Short term solution voted in, 1/3 of house very angry,

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Short term solution voted in, 1/3 of house very angry,

Post by boatyboy on Thu 11 Jun 2009, 9:54 pm


An interesting topic population which is of course related to retirement, because it will affect all working people. I met a very pleasant Government top civil servant on a train and we discussed the subject. He told me that the Government was fully aware that the accepted system being younger people need to work in order to pay social security and their taxes to keep the old, is a load of outdated rubbish. A fundamentally flawed system, as he put it.

The formula is simple as to why it does not work, and will be the down fall of civilisation. Sounds rather heavy but true. Want to know why? Lets assume it takes ten good workers to provide for the needs of a senior citizen. It could take one high earner, but please bear with me. So ten workers provide a portion of the pension, medical care, old peoples home, public transport ok. Using very rough figures I try and repeat below why the system is fundamentally flawed.

Take Jersey population around 90,000 of which 46,000 work. So in time 46,000 retire and will need 10 workers each to achieve looking after them.

So there are now 460,000 workers on Jersey plus 46,000 retired people, not including children
A total of around 520,00 + on 48 square miles and growing. It will be the same the world over.

Its an interesting fact that 1870 was the year that 65 became the norm for retirement, and we are aware that we live much longer. The carbon issue, recycle issue, green issues so loved by politicians adopted by families is a good step forward. Also a smoke screen.

What scares me most is an article I read by the guru demographer (sorry name escapes me). He stated that all that matters in the future as the population continues to rise, will be the trade between countries of food, clean water.

If the population problem is not addressed these will become the only items large populations of impoverished poor people will care about; Starving people will attack their Governments and destabilise civilisation as we know it.


Should the Governments who are leaving the retired people short of money, pay couples (or unmarried mothers) to have babies.The fact is there are 75 MILLION new mouths to feed every year and rising. Unless this very serious issue is addressed, what state will the earth be in the very near future ?

Is the problem based on Governments pandering to corporations ? the more customers the better, buying houses, cars, utilities etc ? Are we not supposed to be building a better future? unless we start looking at the population problem seriously the human race is heading in one direction and its the wrong direction


JEP
http://www.thisisjersey.com/2009/06/11/anger-over-the-three-year-plan/


Boatyboy

boatyboy

Male
Number of posts : 176
Location : jersey
Registration date : 2009-05-28

Back to top Go down

Re: Short term solution voted in, 1/3 of house very angry,

Post by technophobe on Fri 12 Jun 2009, 8:22 am

One of the main causes of population growth is the advance of medicine, whereby diseases that used to be fatal are now curable/treatable.

It's not a nice thing to say but maybe what the world needs is a good worldwide epidemic of some sort that would bring the population level down to a more sustainable level.

technophobe

Male
Number of posts : 421
Location : st peter port
Registration date : 2008-10-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Short term solution voted in, 1/3 of house very angry,

Post by boatyboy on Fri 12 Jun 2009, 8:16 pm

technophobe its not a nice thing to say, but you make a good point.

I guess two world wars did that job sad as they were.

A couple of further points regarding Governments failed system. If they had it right why is there a shortage in funding for pensioners ? People have been paying into Government social security ( pensions)
for decades.

No one wants to drop a atom bomb as we have seen the devastation caused at Hiroshima...............We have learnt.

Sadly we have also seen the truly draconian unbelievable levels the Chinese nation has gone to. One child per couple, otherwise they face serious financial sanctions the more the couple has including social stigma. The Chinese government say they have no choice they cannot maintain population growth. As a stand alone country they have had trouble in the past feeding their massive population.

Why is it that the west, keeps chucking money at people in allowances, tax advantages and extra work privilages to encourage us to have more children. When they have clearly seen the problems the Chinese have had ? Blind eyes maybe because,

  1. Good for jobs, social services, child agencies, teachers schools, etc etc. employ millions.
  2. Big business, developers, retail, transport all depend on feet through the door. Make (leaders) their money and like Fred Goodwin and cronies leave the lower masses for a rich selective lifestyle.
  3. Most adults including myself feel a warmth and a deep protective instinct towards young children. The Government by showing its trying top look after the young ones gets our sympathy and votes.
  4. The Government is clearly not brave enough, ( like the Chinese) but in time will be forced to accept that we have a full house. (Island ,country )
  5. Almost every problem regarding our society is because there are to many people.

Boatyboy.

boatyboy

Male
Number of posts : 176
Location : jersey
Registration date : 2009-05-28

Back to top Go down

Re: Short term solution voted in, 1/3 of house very angry,

Post by Peterr on Fri 12 Jun 2009, 10:15 pm

While I agree with you that population growth is a huge issue, both locally and globally, your comments about the welfare state are well wide of the mark. Its only in the developed western countries, with pensions,social security, and child support, that population numbers have plateaud due to a falling birth rate. In India and China the population continues to rise because the only route to economic security in old age is through children - particularly sons.

In the Guernsey and Jersey context the trick is to balance economic growth with population constraint. Its not easy as additional employment opportunities naturaly draw in new migrants.

Peterr

Male
Number of posts : 60
Location : guernsey
Registration date : 2009-01-01

Back to top Go down

Re: Short term solution voted in, 1/3 of house very angry,

Post by boatyboy on Wed 17 Jun 2009, 12:54 am

Peterr to quote you if I may,

Population numbers have plateaud due to a falling birth rate.

Yes in France and a couple of other european states. Not in England or Jersey. Peterr do you really agree with Sharron Mathews never done a days work in her life has seven children by five differnt fathers all on benefits ( fathers, children and mother ) cool. Then kidnapps her own daughter.

I take your point that in underveloped countries they have children as a pension becuase the state does not provide. One wonders if you should have children if the medical care is appalling or you cannot feed them, no easy answer there I don't have one.

The point is our society has a choice, look at the mess the Governments have made of regulating the banking sector.We are picking up the tab. They are doing exactly the same with population problem except, its a runaway atom bomb. Check out the latest programme on fishing stocks why ? I will leave it with you.

BB

boatyboy

Male
Number of posts : 176
Location : jersey
Registration date : 2009-05-28

Back to top Go down

Re: Short term solution voted in, 1/3 of house very angry,

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum