|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Will the last one please switch off the lights? (population decline)
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
Maybe this could be an interesting topic to discuss here. My parents in the Netherlands are living in an area that is currently experiencing population decline.
The effects of that are rather visible: In a largish town nearby, whole neighbourhoods are empty, with wood covering doors and windows. There is also a negative spiral: facilities like schools close because there are few children, this makes the place less attractive to families, and so the effect strengthens itself.
Population decline is starting to become the norm in large parts of continental Europe. I know that this isn't the case in the UK or the USA. I'm not sure about Australia and New Zealand.
One thing we could discuss here is the economic effects. Many things are being said about population ageing (the Dutch language has a word for this that translates as 'greying'). It will become more difficult for a shrinking working population to support the care for the elderly. Another rather visible thing is house prices. For many people, their house is part of their old age investment, but they are losing value rapidly.
Another thing I would like to discuss is something less tangible: does a declining population have some kind of psychological effect? Does such a region become less innovative? Less future-minded? Does it lose a bit of joie de vivre (mind you, I'm not saying that the elderly can't be cheerful)?
What do you think?
[ 15. March 2016, 17:48: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Another thing I would like to discuss is something less tangible: does a declining population have some kind of psychological effect? Does such a region become less innovative? Less future-minded? Does it lose a bit of joie de vivre (mind you, I'm not saying that the elderly can't be cheerful)?
Germaine Greer in her book Sex And Destiny predicted that that is what would happen, socieites with low birth-rates would become older and hence more conservative.
Ironically, smaller families were supposed to be one of the benefits of modernity, but, if Greer et al are correct, the trend will end up handing more power to the most regressive segements of society.
(And spare me the anecdotes about all the hip grandmas who listen to punk rock and mouth off authority figures. That's a sitcom cliche, not a statistic.)
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Well LeRoc your sources are ill informed if they so nowhere in the UK is suffering from population decline. The highland and islands of Scotland have been going through it for two centuries or more. I know about the Clearances but the history I have been given suggests that this is an ongoing process where the industrialisation of farming has brought wealth to a few and lack of work to the many. You see similar patterns in Northern Ireland with painted shops to fool the tourists.
Then there are the Declining Cities of the North.
No depopulation happens in the UK but is not a problem in the South East of England.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Stetson: Germaine Greer in her book Sex And Destiny predicted that that is what would happen, socieites with low birth-rates would become older and hence more conservative.
Perhaps. I guess it's difficult to show this with numbers. Of course, most areas that experience decline are rural, and they are normally politically more conservative. It's easy to show correlation, but what about causation?
quote:
Jengie jon: Well LeRoc your sources are ill informed if they so nowhere in the UK is suffering from population decline. The highland and islands of Scotland have been going through it for two centuries or more.
You're absolutely right and I do apologise. I should have considered the UK at the subnational level also.
So, the question would be: do you think the population decline in these regions has any effects?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
If there are regions with no indigenous population, maybe it would be a good place to put migrants?
Or, more generally, the problem needs to be viewed globally, because we are not alone. World population is not declining, but re-arranging.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Scotland relies on migrants to maintain its population, especially East Europeans. This seems to be working well so far. My area has more New Scots, which is the official term, arriving soon from Syria. Given that there is no shortage of people wanting to come here, I don't think we'll have a problem with population decline in the foreseeable future. That said, the New Scots from Syria are being housed in some dire places. There's a reason there are houses lying empty which they can move into. I hope they will be happy here.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
Populations in some areas may be declining but overall world population is increasing, and it's not a good thing imho. The world is a limited size and will eventually fill up.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Scotland's population rose steadily until 1971, when it was 5,229,000. It then started to drop. I can remember a lot of anxiety about the population dropping below 5 million, and companies making contingency plans for a future shortage of school leavers. In-migration from East Europe turned the situation around. We are now at an all-time high of 5,347,000. If we didn't have in-migration, we'd now be below 5 million, and have a disproportionate number of elderly people.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
No depopulation happens in the UK but is not a problem in the South East of England.
Jengie
This doesn't appear to make much sense - can I assume you don't mean what it appears to mean? Other parts of your post seem to suggest you think that there are areas experiencing population decline in the UK. You also have a typo in the rest of your post which might also confuse a stupid person.
Anyway, assuming my reading of your post is correct, I'd also point to parts of South Wales as being an area experiencing ongoing population decline.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
Populations in some areas may be declining but overall world population is increasing, and it's not a good thing imho. The world is a limited size and will eventually fill up.
If we are serious about this we need to work out ways in which we can live with a steady or declining population.
For similar reasons we need to work out a way of living happily with zero or negative economic growth.
Maybe Japan would be a useful country to look at?
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Schroedinger's cat: If there are regions with no indigenous population, maybe it would be a good place to put migrants?
Of course, there are legal and ethical problems with 'putting' people anywhere. As long as refugees are still waiting to be recognised, they are housed in centres of which quite a lot are located in rural areas. But as soon as this has happened, they tend to leave for the cities.
quote:
Nicolemr: Populations in some areas may be declining but overall world population is increasing, and it's not a good thing imho.
True. I often wonder whether overpopulation is ever the real problem. The Netherlands are more densely populated than most areas of Africa, but it doesn't have most of its problems. This leads me to believe that other problems rather than overpopulation are at play.
quote:
Nicolemr: The world is a limited size and will eventually fill up.
The world's population is projected to peak somewhere in this century, and then drop. This is rather unprecedented. In a sense this is good news. It means that we can plan ahead if we're smart (that's a big if).
quote:
TurquoiseTastic: For similar reasons we need to work out a way of living happily with zero or negative economic growth.
I'm not sure whether capitalism can cope with that. It doesn't even accept a steady state; it needs to grow by definition. (Japan is an interesting example but it isn't an isolated economic system.)
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
quote:
The world's population is projected to peak somewhere in this century, and then drop.
Please show me a source for this. I would be very pleased if it were true, but I've never seen any such prediction, and would like to.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
US has a growing population (due to immigration) but there are also dying towns.
One problem with dumping newcomers in a dying town, there are reasons it is dying while some other towns aren't. Lack of transportation, lack of medical facilities, lack of "anything to do" when not at work. And those lacks are because people mostly have left to be in the cities with the desired facilities - whether office mates for the doctor or varieties of after school activities for the kids.
It's hard to bring in migrants and say "start some businesses to support yourselves" when there are barriers - a barber in Syria might be able to buy a pair of scissors and cut hair for a fee but in my country he needs a 6 month training course on things like hygiene, and a license.
And he needs people who have money to pay for haircuts, but if the jobs are elsewhere, people leave to go to where the jobs are.
There is always a business reason for a town's existence, an industry the town serves. When that industry dies or moves away, the town starts dying.
On the related topic of a community growing older, When I was a kid there were crowds of kids, parade routes were mostly lined with kids; now many gatherings have few kids, the local Halloween fest has at least as many adults as kids.
Meanwhile - kids make you laugh. I'm looking to get involved somewhat with kids because I think there's a mental health aspect to a well mixed environment. Can't prove it.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
A lot of nonsense is talked about population. A higher proportion of elderly people is a consequence of increasing life expectancy.
Trying to stave off this natural consequence by encouraging immigration of younger people who then in their turn grow elderly is like trying to borrow your way out of debt.
The solution is to make it easier for those who no longer have the stamina for commuting to full-time work to continue to contribute economically in a part-time or local or working-from-home role.
Demographic fallacies aside, areas do have a local culture which is affected by the mix of population. Areas that are "on the up" attract people who are prepared to move,those with initiative (whether entrepreneurial or merely social). There are other areas where everyone with any get-up-and-go has already got up and left, leading to a culture of limited ambitions, limited horizons.
Two different things...
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
quote:
The world's population is projected to peak somewhere in this century, and then drop.
Please show me a source for this. I would be very pleased if it were true, but I've never seen any such prediction, and would like to.
Look up demographic transition.
lots of charts
UN is predicting total world population stabilizing at about 9.5 billion, give or take. (Current food production easily feeds more than 10 billion, famines are issues of distribution politics and economics, not lack of food grown.)
Basically, 4 stages. Stage 1 - high birth rate high death rate with resulting stable population.
Stage 2 - high birth rate continues, but death rate declines due to things like improved public sanitation. The difference between high birth rate and declining death rate causes total population to grow.
Stage 3, as people realize the kids aren't dying off in early childhood so they don't need as many kids to assure their own old age, birth rate declines, which gives women opportunities to do other things than just rear kids, which encourages even more lowering of birth rates. Population growth gets slower and slower. World wide we are in this phase, dramatically slower population growth than in the 50s, 60s, 70s.
Stage 4, birth and death rates are both low, population size stabilizes. UN predicts this stability, birth rate equaling death rate, on a world wide basis by 2050, and many projections show slight declining trend after that date.
Many countries (Europe, USA if you don't count immigration) are in stage 4 right now - births at or below replacement. All but a few countries have declining birth rates even though still above replacement.
4 stage chart
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
quote:
The world's population is projected to peak somewhere in this century, and then drop.
Please show me a source for this. I would be very pleased if it were true, but I've never seen any such prediction, and would like to.
Look up demographic transition.
lots of charts
UN is predicting total world population stabilizing at about 9.5 billion, give or take. (Current food production easily feeds more than 10 billion, famines are issues of distribution politics and economics, not lack of food grown.)
Basically, 4 stages. Stage 1 - high birth rate high death rate with resulting stable population.
Stage 2 - high birth rate continues, but death rate declines due to things like improved public sanitation. The difference between high birth rate and declining death rate causes total population to grow.
Stage 3, as people realize the kids aren't dying off in early childhood so they don't need as many kids to assure their own old age, birth rate declines, which gives women opportunities to do other things than just rear kids, which encourages even more lowering of birth rates. Population growth gets slower and slower. World wide we are in this phase, dramatically slower population growth than in the 50s, 60s, 70s.
Stage 4, birth and death rates are both low, population size stabilizes. UN predicts this stability, birth rate equaling death rate, on a world wide basis by 2050, and many projections show slight declining trend after that date.
Many countries (Europe, USA if you don't count immigration) are in stage 4 right now - births at or below replacement. All but a few countries have declining birth rates even though still above replacement.
4 stage chart
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
No depopulation happens in the UK but is not a problem in the South East of England.
Jengie
This doesn't appear to make much sense - can I assume you don't mean what it appears to mean?
I think it is supposed to be parsed as "No. Depopulation happens in the UK ..."
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I didn't quite catch the connection with the readings, but the sermon on Sunday included references to the declining and aging population of Japan and the increasing strains this places on an economy already struggling (relative to a decade or two back - clearly the Japanese economy is still stronger than many nations). So, looking to Japan for a solution may not be appropriate.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
quote:
The world's population is projected to peak somewhere in this century, and then drop.
Please show me a source for this. I would be very pleased if it were true, but I've never seen any such prediction, and would like to.
Look up demographic transition.
Wikipedia's article on projections of population growth is also helpful.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
quote:
The world's population is projected to peak somewhere in this century, and then drop.
Please show me a source for this.
I thought this was common knowledge? The Wikipedia article RuthW linked to is a good starting point. (If you don't trust Wikipedia, I recommend going to the links in its 'References' section).
Some estimates predict that the world's population will peak around 8.5bn around 2050, others say that it will be between 10 and 11 billion near the end of the century. I personally tend to wards the latter estimate, but peak it will.
quote:
Russ: Trying to stave off this natural consequence by encouraging immigration of younger people who then in their turn grow elderly is like trying to borrow your way out of debt.
Hmm, as long as there is a steady supply of young people somewhere in the world (which will still be the case for a couple of decades), it will help to bring some relief. Of course, it won't work very well in the 22ⁿᵈ Century anymore, but I'm not sure if the comparison with borrowing is apt.
@Belle Ringer: yes, this analysis in four stages is helpful.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
The problem is that old age is a cost to society (either collectively through state welfare or pension schemes, or to families caring for their own elderly relatives). When the costs exceed the resource to meet those costs then the elderly are a net drain on society. Which means either increasing the available resource (have more young people, especially those earning to pay taxes) or reduce the costs (through, for example, cutting pensions or increasing the pension age). And, an elderly population tends to cost more in medical provision and the like. As a temporary measure, immigration to supplement the working population (including those in the medical professions caring for the elderly) works. Long term we're going to need to give up some of the perks of old age we've been led to expect - early retirement for a start.
The other issue is that of empty neighbourhoods and towns as people choose to live elsewhere. Which is a problem for those still living there, and may be a bigger problem if it means maintaining schools for a reduced number of children which is financially less efficient (or busing the kids to other schools elsewhere). Ultimately it may be that we need to make decisions that some towns and communities are no longer viable, and change the land use (to return to natural environments, wetlands as part of flood defences or whatever).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
The "problem" of population decline in Western countries may be decisively solved by millions of climate change refugees. Rising sea levels and temperatures will mean a good chunk of land between the two Tropics will disappear or become uninhabitable. They will move north or south, not east or west.
Modeling Future Climate on a Regional Scale
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
The island I live on has a population roughly 20% or perhaps less of what it was at its peak (that's not a 20% reduction, that's an 80% reduction), and it fell 15% from 2011 to 2001. The simple reason is lack of work that pays well enough to make up for the increased cost of living. If you have a croft and a house that is paid off (i.e. it's been in the family a while) then you're fine. If you work in the building industry you can do ok. Otherwise the only well paid, stable employment is in the public sector, and you can't support an economy solely on public money. The decline is not as obvious here as in towns, but more homes end up occupied only part of the year, more homes collapse into ruins. We get a fair amount of protection from cuts to public services due to remoteness but we're still going to lose our school library and the access point for council services like registering births, marriages and deaths (which may include losing access to civil marriage ceremonies). There has recently been a string of public meetings about how to reverse the situation, but it's tough and really requires some sort of industry beyond crofting and tourism to keep people in work. The issue here is not that people don't want to live here, it's that they can't afford to. It's a tough one.
[ 16. March 2016, 17:39: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
If only we could manage a very quick and non-violent population decline, here in the UK and worldwide, of about 50%. How much better the world would be, with more space, less pressure on resources, less pollution and overheating, once we had got over the initial shock.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
If only we could manage a very quick and non-violent population decline, here in the UK and worldwide, of about 50%. How much better the world would be, with more space, less pressure on resources, less pollution and overheating, once we had got over the initial shock.
When I hear wishes for a quick population decline I hear a wish I would disappear, not my 30-something friend.
A lot of the pressure on resources, pollution, and chronic disease is lifestyle choices. If the 50% of people you eliminate are the poor in places like sub-sahara africa, while the rich in Western Europe remain, it wouldn't make much difference.
I recently read an article about how the invention of the flush toilet dramatically increased use of water, cities had hugely more sewage to deal with (and needed whole now sewer systems) than back in the not long ago days of cesspools. When I flush my toilet, each time I uses more water than many a person uses for all their needs in a whole day! I'm sure a lot of the world would breathe easier if we westerners weren't doing so much consuming and polluting. Which means the target for elimination includes you.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
If only we could manage a very quick and non-violent population decline, here in the UK and worldwide, of about 50%. How much better the world would be, with more space, less pressure on resources, less pollution and overheating, once we had got over the initial shock.
When I hear wishes for a quick population decline I hear a wish I would disappear, not my 30-something friend.
That's not what I hear at all. I think we would do well to give some serious thought to how many people the planet can reasonably be expected to support. Though it's not going to be my problem, as I'm going to "disappear" quite naturally before any population peak, I hope the human population does peak this century and then fall off, and I hope that the sheer number of people doesn't destroy huge swathes of the habitat before that happens.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
People also create resources and solve problems. This isn't a simple sum where fixed resources divided by number of people equals standard of living. If there are fewer farmers there is less food. Fewer factory engineers leads to less production. Fewer musicians leads to a culturally poorer society.
So simply shrinking society might lead immediately to less pollution of the world, but it may also cause increasing poverty. It might even lead to more long-term pollution if there is less competence in dealing with emissions and finding better ways of doing things.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
If only we could manage a very quick and non-violent population decline, here in the UK and worldwide, of about 50%. How much better the world would be, with more space, less pressure on resources, less pollution and overheating, once we had got over the initial shock.
When I hear wishes for a quick population decline I hear a wish I would disappear, not my 30-something friend. ...
I agree with Belle Ringer. I think that's a very important point. Recognition of it should underlie all debate about population. So I disagree with RuthW.
We all assume that the various different versions of 'there are too many people' or 'the world is over-crowded', mean that it's other people who need thinning out, not me and mine. There should be fewer of them, not fewer of me.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I really don't think anyone is advocating genocidal control measures. Whether the point of view is shared or not isn't the issue - if someone says it isn't a characterization of their view then we should take that at face value unless there is evidence to the contrary.
A statement may be prone to being perceived like that, and likewise I take it at face value that that is your perception, but if I tell you that's not what I meant then I expect that to be taken at face value as well.
[ 17. March 2016, 10:20: Message edited by: mdijon ]
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
I don't have anyone in mind (well, maybe a couple of people, but that's just personal) and I wouldn't like to wake up tomorrow to find I'm not here, if you know what I mean. If I woke up tomorrow and found that my wife or my brother or my dad had disappeared I'd be rather upset.
But that doesn't change my belief that the world would be better off, more sustainable, more balanced, with about half the human population- although i can't see a way of achieveing this. And this isn't aimed at Africa or far away places; I think that Britain, which is where I live, would be immensely improved by having rather fewer people, using fewer resources and less land.
[ 18. March 2016, 11:23: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The problem is that old age is a cost to society (either collectively through state welfare or pension schemes, or to families caring for their own elderly relatives). When the costs exceed the resource to meet those costs then the elderly are a net drain on society.
This is unduly negative about the elderly.
It's true that if anyone's resources are insufficient then they become a "drain on society" but I don't hear you going around saying this about immigrants or the poor or any group you sympathize with.
It's also true that economically we consume throughout our lives but our production is concentrated in the middle years. But when did you become such a materialist that this is the only sort of contribution that matters ?
Seems to me that perhaps you're over-influenced by a view of taxation in which all monies flow to and from a central public purse and this year's expenditure (including pensions) is financed by this year's receipts. Whereas others would see their pensions (and the costs of treating their health problems) as something they've earned by paying into the system over a long period of time rather than as something they're looking to others to fund.
quote:
As a temporary measure, immigration to supplement the working population (including those in the medical professions caring for the elderly) works.
[
Are you going to send the immigrants back when they came from before they get old ? Or having created a bulge in the demographic profile are you going to support that cohort through their old age by encouraging even more young immigrants?
quote:
The other issue is that of empty neighbourhoods and towns as people choose to live elsewhere.
That's a problem because there can arise a positive feedback loop whereby a declining area becomes less attractive (boarded-up buildings, lower level of service provision etc) and therefore declines in population even more.
Countering that requires a negative feedback effect whereby lower-population areas become more attractive (lower cost housing, less traffic congestion, improved environment quality). The derelict sites need to become parkland...
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
....
Seems to me that perhaps you're over-influenced by a view of taxation in which all monies flow to and from a central public purse and this year's expenditure (including pensions) is financed by this year's receipts. Whereas others would see their pensions (and the costs of treating their health problems) as something they've earned by paying into the system over a long period of time rather than as something they're looking to others to fund....
It's not a matter of how people see it, so much as of how it is actually funded. And in the UK we are saddled with a pay-as-you-go system which is the first of the two that you mention. Once you start on that it's very hard to change to a properly funded one because you are asking those paying in to pay twice at once- for those receiving resources now and for themselves in the future. Beveridge propsed a funded pension system in 42 but Jim Griffiths, the postwar Minister of Pensions, in a burst of typically improvident South Walian sentimentality decided he wanted to introduce full pensions straight away.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
It's not a matter of how people see it, so much as of how it is actually funded. And in the UK we are saddled with a pay-as-you-go system
Don't think it matters. In a "fully-funded" model, you're still relying on the future economy to fund your old age. Either you have some kind of "social security trust fund" on the government balance sheet, which is basically an investment in the future performance of the country, or you have a real trust that owns stocks, in which case ditto (and you'd need a bigger stock market).
To first order, the size of the balance sheet "trust fund" makes no difference at all - the thing that always counts is the annual change in the balance sheet, which is the same for the funded and non-funded cases.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
No, it does matter, because pay as you go is responsive to demand as it changes from year to year.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
No, it does matter, because pay as you go is responsive to demand as it changes from year to year.
So's fully-funded. Long-term, both systems have to maintain actuarial balance, or they fail. Short-term, it's a question of which balance sheet you keep your float on, which is an accounting difference, but not an economic one.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
As a temporary measure, immigration to supplement the working population (including those in the medical professions caring for the elderly) works.
[
Are you going to send the immigrants back when they came from before they get old ? Or having created a bulge in the demographic profile are you going to support that cohort through their old age by encouraging even more young immigrants?
Using immigration to keep pensions funded is basically a Ponzi scheme.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Marvin the Martian: Using immigration to keep pensions funded is basically a Ponzi scheme.
Elaborate.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The problem is that old age is a cost to society (either collectively through state welfare or pension schemes, or to families caring for their own elderly relatives). When the costs exceed the resource to meet those costs then the elderly are a net drain on society.
This is unduly negative about the elderly.
If it's negative, it's negative about the not quite elderly - ie: myself.
In the UK at least we haven't reached the point where income from those working is less than the costs of caring for the elderly. The only reason there are problems is because of government fiscal incompetence. However, the trend is strongly towards things becoming more difficult as we live longer and there are proportionately fewer young people. Which means that I know I can't expect as much in retirement as my parents had - in particular I won't be taking early retirement and expect to keep on working much longer than those who are now in their mid 60s. I'm fine with that, I don't feel entitled to 30-40 years of retirement. But I'm not going to say that people who have worked hard for the last 40 years shouldn't retire when they had always expected to be able to.
quote:
It's true that if anyone's resources are insufficient then they become a "drain on society" but I don't hear you going around saying this about immigrants or the poor or any group you sympathize with.
That's because they usually aren't a drain on society, or at least there's no good reason why they should be. Immigrants in particular are a net gain to society, even if we only look at money - even more so if we tally up the cultural benefits they bring (which are much harder to quantify).
But, it's undeniably the case that the biggest cost to the NHS and social services is the elderly. Not the fit elderly who are able, if they wished, to contribute to society financially. But those who have failing health and need the care of others. That will always be a cost, no amount of changes to the system will remove that cost unless we want to become barbarians. The question is how, as a society, do we pay that cost? The current situation is that we pay that cost through the taxation system, and I don't think we need to so radically shake up society that we find other ways to meet that cost.
quote:
Seems to me that perhaps you're over-influenced by a view of taxation in which all monies flow to and from a central public purse and this year's expenditure (including pensions) is financed by this year's receipts. Whereas others would see their pensions (and the costs of treating their health problems) as something they've earned by paying into the system over a long period of time rather than as something they're looking to others to fund.
Of course, it's true that most people reaching retirement age would express the opinion that they have "paid their stamp" and so deserve a pension they can live on, and health care when they need it. It's a reasonable position to take, it's what we've been told all our lives will be the case. That financial ineptitude by successive governments means that what they contributed was not invested in society to ensure there was income to meet their needs is not their fault.
I wouldn't necessarily go that far. People in need of hospital treatment, care homes or a pension that they can live on deserve these things. Period. What they personally managed to contribute during their lives shouldn't be relevant. But, we need to have a society that can provide that. Which means tax payers, as well as doctors and nurses and care home managers. That's simple maths.
quote:
quote:
As a temporary measure, immigration to supplement the working population (including those in the medical professions caring for the elderly) works.
[
Are you going to send the immigrants back when they came from before they get old ? Or having created a bulge in the demographic profile are you going to support that cohort through their old age by encouraging even more young immigrants?
It's a temporary measure. It's in part to avoid denying people who have retired/approaching retirement what they have expected - a decent pension, and a health service for when they get ill. As I said, long term those of us (ie: me) who are not as close to retirement need to lower our expectations. We need to expect to work into older age, to have a shorter retirement where we don't spend 20+ years touring the world. And, as a society we need to invest in the future so that there is more income to pay for the unavoidable retirement costs. We need to invest in educating the children of the world so that they can be the doctors and nurses who care for us, the entrepreneurs who employ the taxpayers to fund our old age. We need to stop squandering the resources of the world for quick profit today.
As the world population stabilises and then declines (on whatever time scale that happens) the proportion of elderly to young will increase. For that to be sustainable we need the young to be as productive as possible and the elderly to be as small a burden as possible - and that will include recognising the ongoing productivity of the elderly. It's a peculiarly modern, western viewpoint that sees the elderly as a burden to be cared for. It's far more common to see them as a resource, a source of wisdom and advice for example. Recapture some of that attitude and things will look much rosier.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Using immigration to keep pensions funded is basically a Ponzi scheme.
Only if the population growth is unsustainable. Given the increasing efficiency of agriculture that's a topic for endless discussion.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
If immigration is a Ponzi then it follows that babies are also a Ponzi (and a more expensive one at that - immigrants come ready-made for work).
Voluntary extinction would seem the only rational solution.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
anne
Shipmate
# 73
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I agree with Belle Ringer. I think that's a very important point. Recognition of it should underlie all debate about population. So I disagree with RuthW.
We all assume that the various different versions of 'there are too many people' or 'the world is over-crowded', mean that it's other people who need thinning out, not me and mine. There should be fewer of them, not fewer of me.
What PJ O'Rourke summarised as "Just enough of me, way too much of you".
Anne
--------------------
‘I would have given the Church my head, my hand, my heart. She would not have them. She did not know what to do with them. She told me to go back and do crochet' Florence Nightingale
Posts: 338 | From: Devon | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Using immigration to keep pensions funded is basically a Ponzi scheme.
Only if the population growth is unsustainable.
As long as we have only one planet to live on, population growth is long-term unsustainable. So is population decline. To avoid species extinction one way and eco-catastrophe the other way, long-term we need either stable population or expansion into space.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Using immigration to keep pensions funded is basically a Ponzi scheme.
Only if the population growth is unsustainable.
As long as we have only one planet to live on, population growth is long-term unsustainable. So is population decline. To avoid species extinction one way and eco-catastrophe the other way, long-term we need either stable population or expansion into space.
That is very long term, however. If we continue to improve the efficiency with which we make use of the energy being put into the earth by the sun then there is no reason to think we should not be able to support a much larger population than we currently do, particularly if we improve the use of recycling. Already the consumption of physical resources in the UK is starting to fall as physical goods and media are replaced by virtual ones. It's getting to the point where a lot of things that previously were physical good requiring creation, transport and storage now simply require electrical power. I'm quietly confident that, albeit later than is ideal, humanity will tackle climate change and technology will reduce our resource footprint still further.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anne:
What PJ O'Rourke summarised as "Just enough of me, way too much of you".
Quite.
Am I, or any one else concerned about the Planet's heaving population, really prepared to take a long walk off a short cliff in order to reduce 7 billion Homo saps by the figure of one?
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by anne:
What PJ O'Rourke summarised as "Just enough of me, way too much of you".
Quite.
Am I, or any one else concerned about the Planet's heaving population, really prepared to take a long walk off a short cliff in order to reduce 7 billion Homo saps by the figure of one?
Dunno. Ask me again in 70 years time.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Marvin the Martian: Using immigration to keep pensions funded is basically a Ponzi scheme.
Elaborate.
In a Ponzi scheme the schemer keep up payments to investors only by getting more and more new investors to pay in. As those new investors also have to be paid a return eventually, failure is inevitable.
If the only way a government can keep up payments to pensioners is by getting more and more new citizens in, all of whom will also have to be paid a pension eventually, then I'd say the parallels are pretty clear.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
And the exact some parallels exist in terms of having babies. In fact the immigrants are a better bet since they come without the 18-year lead-time investment and there's more of a chance of them leaving the UK once they get old than the UK-born population.
But what this line of reasoning misses is that society is evolving all the time. Closing our shores to immigration misses an opportunity for economic growth. Unless we aim for a managed decline of society we should embrace immigration.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Ponzi schemes collapse because everyone in the scheme is promised the same thing, and also the people at the top of the scheme continue to receive from it up until the point that it collapses.
Managing the evolution of society is not identical (though there may be similarities) because that evolution will mean that future generations get a different deal. A short-term immigrant labour force is a means, possibly the only means, of managing that evolution without excessive hardship to those who are counting on the current deal. And, of course, the recipients of the deal do not continue to receive indefinitely, eventually they die.
I know that I'm not going to get the same deal as those currently approaching or past retirement. My pension scheme will not be as generous as that of someone just retiring. And, I won't be able to retire as early. By working longer I put more into the pot, by not having such a generous payout the pot lasts longer. (In this case the 'pot' is not just the specific pension scheme I pay into but the whole social structure that supports people in old age). If the system is to be sustainable with a declining and aging population then we will have to do that - work past current retirement age and accept that we won't have the money for a cruise twice a year.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
In USA we periodically get reports from social security estimating what year the system will stop receiving enough taxes to pay that year's commitment. It's not far off. They will have to do either a significant tax increase or cut the benefit amount or make it need based (of course the rich will have ways to park assets that make them technically in need).
Social security in USA had the age set at 65 back when the average worker died at 62. I.e. it would help the old old. If we had moved the retirement date with the life span changes it would start paying at something near 80 today.
The idea that a person should sit idle on a beach for 20 years before dying was unheard of 100 years ago or any time back in history.
Back when living to 65, when retiring from your job, was not common because most workers died in their early to mid 60s, the system was sound. In 1945 there were about 40 workers per retiree.
In 1960 there were 5 workers per retiree. Today there are three, and we're headed to 2, partly because retirees live so long, partly because fewer kids are being born and added to the workforce.
Expecting each worker to pay half the cost of a retiree's needs is not sustainable.
But the implications of a slow or no population growth go way beyond retirement pay. Many Western businesses believe a business has to grow or it dies. Growing population fed business growth.
Stable population will force change in the concept of how a business survives, but people don't give up their world view easily so transition to a no-growth world economy is gonna be messy in ways I lack the vision to predict in any specific ways.
workers per retiree (This is an old chart)
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Social security in USA had the age set at 65 back when the average worker died at 62. I.e. it would help the old old. If we had moved the retirement date with the life span changes it would start paying at something near 80 today.
Although few people can work until 80. We could get the smoking rates back up - that would bring life expectancy down smartly. The only problem is that it also increases the disability rates in later life with dementia and lung disease among other things, so it might backfire with increases in the long-term infirm needing care.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
