Anyone spot the problem with this article?

[Borg Refinery]

- Massively boost productivity with robots, AI, infrastructure etc.  Great, would be 100% for this - but no signs of it happening yet and many of the things that would help that like building better transport infrastructure or renewable energy systems or attracting bright foreign workers and encouraging them to stay here and start up productive enterprises... are often opposed by the same people who are opposing immigration

The problem with that is that corporations will not use it to improve people's lot in life, they will use it to enrich themselves and throw everyone on the dole

Then we'll all be untrained 20 year olds caring for people in care homes in order to collect our benefits, except not even that - because the robots will do that too..

And you will own nothing and you will be happy

[Borg Refinery]

sometimes we agree.
You should see the hate I've got from calling pensions "benefits"

It's obvious that pensions are benefits, most people take out more than they put in because that's how it works in most countries. If people don't like that then tough.

I often agree with a lot of what liberals and conservatives say in many areas, but get very wound up by the rank hypocrisy of the likes of Labour enacting Tory policies under Keir Starmer and pushing for Daily Heil nonsense - like the above from Pat, or liberals decrying war crimes and foreign invasions then supporting the very same the next day. Or Conservatives supporting mass splurges and budget irresponsibility - or worse then crying about same from Lab. I just find it fairly preposterous and end up arguing with absolutely everyone about everything in the end, it can't be helped..

[BeElBeeBub]

Take the trouble to compare those aged 16 to 24 "Not in Employmment, Education or Training" with the number of workers from overseas in care and support jobs. Do so and you'll see both totals could be noticeably reduced if NEETs, say aged 18 to 24, would do time in the care sector in return for benefits...

I mean if you are happy to be in a care home staffed with untrained 20year olds who are only there to collect their benefits.....

[BeElBeeBub]

Baby boomers did  their bit to boost the population, which should have continued. We had three kids.
Our three kids have had an average of two kids. The average has risen from an all time low of 1.63 to about 1.9 in recent years.
Muhammed or variants are the top name choice for newborn boys.
https://www.newarab.com/news/muhammad-uks-favourite-boy-name-second-year-row

Yes they did, they were born, managed to enjoy the benefits of being a cohort of workers with few older dependants to look after, the economies were booming so housing was cheap and living standards grew year after year because of all of their work

Now babyboomers are being blamed for impoverishing the country, which is a bit unfair, to say the least. We've been good workers, often working for the same employers for decades.

The idea of a job for life, along with free education and being able to by a house on a single salary in your mid 20's is a distant dream for today's youngsters.

[BeElBeeBub]

It is actually true that pensioners use up the biggest amount of benefits, that's factually the biggest spend according to the 'welfare' bill. It's ironic they complain about others' bone idleness, but it's also ironic so many vote Tory when the Tories want to cut their benefits and cut pensions and moved the pension age up so far, it's an example of the rank hypocrisy you expect these days

sometimes we agree.
You should see the hate I've got from calling pensions "benefits" 

[BeElBeeBub]

Babyboomers increased the population between 1946 to 1964.  It does not account for any increase since 1964.

Life expectancy increased by 10 years between 1960 and 2010, from a mean average of 71 to 81.  The population over 71 is about 8.7M.  If we exclude immigrants, we could round that down to 8M. That's 8M over 50 years.  Immigration accounts for somewhere between half a million to a million every year.  That will be 37M over 50 years.  Life expectancy will not keep going up.  So we are comparing 37M for immigration with 8M for increased life expectancy.

And if you add life expectancy to the equation, you need to apply that also to immigrants.  But for some reason you ignore immigration, which we could reduce.  But we can't really reduce life expectancy, can we?  So why ignore one and blame the other?

Gosh, you say that as if immigration doesn't even exist.  How could that be a stable population with 0.75M immigrants every year?

Not quite, 

Population growth is (births - deaths) + (immigration - emigration)

A birth rate of around 2.1 per female is about the level to keep a stable population (the 0.1 bit is to account for women who don't have children) that results in 2 children for every 2 adults. If the life expectancy doesn't change the population will remain stable. 

But if life expectancy increases, your death rate temporarily decreases from what you were expecting (before eventually rising again). So you have population growth even if your births don't increase - just from people living longer.

Right now the births/deaths are about balance (within a few tens of thousand) at about 660k-690k each.  But we are on the cusp of the babyboomers starting to die off in significant numbers. In the next few years the births and deaths are predicted to flip and more will be dying than being born.  By the middle of next decade the birth-death net will be towards -100k a year. If birthrates continue to sink, like they have elsewhere it could be even worse.

But the kicker is the shape of the demographic pyramid, crudely how many old people there are vs workers. 

The ONS site (https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/articles/ukpopulationpyramidinteractive/2020-01-0) has some nice interactive predictions of what our demographic pyramid will look like.


The TLDR is:

in 2018 we had just over 42m workers for just over 12m over 66's - 3.5 workers for every pensioner

by 2028 we will have about 43m workers for just under 15m over 66's - less than 3 workers for every pensioner

By 2038 we are predicted to have 43m workers for 17.5m over 66's - less than 2.5 workers for every pensioner.


You see the issue

To keep the worker/pensioner ratio as it is now we would need something like 60m workers for the 17.5m pensioners or another 17m more than we have. 

Things that can help reduce this issue.

- Import workers aka immigration.

- Massively boost productivity with robots, AI, infrastructure etc.  Great, would be 100% for this - but no signs of it happening yet and many of the things that would help that like building better transport infrastructure or renewable energy systems or attracting bright foreign workers and encouraging them to stay here and start up productive enterprises... are often opposed by the same people who are opposing immigration

[papasmurf]

And yet it said 18-24 should be forced to do this nonsensical idea (which I disagree with by the way, it's a dumb Daily Heil policy pushed by blue types).

18-24 is different regulations.

[Borg Refinery]

It is true if you are 18 or under and Not in Employment Education or Training access to any benefits is very limited.

And yet it said 18-24 should be forced to do this nonsensical idea (which I disagree with by the way, it's a dumb Daily Heil policy pushed by blue types).

[papasmurf]

That's not even close to being true, didn't you say you work with people who are trying to receive benefits to try and get them it?

How can you not know that if you do as you suggest?

I sometimes help people who JCP and the DWP have arbitrarily and perversely refused refused benefits ignoring their own rule book. Which has zero to do with NEETs.

[papasmurf]

That's not even close to being true, 

It is true if you are 18 or under and Not in Employment Education or Training access to any benefits is very limited.

[Borg Refinery]

It is actually true that pensioners use up the biggest amount of benefits, that's factually the biggest spend according to the 'welfare' bill. It's ironic they complain about others' bone idleness, but it's also ironic so many vote Tory when the Tories want to cut their benefits and cut pensions and moved the pension age up so far, it's an example of the rank hypocrisy you expect these days

[Borg Refinery]

NEETS cannot get any benefits.

That's not even close to being true, didn't you say you work with people who are trying to receive benefits to try and get them it?

How can you not know that if you do as you suggest?

[papasmurf]

Take the trouble to compare those aged 16 to 24 "Not in Employmment, Education or Training" with the number of workers from overseas in care and support jobs. Do so and you'll see both totals could be noticeably reduced if NEETs, say aged 18 to 24, would do time in the care sector in return for benefits...

NEETS cannot get any benefits. 

[Borg Refinery]

I find it hilarious that Lab et al whinged about Sunak trying to make national service compulsory, then propose even more authoritarian things than he did and even worse measures to "out tory the Tories" and exclaim surprise when people think they're bonkers

Liberals - hypocrisy on steroids, no doubt most have no idea of the meaning of hard work when they have no idea what it's about in the first place. They just want their ideas propped up with others' money, whilst being as Tory as the Tories in their actual policies, whilst they just laze about and expect others to run around for them

Irony at its worst..

They sound exactly like the Daily Heil these days, with the likes of Starmer writing articles in the Torygraph, top Lab people writing angry right-wing propaganda in The Sun, Sunday Times and probably next the Daily Express, although even the Daily Express has higher standards than them..

[Borg Refinery]

Now they're talking about forced collectivised farming, like something out of Mao's Communist China over here in the USA, that sounds completely deranged and daft but they'll press on ahead (Republicans - although a few here match that same description..)