[Politics] Cost of Living Crisis

[Simster]

That was a bit of kite-flying, I can't see that happening: not yet, at least. But it's beginning to be clear that something needs to be done - the UK's on an unsustainable path that needs to be halted. The low birth rate has been masked by high levels of immigration but if those are cut, we're really exposed.

Assuming we're not going for the Logan's Run solution, there are three options: reinstate immigration levels; provide greater financial incentives for having kids (tax concessions, free childcare etc) or raise the pension age considerably (70, 75, possibly 80 in time). Sooner or later, a government is going to have to tackle this issue

It won't be this government, they don't tackle anything.

Student debt, the cost of living crisis, a housing shortage, a labour shortage, the Northern Irish issue with regard to Brexit - no can is too big not to be kicked down the road for this useless shower of shit.

 

[Gwylan]

It won't be this government, they don't tackle anything.

Student debt, the cost of living crisis, a housing shortage, a labour shortage, the Northern Irish issue with regard to Brexit - no can is too big not to be kicked down the road for this useless shower of shit.

Well, that's true. And it's not really a big issue at the moment ... but it will begin to be in 20 years time and it will be a full-blown crisis in 40 years if something isn't done.

I suspect that it will be a combination of measures: higher retirement age, some relaxation of immigration restrictions and some tax concessions.

Ideally, it's something that should be agreed multi-party so there's no dramatic shift in policy - another reason to vote this lot out

 

[Swansman]

Well, that's true. And it's not really a big issue at the moment ... but it will begin to be in 20 years time and it will be a full-blown crisis in 40 years if something isn't done.

I suspect that it will be a combination of measures: higher retirement age, some relaxation of immigration restrictions and some tax concessions.

Ideally, it's something that should be agreed multi-party so there's no dramatic shift in policy - another reason to vote this lot out

That was a bit of kite-flying, I can't see that happening: not yet, at least. But it's beginning to be clear that something needs to be done - the UK's on an unsustainable path that needs to be halted. The low birth rate has been masked by high levels of immigration but if those are cut, we're really exposed.

Assuming we're not going for the Logan's Run solution, there are three options: reinstate immigration levels; provide greater financial incentives for having kids (tax concessions, free childcare etc) or raise the pension age considerably (70, 75, possibly 80 in time). Sooner or later, a government is going to have to tackle this issue

A transition into a world with fewer people in general is the most likely outcome IMO.

Don't see the point in raising the retirement age? In 40 years, whatever you do will be able to be done by a computer or robot.

 

[Eric the meek]

Fertility rates have been declining for 2 decades across the EU/UK for 20 years (except France), particularly amongst the populace born in the country. Our current 1.58 sits in the middle.

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/ddn-20210323-2

That’s despite childcare provision, parental leave and greater housing supply in apartment blocks on the continent.

Analysis online often mention the reason as a disagreement in couples on when to start a family, also lifestyle choices.

That first graph shows an overall reduction in fertility rate in the UK, post Brexit referendum, as fewer foreign born women are giving birth.

 

[Gwylan]

Don't see the point in raising the retirement age? In 40 years, whatever you do will be able to be done by a computer or robot.

Don't know what it's like in Sweden but current job seeker's allowance in the UK is £77, current basic state pension is £141 (but is generally higher) - that's 64 good reasons right there

 

[Eric the meek]

A transition into a world with fewer people in general is the most likely outcome IMO.

Don't see the point in raising the retirement age? In 40 years, whatever you do will be able to be done by a computer or robot.

You are right Swanny, but that's not really Gwylan's point. His point was 'who is going to pay the National Insurance contributions that will fund the state pensions of pensioners in 40 years time?'.

The answer, is raise the retirement age. Stop them from being pensioners in the first place. Or to put it another way, do you trust future governments to fund your retirement from say, age 50?

Who exactly will pay for it? Will it even be politically and socially acceptable?

 

[Gwylan]

You are right Swanny, but that's not really Gwylan's point. His point was 'who is going to pay the National Insurance contributions that will fund the state pensions of pensioners in 40 years time?'.

The answer, is raise the retirement age. Stop them from being pensioners in the first place. Or to put it another way, do you trust future governments to fund your retirement from say, age 50?

Who exactly will pay for it? Will it even be politically and socially acceptable?

Indeed. And if what Swanny says is true and there'll be fewer and fewer jobs, we'll have the perfect storm of a smaller working-age population, with high levels of unemployment paying for more pensioners, living longer. That's completely unsustainable

 

[Eric the meek]

Indeed. And if what Swanny says is true and there'll be fewer and fewer jobs, we'll have the perfect storm of a smaller working-age population, with high levels of unemployment paying for more pensioners, living longer. That's completely unsustainable

Absolutely. Again, you've hit the nail on the head.

Swanny's point is valid, but doesn't solve the problem of how to pay for it.

Here is a multi-billionaire's view of the future. I was watching an interview with Elon Musk. He was asked a question along the lines of 'what is the greatest challenge we will face in the future?' His answer was 'what to do with our leisure time, because we will have more of it'. That's a nice problem to have, as long as you have sorted out your food and shelter first.

 

[Machiavelli]

A transition into a world with fewer people in general is the most likely outcome IMO.

Don't see the point in raising the retirement age? In 40 years, whatever you do will be able to be done by a computer or robot.

You are right Swanny, but that's not really Gwylan's point. His point was 'who is going to pay the National Insurance contributions that will fund the state pensions of pensioners in 40 years time?'.

The answer, is raise the retirement age. Stop them from being pensioners in the first place. Or to put it another way, do you trust future governments to fund your retirement from say, age 50?

Who exactly will pay for it? Will it even be politically and socially acceptable?

Well, I think you're both wrong. The notion that all labour will be performed by a machine in 40 years time, and that the next generations will be enjoying a leisure-rich life is for the birds.
We're currently working more, despite predictions from the likes of Keynes that we'd be working 15 hour weeks. I'm a strong advocate that we should develop a politics around all of us working collectively less among other things, but this still remains one of the many unpopular positions that I have that attracts scant support.

 

[Gwylan]

Well, I think you're both wrong. The notion that all labour will be performed by a machine in 40 years time, and that the next generations will be enjoying a leisure-rich life is for the birds.
We're currently working more

This isn't true: we currently work, on average 36.5 hours per week (the only time it's been lower than that is during the pandemic). Thirty years ago, we were working 38.2 hours per week. With a growing number of companies looking at four day weeks, I suspect this number will fall further.

Having said that, I don't agree fully with Swanny's premise. I do think there will be more unemployment and I do think there'll be shorter working weeks but nothing like as drastic as he suggests. There will be more jobs emerging as we go forward. But the issue of funding pensions will remain an issue however.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

I had an interesting discussion with a friend who is a GP. This may appear a bit like the comments from Labour MP Dr Gibson who mentioned inbreeding as causing health issues in Norfolk. He used the term in the scientific meaning but it caused a lot of grief.

My friend highlighted two main areas of concern that she had studied at length, especially given her surgery is used by university students mainly and by a relatively poor area within Hastings.

Firstly for years the health service, schools, youth workers and so on had attempted to educate youngsters on safe sex, huge publicity. Teenage pregnancies have fallen dramatically in the last decade. While the authorities were slapping themselves on the back for doing such a good job hardly any of it was down to them. In fact, she said, it was the growth of the smart phone, it meant youngsters were/are conducting their relationships via a screen with fewer of them actually having sex. This can be deemed a success overall but comes with huge worries over grooming and a lack of face to face communication skills.

The second point she made is probably more controversial. Couples are having their children later, this is usually a financial concerns with cost of housing, childcare etc. They are having less children overall.

The controversial bit is while the decision to have children is being delayed this is mainly done by well educated working couples. Their children's needs are less complicated. The less educated are continuing as they have always done, having children on benefits, but also these children are far more likely to have special needs. This is a concern not just to the health and education service and the associated cost to the country but will have a knock on effect as these children reach adulthood.

The odds are definitely stacked against children from poor backgrounds and she has no doubt not just parental guidance but genes play a huge part in their development.

Not sure I totally agree, it's controversial but does have some merit. Personally while I do agree genes do play a part I mainly believe it's parental guidance that determines the outcome. When I see a huge woman sitting on her buggy with her chubster kid standing on the foot plate I despair for the poor kid.

I suppose the issue for the future could be that with a falling birth rate and a higher percentage of those children will be unable or indeed unwilling to fill the necessary vacancies. Adding to that the complete failure on immigration I do worry.

 

[Machiavelli]

This isn't true: we currently work, on average 36.5 hours per week (the only time it's been lower than that is during the pandemic). Thirty years ago, we were working 38.2 hours per week. With a growing number of companies looking at four day weeks, I suspect this number will fall further.

Having said that, I don't agree fully with Swanny's premise. I do think there will be more unemployment and I do think there'll be shorter working weeks but nothing like as drastic as he suggests. There will be more jobs emerging as we go forward. But the issue of funding pensions will remain an issue however.

Well, I think it is true. The stats you provide is just one metric, and hardly shows a plummeting work time (there is a marginal fall, granted). There are plenty of other metrics that could be resorted to (eg increasing work lives) that tell a different picture.
What's more important is that we're a world away from the 15 hours a week Keynes was projecting nearly a century ago. If we aimed towards that, we could re-direct the economy towards core functions (health, care, education) and away from the unnecessary consumption and high emissions that remains its dominant feature.

 

[dazzer6666]

I had an interesting discussion with a friend who is a GP. This may appear a bit like the comments from Labour MP Dr Gibson who mentioned inbreeding as causing health issues in Norfolk. He used the term in the scientific meaning but it caused a lot of grief.

My friend highlighted two main areas of concern that she had studied at length, especially given her surgery is used by university students mainly and by a relatively poor area within Hastings.

Firstly for years the health service, schools, youth workers and so on had attempted to educate youngsters on safe sex, huge publicity. Teenage pregnancies have fallen dramatically in the last decade. While the authorities were slapping themselves on the back for doing such a good job hardly any of it was down to them. In fact, she said, it was the growth of the smart phone, it meant youngsters were/are conducting their relationships via a screen with fewer of them actually having sex. This can be deemed a success overall but comes with huge worries over grooming and a lack of face to face communication skills.

The second point she made is probably more controversial. Couples are having their children later, this is usually a financial concerns with cost of housing, childcare etc. They are having less children overall.

The controversial bit is while the decision to have children is being delayed this is mainly done by well educated working couples. Their children's needs are less complicated. The less educated are continuing as they have always done, having children on benefits, but also these children are far more likely to have special needs. This is a concern not just to the health and education service and the associated cost to the country but will have a knock on effect as these children reach adulthood.

The odds are definitely stacked against children from poor backgrounds and she has no doubt not just parental guidance but genes play a huge part in their development.

Not sure I totally agree, it's controversial but does have some merit. Personally while I do agree genes do play a part I mainly believe it's parental guidance that determines the outcome. When I see a huge woman sitting on her buggy with her chubster kid standing on the foot plate I despair for the poor kid.

I suppose the issue for the future could be that with a falling birth rate and a higher percentage of those children will be unable or indeed unwilling to fill the necessary vacancies. Adding to that the complete failure on immigration I do worry.

Not sure it’s overly controversial as the age thing is a fact….the last available (2014) census data confirms the inverse age/socio-economic relationship re childbirth



https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...oeconomicstatusandcountryofbirthofmother/2016

 

[KZNSeagull]

I had an interesting discussion with a friend who is a GP. This may appear a bit like the comments from Labour MP Dr Gibson who mentioned inbreeding as causing health issues in Norfolk. He used the term in the scientific meaning but it caused a lot of grief.

My friend highlighted two main areas of concern that she had studied at length, especially given her surgery is used by university students mainly and by a relatively poor area within Hastings.

Firstly for years the health service, schools, youth workers and so on had attempted to educate youngsters on safe sex, huge publicity. Teenage pregnancies have fallen dramatically in the last decade. While the authorities were slapping themselves on the back for doing such a good job hardly any of it was down to them. In fact, she said, it was the growth of the smart phone, it meant youngsters were/are conducting their relationships via a screen with fewer of them actually having sex. This can be deemed a success overall but comes with huge worries over grooming and a lack of face to face communication skills.

The second point she made is probably more controversial. Couples are having their children later, this is usually a financial concerns with cost of housing, childcare etc. They are having less children overall.

The controversial bit is while the decision to have children is being delayed this is mainly done by well educated working couples. Their children's needs are less complicated. The less educated are continuing as they have always done, having children on benefits, but also these children are far more likely to have special needs. This is a concern not just to the health and education service and the associated cost to the country but will have a knock on effect as these children reach adulthood.

The odds are definitely stacked against children from poor backgrounds and she has no doubt not just parental guidance but genes play a huge part in their development.

Not sure I totally agree, it's controversial but does have some merit. Personally while I do agree genes do play a part I mainly believe it's parental guidance that determines the outcome. When I see a huge woman sitting on her buggy with her chubster kid standing on the foot plate I despair for the poor kid.

I suppose the issue for the future could be that with a falling birth rate and a higher percentage of those children will be unable or indeed unwilling to fill the necessary vacancies. Adding to that the complete failure on immigration I do worry.

Which set of kids? I would have thought the ones born to older parents (35+) are more likely to have special needs but happy to be wrong.

 

[beorhthelm]

Which set of kids? I would have thought the ones born to older parents (35+) are more likely to have special needs but happy to be wrong.

was going to comment on that bit. its controversial because you have to be very very careful about wording, audience and implications. because its quite easily misinterpreted, looks dodgy or open to hijack. that bit i expect isnt meaning "special needs" as formal developmental term, more likely additional support to overcome socialeconomic disadvantages. (or there better be some evidence)

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

Which set of kids? I would have thought the ones born to older parents (35+) are more likely to have special needs but happy to be wrong.

https://www.tes.com/magazine/archive/children-poor-families-twice-likely-have-special-needs#:~:text=Children%20from%20poor%20families%20'twice%20as%20likely'%20to%20have%20special%20needs,-Pupils%20from%20low&text=Children%20from%20low%2Dincome%20families,them%20in%20childhood%2C%20it%20said.

This backs up a lot of what my friend stated. I have only just googled it.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

was going to comment on that bit. its controversial because you have to be very very careful about wording, audience and implications. because its quite easily misinterpreted, looks dodgy or open to hijack. that bit i expect isnt meaning "special needs" as formal developmental term, more likely additional support to overcome socialeconomic disadvantages. (or there better be some evidence)

I did indeed re-write it a couple of times attempting to convey her points correctly. Sometimes it comes across better in conversation than the written word.

 

[usernamed]

Well, I think it is true. The stats you provide is just one metric, and hardly shows a plummeting work time (there is a marginal fall, granted). There are plenty of other metrics that could be resorted to (eg increasing work lives) that tell a different picture.
What's more important is that we're a world away from the 15 hours a week Keynes was projecting nearly a century ago. If we aimed towards that, we could re-direct the economy towards core functions (health, care, education) and away from the unnecessary consumption and high emissions that remains its dominant feature.

Please tell me when you’ve organised your political party, I’ll vote for you. I have to say it’s refreshing to read your posts on politics.

As South Park so beautifully articulated 18 years ago with their “Douche and Turd” episode, we’re so often left with two dreadful options at the ballot box.

 

[Gwylan]

Well, I think it is true. The stats you provide is just one metric, and hardly shows a plummeting work time (there is a marginal fall, granted).
.

It is one metric but it's the metric you used: you were the one who said that the hours worked in a week was increasing and that's patently not true. I agree that the fall is well within the margin of statistical error but you certainly can't say we're working more.

I do agree however that we do need to work on redressing the way we handle and allocate work. There are examples of people working two or even three jobs to make a living while we have people taking early retirement or working part-time as they've bolstered their retirement funds. It's certainly going to be a tricky balancing act for a future government

 

[KZNSeagull]

https://www.tes.com/magazine/archive/children-poor-families-twice-likely-have-special-needs#:~:text=Children%20from%20poor%20families%20'twice%20as%20likely'%20to%20have%20special%20needs,-Pupils%20from%20low&text=Children%20from%20low%2Dincome%20families,them%20in%20childhood%2C%20it%20said.

This backs up a lot of what my friend stated. I have only just googled it.

Right, thanks very much. Very interesting