Declining Western populations
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 The groover Online  Danbury 21 Mar 24 12.17pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
The world population growth needs to stop. It took 30,000 years for the human population to hit 1 billion. Now every 12 years its increasing by 1 Billion. The population of India is fast approaching that of China! That is unsustainable. This is a misnomer of epic proportion. Growth can be achieved by increasing the living standards of those in 3rd world countries. Nearly half the worlds population lives in poverty. That's almost 4 billion untapped "customers". China went from nothing to the 2nd highest economy in a few decades. The standard of living there has increased exponentially. With the increase in living standards population growth in China has reduced and is now equal to the USA. India is 8x higher than China and the USA. The answer is staring us in the face! Eventually something big will happen. A world Famine, war, an epidemic, or a natural disaster that will reduce numbers.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
Spiderman  Horsham 21 Mar 24 12.22pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow
Mmm love her to bits but I need my rest!,
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
one of the few jobs where I’d guess you wouldn’t mind the overtime!  eaglesdare 21 Mar 24 12.27pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by The groover
The world population growth needs to stop. It took 30,000 years for the human population to hit 1 billion. Now every 12 years its increasing by 1 Billion. The population of India is fast approaching that of China! That is unsustainable. This is a misnomer of epic proportion. Growth can be achieved by increasing the living standards of those in 3rd world countries. Nearly half the worlds population lives in poverty. That's almost 4 billion untapped "customers". China went from nothing to the 2nd highest economy in a few decades. The standard of living there has increased exponentially. With the increase in living standards population growth in China has reduced and is now equal to the USA. India is 8x higher than China and the USA. The answer is staring us in the face! Eventually something big will happen. A world Famine, war, an epidemic, or a natural disaster that will reduce numbers. Or perhaps a "convenient" Virus that kills off the eldery who were living longer....and a vaccine that causes sudden death syndrome in young....
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| EverybodyDannsNow SE19 21 Mar 24 12.31pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
Everyone should have a choice of course, but I would say that having a larger family is ultimately far more rewarding than any other pastime or activity one might indulge in. It’s a completely subjective thing and whilst I’d certainly agree with you in principle, I don’t think you can ever really dictate to anyone what is better for their life. The latter half of the post is where you lose me a bit and it just falls into outdated cliche - flat screen TVs and phone are cheap technology and not remotely big expenses these days. When I look at my direct debits every month, what I’m paying for my phone and tv subscriptions barely even make the top 10. The reason people are skint has little to do with consumer habits and far more to do with explosion in rents, mortgage rates, utilities and food, whilst wage growth has failed to even get close to keeping up. The average salary in London is just over £40k, so a take home of circa £2000 a month. The average rent in London is over £2000 by itself. The £500 one off payment for a TV is barely touching the sides.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| EverybodyDannsNow SE19 21 Mar 24 12.36pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Behind Enemy Lines
That's how it used to be. My wife gave up work to look after our children and never went back. We got by on one salary ever since. The difference is in how far that single salary goes though. What salary do you think someone would need to earn to raise a family in London now? The 2nd half of your post is spot on - more and more the determinant of my generation’s economic success is how much inheritance they can expect, as opposed to what they could achieve through work and savings, but that is neither sustainable nor fair.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 21 Mar 24 12.38pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow
It’s a completely subjective thing and whilst I’d certainly agree with you in principle, I don’t think you can ever really dictate to anyone what is better for their life. The latter half of the post is where you lose me a bit and it just falls into outdated cliche - flat screen TVs and phone are cheap technology and not remotely big expenses these days. When I look at my direct debits every month, what I’m paying for my phone and tv subscriptions barely even make the top 10. The reason people are skint has little to do with consumer habits and far more to do with explosion in rents, mortgage rates, utilities and food, whilst wage growth has failed to even get close to keeping up. The average salary in London is just over £40k, so a take home of circa £2000 a month. The average rent in London is over £2000 by itself. The £500 one off payment for a TV is barely touching the sides. Of course mortgages etc are the bulk of the costs, I'm simply pointing out that if you can afford life's little luxuries then you can afford children. People in the past have been far poorer and still had loads of kids.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 21 Mar 24 12.41pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow
The difference is in how far that single salary goes though. What salary do you think someone would need to earn to raise a family in London now? The 2nd half of your post is spot on - more and more the determinant of my generation’s economic success is how much inheritance they can expect, as opposed to what they could achieve through work and savings, but that is neither sustainable nor fair. Unfortunately, a lack of housing and increased costs for that everything else because of shortages will lead to people being less able to have kids.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Behind Enemy Lines Sussex 21 Mar 24 12.56pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow
The difference is in how far that single salary goes though. What salary do you think someone would need to earn to raise a family in London now? The 2nd half of your post is spot on - more and more the determinant of my generation’s economic success is how much inheritance they can expect, as opposed to what they could achieve through work and savings, but that is neither sustainable nor fair. Re your last paragraph, it may not be fair but if the money stays within the generational family, personally I feel it would be more beneficial to society. The however many pounds are taken in Inheritance Tax goes where? Weapons for Ukraine? All taxes get lost in the 'what can we spend it on', whereas hopefully my offspring will be able to revert to a one worker family. Re your first paragraph, I think the short term solution is the exodus to the Home Counties and hybrid working. Those of us in Sussex are experiencing the house building growth beyond local requirements. Estate Agents report that by far the majority of enquiries for new houses are from South London residents. Not pleasant seeing villages turned into towns and countryside concreted over. The best way to solve most housing problems? Change the mindset that property is an asset to make a profit on and revert to it being somewhere to live. Start by penalising multi property owning landlords, so that more become available for sale to those that need them. An example re the housebuilding in Sussex and why it is not actually needed? There are 3000 empty dwellings in Brighton that for various reasons are locked out of the market.
hats off to palace, they were always gonna be louder, and hate to say it but they were impressive ALL bouncing and singing. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| silvertop Portishead 21 Mar 24 1.36pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
A European population ruled by elites adopting replacement migration themselves? Brexit was mainly voted for to stop non European migration and Johnson betrayed us once it was won. As it is I think we all know where this is heading. Which is why Remoaners continue to bash their heads against the wall in despair, as voting Brexit could never have achieved that. There is indeed a great deal to say about BJ, but he cannot have "betrayed" you on this issue as the only immigration Brexit could control was of EU citizens. A self-served bullet in both feet.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
PalazioVecchio  south pole 21 Mar 24 1.37pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
Of course mortgages etc are the bulk of the costs, I'm simply pointing out that if you can afford life's little luxuries then you can afford children. People in the past have been far poorer and still had loads of kids. in the past, even the Tramps could afford to own a home. Food was rare and at a premium. Today, its the other way around.
Eze Peasy at Anfield.... |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 21 Mar 24 1.51pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by silvertop
Which is why Remoaners continue to bash their heads against the wall in despair, as voting Brexit could never have achieved that. There is indeed a great deal to say about BJ, but he cannot have "betrayed" you on this issue as the only immigration Brexit could control was of EU citizens. A self-served bullet in both feet. That does not mean that Brexit was the not way forward. We are talking about one issue here. We are only a few feet down the road as far as immigration is concerned. The pressures are only slowly being realised by the masses. Perhaps even the insulated and slightly dim politicians have only just figured out the mess they have caused.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| silvertop Portishead 21 Mar 24 1.53pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
Well I suppose that the bigger picture is that taking people from one part of Europe to fill a gap in another seems rather self-defeating. A quick look at the current demographic of Britain suggests that work related migration from Europe hasn't done much to halt the increase in non Europeans. The only real solution is to encourage women to have more children by incentivising the family rather than self indulgence and the need to work more hours. You're getting a bit National Socialist towards the end there Hrolf! On the main points, free flow means just that. Free in, where there is work; free out where there is not. Thus, Poles flooded in when the going was good. Poles flooded home when our economy stalled and theirs boomed (in relative terms). No sponging off the state or health tourism to take advantage of our NHS or any of the other fictitious nonsense created by the Daily Express. People who cross continents tend to be the complete opposite of that crypto-NAZI caricature. Some stayed, but only because they were settled, in full employment, adding to the economy and filling the government coffers with tax. On cultural dilution, 50 000 Poles arrived here after the War. They assimilated with ease; did not cause any significant (or any?) changes to our culture; and their descendants are now interchangeable with their Anglo peers. By way of example, we have Polish friends. One runs a beauty business, including a shop. Her husband sells agricultural equipment. Both entrepreneurs who employ people, own a house and declare fully for tax. Their kids are blond, healthy and speak with a strong Bristolian burr. Other than their kids' accents, what could you possibly object to in them?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.