Kopek Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 Surely the lack of 18 yr olds today would depend on the births in '07/'08, were these figures down? Will there be a spike in uni age kids from the '21/'22 lock down periods??? How will we deal with that??? Around about '38/'39? Hope we've allowed for that!!! Maybe that's why the Govt are promoting non-uni further education?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted January 19 Author Share Posted January 19 6 hours ago, Roger Mexico said: There was an interesting article in the Guardian on this a couple of days ago: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/17/china-population-decline-accelerates-as-birthrate-hits-record-low The population of China actually fell last year by 3 million. Some of this may be a post-Covid thing, but the birth rate has also been plummeting. Note the graph showing that the official ending of the one-child policy made very little difference and none beyond the first year. India's population surpassed China's last year too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 18 hours ago, Roger Mexico said: There was an interesting article in the Guardian on this a couple of days ago: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/17/china-population-decline-accelerates-as-birthrate-hits-record-low The population of China actually fell last year by 3 million. Some of this may be a post-Covid thing, but the birth rate has also been plummeting. Note the graph showing that the official ending of the one-child policy made very little difference and none beyond the first year. Good. Anything that signals a reverse of the exponential growth of humanity has to be good for the planet and every other species. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 (edited) 19 hours ago, Cambon said: I am of the last year of baby boomers. I collect my state pension in just over four and a half years. Older boomers are already dying out. The government answer was actually raise the retirement age to 67. Talk of everyone living into their 80s is simply marketing the retirement age increase. Look in the obituaries or check you local graveyard. Death does not discriminate. Yes there are more octogenarians, because there are more people. Sage words. The government pulled a great flanker with the rise in pension age, for women particularly. I've posted before that even if they live to 84 they (currently) have lost a quarter of their state pension. If they live to 72 they have lost a half. Many don't even make 66, see the obituaries as Cambon suggests. They have lost 100% of what they paid in, and those that died aged 65 paid in an additional 5 years contributions for the privilege. The additional years of work will reduce the lifespan of some who are in declining health anyway. Any saving has been spent on growing the number of government administrators. The bloke that pushed it all through Whitehall did ok though: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4970738/Mandarin-oversaw-pension-age-rise-retires-61.html Edited January 20 by woolley 3 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philwebs Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 It would be good to have some data on arrivals and departures, and the trends over the last decade. I have not seen any current data. Departures appear to be at around 20 per week from the announcements in local papers. 20 per week x 52 = 1040 per annum. Population say 84,000. 1.24% of the population are departing every year now. Arrivals - I have no data. Curious to know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 (edited) 1 hour ago, philwebs said: It would be good to have some data on arrivals and departures, and the trends over the last decade. I have not seen any current data. Departures appear to be at around 20 per week from the announcements in local papers. 20 per week x 52 = 1040 per annum. Population say 84,000. 1.24% of the population are departing every year now. Arrivals - I have no data. Curious to know. Paul Craine's IOM population atlas maybe? https://iompopulationatlas.paulcraine.im/ Edited January 20 by woolley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philwebs Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 The data at the source you gave is only to 2020. What are the figures to 2023 (useless govt should know): https://iompopulationatlas.paulcraine.im/blog/index/view/id/33/Births have fallen for a tenth consecutive year In 2020 Departures 938, Arrivals 660. I think births have dropped still further, may I suggest 600 although I think it is even less? 1040 departures less say 600 arrivals is a population decline of 440. On 84000 population that is a decline of 0.5% per annum. Expect fewer schoolchildren. Maybe a significant fall in pensioners as well, less for the govt to pay out. Some real figures would be good. Wonder if they are being kept back? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 14 minutes ago, philwebs said: Some real figures would be good. Wonder if they are being kept back? If they "don't quite tally" with the eternal growth and good news releases from Cabinet Office and DfE, you mean....? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercenary Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 1 hour ago, philwebs said: The data at the source you gave is only to 2020. What are the figures to 2023 (useless govt should know): https://iompopulationatlas.paulcraine.im/blog/index/view/id/33/Births have fallen for a tenth consecutive year In 2020 Departures 938, Arrivals 660. I think births have dropped still further, may I suggest 600 although I think it is even less? 1040 departures less say 600 arrivals is a population decline of 440. On 84000 population that is a decline of 0.5% per annum. Expect fewer schoolchildren. Maybe a significant fall in pensioners as well, less for the govt to pay out. Some real figures would be good. Wonder if they are being kept back? All advanced economies have the same reality, accept either managed immigration or declining population (with inverted pyramid & high proportion of infirm pop.) Hence Cannan's proposal rather than accept closing half the schools & rapidly decline in living standards etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A fool and his money..... Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 6 hours ago, woolley said: Good. Anything that signals a reverse of the exponential growth of humanity has to be good for the planet and every other species. Absolutely true, I can't see how it can be achieved ethically though. Trouble is, if we don't do it, mother nature will probably do it for us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A fool and his money..... Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 6 hours ago, philwebs said: It would be good to have some data on arrivals and departures, and the trends over the last decade. I have not seen any current data. Departures appear to be at around 20 per week from the announcements in local papers. 20 per week x 52 = 1040 per annum. Population say 84,000. 1.24% of the population are departing every year now. Arrivals - I have no data. Curious to know. They need the fortune they are wasting on locate.im and other worthless initiatives to look well spent, so you'll only ever see the statistics they want you to see. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarley Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 On 1/19/2024 at 4:55 PM, Roger Mexico said: There was an interesting article in the Guardian on this a couple of days ago: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/17/china-population-decline-accelerates-as-birthrate-hits-record-low The population of China actually fell last year by 3 million. Some of this may be a post-Covid thing, but the birth rate has also been plummeting. Note the graph showing that the official ending of the one-child policy made very little difference and none beyond the first year. The one child policy ended in 2015, so that means people who are currently of child-bearing age are still from the one child era. It was fairly well known that many Chinese couples chose to abort (or even abandon) female offspring in favour of a sought-after son, resulting in a skewed ratio of far more boys than girls being born. I have to wonder if this is a large part of what's behind their falling birth rate. You need women to have babies and China probably just doesn't have enough women to keep the rate stable at this point in time, particularly when you add in all the other problems like cost of living. Maybe that will start to change in a dozen or so years, when the effect of a rebalanced ratio can be felt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
genericUserName Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 (edited) 10 hours ago, woolley said: I've posted before that even if they live to 84 they (currently) have lost a quarter of their state pension. If they live to 72 they have lost a half. Many don't even make 66, see the obituaries as Cambon suggests. They have lost 100% of what they paid in, and those that died aged 65 paid in an additional 5 years contributions for the privilege. The additional years of work will reduce the lifespan of some who are in declining health anyway. Any saving has been spent on growing the number of government administrators. Your post seems to be based on, or very similar to, the common but mistaken belief that we are paying into a pot - ie effectively saving into a pot from which we will then collect a state pension. This is not the case. National Insurance is simply another type of tax. We do not have a stake in a share of some pot. Today' pensioners paid the pensions of a previous generation. Today's young are funding the state pensions of a boomer generation who, on average, have taken more from the state than any other generation ever will again. And the Ponzi will have collapsed before they ever get to collect. The thing should be means tested. Edited January 20 by genericUserName 2 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill1977 Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 This is just the beginning. Anyone working in a school knows most of the boys behave around 5 years less than their chronological age these days and any girl who’d want to get involved with them would be insane. No wonder so many girls go with their own kind. On the back of this the birth rate will drop further. No kids know how to communicate properly anyway these days as both sexes have their heads in their phones whenever possible, and they don’t know any different! 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 1 hour ago, genericUserName said: Your post seems to be based on, or very similar to, the common but mistaken belief that we are paying into a pot - ie effectively saving into a pot from which we will then collect a state pension. This is not the case. National Insurance is simply another type of tax. We do not have a stake in a share of some pot. Today' pensioners paid the pensions of a previous generation. Today's young are funding the state pensions of a boomer generation who, on average, have taken more from the state than any other generation ever will again. And the Ponzi will have collapsed before they ever get to collect. The thing should be means tested. You don't know what you are pontificating about. This is the case in the UK. Not so in the Isle of Man. There is this thing called the National Insurance Fund that people have all been paying contributions into very handsomely for their whole working lives, so yes, we are going to have our pensions thank you very much, and the Fund must not be frittered away on yet more government flights of fancy. The carried forward amount balance in 2023 was £837 million. https://www.gov.im/categories/tax-vat-and-your-money/income-tax-and-national-insurance/national-insurance-contributions/manx-national-insurance-fund/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.