|
Frank
|
polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 2 nd, 2018 at 3:13pm: Frank wrote on Mar 1 st, 2018 at 6:23pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 28 th, 2018 at 11:02pm: Bam wrote on Feb 28 th, 2018 at 9:24pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 28 th, 2018 at 7:44pm: Bam wrote on Feb 28 th, 2018 at 6:01pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28 th, 2018 at 3:41pm: Bam wrote on Feb 26 th, 2018 at 10:45am: crocodile wrote on Feb 26 th, 2018 at 10:09am: Amazing how people advocate for dropping immigration but can't articulate a solution to the fact that the population is aging. You still haven't learned why you're wrong about this. Immigration is NOT at a level that maintains a stable population but is substantially greater than this. This population Ponzi scheme is not sustainable in the long term. Immigration is at best a short term solution to the ageing population problem. The main problem with it is that a) immigrants age too, and b) immigrants invariably end up having the same number of children as the average - even if they originally came from high birth countries. So ultimately the only way for this solution to work is to forever continue to increase the immigration rate (to offset more and more ageing people) - which is obviously unsustainable. Perhaps its time to embrace our ageing population and look at other more sustainable solutions like medical technology to make the elderly more productive and less of a burden to society, and an economy that is more and more based on automation. The low birth rate is a direct consequence of 20% of the working age population having insufficient income. Eradicate poverty, and the birth rate will take care of itself. Even with a fertility rate equal to the death rate it does not obviate the ageing population problem. At a fertility rate of 2 and an ageing population it will no longer be a stable population but one that still increases with time. Incorrect. The replacement level of population isn't 2, but slightly higher than this, around 2.1, to account for some people not having children for various reasons. You're implying that the replacement level is below 2. That's frankly ludicrous. Any tendency to increased longevity will not cause the population to increase in the long term. Once the demographics stabilises, so does population, if people are having children at the replacement rate with immigration replacing any shortfall in the birth rate. I repeat - our high level of immigration is not sustainable. Immigrants won't usually leave the country on retirement. Many stay here - to become old people in need of support just like everyone else. Nobody suggested that it was. Repeat until the cows come home if you want to. Nobody has come up with a viable alternative. Because they - politicians, NGOs, public servants - are critically incompetent or they are liars. Western women want to have children. But Western societies are organised so a lit of them do not have any, many have only one or two. Remove the crippling disincentives for having children and you do not need mass third world immigration. The viable alternative you ask for is staring everyone in the face. Spend all that immigrant integration money on a population policy that support your own people. How's that for a viable alternative? Still the problem here is in thinking an ever growing population is the solution. Its not - whether its through immigration or higher birth rates, it shouldn't be our goal. Instead we need to embrace sustainable and relatively static population growth. Learn to evolve the economy beyond reliance on massive armies of (young) workers. Its started already anyway, with advances in technology - creating efficiencies and automation. We just need to give it more of a boost. The savings we make in increased efficiencies, and reducing the burden of the elderly on the public purse (medical advances will improve health and quality of life) - will go towards providing a reliable living income to offset increasing job insecurity. Japan should be the model - they have been dealing with a static population, with next to no immigration for quite a while now. And while all the economic talking heads bemoan their low or static economic growth, and promise doom and gloom - as yet living standards their haven't actually suffered. And thats surely the most important consideration. Just so.
|
Forum
Pages: 
Abbott is right, we need to reduce immigration (Read 2986 times)
