Declining Western populations

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Declining Western populations

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 3 of 9 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >

The groover 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. The problem is that the only way the West can see that growth can be achieved is by population growth. 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

The groover

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.

The problem is that the only way the West can see that growth can be achieved is by population growth.

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 one of the few jobs where I’d guess you wouldn’t mind the overtime! Mmm love her to bits but I need my rest!,
Alert a moderator to this post

Spiderman

Horsham 21 Mar 24 12.22pm

Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow

one of the few jobs where I’d guess you wouldn’t mind the overtime!

Mmm love her to bits but I need my rest!,

Alert a moderator to this post

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. The problem is that the only way the West can see that growth can be achieved is by population growth. 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

eaglesdare

21 Mar 24 12.27pm

Originally posted by The groover

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".

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. For sure, child care is absurdly expensive, and it is only when our governments recognise the insanity of the current path we are on that more will be done to encourage women or men to stay at home and raise families. Financial crises come and go but just remember that not so long ago people had five, ten maybe fifteen children and lived on far less than many of us do now. The consumer society has blinded us to what is important. We now demand two holidays a year, a huge flat screen telly, subscriptions to channels, absurdly expensive phones and a new car every couple of years just for starters. Sure we all want this stuff but paying for children is far more important and orders of magnitude more rewarding. 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 12.31pm

Send a Private Message to EverybodyDannsNow

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.
For sure, child care is absurdly expensive, and it is only when our governments recognise the insanity of the current path we are on that more will be done to encourage women or men to stay at home and raise families.
Financial crises come and go but just remember that not so long ago people had five, ten maybe fifteen children and lived on far less than many of us do now.
The consumer society has blinded us to what is important. We now demand two holidays a year, a huge flat screen telly, subscriptions to channels, absurdly expensive phones and a new car every couple of years just for starters. Sure we all want this stuff but paying for children is far more important and orders of magnitude more rewarding.

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. My mother had to give up work when she got married, as it was a given that she would have children and it was company policy to leave on marrying. She never went back to work. The issue is that the Government encouraged women to work irrespective of their personal circumstances. The UK got extra tax income and as a result the 'two times joint income' mortgage (or whatever the calculation was) led to the spiralling house prices which now force youngsters to live at home for longer/forever. The something that has to give is probably the mindset that both partners have to work. If - and its a big if - my generation is free to hand down our wealth to the next, then that would put money into the family unit thereby freeing up one of the partners to give up work, and the cycle could then be broken. I appreciate that scenario is from a position of privilege and that many families aren't in that position but it might help dilute the problem, if not solve it. 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? £80k feels conservative, but taking that as an example, what percentage of people are earning over £80k a year? It’s not a lot. 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

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.
My mother had to give up work when she got married, as it was a given that she would have children and it was company policy to leave on marrying. She never went back to work.
The issue is that the Government encouraged women to work irrespective of their personal circumstances. The UK got extra tax income and as a result the 'two times joint income' mortgage (or whatever the calculation was) led to the spiralling house prices which now force youngsters to live at home for longer/forever.
The something that has to give is probably the mindset that both partners have to work. If - and its a big if - my generation is free to hand down our wealth to the next, then that would put money into the family unit thereby freeing up one of the partners to give up work, and the cycle could then be broken.
I appreciate that scenario is from a position of privilege and that many families aren't in that position but it might help dilute the problem, if not solve it.

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?
£80k feels conservative, but taking that as an example, what percentage of people are earning over £80k a year? It’s not a lot.

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 12.38pm

Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger

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 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? £80k feels conservative, but taking that as an example, what percentage of people are earning over £80k a year? It’s not a lot. 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. Flooding the country with immigrants will only make everything worse.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

21 Mar 24 12.41pm

Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow

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.
Flooding the country with immigrants will only make everything worse.

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? £80k feels conservative, but taking that as an example, what percentage of people are earning over £80k a year? It’s not a lot. 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

Behind Enemy Lines

Sussex 21 Mar 24 12.56pm

Send a Private Message to Behind Enemy Lines

Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow

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

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. Kayla did Anfield & Old Trafford
Alert a moderator to this post

PalazioVecchio

south pole 21 Mar 24 1.37pm

Send a Private Message to PalazioVecchio

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

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.

Kayla did Anfield & Old Trafford

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. It is not Brexit that caused a lack of will among politicians. 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

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.
It is not Brexit that caused a lack of will among politicians.

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. Besides, how is flooding the country with Poles or Ukrainians, for example, helping retain our British culture? Sure we have more in common with Europeans, but it's hardly a solution for a number of reasons. 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

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.
Besides, how is flooding the country with Poles or Ukrainians, for example, helping retain our British culture?
Sure we have more in common with Europeans, but it's hardly a solution for a number of reasons.

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

Page 3 of 9 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Declining Western populations

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors