[Offers] Depopulation crisis

[1066familyman]

I don't understand why house prices and rent are so high. If Joe average can't afford them, who is paying high prices and rents?

1. Bank of Mum and Dad is paying for the high house prices.

2. Those without access to that privilege are paying the high rents and struggling big time as a result.


Worth noting that many people using food banks in this country are actually part of the 'working poor'.

Also worth noting that the Housing Benefit bill is huge! So who exactly really is rinsing the Welfare State

 

[Quebec Seagull]

Canada's been processing approx. 200 000 - 300 000 qualified immigrants/year for a generation, now -- that's close to 1% of the total population/year. This began with a Conservative government; even they saw the potential for old-age pension payout disaster in the 2030s and decided to significantly increase our number of newcomers, as we call them. Our unemployment rate hovers around 6%, so no one can say that immigrants are a drain on our economy.

Ottawa and the provinces and territories (PTs) pay out child benefits/allowances to every household with children. Here in Québec, we subsidize 90% of daycare costs so that families -- and especially single parents whose exes, like mine, don't provide alimony or child support and who would otherwise have to live on welfare, as in other PTs -- can afford to work, to live relatively comfortably and to have discretionary income to pump back into the economy. I've been raising 4 children completely alone and working full time since 2014, and managed to accumulate a total of roughly £200 000 during this period. Could I have burdened myself with a mortgage, frequent home repair costs, property taxes, etc.? Yes, but instead, I'm renting a townhouse, making wise investments ahead of retirement (I'm 57) and enjoying treating myself and the kids to trips, cruises, theatre subscriptions, concerts and shows, dinners out, nice clothes, frequent gifts, etc. I can also afford to chip in for half the children's university fees (they have to earn the rest). Our subsidized child care programme has proven so successful the past 30 years that steam is picking up for the creation of a similar federal programme.

We have up to 18 months of paid parental leave (avg. of 55% of regular salary, 75% in Québec, with set $ maximum) that can be split between a couple; it's very common for the mother to take the first 6-12 months off and the father the remaining 6 months. Unlike in the US, it is strictly illegal for employers to fire employees on parental leave or hire a permanent replacement; your position and salary are guaranteed when you return, even in the private sector.

** I say 'mother' and 'father', but same-sex couples have exactliy the same rights and privileges.

I know space is an issue in the UK and Europe; it is in Canada, too, believe it or not -- many cities are experiencing a housing shortage, and they can't simply continue to expand territorially without stretching infrastructure and budgets to the breaking point. But as the Boomer generation begins to peter out, many are foreseeing a buyer's and renter's market for the under-40 set, with balanced demographics and costs of living that will ensure our social-democratic survival. Whether your more populous nations can follow Canada's and Scandinavia's example remains to be seen, but at least you have a viable blueprint to work from.

.

 

[FatSuperman]

Context required.

Very few Boomers went to Uni.

1970 average wage circa £1200
2019 average wage circa £26000

1970 average house price circa £4700
2019 average house price circa £235000

Not arguing that it is tough, but no need for BS.

It really depends what years you choose and where, there is a load of variance. But I think it's a little more than tough mate.

Boomers rent was about 10% of their salary, it's now between 35% and 40% in the South East. It is now incredibly hard for youngsters to get anywhere, and old people say shit like 'stop drinking coffee and eating avocado'. Generalising but I come across 2 quite distinct types of young people in my industry, ones that work at least as hard as anyone I've ever worked with - killing themselves and not getting very fair really. And those that think it's futile and refuse to be slaves, preferring to live their life. They still work hard, but when they clock off, they really clock off. I don't blame them at all.

But this was about depopulation. It's a wicked problem and when it crashes, it can really spiral. As the nation ages and there aren't enough working people, the burden on those that do work (especially the young) becomes even worse. So people not having kids because it's too expensive, will certainly not have kids when it gets worse.

Nobody really knows what the answer is, because there have been lots of experiments with tax breaks, financial payouts, etc. Possibly a part of it is that you basically need two wages to survive now, so when you both work, it's hard to give that up for long.

God knows what the answer is, but those people saying "oh we could do with fewer people" really haven't thought about the second and nth order implications.

 

[US Seagull]

I don't understand why house prices and rent are so high. If Joe average can't afford them, who is paying high prices and rents?

Investors.

 

[Han Solo]

These are a fun subject! Here's my thoughts, hopefully not controversial or stepping on any toes.

Just been linking a few items together after a recent trip to Korea where I had a conversation on their depopulation issues with their fertility rate dropping to <1 for divert woman (sustainability rate is 2.1). Followed up by a number of YouTube videos and articles - is this now a big crisis to life and society as we know it. The current uk rate is now down to 1.44. Even India has now dropped to <2.1. the Repercussions are huge with not enough people going into the workforce to replace the existing workforce and as we age then pensions aren’t sustainable. For example in Italy there are currently 1million 50yr olds, but there was only 440,000 babies born, so in 20 years time there will be huge shortfall with most of the 1million still being alive and pensioners with less than 1/2 paying for their pensions. As the financial position gets worse we’ll probably be seeing even less children. So my thought is do we now need policies to encourage the younger generations to starting to have more kids, such as tax breaks, increased child allowance, subsidised childcare?

A "lack of workforce" is not going to be an issue in the future.

The United Kingdom had no real Age of Enlightenment. This means values and traditions were not entirely abandoned for rationality, which means a higher level of suspicion towards technology than in say France, US, Germany, Scandinavia etc, which in turn means that technological penetration is slower. A solution that is presented as benefitting society is not quickly accepted if it means substantial change to how people live their lives.

But just because it takes more time doesn't mean it won't happen: soon, sooner than you think, Artificial intelligence will be eating big parts of the work market, and unemployment will rise as quickly as it currently does in Sweden and Germany.

There is no real need for new humans, which is the main reason not a lot of new humans are created.

I think it’s a feature of most western countries plus (in addition to those you mention), Russia and China. Individual countries will no doubt introduce policies to support and encourage population growth (including managed immigration) - though arguably the world needs fewer people rather than more.

It is a feature of every country that has a high degree of socialisation/organisation, where the masses can be reached and engineered. The mechanisms that make people reproduce or avoid it are well known, and can be changed by modifying the environment. For instance we know that sexualisation of culture removes the connection between sex and conception, so in countries where this has been removed, people can take the pleasure without the pain. In countries where God is King, the connection between having sex and getting children is considered moral and (more importantly) natural.

In London and paying £985 a month for 2 days a week for 2.5 year old.

Luckily the older one is now at school. At one point we had the pair of them in nursery on 3 days a week which was something like £2300 a month. It’s crazy money.

As a society we have moved away from the old model of a working father and a housewife (which for many reasons is a good thing) without finding a new method that sufficiently supports parents with pre-school children. Are there any comparable countries with better childcare arrangements? If so, what’s their birth rate?

In Sweden this is the arrangement:
- Pre-school/nursery never costs more than £131 (for those with the highest income) per month for kids 0-3 years old. This is for full time nursery (above 30 hours per week). Any less hours than that and the maximum cost is £88 per month.

- In addition, if you have two children, only the youngest one will cost (at most) £131, with number 2 costing £88 and number 3 ~£40. Child 4 and above are cost free.

- For kids aged 3-5, the fee is never higher than £88 as all kids in this category are allowed 15 hours of free pre-school.

And no, the Swedish arrangement where pre-school is cheap, food in schools is free and university is free, does not lead higher birth rates, because there is no immediate link between prosperity and having children. Historically, women who go to university give birth to their first child much later than those who don't. High standards and accessible education decreases birth rates, not the other way around.

The most important (but far from only) factor in people getting kids or not depends on the opportunity to get space - not money.

The latest baby boom in Sweden was in the early 90s when the economy collapsed. In the 80s the finance markets were deregulated and people borrowed absurd amounts of money and this eventually lead to hyperinflation only stopped through the Central Bank raising interest to 500%.

Since people could not pay their house loans, the bank or state took them and sold them dirt cheap and the young generation that bought these from the indebted elders reproduced like rabbits. When the housing market recovered, child birth decreased.

It's a demographic problem. Some parts of the world need slower population growth - too many people = bad news. Other parts - especially where large families are considered essential to counter infant deaths - need less growth. They become overcrowded - immigration (mainly northward and westward) occurs; populations settle in their new homes, and while the indigenous population is reducing its birth rate for reasons of economy, sustainability etc, the newcomers retain their tradition of breeding to allow for infant death in an environment where infant death is less of an issue because of healthcare. The resulting in-balance causes tension - and off we go again.

Women in the workplace still aren't finding equality though, are they, as the misogyny just moved location, with women routinely paid less for the same job as a man. Both exploited by the Capitalist system, but often the women more so.

What needs recognising is the value to society of raising children and maintaining a happy family home. That doesn't necessarily mean the woman has to stay at home, but it does mean free child care, or even 'wages for housework', as the Italian left wing feminist group, Lotta Femminista, argued for.

Depopulation will be a problem for Capitalist societies. If exploitation of workers continues at a pace where those workers can no longer even afford to breed the next generation of workers.

In short, Capitalism needs to 'give its ****ing head a wobble', to use a favoured phrase on here.

The elites doesn't like you walking around with nothing to do any more than your old feodalist lord did. If he does not need you, he will certainly try and prevent you from creating another you. Social darwinism is not a beautiful thing but it is rational, and rational in the end will win over a "happy family home". The 10-50% most capable of adapting and accepting the requirements of competing in future society will remain useful and breeding, until they are not; there is obviously a point where the oligarchy can live eternal lives surrounded by robots.

Canada's been processing approx. 200 000 - 300 000 qualified immigrants/year for a generation, now -- that's close to 1% of the total population/year. This began with a Conservative government; even they saw the potential for old-age pension payout disaster in the 2030s and decided to significantly increase our number of newcomers, as we call them. Our unemployment rate hovers around 6%, so no one can say that immigrants are a drain on our economy.

I know space is an issue in the UK and Europe; it is in Canada, too, believe it or not -- many cities are experiencing a housing shortage, and they can't simply continue to expand territorially without stretching infrastructure and budgets to the breaking point. But as the Boomer generation begins to peter out, many are foreseeing a buyer's and renter's market for the under-40 set, with balanced demographics and costs of living that will ensure our social-democratic survival. Whether your more populous nations can follow Canada's and Scandinavia's example remains to be seen, but at least you have a viable blueprint to work from.

.

Where is the growth of the last 40 years located in Western countries?

It is not in the standard of living. It is in the house.

Where is the increase in household debt located? In Canada and Scandinavia the household debts are now over a 100% of GDP.

In the house loan.

What has suppressed inflation from the level it should have had in a globalised society with fiat currencies?

Again: the money haven't been flowing other markets than the housing/property ones.

The housing bubble in these countries are allowed to persist because of the effects that comes through solving it.. The average mortgage in Canada is $349,364. With a decrease in demand or - worse - a surplus in housing, would obviously lower house costs. If the house you loaned £350k to buy is now worth £100k you - and your bank - will get very, very worried. A housing surplus would mean burning money worth billions and billions. The consequences would be enormous.

Unless such a crisis is desired, it will be prevented by any means possible. If some of the 200 million climate refugees expected in a few years needs to be provided housing to avoid this surplus, it will most certainly be done. Without a complete change of how the macro economic systems function, there is no non-system threatening way out of the housing bubble - it has been growing for so long that it needs to persist to avoid financial collapse.

 

[heathgate]

Canada's been processing approx. 200 000 - 300 000 qualified immigrants/year for a generation, now -- that's close to 1% of the total population/year. This began with a Conservative government; even they saw the potential for old-age pension payout disaster in the 2030s and decided to significantly increase our number of newcomers, as we call them. Our unemployment rate hovers around 6%, so no one can say that immigrants are a drain on our economy.

Ottawa and the provinces and territories (PTs) pay out child benefits/allowances to every household with children. Here in Québec, we subsidize 90% of daycare costs so that families -- and especially single parents whose exes, like mine, don't provide alimony or child support and who would otherwise have to live on welfare, as in other PTs -- can afford to work, to live relatively comfortably and to have discretionary income to pump back into the economy. I've been raising 4 children completely alone and working full time since 2014, and managed to accumulate a total of roughly £200 000 during this period. Could I have burdened myself with a mortgage, frequent home repair costs, property taxes, etc.? Yes, but instead, I'm renting a townhouse, making wise investments ahead of retirement (I'm 57) and enjoying treating myself and the kids to trips, cruises, theatre subscriptions, concerts and shows, dinners out, nice clothes, frequent gifts, etc. I can also afford to chip in for half the children's university fees (they have to earn the rest). Our subsidized child care programme has proven so successful the past 30 years that steam is picking up for the creation of a similar federal programme.

We have up to 18 months of paid parental leave (avg. of 55% of regular salary, 75% in Québec, with set $ maximum) that can be split between a couple; it's very common for the mother to take the first 6-12 months off and the father the remaining 6 months. Unlike in the US, it is strictly illegal for employers to fire employees on parental leave or hire a permanent replacement; your position and salary are guaranteed when you return, even in the private sector.

** I say 'mother' and 'father', but same-sex couples have exactliy the same rights and privileges.

I know space is an issue in the UK and Europe; it is in Canada, too, believe it or not -- many cities are experiencing a housing shortage, and they can't simply continue to expand territorially without stretching infrastructure and budgets to the breaking point. But as the Boomer generation begins to peter out, many are foreseeing a buyer's and renter's market for the under-40 set, with balanced demographics and costs of living that will ensure our social-democratic survival. Whether your more populous nations can follow Canada's and Scandinavia's example remains to be seen, but at least you have a viable blueprint to work from.

.

....and yet, for all your detailed statistics, Canada's economy is in a parlous state, cost of living is through the roof for ordinary folk...plus the nation is in the middle of a huge debate about the Trudeau waves of immigration....

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I don't understand why house prices and rent are so high. If Joe average can't afford them, who is paying high prices and rents?

It isn't a question of why, buy how.
The how is this is 'market price'.
That is, what a buyer will pay.

So that means there are buyers.
These would be people already in the market with a place to sell,
Or the kids of people like me who have either downsized or taken a retirement lump sum to set the kid up.

 

[fork me]

This is a problem that no politician is even talking about and I don’t know why as its impact is huge

I know why, it's because there is no easy solution to it that they can try and buy votes with.

It's a long term problem with no easy solution making it an electoral nightmare.

 

[Blues Guitarist]

Investors.

I understand that investors push the purchase prices up, but if people can't afford to rent, how do they make a return?