Population growth

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 15:19:28 +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 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 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.

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.

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 didn’t 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.

"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, it’s 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 wasn’t 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, it’s 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...