14stFlyer

And there you have the problem with our democracy. Over 50% of the referendum votes were for leave. We all know that this was dominantly because of views on the effects of large-scale inward migration over the previous decade or so, and a feeling of lack of sovereignty/not controlling our borders. People did not vote for upsetting our European neighbours, political instability in the U.K. and a drop in our standard of living. And yet what did we get? Does that sound like democracy to you?

The inevitable end of exponential growth.

To be honest this drop in total fertility rate has happened in all developed nations where women are free and educated. I do not think I agree with your linking of this to conditions caused by immigration.

Sometimes both can be right.

I agree. It is a bout of warm weather. And the met office does the same thing for heavy rain, a bit of wind, or heaven forbid, a thin dusting of snow on the roads.

What, all 872 of them per day? I doubt it.

Madness. Even the oil sheikhs of the Middle East have stopped exploring and are turning to Nuclear Energy.

I kind of agree with you Reg. we are likely to have population decline and a high dependency ratio later this century. However, I was pointing out that Japan (and other places like China) are waay ahead of us. When I get to sell my family home in the 2050s when the kids finally leave (ha), there may be plenty of others on the market and few buyers wanting family homes…

Japan is a somewhat extreme case - The current fertility rate for Japan in 2023 is 1.367 births per woman. Their population will shrink by 1/3 over the next 30 years or so unless something is done to encourage more procreation (or of course encourage mass immigration). In Britain our current fertility rate for U.K. in 2023 is 1.754 births per woman and we have only recently passed the point where the number of deaths per year is larger than the number of births. If we limit mass immigration, our population will remain constant or drop relatively slowly (unless of course our young people also lose interest in sex).

How about approximately 70 million people, falling slowly to nearer 65 million by 2100?

Good examples of countries that train their own workforce and make our lower paid jobs a career (such as well paid career pedagogue in Denmark rather than underpaid childcare and old people’s home workers in U.K.).

Or we use robotics and AI where we can, and train our young people where we can’t and actually plan for a sustainable community.

Exactly. Further wool being spread evenly over the sheeple’s eyes.

Is that the same as 4 billion people, or do some people have more than one pair of shoes? Ammonia can be made in a renewable manner (electrolysis of water using wind or solar to get the hydrogen), but the problem is that this is both expensive, and will use 9 tonnes of water for every tonne of ammonia made… just when 9 billion soles (sic) will need supporting on our Earth.

This thread is related to global warming and the effects of anthropogenic climate change. This is caused by human influence on greenhouse gases (e.g. carbon dioxide and methane) that are not diatomic. The absence of the word diatomic from the forum is thus unsurprising. For the avoidance of doubt, “diatomic” refers to molecules that contain two atoms. Carbon dioxide molecules contain three atoms (CO2) and methane five (CH4). I’ll get my coat…

If electric cars are on average more costly to repair /replace after an accident than ICE, then I am afraid you probably are.

This is the path to the correction. When we see the conversation turn from the estate agent asking “How much of a mortgage can you secure and so what is your price ceiling?” To the buyer asking “How much is your cheapest 3 bed, and are they likely to accept offers significantly below asking?”

I only voted Lib Dem once at a national election and that was because of their promise on tuition fees. They broke this promise. I will not vote for them again.

Please bear in mind that I do not support any of the following policies, I just think Labour will follow them. 1. Take students out of the figures 2. Be slow to take on any further “special case” migration in their first year (so no Ukrainian/HK or similar commitments 3. Accept slow growth in the number of jobs in the economy (and possibly even recession) within the first year or two of a Labour term as a consequence of more restrictive work visa provision I think they will. But at what cost?

Sounds like you married a goodun! I hope you are enjoying your small and not aspirational home in a nice area. it is, in my view, attitudes like the above that will eventually kill off the madness of inflated house prices. When a significant portion of a generation decide to spend the minimum amount they can on housing, rather than maximise their debt levels in order to “keep up with the Jones’s”, then we will have experienced the correction. Based upon most of the young people I know (who are very materialistic, especially in relation to housing), we still have a way to go…

I love the thought process Reg, but I am afraid I do not believe it. Here is my cynical take on politics right now: Labour are currently strongly influenced by public opinion (“populist” if you like). Public opinion is strongly in favour of lower yearly net inward migration. Labour will modify policy to follow this public opinion when in office. A labour government will be more competent than the current shower and so net inward migration will fall if Labour get into power. This is regardless of any manifesto commitments they may chose to make.

If Labour get into power they will decrease.

“The beatings will continue until morale improves.”

Agree, more flat than a fall in actual values, though we have fallen down the rankings of life expectancy for countries as a result. This is the paper that got me interested in the topic. I am still not convinced I understand why we are doing so badly compared with other comparable countries. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/01410768231155637

https://faculty.kfupm.edu.sa/COE/gutub/English_Misc/Retire1.htm I have seen some interesting and conflicting data on this one Winkie, with issues of retirement due to ill health, and cognitive decline after retirement coming in to it. However, I think this is the most important data for what we are talking about. Actuarial data suggests that wealthy people who retire early from a well paid job live longer than those who stay working to 65+