Apparently the ONC tells us that the population will increase by 10
million by 2035 as the direct and indirect results of immigration. The
report on the BBC website distorts the facts in several important ways.
If the matter makes to the broadcast BBC news please let me know. I
suspect that if it does it will be minimised.

Just seen it on Sky News. Quite a good report.

Bill

On 29/10/2015 15:19, Bill Wright wrote:
Apparently the ONC tells us that the population will increase by 10
million by 2035 as the direct and indirect results of immigration. The
report on the BBC website distorts the facts in several important ways.
If the matter makes to the broadcast BBC news please let me know. I
suspect that if it does it will be minimised.

Just seen it on Sky News. Quite a good report.

Bill

You mean, I guess, Office of National Statistics (ONS). I read the
Guardian report, we really need the link to ONS.

What struck me from the Guardian report is how the growth rate has come
down from some of the 1960's forecasts.

On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 15:55:48 +0000, newshound wrote:

What struck me from the Guardian report is how the growth rate has come
down from some of the 1960's forecasts.

Especially Enoch Powell's?

On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 15:19:28 +0000, Bill Wright wrote:

Apparently the ONC tells us that the population will increase by 10
million by 2035 as the direct and indirect results of immigration. The
report on the BBC website distorts the facts in several important ways.

Just seen it on Sky News. Quite a good report.

This coverage of the story, I presume?

(Apparently untrustworthy) native British broadcaster...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34666382

(Apparently more trustworthy) immigrant Australian-American broadcaster...
http://news.sky.com/story/1578194/uk...-74-3m-by-2039

Given that you say "apparently", can we take it that you're comparing the
BBC and Sky reports, and assuming that the Sky report _must_ be accurate
and the BBC report _must_ be "distorting the facts"?

After all, if you'd actually checked back to the source ONC (Who? Do you
mean the ONS?) report, you wouldn't say "apparently".

I'm intrigued to know how there can be such certainty two decades in
advance, though...

So let's have a look, shall we?

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/npp/na...jections/2014-
based-projections/sty-2.html

The most likely report on the ONS's own website, dated today, doesn't
even contain a mention of the year 2035 on the precis page...? But it
does give a figure of 6.6m over a "zero-net migration" estimate, over 25
years (to 2039, since it's on 2014 figures)?

No mention of demographics there, though, and I think we all know which
way the average age is going... Rapidly.

Woo. With zero migration, we could be looking at the world's biggest
retirement home just off the northern shore of France... But at least
there won't be brown people working, earning, growing our economy, paying
taxes to cover our pensions.

On 29/10/15 16:01, Adrian wrote:

years (to 2039, since it's on 2014 figures)?

No mention of demographics there, though, and I think we all know which
way the average age is going... Rapidly.

Woo. With zero migration, we could be looking at the world's biggest
retirement home just off the northern shore of France... But at least
there won't be brown people working, earning, growing our economy, paying
taxes to cover our pensions.


How does this constant expansion of the young, paying for the elderly,
work indefinitely? Is there never to be a cap on the world's population?
The real answer has to be working for longer, better spreading of
available resources or a drop in the expected standard of living.
There's no doubt the present generation have done very well but it's not
exactly their fault. Personally, I don't really care if my house is
worth £50,000 or £500,000!

Andy C

On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 16:26:03 +0000, Andy Cap wrote:

How does this constant expansion of the young, paying for the elderly,
work indefinitely?

Globally, it works like that. In many countries - including the UK and,
even more so, Germany - it's the opposite. The young aren't expanding
enough to pay for the elderly.

Is there never to be a cap on the world's population?

Not until you manage to persuade people that they really don't enjoy
****ing.

The Chinese government have tried - with little success, and big knock-on
effects.

The real answer has to be working for longer, better spreading of
available resources or a drop in the expected standard of living.

Of course. But people really don't want to do that.

The main other option has been explored in fiction from Trollope's "Fixed
Period" through to "Logan's Run" and beyond.

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 16:26:03 +0000, Andy Cap wrote:

How does this constant expansion of the young, paying for the elderly,
work indefinitely?

Globally, it works like that. In many countries - including the UK and,
even more so, Germany - it's the opposite. The young aren't expanding
enough to pay for the elderly.

Is there never to be a cap on the world's population?

Not until you manage to persuade people that they really don't enjoy
****ing.

****ing isn't the problem, its the ****ing
that produces kids that is the problem.

The Chinese government have tried - with little success,

They have in fact been very successful
indeed at limiting most to just one kid.

and big knock-on effects.

Yes, they are looking at 20M single men who are single for their entire
life.

But that wasnt that uncommon in the west
in the 19th century so may work out fine.

The real answer has to be working for longer, better spreading of
available resources or a drop in the expected standard of living.

Of course. But people really don't want to do that.

The main other option has been explored in fiction from Trollope's "Fixed
Period" through to "Logan's Run" and beyond.

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 04:42:58 +1100, 78lp wrote:

Is there never to be a cap on the world's population?

Not until you manage to persuade people that they really don't enjoy
****ing.

****ing isn't the problem, its the ****ing that produces kids that is
the problem.

Mmm. Perhaps you hadn't heard that quite a few religious leaders are less
than keen on willy-wellies?

The Chinese government have tried - with little success,

They have in fact been very successful indeed at limiting most to just
one kid.

Strange how there's an average national fertility rate of 1.66 children
per woman - versus the UK's 1.9.

And the Chinese population's dropped since 1979 has it? Oh, wait. It
hasn't. It's 40% higher than it was - in a country with net migration of
1.5m annually...

Then there's Wugong province. The most successful at implementing the
policy... and now facing a major demographic timebomb.

Oh, and btw - have you not heard today's news? The one child policy has
been officially "extended" to two...

On 29/10/15 17:42, 78lp wrote:

Yes, they are looking at 20M single men who are single for their entire
life.

That's the least of their worries - it's who's going to look after the
elderly is the big problem.

On 29/10/15 16:45, Adrian wrote:
On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 16:26:03 +0000, Andy Cap wrote:

How does this constant expansion of the young, paying for the elderly,
work indefinitely?

Globally, it works like that. In many countries - including the UK and,
even more so, Germany - it's the opposite. The young aren't expanding
enough to pay for the elderly.

Is there never to be a cap on the world's population?

Not until you manage to persuade people that they really don't enjoy
****ing.

Or the Catholic Church stops spouting ******** and everyone's offered
free contraception.

On 29/10/2015 18:19, Tim Watts wrote:

Or the Catholic Church stops spouting ******** and everyone's offered
free contraception.

The Catholic church wants more members what easier way is there than to
get the parents to brainwash their kids.
the Muslims do the same as do other cults.

On 29/10/2015 16:45, Adrian wrote:

Not until you manage to persuade people that they really don't enjoy
****ing.

The Chinese government have tried - with little success, and big knock-on
effects.

Its been very successful, too successful, now they are facing and aging
population and a lack of workers.


The real answer has to be working for longer, better spreading of
available resources or a drop in the expected standard of living.

Of course. But people really don't want to do that.

Those of us that have paid into real pension funds rather than just
paying for the current retired folk don't have to. Not that it means we
can't work if we want to.


The main other option has been explored in fiction from Trollope's "Fixed
Period" through to "Logan's Run" and beyond.


Thats what the experiments with flu, TB and SARS is about in'it.

On 29/10/2015 19:09, dennis@home wrote:

Those of us that have paid into real pension funds rather than just
paying for the current retired folk don't have to. Not that it means we
can't work if we want to.

The payments will, nevertheless, always be a transfer from the working
population to the non-working population. If things get too dire for the
workers, they will rebel/go on strike/whatever, so they get more of the
cake. So, don't be too complacent.

On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 19:09:22 +0000, dennis@home wrote:

The real answer has to be working for longer, better spreading of
available resources or a drop in the expected standard of living.

Of course. But people really don't want to do that.

Those of us that have paid into real pension funds rather than just
paying for the current retired folk don't have to.

OK, here's a thought for you...

You've paid into a "real pension fund", by which I presume you mean some
kind of defined-benefit scheme, maybe even final-salary. Congratulations.
Now, what do you think the money you've paid into that "real pension
fund" does...? Does it get put into a big piggybank with your name on it,
and somehow miraculously grow?

Or does it get invested...?

What happens if those investments don't go according to plan, and a
shortfall accrues - and grows? Even if they work out, how do those
investments pay back?

There is no such thing as an investment for the future - of ANY kind -
which doesn't rely on the future economy, and no such thing as a pension
of any kind where payments in don't "pay for the current retired folk".
It's all a matter of juggling investments.

The _only_ difference is whether you've been told way in advance what
pension you expect to get - and that's where things can go very wrong.

On 29/10/2015 7:09 PM, dennis@home wrote:
On 29/10/2015 16:45, Adrian wrote:

Not until you manage to persuade people that they really don't enjoy
****ing.

The Chinese government have tried - with little success, and big knock-on
effects.

Its been very successful, too successful, now they are facing and aging
population and a lack of workers.


The real answer has to be working for longer, better spreading of
available resources or a drop in the expected standard of living.

Of course. But people really don't want to do that.

Those of us that have paid into real pension funds rather than just
paying for the current retired folk don't have to. Not that it means we
can't work if we want to.


The main other option has been explored in fiction from Trollope's "Fixed
Period" through to "Logan's Run" and beyond.


Thats what the experiments with flu, TB and SARS is about in'it.


Not to forget the Polio and cancer vaccine.

'Doctor Mary's Monkey'. Now there's a story to open the mind.


....Ray.

--
One click voting to change the world.
..https://secure.avaaz.org/en/index.php
Join Now! Be a part of people power.

Phase Conjugate Waves
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3wwdmwv0zk

....and, Why You Know Nothing
http://www.delusionalinsects.com/sty...-32/index.html

Startpage - The PRIVATE Search Engine!

On 29/10/2015 19:09, dennis@home wrote:
On 29/10/2015 16:45, Adrian wrote:



The real answer has to be working for longer, better spreading of
available resources or a drop in the expected standard of living.

Of course. But people really don't want to do that.

Those of us that have paid into real pension funds rather than just
paying for the current retired folk don't have to. Not that it means we
can't work if we want to.


The main other option has been explored in fiction from Trollope's "Fixed
Period" through to "Logan's Run" and beyond.


Thats what the experiments with flu, TB and SARS is about in'it.

The obvious answer is to encourage the young to smoke.
It doesn't stop them working and paying taxes when they are young, and
they pay extra into the system through tobacco taxes (I haven't got
actual figures but I am pretty sure that a smoker on 20 a day pays more
in tobacco taxes than it costs in medical treatments).

However, statistically a high proportion will die before they take much
out of the system in pensions.

So they pay more in and get less out. Win-win as far as the ones who do
live longer are concerned.

Jim

On 29/10/15 16:45, Adrian wrote:
On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 16:26:03 +0000, Andy Cap wrote:


Of course. But people really don't want to do that.

The main other option has been explored in fiction from Trollope's "Fixed
Period" through to "Logan's Run" and beyond.


As someone mentioned this morning, the whole idea of an increasing young
financing the old is nothing more than a Ponzi scheme. The world's
population has increased massively within a couple of centuries and is
unsustainable whether people like the alternatives or not.

On 30/10/15 08:04, Andy Cap wrote:
On 29/10/15 16:45, Adrian wrote:
On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 16:26:03 +0000, Andy Cap wrote:


Of course. But people really don't want to do that.

The main other option has been explored in fiction from Trollope's "Fixed
Period" through to "Logan's Run" and beyond.


As someone mentioned this morning, the whole idea of an increasing young
financing the old is nothing more than a Ponzi scheme. The world's
population has increased massively within a couple of centuries and is
unsustainable whether people like the alternatives or not.

+20 billion or so.....

All those who say that 'limits to growth' is tosh because we haven't yet
reached any remind me of the man falling passed the 30th floor of an
office block replying, on being asked how he was doing 'Okay so far'

The current migrant crisis is the first sign of the ground rushing up to
meet us.


--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On Thursday, 29 October 2015 16:45:49 UTC, Adrian wrote:
On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 16:26:03 +0000, Andy Cap wrote:

How does this constant expansion of the young, paying for the elderly,
work indefinitely?

Globally, it works like that. In many countries - including the UK and,
even more so, Germany - it's the opposite. The young aren't expanding
enough to pay for the elderly.

Is there never to be a cap on the world's population?

Not until you manage to persuade people that they really don't enjoy
****ing.

The Chinese government have tried - with little success, and big knock-on
effects.

Is that why they look like starting a war on the only people genetically mutated to solve their problem?

Andy Cap wrote
Adrian wrote

years (to 2039, since it's on 2014 figures)?

No mention of demographics there, though, and I think we all know which
way the average age is going... Rapidly.

Woo. With zero migration, we could be looking at the world's biggest
retirement home just off the northern shore of France... But at least
there won't be brown people working, earning, growing our economy, paying
taxes to cover our pensions.

How does this constant expansion of the young, paying for the elderly,
work indefinitely?

Essentially the places that attract lots of immigrants like
Germany are rather more economically successful than
where they are coming from. That's why they migrate.

Is there never to be a cap on the world's population?

Its starting to look like it will fix itself eventually.
Birth rates are dropping world wide now except
in places where its now so low that that place is
right down in the noise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...fertility_rate

The real answer has to be working for longer,

I doubt most would agree on that.

better spreading of available resources

That was attempted in western europe in the previous
century but didnt really work out too well at all.

Japan has a MUCH more even spread of wealth,
but has a massive problem with an aging population
anyway, essentially because they have one of the
lowest immigration rates in the entire world now
and has seen a shrinking population for quite a
while now.

or a drop in the expected standard of living.

Can't see too many of the voters being very keen on a result like that,
particularly in their dotage when they have very high medical costs.

There's no doubt the present generation have done very well

Yes, real living standards have improved out of sight, particularly
for those say in the bottom 25% of the population.

but it's not exactly their fault. Personally, I don't really care if my
house is worth £50,000 or £500,000!

Sure, but most do care about real living standards.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

Is there never to be a cap on the world's population?

Its starting to look like it will fix itself eventually.
Birth rates are dropping world wide now except
in places where its now so low that that place is
right down in the noise.

How come the world's population is increasing by 50% every 40 years or so?

How come it will increase from the present 7 billion to 10 billion by 2050?

The truth is, it's out of control and exponentially rising.

That has happened throughout history in all animal populations in times of plenty.
Then they outstrip their food supply, there is widespread famine, and the population
rather unpleasantly and extremely rapidly declines.

Sorry, but humans will be no different. There is no appreciation of the problem,
no-one who can comprehend its magnitude, and no-one in a position, or would be
allowed, to do anything about it.

Norman Wells wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Is there never to be a cap on the world's population?

Its starting to look like it will fix itself eventually.
Birth rates are dropping world wide now except
in places where its now so low that that place is
right down in the noise.

How come the world's population is increasing by 50% every 40 years or so?

Basically because its coming off a rather higher birth rate in the past.

How come it will increase from the present 7 billion to 10 billion by
2050?

Basically because its coming off a rather higher birth rate in the past.

The truth is, it's out of control

Not anymore. Even the most populous country imposed quite
a bit of control and did that so effectively that they have had
to relax that control because of the downsides of that control.

and exponentially rising.

In fact not one modern first world country is even self
replacing now on population if you take out immigration
and that is true of quite a bit of the second world too.

Birth rates are dropping world wide now except
in places where its now so low that that place is
right down in the noise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...fertility_rate

That has happened throughout history in all animal populations in times of
plenty. Then they outstrip their food supply, there is widespread famine,
and the population rather unpleasantly and extremely rapidly declines.

Human populations don’t work like that.

Sorry, but humans will be no different.

They already are. Not one modern first world country is even
self replacing now on population if you take out immigration.
Those are by definition the countrys with much more plenty
than anywhere else and we don’t in fact see them do anything
like outstrip their food supply, or see anything even remotely
like widespread famine in the modern first world, and nothing
even remotely like the population rather unpleasantly and
extremely rapidly declines in the modern first world.

Human populations are in fact VERY different to animal populations.

There is no appreciation of the problem,

There is no appreciation by you and your ilk how things are changing.

no-one who can comprehend its magnitude, and no-one in a position, or
would be allowed, to do anything about it.

How odd that China did in fact realise that they had a problem,
and did something very real about it, so effectively that they
have had to relax that doing something about it because of the
downsides they have got with that rather gung ho approach.

And even now they are STILL not self replacing even if every
couple does have two kids. And that clearly isn't going to happen.

On 29/10/2015 19:48, Norman Wells wrote:
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

Is there never to be a cap on the world's population?

Its starting to look like it will fix itself eventually.
Birth rates are dropping world wide now except
in places where its now so low that that place is
right down in the noise.

How come the world's population is increasing by 50% every 40 years or so?

How come it will increase from the present 7 billion to 10 billion by 2050?

The truth is, it's out of control and exponentially rising.

Fortunately you are likely mistaken.

See:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTznEIZRkLg


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 29/10/2015 19:48, Norman Wells wrote:

How come it will increase from the present 7 billion to 10 billion by 2050?

The truth is, it's out of control and exponentially rising.

Which makes all attempts to control the climate by reducing CO2
emissions futile.

Bill

On 30/10/15 07:09, Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
Birth rates eventually decrease when living standards
rise, as can be seen in western countries. It's therefore expected that
they will decline worldwide in the not too distant future when living
standards rise in other parts of the world, and population growth will
eventually peter out.

Living standards are beginning to deteriorate as green politics cuts in.


--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

"Wolfgang Schwanke" wrote in message
...
"Norman Wells" wrote in
:

How come the world's population is increasing by 50% every 40 years or
so?

Because progess in medicine has decreased mortality, while birth
figures have remained high for the time being.

How come it will increase from the present 7 billion to 10 billion by
2050?

The truth is, it's out of control and exponentially rising.

No it isn't. Birth rates eventually decrease when living standards
rise, as can be seen in western countries.

In fact that is now seen in ALL countrys except where the
birth rate is now so low that its right down in the noise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...fertility_rate

It's therefore expected that they will decline worldwide in the not too
distant future

That has already happened
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...fertility_rate

when living standards rise in other parts of the world,

Doesn’t actually need that anymore.

and population growth will eventually peter out.

That isn't an absolute certainly, tho certainly very likely.

That has happened throughout history in all animal populations
in times of plenty. Then they outstrip their food supply, there is
widespread famine, and the population rather unpleasantly and
extremely rapidly declines.

Once again malthusianism, which hase been proved wrong by reality
over and over again. The world food production is not a constant, it's
actually growing at a faster rate than population growth thanks to
progress in agriculture. It'll probably catch up with the population in
a few decades. Not only will hunger then be a thing of the past, but
large parts of the world will eventually achieve western living standards.

I doubt that last particularly in the worst of the third world.

There is no appreciation of the problem, no-one
who can comprehend its magnitude, and no-one in a
position, or would be allowed, to do anything about it.

What are you talking about? Malthusianism is being spread in all the
media as if it were a self-evident fact. It's been all the rage since
the 1970s with Club of Rome "Limits to growth" and Paul Ehrlich's
"Population bomb" etc. But all the doom and gloom just fails to
materialise.

And in fact things continue to improve dramatically with famine
now only seen where the place has imploded in the most obscene
levels of civil war and civil chaos where relief from outside the
area is no longer feasible.

"Wolfgang Schwanke" wrote in message
...
"Norman Wells" wrote in
:

How come the world's population is increasing by 50% every 40 years or
so?

Because progess in medicine has decreased mortality, while birth
figures have remained high for the time being.

How come it will increase from the present 7 billion to 10 billion by
2050?

The truth is, it's out of control and exponentially rising.

No it isn't. Birth rates eventually decrease when living standards
rise, as can be seen in western countries.

Only amongst the indigenous population. It's more than made up for by immigration
and the children they have. Hence a forecast that Britain's population is set to
increase by over 15% in just the next 12 years.

It's therefore expected that
they will decline worldwide in the not too distant future when living
standards rise in other parts of the world, and population growth will
eventually peter out.

Your wishful thinking is admirable, but wholly pie-in-the-sky.

That has happened throughout history in all animal populations in
times of plenty. Then they outstrip their food supply, there is
widespread famine, and the population rather unpleasantly and
extremely rapidly declines.

Once again malthusianism, which hase been proved wrong by reality over
and over again. The world food production is not a constant, it's
actually growing at a faster rate than population growth thanks to
progress in agriculture.

No, that's completely wrong. It has so far kept up with increasing population as
more and more land has been brought under the plough. But there's a finite limit to
the amount of productive land the earth has, and we're reaching it. Britain's green
and pleasant land will be able to produce enough food to feed just half its
population by 2030.

It'll probably catch up with the population in
a few decades. Not only will hunger then be a thing of the past, but
large parts of the world will eventually achieve western living
standards.

That's all very hippy. Peace will reign, man, and the world will live as one.

What are you on?

Returning to earth, perhaps you'd tell us where we will find all the new, productive
arable land we'll need to grow the crops. Do we dig up the Amazon rain forest, or
what?

There is no appreciation of
the problem, no-one who can comprehend its magnitude, and no-one in a
position, or would be allowed, to do anything about it.

What are you talking about? Malthusianism is being spread in all the
media as if it were a self-evident fact. It's been all the rage since
the 1970s with Club of Rome "Limits to growth" and Paul Ehrlich's
"Population bomb" etc. But all the doom and gloom just fails to
materialise.

Let's see. In 1960 the world's population was just 3 billion. In just 55 years
since then, it has rocketed to 7 billion. By 2050 it will be 10 billion. By 2100,
it could be 16 billion.

Malthus was right. He did not forecast immediate apocalypse as some assume, and may
even have been out as regards the time frame he himself envisaged. He just stated
general principles, and those are as valid today as the were in 1779 when he wrote:

"Famine seems to be the last, the most dreadful resource of nature. The power of
population is so superior to the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man,
that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race. The vices of
mankind are active and able ministers of depopulation. They are the precursors in
the great army of destruction, and often finish the dreadful work themselves. But
should they fail in this war of extermination, sickly seasons, epidemics,
pestilence, and plague advance in terrific array, and sweep off their thousands and
tens of thousands. Should success be still incomplete, gigantic inevitable famine
stalks in the rear, and with one mighty blow levels the population with the food of
the world."

His vision hasn't materialised yet, but 'the power of population' certainly has.
The rest will follow.

On Thursday, 29 October 2015 16:26:07 UTC, Andy Cap wrote:
On 29/10/15 16:01, Adrian wrote:

years (to 2039, since it's on 2014 figures)?

No mention of demographics there, though, and I think we all know which
way the average age is going... Rapidly.

Woo. With zero migration, we could be looking at the world's biggest
retirement home just off the northern shore of France... But at least
there won't be brown people working, earning, growing our economy, paying
taxes to cover our pensions.


How does this constant expansion of the young, paying for the elderly,
work indefinitely?

It's like those pyramid schemes that can out years ago that have all been banned. The few at the to make a fortune the rest lose.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 29 October 2015 16:26:07 UTC, Andy Cap wrote:
On 29/10/15 16:01, Adrian wrote:

years (to 2039, since it's on 2014 figures)?

No mention of demographics there, though, and I think we all know which
way the average age is going... Rapidly.

Woo. With zero migration, we could be looking at the world's biggest
retirement home just off the northern shore of France... But at least
there won't be brown people working, earning, growing our economy,
paying
taxes to cover our pensions.


How does this constant expansion of the young, paying for the elderly,
work indefinitely?

It's like those pyramid schemes that can out years ago that have all been
banned.

Nothing like in fact.

The few at the to make a fortune the rest lose.

No one makes a fortune when immigrants
ensure that there are enough working to
pay for those who are no longer working.

And no one loses either. Even the immigrants
do better than they would have if they had
stayed where they come from, that's why they
migrate.

On Friday, 30 October 2015 18:07:20 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 29 October 2015 16:26:07 UTC, Andy Cap wrote:
On 29/10/15 16:01, Adrian wrote:

years (to 2039, since it's on 2014 figures)?

No mention of demographics there, though, and I think we all know which
way the average age is going... Rapidly.

Woo. With zero migration, we could be looking at the world's biggest
retirement home just off the northern shore of France... But at least
there won't be brown people working, earning, growing our economy,
paying
taxes to cover our pensions.


How does this constant expansion of the young, paying for the elderly,
work indefinitely?

It's like those pyramid schemes that can out years ago that have all been
banned.

Nothing like in fact.

Yes it is, how many do you need to immigrants supoport one persons pension ?


The few at the to make a fortune the rest lose.

No one makes a fortune when immigrants
ensure that there are enough working to
pay for those who are no longer working.

so how many workers does it take to support the non workers ?


And no one loses either. Even the immigrants
do better than they would have if they had
stayed where they come from, that's why they
migrate.

So the coun tries that lose their doctors, nurses, enginners to come and work in our NHS don't lose doctors, nurses, enginners etc.. from their own coun try.
Only yuo can be think enough to not know this basics.

In message , Andy Cap
writes
On 29/10/15 16:01, Adrian wrote:

years (to 2039, since it's on 2014 figures)?

No mention of demographics there, though, and I think we all know which
way the average age is going... Rapidly.

Woo. With zero migration, we could be looking at the world's biggest
retirement home just off the northern shore of France... But at least
there won't be brown people working, earning, growing our economy, paying
taxes to cover our pensions.


How does this constant expansion of the young, paying for the elderly,
work indefinitely? Is there never to be a cap on the world's population?

In this morning's LBC Nick Ferrari phone-in, a phoner-inner made a very
good point.

He pointed out that encouraging the immigration of young workers, so
that their taxes could provide funding for the increasing number
long-living old folks, was actually a ponzi pyramid scheme.

Even if the immigrants can find homes and work, they themselves will
eventually join the ranks of long-living old folks - thus requiring more
immigrants to come and work to pay taxes etc etc, ad infinitum.

The real answer has to be working for longer, better spreading of
available resources or a drop in the expected standard of living.
There's no doubt the present generation have done very well but it's
not exactly their fault. Personally, I don't really care if my house is
worth £50,000 or £500,000!

Andy C

--
Ian

"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
...
In message , Andy Cap
writes
On 29/10/15 16:01, Adrian wrote:

years (to 2039, since it's on 2014 figures)?

No mention of demographics there, though, and I think we all know which
way the average age is going... Rapidly.

Woo. With zero migration, we could be looking at the world's biggest
retirement home just off the northern shore of France... But at least
there won't be brown people working, earning, growing our economy,
paying
taxes to cover our pensions.


How does this constant expansion of the young, paying for the elderly,
work indefinitely? Is there never to be a cap on the world's population?

In this morning's LBC Nick Ferrari phone-in, a phoner-inner made a very
good point.

He pointed out that encouraging the immigration of young workers, so that
their taxes could provide funding for the increasing number long-living
old folks, was actually a ponzi pyramid scheme.

It isn't. Essentially because it doesn't collapse in the end.

Even if the immigrants can find homes and work, they themselves will
eventually join the ranks of long-living old folks - thus requiring more
immigrants to come and work to pay taxes etc etc, ad infinitum.

Yes, but that doesn't may it a ponzi scheme.

Society has ALWAYS worked like that. The only difference now
is that while ever the place isn't self replacing on population
because the birth rate is too low for that, immigrants have to
replace some of the kids born to the natives that didn't happen.

The real answer has to be working for longer, better spreading of
available resources or a drop in the expected standard of living.
There's no doubt the present generation have done very well but it's not
exactly their fault. Personally, I don't really care if my house is worth
£50,000 or £500,000!

On 30/10/2015 18:32, Rod Speed wrote:


"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
...
In message , Andy
Cap writes
On 29/10/15 16:01, Adrian wrote:

years (to 2039, since it's on 2014 figures)?

No mention of demographics there, though, and I think we all know which
way the average age is going... Rapidly.

Woo. With zero migration, we could be looking at the world's biggest
retirement home just off the northern shore of France... But at least
there won't be brown people working, earning, growing our economy,
paying
taxes to cover our pensions.


How does this constant expansion of the young, paying for the
elderly, work indefinitely? Is there never to be a cap on the world's
population?

In this morning's LBC Nick Ferrari phone-in, a phoner-inner made a
very good point.

He pointed out that encouraging the immigration of young workers, so
that their taxes could provide funding for the increasing number
long-living old folks, was actually a ponzi pyramid scheme.

It isn't. Essentially because it doesn't collapse in the end.

Even if the immigrants can find homes and work, they themselves will
eventually join the ranks of long-living old folks - thus requiring
more immigrants to come and work to pay taxes etc etc, ad infinitum.

Yes, but that doesn't may it a ponzi scheme.

Society has ALWAYS worked like that. The only difference now
is that while ever the place isn't self replacing on population
because the birth rate is too low for that, immigrants have to
replace some of the kids born to the natives that didn't happen.


It is effectively a Ponzi scheme if the working young population has to
grow bigger to support the old from the previous generation. When they
in turn get older they will need even more young people to support them.
Eventually something will have to give as we cannot keep growing
exponentially.

A sustainable model would allow for moderate contraction as well as
moderate growth.

"Wolfgang Schwanke" wrote in message
...

No, that line of thinking is called malthusianism, and it's wrong.

Malthus wasn't wrong, except in his timing.

Tell me how many people the world can possibly feed. Is it infinite?

If it's not infinite, how long will it be before the world population, which is
increasing exponentially, exceeds the number you come up with?

On 30/10/15 09:21, Norman Wells wrote:
"Wolfgang Schwanke" wrote in message
...

No, that line of thinking is called malthusianism, and it's wrong.

Malthus wasn't wrong, except in his timing.

Wolfgang is a Cornucopian, and a believer in perpetual growth, despite
the fact that nothing in the known universe lasts, or grows, forever.

Tell me how many people the world can possibly feed. Is it infinite?

If it's not infinite, how long will it be before the world population,
which is increasing exponentially, exceeds the number you come up with?


See my .sig below..Wolfgang is almost certainly a socialist.



--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"Wolfgang Schwanke" wrote in message
...

No, that line of thinking is called malthusianism, and it's wrong.

Malthus wasn't wrong, except in his timing.

He was just plain wrong. Real living standards have improved
out of sight since his time, and we just don’t see famines anymore.

Tell me how many people the world can possibly feed.

That is unknown because it isn't clear how
much better food productivity can become.

Is it infinite?

Corse not, and doesn’t need to be.

If it's not infinite, how long will it be before the world population,
which is increasing exponentially,

Birth rates are in fact falling EVERYWHERE now.

exceeds the number you come up with?

There is no fixed number. Never has been. When we
invented agriculture the number that could be fed
improved out of sight over hunting and gathering.

The industrial revolution improved the
productivity of agriculture out of sight again.

On Thursday, 29 October 2015 16:01:30 UTC, Adrian wrote:
On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 15:19:28 +0000, Bill Wright wrote:

Apparently the ONC tells us that the population will increase by 10
million by 2035 as the direct and indirect results of immigration. The
report on the BBC website distorts the facts in several important ways.

Just seen it on Sky News. Quite a good report.

This coverage of the story, I presume?

(Apparently untrustworthy) native British broadcaster...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34666382

(Apparently more trustworthy) immigrant Australian-American broadcaster...
http://news.sky.com/story/1578194/uk...-74-3m-by-2039

Given that you say "apparently", can we take it that you're comparing the
BBC and Sky reports, and assuming that the Sky report _must_ be accurate
and the BBC report _must_ be "distorting the facts"?

After all, if you'd actually checked back to the source ONC (Who? Do you
mean the ONS?) report, you wouldn't say "apparently".

You mean he means unapparently yet?

I'm intrigued to know how there can be such certainty two decades in

or, as yet unapparent, apparently.

So let's have a look, shall we?

No don't bother, let's just bring them all over and retrain them to live Britishly and we can dispense with all Britain's chuggers.
Then when they have settled in we can go and colonise their former homelands and this time do it proper.

I can't wait to civilise the USAnians there is a nation desperate to learn about god if ever the darkness shone strongly on anyone. They have a chimpanzee for a leader; or had -not sure.

They need help I am sure.

Bill Wright wrote

Apparently the ONC tells us that the population will increase by 10
million by 2035 as the direct and indirect results of immigration.

Yes, not one modern first world country is even
self replacing if you take out immigration and in
many ways Britain has more of a problem with
that than most others, essentially because so
many of you leave there for other places and have
been doing that for a hell of a long time now.

The report on the BBC website distorts the facts in several important
ways. If the matter makes to the broadcast BBC news please let me
know. I suspect that if it does it will be minimised.

Just seen it on Sky News. Quite a good report.

Bill Wright wrote:

Apparently the ONC tells us that the population will increase by 10
million by 2035 as the direct and indirect results of immigration. The
report on the BBC website distorts the facts in several important ways.
If the matter makes to the broadcast BBC news please let me know.

It was on BBC radio before I went to work this morning, and it's a
headline item on the BBC 6pm news just now ...

On 29/10/2015 18:03, Andy Burns wrote:
Bill Wright wrote:

Apparently the ONC tells us that the population will increase by 10
million by 2035 as the direct and indirect results of immigration. The
report on the BBC website distorts the facts in several important ways.
If the matter makes to the broadcast BBC news please let me know.

It was on BBC radio before I went to work this morning, and it's a
headline item on the BBC 6pm news just now ...


Yes, quite a long report of Radio 4. I'm pleased. However they
absolutely minimised any mention of immigration being the cause.

Bill