But that would mean young people with families must be net providers to the economy, and the retired are net takers?
Unpossible.
|
|
This argument - taken to logical conclusions - means we should keep increasing the population until standing room only.
|
I suspect you mean extreme rather than logical.
I'd take this article with about as much salt as I would an article telling me the country's ills were entirely down to immigration.
|
The article is just silly and bears all the marks of kite-flying.
UKIP policy forum has this to say:-
(Note that a formal policy is in the process of being finalised. As with any party, policies need, from time to time, be updated to reflect changing circumstances.)
www.ukip.org/issues/policy-pages/immigration
|
>> I suspect you mean extreme rather than logical.
>>
Population modelling is quite tricky I think, but I can see where madf is coming from.
It sounds analogous to economic viability being based on (absolutely unsustainable in a world of finite resources) continual growth, rather than equilibrium.
Last edited by: Manatee on Wed 17 Jul 13 at 21:49
|
It won't grow infinitely - it will shoot past its true value then snap back.
Much as it did following 2008.
Anyone expecting big growth figures over the next decade can forget it - the Western economies are doing a 'Japan' right now.
|
It seems to me there are two factors here which are getting confused:
1) is the economic impact of an increasing proportion of non-contributors to the economy
2) the physical care needs of an increasing number of infirm people who can't care for themselves.
The first surely is relatively easily fixed by increasing the retirement age at a sufficient rate to ensure a balance in individuals' lives between work/retirement periods, and hence an overall economic balance. Allternatively of course, a massive increase in pension contributions to produce investment capital that will generate a return sufficient to support the pensions.
The second point is more serious, because if true, it can only be remedied by mobilising increasing numbers of fitter younger people. If a country is not generating enough younger carers itself then I see no alternative but to import them.
But that would require immigration of people to fill very specific job roles. Also it would have to be short term immigration, otherwise the immigrants will themselves be retiring in due course.
Last edited by: Cliff Pope on Thu 18 Jul 13 at 10:10
|
>> It seems to me there are two factors here which are getting confused:
>>
>> 1) is the economic impact of an increasing proportion of non-contributors to the economy
>>
...
>> The first surely is relatively easily fixed by increasing the retirement age at a sufficient
>> rate to ensure a balance in individuals' lives between work/retirement periods, and hence
>> an overall economic balance.
Hmmm... except there are lots of over 55 year olds without employment (many not eligible for benefits so not on the statistics). I was hoofed out as expected at 59... fortunately allowed for financially, and I am supplementing savings with a small amount of freelance work until my pensions kick in, but a full time job, if I needed one, would be difficult to find assuming I don't want to shove the trolleys around at Tesco or work in a warehouse in Milton Keynes.
Older persons' unemployment is not as tragic as young people's, but it's significant.
>>Allternatively of course, a massive increase in pension contributions to produce investment capital
>> that will generate a return sufficient to support the pensions.
Over time, I agree - we need to think in terms of putting 25% of income aside for eventual retirement. Very few people have been doing that.
The pension auto enrolment provisions are intended to be the thin end of that wedge. At the 8% level they will rise to, they will really only augment the OAP enough to substitute for benefits, rather that making the contributors better off if that is their sole provision - but it's a start.
We can't afford the benefits mentality now, and it will only get harder. People en masse cannot be allowed to continue to "choose" between making their own provision and relying on pension credits and housing benefit.
Last edited by: Manatee on Thu 18 Jul 13 at 10:36
|
The garbage article tends to ignore youth unemployment. (which is high). And long term unemployment as well. So we are going to employ immigrants to keep British OAPs from dying whilst we pay Brits to rot on the dole?
And it ignores the fact that more people = more infrastructure = more investment needed = more people needed. "
the report found that allowing more than 140,000 immigrants into Britain a year, equivalent to 6million people, would help increase the overall number of people who are in work and improve public finances
Obviously the OBS ignores the fact that land is limited, there is a housing shortage - which at current rates of housebuilding will last till hell freezes - and assumes an infinite supply of food and heating. We of course are facing an infrastructure crisis on electricity generation.
So written by muppets for muppets is my conclusion . (and that is being kind)
Last edited by: madf on Thu 18 Jul 13 at 11:26
|
+1 here...and what happens when all these immigrants reach retirement age?
UKIP is NOT against immigration, per se, but is opposed to uncontrolled mass immigration and would seek to allow in those people whose skills are truly needed and whose presence would benefit the UK.
A system similar to that used by Australia could cope with that.
|
>> +1 here...and what happens when all these immigrants reach retirement age?
Eastern Europeans, well at least the Poles, tend to be 'cyclical' immigrants with a floating population as newcomers replace those who have made enough to go home.
|
"UKIP is NOT against immigration, per se,"
It may well not be but most of its supporters, I suspect, are. The fact is that many industries are dependant on immigrant labour especially the service industries. The hotel industry would fold up without a supply of immigrant workers prepared to work the unsociable hours for comparatively low pay.
|
>> "UKIP is NOT against immigration, per se,"
>>
>> It may well not be but most of its supporters, I suspect, are. The fact
>> is that many industries are dependant on immigrant labour especially the service industries. The hotel
>> industry would fold up without a supply of immigrant workers prepared to work the unsociable
>> hours for comparatively low pay.
>>
And a very simple answer to that is to stop paying benefits to people who turn down those jobs with unsocial hours and comparatively low pay. Unemployment should not be a lifestyle choice for those who don't like work, and everyone from my end of the social spectrum will know plenty of people who regard it as just that. That's why the "Sun Reading Scum" (The van driver, building worker and factory hand) despise social security scroungers - they live in the same street or tower block of many of them.
|
>> And a very simple answer to that is to stop paying benefits to people who
>> turn down those jobs with unsocial hours and comparatively low pay. Unemployment should not be
>> a lifestyle choice for those who don't like work, and everyone from my end of
>> the social spectrum will know plenty of people who regard it as just that. That's
>> why the "Sun Reading Scum" (The van driver, building worker and factory hand) despise social
>> security scroungers - they live in the same street or tower block of many of
>> them.
>>
Scchhh.
You'll offend our socialist fiends friends:-)
|
And a very simple answer to that is to stop paying benefits to people who turn down those jobs...
Never mind offend, Madf, how about bore? Is there any evidence these people exist in significant numbers? The serious economists and labour market analysts can't find them, hence the rabble press's gleeful leap on anomalies like the Philpott case to try to support an empty argument.
|
>> Never mind offend, Madf, how about bore? Is there any evidence these people exist in
>> significant numbers? The serious economists and labour market analysts can't find them, hence the rabble
>> press's gleeful leap on anomalies like the Philpott case to try to support an empty
>> argument.
>>
As I've said WDB, I've known plenty and I could show you at least a dozen right now. Ask anyone who's involved in recruitment for non skilled labour or find someone who has the thankless task or working in a job centre and their off the record accounts will open your eyes.
|
I remember arguing on a Labour forum with several supporters who objected to working as it was against their principles..
And I did a lot of recruitment 20 years ago - school leavers - and it was obvious a fair percentage had made no effort before an interview to clean up/dress smartly etc as they did not want to work.
Even the BBC....
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7288430.stm
Last edited by: madf on Thu 18 Jul 13 at 17:52
|
|
My point exactly, RR: I asked for evidence and all you can offer is anecdote. You assert that yours would be 'the simple solution' but you can't even quantify the problem, let alone the benefit. That's not simple, just simplistic.
|
>> My point exactly, RR: I asked for evidence and all you can offer is anecdote.
>> You assert that yours would be 'the simple solution' but you can't even quantify the
>> problem, let alone the benefit. That's not simple, just simplistic.
>>
Really?
So when does personal experience merely become anecdote? I'd guess you are in a socioeconomic group where the work ethic is inbred in people by parents, peers and schools. I come from one where a fair sized minority are lazy thieving no-goods who have no ambition or drive to do anything that requires self motivation and discipline.
|
So when does personal experience merely become anecdote?
Well, apparently before 1998 when my Chambers Concise was published:
anecdote n short narrative relating personal experience
}:---)
I'd guess you are in a socioeconomic group...
Whichever group you or I might originate from is irrelevant to the empirical, statistical evidence we need to make an informed policy decision. Your personal experience is no more useful than the views of the bloke in the pub. If it's true, there'll be numbers. What are they?
|
Apart form the fact that there are not enough "benefit scroungers" to do the work in practical terms a lot of these people are unemployable.
You run hotel and you want someone hard working and with a good attitude. Do you employ the sullen person sent for an interview by the job centre and who hasn't worked for the past eighteen months or do you employ the guy who has crossed half a continent in the search for a job and is prepared to take on anything?
The plain fact is that our hospitals, hotels, restaurants and cafes etc are mostly staffed by immigrants. Remove the immigrants and the economy collapses. The article is basically correct. In an ageing population increased immigration will be the only practical solution to keeping the economy running.
(I suppose euthanasia would be another option ;-0
|
|
Whatever route you take, you stop paying benefits to those who are not prepared to work when jobs are available. That might make them re-think their "sullen attitude" and realise that you have to get off your backside and help yourself.
|
And whether they rethink their attitude or not, at least we're not funding it.
|
>>
>> And whether they rethink their attitude or not, at least we're not funding it.
>>
+1
If others disagree, they can pay voluntary extra taxes.
|
>> >>
>> >> And whether they rethink their attitude or not, at least we're not funding it.
+2.
When something is free its usually valued less in the eyes of the receiver, easy come easy go, in this case benefits housing etc.
Whilst you pay people more for doing nothing than they could earn by working then the list of scroungers will only grow....and i don't mean by working the loophope/fiddle of the day by doing as little as possible in order to qualify for the latest subsidy either, that i find especially annoying as the last time i looked nearly every job at a jobcentre, because it was so badly paid, qualified for top up subsidies, in effect the govt (us, its not their money they just throw it about like confetti) subsidising employers.
When your very livelihood depends on your reliability attitude effort and work ethic its surprising what you are capable of, we've got far too many apologists in the country.
|
I can't provide WdB with statistics, and I don't know how you would measure it, but I am sure there is a culture of entitlement. The MSE forums often have posters asking how they can avoid losing benefits when for example they inherit a large sum - rather than the response being that they will not need the benefits.
The difficulty arises because of the principle that welfare should provide the needy with a more or less normal life. And it's hard to argue with that, especially when there are blameless children involved.
There was an answer to this which is now deemed unacceptable, i.e. the workhouse. Nobody had to starve, but on the other hand few would choose it as an alternative to looking after themselves if they possibly could.
The really tough one to solve is actually retirement benefits. Being involved with the pension scheme, I came across numerous people in my last job who saw no point to joining, even though the employer would put in 2% for every 1% they did. Why? Because £100 a week pension, which would cost £100,000+ to purchase, would reduce benefits by £90. And if you get pension credit, you can claim housing benefit and council tax benefit.
It's hard to see how the books can be balanced without cutting benefits to provide incentives, if maintaining them means that those in work must pay more, making self-support even less rewarding - unless of course conditions can be attached to benefits that provide those incentives. Why, for example, should anyone be given housing benefit to live where many taxpayers can't afford to?
I'm not at all anti-welfare. Quite the opposite. The biggest threat to proper help for those who need it is the money wasted on those who don't.
Even Labour has now realised this. Only the drippy Lib Dems can't seem to grasp it, being focused on cutting "rich" pensioner benefits and further eroding the value of people looking to support themselves.
Last edited by: Manatee on Thu 18 Jul 13 at 22:59
|
>I can't provide WdB with statistics, and I don't know how you would measure it,
Maybe because WdB knows that statistics that haven't been massaged in one direction or another tend to get buried.
|
>>The difficulty arises because of the principle that welfare should provide the needy with a more or less normal life.
It sounds so reasonable, but that principle should be challenged. If welfare provides a normal life, where's the incentive to get off it? Closely linked to this problem is the nonsense of measuring poverty on a relative scale.
|
Looking forward to UKIP's persepective.... - Lygonos
