General News

[LcFc_Smiv]

My unpopular opinion that I previously refrained from posting is that one of the biggest threats we face is an over increasing elderly population, how you fund and support them, when their a demographic that will provide very little in return in that stage of their life. Don't get me wrong, it sounds cruel and it's not nice, but how do you account for supporting an ever growing demographic that will put very little back into the economy. I know it goes deeper than that, but as others state, it is a challenge we are not prepared for.

[leicsmac]

11 minutes ago, LcFc_Smiv said:

My unpopular opinion that I previously refrained from posting is that one of the biggest threats we face is an over increasing elderly population, how you fund and support them, when their a demographic that will provide very little in return in that stage of their life. Don't get me wrong, it sounds cruel and it's not nice, but how do you account for supporting an ever growing demographic that will put very little back into the economy. I know it goes deeper than that, but as others state, it is a challenge we are not prepared for.

Yes, and as also stated, it's a challenge for which there really appears to be no good solution - it's about choosing the best bad one, which of course isn't really a vote winner.

[Sampson]

30 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Yes, and as also stated, it's a challenge for which there really appears to be no good solution - it's about choosing the best bad one, which of course isn't really a vote winner.

Especially when the majority of those voters will be the ones losing out. That’s the catch 22 of it all.

 

I think we should all strap in for 60 hour work weeks and 1 day weekends in the not too distant future because that’s inevitably where it’s ending up. 

[Spudulike]

1 hour ago, LcFc_Smiv said:

My unpopular opinion that I previously refrained from posting is that one of the biggest threats we face is an over increasing elderly population, how you fund and support them, when their a demographic that will provide very little in return in that stage of their life. Don't get me wrong, it sounds cruel and it's not nice, but how do you account for supporting an ever growing demographic that will put very little back into the economy. I know it goes deeper than that, but as others state, it is a challenge we are not prepared for.

My mother-in-law is one of those. Currently in a care home with Parkinsons dementia. She pays over £1,600 a week (WEEK!) for her care and support. We sold her bungalow to cover it. Her fees are not only paying for her care but also currently contributing around 43% of the cost of another resident that receives local authority funding. So, actually providing a substantial return for her demographic at her stage of life. I'm sure the carers are also grateful of the employment that she pays for and giving the establishment owners a substantial profit. 

 

There are many, many in this situation. Not all old people are a drain on the tax payer and economy. In fact, just the opposite.

[leicsmac]

37 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Especially when the majority of those voters will be the ones losing out. That’s the catch 22 of it all.

 

I think we should all strap in for 60 hour work weeks and 1 day weekends in the not too distant future because that’s inevitably where it’s ending up. 

And that won't be accepted.

 

What lies after that could get rather ugly.

[leicsmac]

Automation is a possible solution both for older and younger people, but then that means getting rid of the whole concept of guilt-based work ethic that those with power weaponise, and I'm pretty sure that they'll see civilisation collapse before they allow that.

[Sampson]

22 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

My mother-in-law is one of those. Currently in a care home with Parkinsons dementia. She pays over £1,600 a week (WEEK!) for her care and support. We sold her bungalow to cover it. Her fees are not only paying for her care but also currently contributing around 43% of the cost of another resident that receives local authority funding. So, actually providing a substantial return for her demographic at her stage of life. I'm sure the carers are also grateful of the employment that she pays for and giving the establishment owners a substantial profit. 

 

There are many, many in this situation. Not all old people are a drain on the tax payer and economy. In fact, just the opposite.

And this is the exact problem in that it’s too emotional subject to approach because people will use these emotional anecdotal examples in their own life, that it becomes a political impossibility. It’s not saying *all pensioners are scroungers-* but it’s an objective fact reported annually by the ONS that people over 65 cost the state over twice as much per person than those under it in terms of healthcare costs and pensions (which are the 2 biggest areas of state funding), while over 65s as a whole objectively put much less money into the economy as tax payers than those under 65 as a whole 

 

. The older the population becomes and the smaller and smaller ratio to the working population there is the more and more unsustainable it comes to support. That isn’t a judgement on anyone, that isn’t saying your granny is a scrounger, it’s just the objective situation we are in 

Edited 11 hours ago by Sampson

[Torquay Gunner]

48 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Especially when the majority of those voters will be the ones losing out. That’s the catch 22 of it all.

 

I think we should all strap in for 60 hour work weeks and 1 day weekends in the not too distant future because that’s inevitably where it’s ending up. 

Society will not accept retreating back to the Victorian era and nor should it.  I don't know the answer, but it's certainly not that. 

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Torquay Gunner said:

Society will not accept retreating back to the Victorian era and nor should it.  I don't know the answer, but it's certainly not that. 

No, and that's another way for the world to end up burning.

[LcFc_Smiv]

16 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

My mother-in-law is one of those. Currently in a care home with Parkinsons dementia. She pays over £1,600 a week (WEEK!) for her care and support. We sold her bungalow to cover it. Her fees are not only paying for her care but also currently contributing around 43% of the cost of another resident that receives local authority funding. So, actually providing a substantial return for her demographic at her stage of life. I'm sure the carers are also grateful of the employment that she pays for and giving the establishment owners a substantial profit. 

 

There are many, many in this situation. Not all old people are a drain on the tax payer and economy. In fact, just the opposite.

I certainly don't mean to tar each individual nor their situation with the same brush, nor was I highlighting the situation as anyone's fault or even stating that is wrong etc. As I stated it can go into far deeper depths of a discussion and debate, the problem is we largely live in a world where life expectancy is ever increasing, that's great for keeping our loved ones around, but every other aspect of life is not geared up or ready to cope with this demand. 

 

As others have stated we are in a position where parties are having to try and put forward the best of a bunch of bad options to manage situations such as this. No one wins, but a lot more anger and despair will come of it with a lot of finger pointing and blame being cast from side to side.

[Sampson]

11 minutes ago, Torquay Gunner said:

Society will not accept retreating back to the Victorian era and nor should it.  I don't know the answer, but it's certainly not that. 

We’ll see what happens in Japan and South Korea over the next few years as it will hit them first before Europe, but I’d bet decent money at this point that you’re sadly wrong and that as long as some populist who blabbers on amount immigrants and waves a flag does it, people will happily go with it.

[purpleronnie]

Not met one reform voter yet that hasn't mentioned the reason they voted was because of the boats.  I offer up facts and evidence, they aren't interested.

[Lionator]

5 minutes ago, purpleronnie said:

Not met one reform voter yet that hasn't mentioned the reason they voted was because of the boats.  I offer up facts and evidence, they aren't interested.

I met an Irish bloke the other week who told me about a video Jim Davidson had got hold of where it showed Keir Starmer having sex with his political donor and that he was personally involved in facilitating the grooming gangs. When I politely suggested this might not be true he seemed staggered that I could think that way?

[SpacedX]

2 minutes ago, Sampson said:

We’ll see what happens in Japan and South Korea over the next few years as it will hit them first before Europe, but I’d bet decent money at this point that you’re sadly wrong and that as long as some populist who blabbers on amount immigrants and waves a flag does it, people will happily go with it.

Obviously, disregarding some of the outright abject stupidity that has been posted on this forum, it's hard to recall a recent time in which I've so vehemently disagreed with an opinion from such and ordinarily rational member. 

 

Taking Japan as an example, who have long faced international condemnation for their excessive working hours and levels of presenteeism leading to work related stress and related health and well being issues, they are actively working to reduce working hours, with initiatives like the 'Work Style Reform' campaign. This aims to limit overtime, engender  flexible work arrangements with the objective of fostering a more favourable work-life balance. 

 

The voting public simply will not accept a reversion to a longer working week and the majority of employers will oppose it. We are moving in the opposite direction. Microsoft Japan and a host of other companies, including Panasonic and Unilever, experimented with a four-day working week. Microsoft Japan's experiment in 2019 reported a productivity increase by 40%. Other companies, like Bolt and Kickstarter, who have also explored the idea still offer it several years after a successful pilot scheme. 

[Torquay Gunner]

15 minutes ago, Sampson said:

We’ll see what happens in Japan and South Korea over the next few years as it will hit them first before Europe, but I’d bet decent money at this point that you’re sadly wrong and that as long as some populist who blabbers on amount immigrants and waves a flag does it, people will happily go with it.

Sorry, but that’s extremely unlikely.  I will take that bet. 

[leicsmac]

It's certainly an interesting topic.

 

... and "interesting" isn't always "good".

 

[Lionator]

The Power of Nightmares by Adam Curtis on bbc iplayer, is a great watch in this context. 

[Sampson]

22 minutes ago, SpacedX said:

Obviously, disregarding some of the outright abject stupidity that has been posted on this forum, it's hard to recall a recent time in which I've so vehemently disagreed with an opinion from such and ordinarily rational member. 

 

Taking Japan as an example, who have long faced international condemnation for their excessive working hours and levels of presenteeism leading to work related stress and related health and well being issues, they are actively working to reduce working hours, with initiatives like the 'Work Style Reform' campaign. This aims to limit overtime, engender  flexible work arrangements with the objective of fostering a more favourable work-life balance. 

 

The voting public simply will not accept a reversion to a longer working week and the majority of employers will oppose it. We are moving in the opposite direction. Microsoft Japan and a host of other companies, including Panasonic and Unilever, experimented with a four-day working week. Microsoft Japan's experiment in 2019 reported a productivity increase by 40%. Other companies, like Bolt and Kickstarter, who have also explored the idea still offer it several years after a successful pilot scheme. 

My argument about Japan and South Korea was simply that they will reach the population precipice a lot sooner because of their much stricter opposition to immigration compared to Europe.

 

As far as I can see the alternatives to longer working hours to stop state bankruptcy in a population largely of seniors are (given we’re already past the point where increasing birth rates will make a difference before the bottleneck)

 

1. Large-scale immigration which is our current solution but becoming more and more politically impossible 

 

2. Massively reducing state support for pensions and healthcare and inevitably reducing the life expectancy too 

 

Both of which also seem politically impossible atm.

Edited 10 hours ago by Sampson

[Dahnsouff]

3. Remove the retirement age and the state pension

 

An awful unfair approach

 

One of these approaches will become more tolerable the worse things get you would imagine

[SpacedX]

13 minutes ago, Sampson said:

My argument about Japan and South Korea was simply that they will reach the population precipice a lot sooner because of their much stricter opposition to immigration compared to Europe.

 

As far as I can see the alternatives to longer working hours to stop state bankruptcy in a population largely of seniors are (given we’re already past the point where increasing birth rates will make a difference before the bottleneck)

 

1. Large-scale immigration which is our current solution but becoming more and more politically impossible 

 

2. Massively reducing state support for pensions and healthcare and inevitably reducing the life expectancy too 

 

Both of which also seem politically impossible atm.

But your argument is predicated upon the false premise that longer working hours are beneficial to the state economy. Studies have shown productivity per hour declines after employees work more than 50 hours a week and the drop off is even more pronounced after 60 hours. That there is an inverse relationship between productivity and longer working hours is now consensual. 

 

I think that it is far more likely that in the near future the state retirement age will be raised to 70 - possibly for those born on or after April 1980. 

[Sampson]

8 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

3. Remove the retirement age and the state pension

 

An awful unfair approach

 

One of these approaches will become more tolerable the worse things get you would imagine

That was what I meant by point 2, that’s just an extreme version of it.

 

The last bit is my exact point, except that if voters are majority older than I expect the option for the extra burden to fall on workers with longer working hours to win out as most tolerable option in an election just by people in an older voting demographic voting in their own interest.

[Sampson]

3 minutes ago, SpacedX said:

But your argument is predicated upon the false premise that longer working hours are beneficial to the state economy. Studies have shown productivity per hour declines after employees work more than 50 hours a week and the drop off is even more pronounced after 60 hours. That there is an inverse relationship between productivity and longer working hours is now consensual. 

 

I think that it is far more likely that in the near future the state retirement age will be raised to 70 - possibly for those born on or after April 1980. 

I’m not disagreeing with you on thar. I’m talking about what a population with a median voting age of 60 will vote for. You’re missing my point as to why population ageing is a fundamental problem with democracy - because it’s the people who are causing the biggest financial burden to the state who are the plurality of voters. I certainly don’t see them voting for increasing the pension age when they are the ones voting.

Edited 10 hours ago by Sampson

[SpacedX]

3 minutes ago, Sampson said:

 You’re missing my point as to why population ageing is a fundamental problem with democracy - because it’s the people who are causing the biggest financial burden to the state who are the plurality of voters. 

No, I really am not. I am wholeheartedly in agreement with you there and that wasn't what I was disputing. 

Edited 10 hours ago by SpacedX

[Dahnsouff]

1 minute ago, Sampson said:

That was what I meant by point 2, that’s just an extreme version of it.

 

The last bit is my exact point, except that if voters are majority older than I expect the option for the extra burden to fall on workers with longer working hours to win out as most tolerable option in an election just by people in an older voting demographic voting in their own interest.

But in this inevitable/extreme scenario, you might expect those who pay for others to refuse a greater burden once the contribution is so far beyond that which those who are being funded have had to bear.

Meaning we would risk the creation of a multi-tiered society, but the creation occurring not from the feared oligarchy, instead from a discontent among the tax paying masses who are forcing the reform of our democracy towards a more reciprocal nature.

[The Year Of The Fox]

1 hour ago, purpleronnie said:

Not met one reform voter yet that hasn't mentioned the reason they voted was because of the boats.  I offer up facts and evidence, they aren't interested.

Can we hear them?