc, etc
Recent facts show your approach is not working, and is failing and making life worse for those who reside in the UK. And you want to continue making things worse. We need less of people like you and your failing approach to society!
So in April 2007 the UK population was 61.3M In April 2012 it had increased to 63.7M ie 2.4M but elective waiting times went down How can this possibly be?
In summary from the Nuffiled trust.
"From 1987 to 1997, and as new interventions enabled more people to be treated without an overnight stay in hospital, people waiting for day case treatment were added to the list. But this clearly only captured part of patients’ waiting experiences, and in 2004 people waiting for an outpatient appointment were also included. This was also part of the evolution of the then Labour government’s plans at the time to make significant reductions not just in the numbers waiting list, but also in how long people had to wait.
As success in reducing long waits in the early part of this century continued, the Labour government raised the stakes by announcing a new, more comprehensive target in 2005 that no more than 10% of patients should wait longer than 18 weeks from referral by a GP to treatment in hospital. This meant another change in waiting list data in 2007 to better capture what would now become a more overarching measure of the complete waiting list/time experience.
Within two years – by 2009 – the total waiting list had nearly halved to 2.3 million, and the 18-week target continued to be met up until 2017. But from around 2012 the waiting list started to rise, nearly doubling to 4.34 million by February 2020.
So you should clearly see there is no direct correlation between immigration and waiting times. It is much more complex than that.
In 2007 there were 30M cars and now we have 33M. Annual car mileage in 2007 7,800 but in 2022 it was down to 6,600 .. So an increase of 10% in cars but a decrease in mileage of 15% so overall another down
I live on the coast and we are suffering increased flooding. Do you think it could be the weight of all those extra people or that just maybe our weather and dare I say climate is changing. We were advised what would happen and now it is.
The reason our services and general maintenance is decreasing is that we have had a government that has damaged our economy through over emphasis on austerity and not creating wealth through much needed investment then the car crash that was Brexit and of course the more recent debacles with BJ and Truss.
Whenever I ask the question that if our population had grown organically would you have insisted on compulsory sterilisation and enforced birth control. You keep ducking the answer. Why is that?
Ashfordian said:
chrispmartha said:
You've been gaslighted to believe that that's all down to immigration though.
What's your solution then when all those issues are down to the increasing population? Stick your head in the sand?We need to stop the population Ponzi scheme until those and the other issues are in reverse/resolved.
The point I’m making is you have been gaslighted to think that those issues are all down to the increased population, because it distracts you from the other failures that thr government has made.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff