Your thoughts on immigration

[TragicMonkey]

Although a better solution than imperial conquest might be engineering and assisting a revolution in immigrant-source country. That might fix the country's problems and stem the inflow of immigrants, as well as leaving your hands relatively clean.

(edited for grammar)

 

[Jon_in_london]

Although a better solution than imperial conquest might be engineering and assisting a revolution in immigrant-source country. That might fix the country's problems and stem the inflow of immigrants, as well as leaving your hands relatively clean.

(edited for grammar)

Ah, a revolution. Better the devil you know......

 

[TragicMonkey]

Ah, a revolution. Better the devil you know......

An empire is more picturesque, though, so it's my favored choice.

 

[Earthborn]

The number of deaths does not follow a linear line.

So? Are people in the future suddenly going to be dying faster to make sure the young can continue paying for the old? Or what do you mean?

I think that we are using a different meanings of stability.

Explain what yours is then.

If a nation used a strict protocol in preventing unneeded immigrants from coming in, much false hope would be prevented.

You'll first have to define then what immigrants are needed. As I already explained, if we want to keep certain economic systems exactly the same as they are now, we'll be needing a lot more immigration than ever will be available. If we only allow immigrants in who can fill specific shortages in the labour market, we'll still be allowing in a lot more people than today.

And there is also the issue of people fleeing from war, persecution and hunger. I think it is hard to justify letting our needs prevail above theirs.

So then what? continue to shoe-horn in squillions of immigrants (who will also get old)?

I already said that immigration cannot be a preventive measure against the collapse of state pension systems. There is no way you can keep up the exponential growth needed for them. Such systems will have to be reformed.

In case you havent noticed, there is a finite amount of space- in the case of the uk, its very finite indeed.

If population growth of the native population is slowing, or the native population is even shrinking, if the immigrant population is not significantly large, or if it is the only reason the total population isn't shrinking, then space is really not relevant. If there are space problems at all, you would have had the exact same space problems if the population growth was caused by childbirths in the native population.

There is of course a finite space in every country, but there is also a finite number of immigrants. If the UK would open its borders completely, there wouldn't suddenly be 6000 million people wanting to get in. It will be hundreds of thousands, a few million at most.

People want to move to the UK because they think it is an attractive place and they think they'll have a better future there. If accessive immigration would make the UK a less attractive place, less people will go there. Let's also not forget that these people move not only because the UK is an attractive place, but also because the country they come from is an unattractive one. Immigration will slow down without strict immigration laws if these countries can become more prosperous themselves. If globalisation and the opening of markets to world trade is done right, that's going to happen too.

are they going to stand on each other's heads?

Not literally, but you'll probably need a bit more highrise than you currently have. One or two of those kilometers tall mega-skyscrapers that the Japanese have on their drawing boards will probably solve any supposed 'space problem' you think you have.

 

[AWPrime]

First off, I would like to see the worlds human population be reduced to more natural/substainable level.

So? Are people in the future suddenly going to be dying faster to make sure the young can continue paying for the old? Or what do you mean?

Two words: Bell Curve

Explain what yours is then.

When culture develops and retains their basic social and cultural integraty.


ps. Why are you advocating large scale immigration and state pension systems reform together?

 

[Earthborn]

First off, I would like to see the worlds human population be reduced to more natural/substainable level.

Well, with increased availability of medical care and contraceptives to people around the world, it appears you slowly get your wish.

Two words: Bell Curve

It will help if you explain what you mean with those words in this context.

When culture develops and retains their basic social and cultural integraty.

I have no idea what that means. Sounds like meaningless rhetoric to me, but surprise me by carefully defining the terms you use and how they relate to the issue of immigration

Why are you advocating large scale immigration and state pension systems reform together?

Because I think both are needed. Large scale immigration can postpone the problems with state pension, but it cannot solve them. They can only be solved by a significant increase in population, or by organising them completely differently.

 

[AWPrime]

Well, with increased availability of medical care and contraceptives to people around the world, it appears you slowly get your wish.

It will help if you explain what you mean with those words in this context.

All natural processes follow the bell curve. this is a line/figure which looks like a 'bell'. The meaning in this context is that when a group reaches an age that there will be a sharp reduction of numbers. After sometime the rate will slow down.

I have no idea what that means. Sounds like meaningless rhetoric to me, but surprise me by carefully defining the terms you use and how they relate to the issue of immigration.

I am going to give you the most simple example:

Little amount of immigration -> immigrating people get absorded into the host culture.

Massive amount of immigration -> immigrating people absorb the country. (bad)

Because I think both are needed. Large scale immigration can postpone the problems with state pension, but it cannot solve them. They can only be solved by a significant increase in population, or by organising them completely differently.

And increase the problem at the same time. How will those huge numbers of immigrants feel if the pension that they went to get will be sacked?

 

[CapelDodger]

from Nikk:

I'm dubious about the figures. I thought the top 10% in the U.S. owned far more than 31% of the wealth.

The figure is the share of income, not actual wealth. The distribution of real wealth is much more uneven. That's inheritance for you.

 

[CapelDodger]

from jay gw:

If every person were interchangeable, which his whole "pure chance" argument is based on, there would be no need to have ANY borders. All free borders arguments are based on that assumption.

I don't happen to believe that every person and culture are interchangeable.

A pretty uncontentious belief. It has nothing to do with anything I've posted here. People are interchangeable at birth insofar as most people take on the culture they're born into. My argument is that being born into a particular culture and economy doesn't give you any more right to take advantage of them than someone born elsewhere. They have as much right to them as someone who hasn't travelled. They also have the same right to change those cultures by presenting and arguing for something better. They're not going to win that argument if they want to replace democracy with Islam or Serbian gangster-government. If people want to come to the UK to create an Islamic state - rather than to live and work here - then I'd keep them out most definitely, but then I'd also be thinking like TragicMonkey:

Although a better solution than imperial conquest might be engineering and assisting a revolution in immigrant-source country. That might fix the country's problems and stem the inflow of immigrants, as well as leaving your hands relatively clean.

Export the good. But not with fire and sword. Well, not unless you really have to. Serbs and Taliban falling into that frame, of course.

 

[jay gw]

Little amount of immigration -> immigrating people get absorded into the host culture.

Massive amount of immigration -> immigrating people absorb the country. (bad)
_________

Good point. And it's happened, too. Many places.

Why don't you ask Native Americans what they think about immigration?

 

[CapelDodger]

from AWPrime:

All natural processes follow the bell curve. this is a line/figure which looks like a 'bell'.

Bollocks. Lemming populations? That bell won't ring.

I think there's too much concentration on populations rather than economies. Economic output is affected by productivity as well as workforce. Immigrants don't make more money in developed economies because they work harder than at home but because they work in a more productive economy. The effect is direct if they work in a factory or on a mechanised farm - more capital involved - or indirect, in services such as retail or catering. Productivity keeps increasing, and that should be taken into account.

When it comes to pensions, it's a political and economic question. How much of current economic output goes to unproductive members of society? And how much can the economy produce? The questions are the same whether the output is directed via taxes or via dividends paid to pension funds. Investment has to be planned to maximise output of useful goods and services - including those required by the retired. Workforce ditto. One thing abut demographic change is that it doesn't take you by surprise unless you're very short-sighted. If migrants change the workforce, you can tell when they're going to get old and make a pretty good estimate of birth-rates. So the planning evolves.

The political argument is about how current output is distributed between the productive and non-productive sectors of the population.

 

[Earthborn]

All natural processes follow the bell curve.

I would prefer to say: quite a lot of them.

this is a line/figure which looks like a 'bell'.

I know what a bell curve is. I wasn't born yesterday.

The meaning in this context is that when a group reaches an age that there will be a sharp reduction of numbers. After sometime the rate will slow down.

Bell curves usually describe distribution, not changes in time. They describe a 'normal distribution'.

The most common curve that describes changes in time is this one. Something increasely grows, but by that it gets closer to a limiting factor which slows it down again until it hits a plateau where it can't grow anymore. Take away that limiting factor and starting at that plateau the same thing repeats itself until it hits another limiting factor higher up.

Bell curves are rare in changes in time, because it requires the limiting factor to start decreasing at the same time as the growth reaches its peak. Limiting factors can change of course, but hardly ever in such a predictable way or so dependent on the thing they are limiting.

I also don't see how this relates to state pensions. If you have a population that doesn't have a birthrate at replacement level, you are going to have fewer and fewer young people paying for more and more old people, whether the baby boomers are dead or not.

Little amount of immigration -> immigrating people get absorded into the host culture.

Massive amount of immigration -> immigrating people absorb the country.

Depends on what the rate of immigration is and what the size of the population is. Some countries have higher immigration rates then others, but I don't think it is reasonable to assume that many countries will face an immigration rate so high that the majority of people will be immigrants if immigration is unrestricted. It will also probably be slow enough for lots of immigrants to be absorbed into the host culture (but probably keeping a part of their cultural heritage) that the immigrants of the next year will have to face a host culture that includes more people.

(bad)

Thanks for showing your biases. Why do you think this is bad? What is so special about culture that it must be preserved at all cost?

And increase the problem at the same time.

Yep. No easy answers. The problem gets bigger, but you get more time to try to solve it.

How will those huge numbers of immigrants feel if the pension that they went to get will be sacked?

Pretty mad. But reforming a system does not necessarily mean taking away accuired rights. It will mean organising them differently.

 

[Jon_in_london]

Thanks for showing your biases. Why do you think this is bad? What is so special about culture that it must be preserved at all cost?

Personally I value my native culture. Most people do. Maybe you dont think yours is worth a damn but then thats your bowl of soup.

 

[Ed]

from jay gw:What you'll be wanting is data on MoroccoOn the economyistribution of GDP : lowest 10% - 2.8%; highest - 30.5%. Figures for US : lowest 10%, 2%, highest 31%. It seems Morocco is a marginally more egalitarian state than the US.

Misleading without a measure of the lifestyle of the lowest in both countries.

 

[Ed]

Personally I value my native culture. Most people do. Maybe you dont think yours is worth a damn but then thats your bowl of soup.

Yet it appears that your polititions are hell bent on stripping England of the things that help define that culture. The idea of making the Royal Armouries "accessable" by moving them out of the Tower to Leeds is one example. Am I being too harsh?

 

[AWPrime]

I also don't see how this relates to state pensions.

You have assumed that a very large number of old people grow old enough to 'slowdown' an entire generation or more.
I have said that most of them die before that happens.

It will also probably be slow enough for lots of immigrants to be absorbed into the host culture (but probably keeping a part of their cultural heritage) that the immigrants of the next year will have to face a host culture that includes more people.

Next year!!!??? Your not serious are you?! It takes a lot more time, people arent computers that you can reprogram in a day.

Thanks for showing your biases. Why do you think this is bad? What is so special about culture that it must be preserved at all cost?

It is a part of the identity of others and mine. And it is a part of my heritage.

Pretty mad. But reforming a system does not necessarily mean taking away accuired rights. It will mean organising them differently.

Postponing the problem only makes it worst. The best way is to deal with it now and take the pain for the short term.

 

[Jon_in_london]

Thanks for showing your biases. Why do you think this is bad? What is so special about culture that it must be preserved at all cost?

Perhaps a better Idea would be to ask the American Indians..... or how about the Aztecs....?

 

[jay gw]

Human culture and values are things that can change very fast even without immigration.

The old, "All cultures are interchangeable" argument. Nonsense. What people are doing when they state this is transferring the innate rights humans have, to the culture they are part of. Cultures are not people. They don't have innate rights simply because they exist. Only people do.

And if they're all equal, why would anyone migrate? (Is not expecting an answer, because there's never an answer.) How many Europeans are lined up to migrate to any African country? How about the Middle East? If Europe is overcrowded, which it is, why isn't there a line at the Mongolian embassy? Sure there is.

The correct way to put it is, "All HUMANS are equal". Cultures =/=humans. Sorry, but all cultures are not equal. It's my opinion that all humans have rights, and the rights are innate. However, cultures do not have equal value, unless someone seriously believes Nazi Germany and 1940 England were equal. If you do, you're too stupid to bother debating with. It's the same thing as saying, "All legal systems are equal". Sure they are, until you're a woman traveling in the Mid East who gets accused of "adultery". Wow, how fast the tune changes.

 

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by AWPrime
You have assumed that a very large number of old people grow old enough to 'slowdown' an entire generation or more.

I don't believe I said that, as I have no idea what you mean.

Next year!!!??? Your not serious are you?! It takes a lot more time, people arent computers that you can reprogram in a day.

'Next year' is a hypothetical time span, similar to saying 'tomorrow' in the meaning of 'the future'. I make no claims how long such things take.

It is a part of the identity of others and mine. And it is a part of my heritage.

And that will not change, whether your majority culture becomes a minority culture or not.

Postponing the problem only makes it worst. The best way is to deal with it now and take the pain for the short term.

Fine, sounds good to me. How fast you decide to solve it has no relevance to immigration though.

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Personally I value my native culture. Most people do. Maybe you dont think yours is worth a damn but then thats your bowl of soup.

I do value my culture, and I think an integral part my culture is that it is pluralistic, tolerant and subject to change. I don't see immigration as a threat to my culture, because without it it wouldn't have been what it is. I also value the principle that you shouldn't arrest, detain and deport people for trying to live in a place where they think they have a future, and I value that principle more than any attempt to 'preserve a culture' which just means a government trying to impose what that culture is supposed to look like, IMO.

Perhaps a better Idea would be to ask the American Indians..... or how about the Aztecs....?

What's your point?

Originally posted by jay gw
The old, "All cultures are interchangeable" argument.

I have never said that all cultures are interchangeable, so the rest of your argument is irrelevant.

 

[AWPrime]

I don't believe I said that, as I have no idea what you mean.

This:

Me: It would hurt in the shortterm, but the babyboomers die like any other group.

You:But by that time, the generation after them get old and there are still not enough young people to care for them.

You have assumed that they wil remain a burden for a long periode.

'Next year' is a hypothetical time span, similar to saying 'tomorrow' in the meaning of 'the future'. I make no claims how long such things take.

Then you should 'better' discription word.

And that will not change, whether your majority culture becomes a minority culture or not.

Not so. The sociality is affected by culture, if the majority culture changes, then the socialty will change. This will inturn affect my heritage and how I live my life.

Fine, sounds good to me. How fast you decide to solve it has no relevance to immigration though.

Yes it does. Your 'solution' of mass immigration, will only make it worse before trying to solve the problem.



ps. I hope that you are simply ignoring the Aztecs example instead of not being able to understand it.