Seriously disturbing. “"We need Greenland for international safety and security. We need it. We have to have it," Trump told podcaster Vince Coglianese. "I hate to put it that way, but we're going to have to have it."”
Seriously disturbing. “"We need Greenland for international safety and security. We need it. We have to have it," Trump told podcaster Vince Coglianese. "I hate to put it that way, but we're going to have to have it."”
Right now the Guardian website has four stories at the top, all different versions of “Rachel Reeves is a cruel, lying, incompetent clown”
Unbelievable hostility to a Labour Chancellor. I wonder if Labour’s polling might dip below 20
Unfair on Reeves because she's doing the right thing and no-one likes it.
If I may politely disagree. The function of the Labour Party is to increase the wealth and opportunities of the working class and the poor. To do this it increases equality by taxing the rich and spreading that wealth to the poor. But the belief has spread that one cannot tax the rich (because they leave) so the only tool Labour have left is to impoverish and immiserate the poor and/or working class, therefore obviating the entire point of the Labour movement.
If things keep going this way the South Wales Valleys will go Reform in 2029, which is Olympus has fallen for Labour. Starmer flirts unthinking with the destruction of his party, which as a metropolitan elite lawyer he failks to understand or even intuit.
You do have to think that a Labour Government taking a quarter of a million more into poverty has a fundamental problem.
But then, all Labour Governments leave office with fewer employed than they inherited.
At some point, voters WILL realise their business model is shite.
Employment in April 1997: 26.5mn Employment in April 2010: 29.5mn
Employment rate in April 1997: 58.1% Employment rate in April 2010: 58.2%
UK population rise between 1997 and 2010: 4.45m
That doesn't affect the rate though does it.
Because of the changing age pyramid in the country that expansion of the population is almost entirely of the retired. The working age population is pretty much unchanged. Without immigration taxes would be higher or pensions would be less, or both. This is the debate on immigration that we never have. Do we want to be pure but poor?
We need to increase our birthrate, on that Musk is right
We need to learn to live with a lower birth rate. Constantly trying to grow the population to maintain growth and create youngsters to provide for an ever increasing ageing population just leads water shortages, food shortages, migration, wars and climate warming.
We need alternative solutions, whatever they may be, but which does not mean Logan's run.
Right now the Guardian website has four stories at the top, all different versions of “Rachel Reeves is a cruel, lying, incompetent clown”
Unbelievable hostility to a Labour Chancellor. I wonder if Labour’s polling might dip below 20
Unfair on Reeves because she's doing the right thing and no-one likes it.
If I may politely disagree. The function of the Labour Party is to increase the wealth and opportunities of the working class and the poor. To do this it increases equality by taxing the rich and spreading that wealth to the poor. But the belief has spread that one cannot tax the rich (because they leave) so the only tool Labour have left is to impoverish and immiserate the poor and/or working class, therefore obviating the entire point of the Labour movement.
If things keep going this way the South Wales Valleys will go Reform in 2029, which is Olympus has fallen for Labour. Starmer flirts unthinking with the destruction of his party, which as a metropolitan elite lawyer he failks to understand or even intuit.
You do have to think that a Labour Government taking a quarter of a million more into poverty has a fundamental problem.
But then, all Labour Governments leave office with fewer employed than they inherited.
At some point, voters WILL realise their business model is shite.
Employment in April 1997: 26.5mn Employment in April 2010: 29.5mn
Employment rate in April 1997: 58.1% Employment rate in April 2010: 58.2%
UK population rise between 1997 and 2010: 4.45m
That doesn't affect the rate though does it.
Because of the changing age pyramid in the country that expansion of the population is almost entirely of the retired. The working age population is pretty much unchanged. Without immigration taxes would be higher or pensions would be less, or both. This is the debate on immigration that we never have. Do we want to be pure but poor?
We need to increase our birthrate, on that Musk is right
We need to learn to live with a lower birth rate. Constantly trying to grow the population to maintain growth and create youngsters to provide for an ever increasing ageing population just leads water shortages, food shortages, migration, wars and climate warming.
We need alternative solutions, whatever they may be, but which does not mean Logan's run.
Forget growing the population we aren't even maintaining it, we have a fertility rate per woman and man of 1.5 now and without immigration the UK population would be in steep decline.
Africa may be growing its population still but we aren't
Right now the Guardian website has four stories at the top, all different versions of “Rachel Reeves is a cruel, lying, incompetent clown”
Unbelievable hostility to a Labour Chancellor. I wonder if Labour’s polling might dip below 20
Unfair on Reeves because she's doing the right thing and no-one likes it.
If I may politely disagree. The function of the Labour Party is to increase the wealth and opportunities of the working class and the poor. To do this it increases equality by taxing the rich and spreading that wealth to the poor. But the belief has spread that one cannot tax the rich (because they leave) so the only tool Labour have left is to impoverish and immiserate the poor and/or working class, therefore obviating the entire point of the Labour movement.
If things keep going this way the South Wales Valleys will go Reform in 2029, which is Olympus has fallen for Labour. Starmer flirts unthinking with the destruction of his party, which as a metropolitan elite lawyer he failks to understand or even intuit.
You do have to think that a Labour Government taking a quarter of a million more into poverty has a fundamental problem.
But then, all Labour Governments leave office with fewer employed than they inherited.
At some point, voters WILL realise their business model is shite.
Employment in April 1997: 26.5mn Employment in April 2010: 29.5mn
Employment rate in April 1997: 58.1% Employment rate in April 2010: 58.2%
UK population rise between 1997 and 2010: 4.45m
That doesn't affect the rate though does it.
Because of the changing age pyramid in the country that expansion of the population is almost entirely of the retired. The working age population is pretty much unchanged. Without immigration taxes would be higher or pensions would be less, or both. This is the debate on immigration that we never have. Do we want to be pure but poor?
We need to increase our birthrate, on that Musk is right
We need to learn to live with a lower birth rate. Constantly trying to grow the population to maintain growth and create youngsters to provide for an ever increasing ageing population just leads water shortages, food shortages, migration, wars and climate warming.
We need alternative solutions, whatever they may be, but which does not mean Logan's run.
Do you appreciate how good robots are, now?
They are this good. This is not fake, this is not speeded up, this is real. They can, also, now do fine motor tasks - they can stack dishwashers and peel apples, they will be able to do nursing, tiling and plumbing
Right now the Guardian website has four stories at the top, all different versions of “Rachel Reeves is a cruel, lying, incompetent clown”
Unbelievable hostility to a Labour Chancellor. I wonder if Labour’s polling might dip below 20
Unfair on Reeves because she's doing the right thing and no-one likes it.
If I may politely disagree. The function of the Labour Party is to increase the wealth and opportunities of the working class and the poor. To do this it increases equality by taxing the rich and spreading that wealth to the poor. But the belief has spread that one cannot tax the rich (because they leave) so the only tool Labour have left is to impoverish and immiserate the poor and/or working class, therefore obviating the entire point of the Labour movement.
If things keep going this way the South Wales Valleys will go Reform in 2029, which is Olympus has fallen for Labour. Starmer flirts unthinking with the destruction of his party, which as a metropolitan elite lawyer he failks to understand or even intuit.
You do have to think that a Labour Government taking a quarter of a million more into poverty has a fundamental problem.
But then, all Labour Governments leave office with fewer employed than they inherited.
At some point, voters WILL realise their business model is shite.
Employment in April 1997: 26.5mn Employment in April 2010: 29.5mn
Employment rate in April 1997: 58.1% Employment rate in April 2010: 58.2%
UK population rise between 1997 and 2010: 4.45m
That doesn't affect the rate though does it.
Because of the changing age pyramid in the country that expansion of the population is almost entirely of the retired. The working age population is pretty much unchanged. Without immigration taxes would be higher or pensions would be less, or both. This is the debate on immigration that we never have. Do we want to be pure but poor?
We need to increase our birthrate, on that Musk is right
We need to learn to live with a lower birth rate. Constantly trying to grow the population to maintain growth and create youngsters to provide for an ever increasing ageing population just leads water shortages, food shortages, migration, wars and climate warming.
We need alternative solutions, whatever they may be, but which does not mean Logan's run.
Forget growing the population we aren't even maintaining it, we have a fertility rate per woman and man of 1.5 now and without immigration the UK population would be in steep decline.
Africa may be growing its population still but we aren't
And I don't have a problem with that. There are too many people, in my opinion, on the planet. We are destroying it. We just need to have some imagination on managing a decline in population.
Right now the Guardian website has four stories at the top, all different versions of “Rachel Reeves is a cruel, lying, incompetent clown”
Unbelievable hostility to a Labour Chancellor. I wonder if Labour’s polling might dip below 20
Unfair on Reeves because she's doing the right thing and no-one likes it.
If I may politely disagree. The function of the Labour Party is to increase the wealth and opportunities of the working class and the poor. To do this it increases equality by taxing the rich and spreading that wealth to the poor. But the belief has spread that one cannot tax the rich (because they leave) so the only tool Labour have left is to impoverish and immiserate the poor and/or working class, therefore obviating the entire point of the Labour movement.
If things keep going this way the South Wales Valleys will go Reform in 2029, which is Olympus has fallen for Labour. Starmer flirts unthinking with the destruction of his party, which as a metropolitan elite lawyer he failks to understand or even intuit.
You do have to think that a Labour Government taking a quarter of a million more into poverty has a fundamental problem.
But then, all Labour Governments leave office with fewer employed than they inherited.
At some point, voters WILL realise their business model is shite.
Yes, it's dire. But for those who feel that the UK should have some sort of government, and that the sort there is in USA, Turkey, Afghanistan, Russia, Israel, Gaza, Sudan, China and about 100 other countries is substantially worse than our Ninja sword (what are they?) toting Labour one, the question: If not Labour then who? is not an easy one. If there were a GE tomorrow I would unhesitatingly vote Labour, (or LD if Labour were not in play) as the only possible choice; the others being Tory (no) and Reform (no).
As Sherlock Holmes nearly said: 'Once you have eliminated the impossible parties of government, whatever remains, however unlikely and useless, must get your vote'. Grim. But it's worse for our American friends.
It is absolutely diabolical that British Steel faces closure of Scunthorpe plants in the current geopolitical context.
Time for the government to start getting serious on stuff like this.
Starmer could bring in a law to ban "the closing of big important things", that'll fix it. He should promise to bring it in by June, then wait until next Christmas, then after that he will finally "take action" and bring in his powerful new law and, henceforth, as promised by the PM, no big important things will ever close again, and we'll all be rich
Right now the Guardian website has four stories at the top, all different versions of “Rachel Reeves is a cruel, lying, incompetent clown”
Unbelievable hostility to a Labour Chancellor. I wonder if Labour’s polling might dip below 20
Unfair on Reeves because she's doing the right thing and no-one likes it.
If I may politely disagree. The function of the Labour Party is to increase the wealth and opportunities of the working class and the poor. To do this it increases equality by taxing the rich and spreading that wealth to the poor. But the belief has spread that one cannot tax the rich (because they leave) so the only tool Labour have left is to impoverish and immiserate the poor and/or working class, therefore obviating the entire point of the Labour movement.
If things keep going this way the South Wales Valleys will go Reform in 2029, which is Olympus has fallen for Labour. Starmer flirts unthinking with the destruction of his party, which as a metropolitan elite lawyer he failks to understand or even intuit.
You do have to think that a Labour Government taking a quarter of a million more into poverty has a fundamental problem.
But then, all Labour Governments leave office with fewer employed than they inherited.
At some point, voters WILL realise their business model is shite.
Employment in April 1997: 26.5mn Employment in April 2010: 29.5mn
Employment rate in April 1997: 58.1% Employment rate in April 2010: 58.2%
UK population rise between 1997 and 2010: 4.45m
That doesn't affect the rate though does it.
Because of the changing age pyramid in the country that expansion of the population is almost entirely of the retired. The working age population is pretty much unchanged. Without immigration taxes would be higher or pensions would be less, or both. This is the debate on immigration that we never have. Do we want to be pure but poor?
We need to increase our birthrate, on that Musk is right
We need to learn to live with a lower birth rate. Constantly trying to grow the population to maintain growth and create youngsters to provide for an ever increasing ageing population just leads water shortages, food shortages, migration, wars and climate warming.
We need alternative solutions, whatever they may be, but which does not mean Logan's run.
Do you appreciate how good robots are, now?
They are this good. This is not fake, this is not speeded up, this is real. They can, also, now do fine motor tasks - they can stack dishwashers and peel apples, they will be able to do nursing, tiling and plumbing
Why do you think China is pouring trillions into robotics (Unitree is a Chinese company)? This is the answer to falling birth rates
Well good. Problem solved then. Let's not keep trying to force people to have babies. We cannot keep increasing the planet's population and a decrease would be good for the planet.
Right now the Guardian website has four stories at the top, all different versions of “Rachel Reeves is a cruel, lying, incompetent clown”
Unbelievable hostility to a Labour Chancellor. I wonder if Labour’s polling might dip below 20
Unfair on Reeves because she's doing the right thing and no-one likes it.
If I may politely disagree. The function of the Labour Party is to increase the wealth and opportunities of the working class and the poor. To do this it increases equality by taxing the rich and spreading that wealth to the poor. But the belief has spread that one cannot tax the rich (because they leave) so the only tool Labour have left is to impoverish and immiserate the poor and/or working class, therefore obviating the entire point of the Labour movement.
If things keep going this way the South Wales Valleys will go Reform in 2029, which is Olympus has fallen for Labour. Starmer flirts unthinking with the destruction of his party, which as a metropolitan elite lawyer he failks to understand or even intuit.
You do have to think that a Labour Government taking a quarter of a million more into poverty has a fundamental problem.
But then, all Labour Governments leave office with fewer employed than they inherited.
At some point, voters WILL realise their business model is shite.
Employment in April 1997: 26.5mn Employment in April 2010: 29.5mn
Employment rate in April 1997: 58.1% Employment rate in April 2010: 58.2%
UK population rise between 1997 and 2010: 4.45m
That doesn't affect the rate though does it.
Because of the changing age pyramid in the country that expansion of the population is almost entirely of the retired. The working age population is pretty much unchanged. Without immigration taxes would be higher or pensions would be less, or both. This is the debate on immigration that we never have. Do we want to be pure but poor?
We need to increase our birthrate, on that Musk is right
We need to learn to live with a lower birth rate. Constantly trying to grow the population to maintain growth and create youngsters to provide for an ever increasing ageing population just leads water shortages, food shortages, migration, wars and climate warming.
We need alternative solutions, whatever they may be, but which does not mean Logan's run.
Do you appreciate how good robots are, now?
They are this good. This is not fake, this is not speeded up, this is real. They can, also, now do fine motor tasks - they can stack dishwashers and peel apples, they will be able to do nursing, tiling and plumbing
Right now the Guardian website has four stories at the top, all different versions of “Rachel Reeves is a cruel, lying, incompetent clown”
Unbelievable hostility to a Labour Chancellor. I wonder if Labour’s polling might dip below 20
Unfair on Reeves because she's doing the right thing and no-one likes it.
If I may politely disagree. The function of the Labour Party is to increase the wealth and opportunities of the working class and the poor. To do this it increases equality by taxing the rich and spreading that wealth to the poor. But the belief has spread that one cannot tax the rich (because they leave) so the only tool Labour have left is to impoverish and immiserate the poor and/or working class, therefore obviating the entire point of the Labour movement.
If things keep going this way the South Wales Valleys will go Reform in 2029, which is Olympus has fallen for Labour. Starmer flirts unthinking with the destruction of his party, which as a metropolitan elite lawyer he failks to understand or even intuit.
You do have to think that a Labour Government taking a quarter of a million more into poverty has a fundamental problem.
But then, all Labour Governments leave office with fewer employed than they inherited.
At some point, voters WILL realise their business model is shite.
Employment in April 1997: 26.5mn Employment in April 2010: 29.5mn
Employment rate in April 1997: 58.1% Employment rate in April 2010: 58.2%
UK population rise between 1997 and 2010: 4.45m
That doesn't affect the rate though does it.
Because of the changing age pyramid in the country that expansion of the population is almost entirely of the retired. The working age population is pretty much unchanged. Without immigration taxes would be higher or pensions would be less, or both. This is the debate on immigration that we never have. Do we want to be pure but poor?
We need to increase our birthrate, on that Musk is right
We need to learn to live with a lower birth rate. Constantly trying to grow the population to maintain growth and create youngsters to provide for an ever increasing ageing population just leads water shortages, food shortages, migration, wars and climate warming.
We need alternative solutions, whatever they may be, but which does not mean Logan's run.
Do you appreciate how good robots are, now?
They are this good. This is not fake, this is not speeded up, this is real. They can, also, now do fine motor tasks - they can stack dishwashers and peel apples, they will be able to do nursing, tiling and plumbing
Why do you think China is pouring trillions into robotics (Unitree is a Chinese company)? This is the answer to falling birth rates
Well good. Problem solved then. Let's not keep trying to force people to have babies. We cannot keep increasing the planet's population and a decrease would be good for the planet.
Robots may be worse for the planet than people! At least people are biodegradable.
Right now the Guardian website has four stories at the top, all different versions of “Rachel Reeves is a cruel, lying, incompetent clown”
Unbelievable hostility to a Labour Chancellor. I wonder if Labour’s polling might dip below 20
Unfair on Reeves because she's doing the right thing and no-one likes it.
If I may politely disagree. The function of the Labour Party is to increase the wealth and opportunities of the working class and the poor. To do this it increases equality by taxing the rich and spreading that wealth to the poor. But the belief has spread that one cannot tax the rich (because they leave) so the only tool Labour have left is to impoverish and immiserate the poor and/or working class, therefore obviating the entire point of the Labour movement.
If things keep going this way the South Wales Valleys will go Reform in 2029, which is Olympus has fallen for Labour. Starmer flirts unthinking with the destruction of his party, which as a metropolitan elite lawyer he failks to understand or even intuit.
You do have to think that a Labour Government taking a quarter of a million more into poverty has a fundamental problem.
But then, all Labour Governments leave office with fewer employed than they inherited.
At some point, voters WILL realise their business model is shite.
Employment in April 1997: 26.5mn Employment in April 2010: 29.5mn
Employment rate in April 1997: 58.1% Employment rate in April 2010: 58.2%
UK population rise between 1997 and 2010: 4.45m
That doesn't affect the rate though does it.
Because of the changing age pyramid in the country that expansion of the population is almost entirely of the retired. The working age population is pretty much unchanged. Without immigration taxes would be higher or pensions would be less, or both. This is the debate on immigration that we never have. Do we want to be pure but poor?
We need to increase our birthrate, on that Musk is right
We need to learn to live with a lower birth rate. Constantly trying to grow the population to maintain growth and create youngsters to provide for an ever increasing ageing population just leads water shortages, food shortages, migration, wars and climate warming.
We need alternative solutions, whatever they may be, but which does not mean Logan's run.
Do you appreciate how good robots are, now?
They are this good. This is not fake, this is not speeded up, this is real. They can, also, now do fine motor tasks - they can stack dishwashers and peel apples, they will be able to do nursing, tiling and plumbing
Why do you think China is pouring trillions into robotics (Unitree is a Chinese company)? This is the answer to falling birth rates
Well good. Problem solved then. Let's not keep trying to force people to have babies. We cannot keep increasing the planet's population and a decrease would be good for the planet.
A rare moment of complete agreement. There are, simply, far too many people on the planet. I see it on my travels. We are trashing our home and destroying nature. We need to get the human population down to about 2bn, which it was as recently as 1950
All the nasty jobs can be done by the Chinese robots
Right now the Guardian website has four stories at the top, all different versions of “Rachel Reeves is a cruel, lying, incompetent clown”
Unbelievable hostility to a Labour Chancellor. I wonder if Labour’s polling might dip below 20
Unfair on Reeves because she's doing the right thing and no-one likes it.
If I may politely disagree. The function of the Labour Party is to increase the wealth and opportunities of the working class and the poor. To do this it increases equality by taxing the rich and spreading that wealth to the poor. But the belief has spread that one cannot tax the rich (because they leave) so the only tool Labour have left is to impoverish and immiserate the poor and/or working class, therefore obviating the entire point of the Labour movement.
If things keep going this way the South Wales Valleys will go Reform in 2029, which is Olympus has fallen for Labour. Starmer flirts unthinking with the destruction of his party, which as a metropolitan elite lawyer he failks to understand or even intuit.
You do have to think that a Labour Government taking a quarter of a million more into poverty has a fundamental problem.
But then, all Labour Governments leave office with fewer employed than they inherited.
At some point, voters WILL realise their business model is shite.
Employment in April 1997: 26.5mn Employment in April 2010: 29.5mn
Employment rate in April 1997: 58.1% Employment rate in April 2010: 58.2%
UK population rise between 1997 and 2010: 4.45m
That doesn't affect the rate though does it.
Because of the changing age pyramid in the country that expansion of the population is almost entirely of the retired. The working age population is pretty much unchanged. Without immigration taxes would be higher or pensions would be less, or both. This is the debate on immigration that we never have. Do we want to be pure but poor?
We need to increase our birthrate, on that Musk is right
We need to learn to live with a lower birth rate. Constantly trying to grow the population to maintain growth and create youngsters to provide for an ever increasing ageing population just leads water shortages, food shortages, migration, wars and climate warming.
We need alternative solutions, whatever they may be, but which does not mean Logan's run.
Forget growing the population we aren't even maintaining it, we have a fertility rate per woman and man of 1.5 now and without immigration the UK population would be in steep decline.
Africa may be growing its population still but we aren't
And I don't have a problem with that. There are too many people, in my opinion, on the planet. We are destroying it. We just need to have some imagination on managing a decline in population.
Well a key piece of that jigsaw is for us to work out what our state is for in the 21st century, and what our welfare state should look like. What are our priorities? With an aging population, care is probably the most crucial piece to get right - yet countless governments refuse to face up to it.
The NHS provides a valuable service, but can we afford it to operate the way it currently does? Can it really do everything that we currently expect of it? Can we afford our current pensions system - we certainly can’t afford the triple lock to continue. And how do we get people on board with all this?
I do fear that Western society is headed towards greater authoritarianism because of some of these challenges - and because politicians have sold easy answers for too long people do not expect to hear hard truths.
Right now the Guardian website has four stories at the top, all different versions of “Rachel Reeves is a cruel, lying, incompetent clown”
Unbelievable hostility to a Labour Chancellor. I wonder if Labour’s polling might dip below 20
Unfair on Reeves because she's doing the right thing and no-one likes it.
If I may politely disagree. The function of the Labour Party is to increase the wealth and opportunities of the working class and the poor. To do this it increases equality by taxing the rich and spreading that wealth to the poor. But the belief has spread that one cannot tax the rich (because they leave) so the only tool Labour have left is to impoverish and immiserate the poor and/or working class, therefore obviating the entire point of the Labour movement.
If things keep going this way the South Wales Valleys will go Reform in 2029, which is Olympus has fallen for Labour. Starmer flirts unthinking with the destruction of his party, which as a metropolitan elite lawyer he failks to understand or even intuit.
You do have to think that a Labour Government taking a quarter of a million more into poverty has a fundamental problem.
But then, all Labour Governments leave office with fewer employed than they inherited.
At some point, voters WILL realise their business model is shite.
Employment in April 1997: 26.5mn Employment in April 2010: 29.5mn
Employment rate in April 1997: 58.1% Employment rate in April 2010: 58.2%
UK population rise between 1997 and 2010: 4.45m
That doesn't affect the rate though does it.
Because of the changing age pyramid in the country that expansion of the population is almost entirely of the retired. The working age population is pretty much unchanged. Without immigration taxes would be higher or pensions would be less, or both. This is the debate on immigration that we never have. Do we want to be pure but poor?
We need to increase our birthrate, on that Musk is right
We need to learn to live with a lower birth rate. Constantly trying to grow the population to maintain growth and create youngsters to provide for an ever increasing ageing population just leads water shortages, food shortages, migration, wars and climate warming.
We need alternative solutions, whatever they may be, but which does not mean Logan's run.
Forget growing the population we aren't even maintaining it, we have a fertility rate per woman and man of 1.5 now and without immigration the UK population would be in steep decline.
Africa may be growing its population still but we aren't
And I don't have a problem with that. There are too many people, in my opinion, on the planet. We are destroying it. We just need to have some imagination on managing a decline in population.
Nature is untroubled about time and takes the long view. It takes about 4 billion years in producing the species of which Trump is such an egregious example. Nature coped effortlessly with the dinosaur extinction event, and the Permian catastrophe. It is overwhelmingly likely that nature will destroy us well before we destroy nature.
Right now the Guardian website has four stories at the top, all different versions of “Rachel Reeves is a cruel, lying, incompetent clown”
Unbelievable hostility to a Labour Chancellor. I wonder if Labour’s polling might dip below 20
Unfair on Reeves because she's doing the right thing and no-one likes it.
If I may politely disagree. The function of the Labour Party is to increase the wealth and opportunities of the working class and the poor. To do this it increases equality by taxing the rich and spreading that wealth to the poor. But the belief has spread that one cannot tax the rich (because they leave) so the only tool Labour have left is to impoverish and immiserate the poor and/or working class, therefore obviating the entire point of the Labour movement.
If things keep going this way the South Wales Valleys will go Reform in 2029, which is Olympus has fallen for Labour. Starmer flirts unthinking with the destruction of his party, which as a metropolitan elite lawyer he failks to understand or even intuit.
You do have to think that a Labour Government taking a quarter of a million more into poverty has a fundamental problem.
But then, all Labour Governments leave office with fewer employed than they inherited.
At some point, voters WILL realise their business model is shite.
Employment in April 1997: 26.5mn Employment in April 2010: 29.5mn
Employment rate in April 1997: 58.1% Employment rate in April 2010: 58.2%
UK population rise between 1997 and 2010: 4.45m
That doesn't affect the rate though does it.
Because of the changing age pyramid in the country that expansion of the population is almost entirely of the retired. The working age population is pretty much unchanged. Without immigration taxes would be higher or pensions would be less, or both. This is the debate on immigration that we never have. Do we want to be pure but poor?
We need to increase our birthrate, on that Musk is right
We need to learn to live with a lower birth rate. Constantly trying to grow the population to maintain growth and create youngsters to provide for an ever increasing ageing population just leads water shortages, food shortages, migration, wars and climate warming.
We need alternative solutions, whatever they may be, but which does not mean Logan's run.
Do you appreciate how good robots are, now?
They are this good. This is not fake, this is not speeded up, this is real. They can, also, now do fine motor tasks - they can stack dishwashers and peel apples, they will be able to do nursing, tiling and plumbing
Right now the Guardian website has four stories at the top, all different versions of “Rachel Reeves is a cruel, lying, incompetent clown”
Unbelievable hostility to a Labour Chancellor. I wonder if Labour’s polling might dip below 20
Unfair on Reeves because she's doing the right thing and no-one likes it.
If I may politely disagree. The function of the Labour Party is to increase the wealth and opportunities of the working class and the poor. To do this it increases equality by taxing the rich and spreading that wealth to the poor. But the belief has spread that one cannot tax the rich (because they leave) so the only tool Labour have left is to impoverish and immiserate the poor and/or working class, therefore obviating the entire point of the Labour movement.
If things keep going this way the South Wales Valleys will go Reform in 2029, which is Olympus has fallen for Labour. Starmer flirts unthinking with the destruction of his party, which as a metropolitan elite lawyer he failks to understand or even intuit.
You do have to think that a Labour Government taking a quarter of a million more into poverty has a fundamental problem.
But then, all Labour Governments leave office with fewer employed than they inherited.
At some point, voters WILL realise their business model is shite.
Employment in April 1997: 26.5mn Employment in April 2010: 29.5mn
Employment rate in April 1997: 58.1% Employment rate in April 2010: 58.2%
UK population rise between 1997 and 2010: 4.45m
That doesn't affect the rate though does it.
Because of the changing age pyramid in the country that expansion of the population is almost entirely of the retired. The working age population is pretty much unchanged. Without immigration taxes would be higher or pensions would be less, or both. This is the debate on immigration that we never have. Do we want to be pure but poor?
We need to increase our birthrate, on that Musk is right
It is absolutely diabolical that British Steel faces closure of Scunthorpe plants in the current geopolitical context.
Time for the government to start getting serious on stuff like this.
Starmer could bring in a law to ban "the closing of big important things", that'll fix it. He should promise to bring it in by June, then wait until next Christmas, then after that he will finally "take action" and bring in his powerful new law and, henceforth, as promised by the PM, no big important things will ever close again, and we'll all be rich
You forget the stage where a commission or inquiry is set up with a remit to deliver a "timely" report before a new law is drafted.
Right now the Guardian website has four stories at the top, all different versions of “Rachel Reeves is a cruel, lying, incompetent clown”
Unbelievable hostility to a Labour Chancellor. I wonder if Labour’s polling might dip below 20
Unfair on Reeves because she's doing the right thing and no-one likes it.
If I may politely disagree. The function of the Labour Party is to increase the wealth and opportunities of the working class and the poor. To do this it increases equality by taxing the rich and spreading that wealth to the poor. But the belief has spread that one cannot tax the rich (because they leave) so the only tool Labour have left is to impoverish and immiserate the poor and/or working class, therefore obviating the entire point of the Labour movement.
If things keep going this way the South Wales Valleys will go Reform in 2029, which is Olympus has fallen for Labour. Starmer flirts unthinking with the destruction of his party, which as a metropolitan elite lawyer he failks to understand or even intuit.
You do have to think that a Labour Government taking a quarter of a million more into poverty has a fundamental problem.
But then, all Labour Governments leave office with fewer employed than they inherited.
At some point, voters WILL realise their business model is shite.
Employment in April 1997: 26.5mn Employment in April 2010: 29.5mn
Employment rate in April 1997: 58.1% Employment rate in April 2010: 58.2%
UK population rise between 1997 and 2010: 4.45m
That doesn't affect the rate though does it.
Because of the changing age pyramid in the country that expansion of the population is almost entirely of the retired. The working age population is pretty much unchanged. Without immigration taxes would be higher or pensions would be less, or both. This is the debate on immigration that we never have. Do we want to be pure but poor?
We need to increase our birthrate, on that Musk is right
We need to learn to live with a lower birth rate. Constantly trying to grow the population to maintain growth and create youngsters to provide for an ever increasing ageing population just leads water shortages, food shortages, migration, wars and climate warming.
We need alternative solutions, whatever they may be, but which does not mean Logan's run.
Forget growing the population we aren't even maintaining it, we have a fertility rate per woman and man of 1.5 now and without immigration the UK population would be in steep decline.
Africa may be growing its population still but we aren't
And I don't have a problem with that. There are too many people, in my opinion, on the planet. We are destroying it. We just need to have some imagination on managing a decline in population.
Nature is untroubled about time and takes the long view. It takes about 4 billion years in producing the species of which Trump is such an egregious example. Nature coped effortlessly with the dinosaur extinction event, and the Permian catastrophe. It is overwhelmingly likely that nature will destroy us well before we destroy nature.
Though it is quite likely that the anthropecene extinction will also end a comparable number of species, with the surviving 10-15% repopulating the planet with completely new floral and fauna.
It’s not. Governments come up with industry specific schemes like film finance that is then exploited by firms who essentially use a minimal amount of equity and buckets of debt and then claim the tax relief on the full amount.
It never works, but looks superficially like it does, and by the time the HMRC takes them through the legal process the promotors have run for the hills with their fees leaving the greedy saps on the hook for the liabilities
As someone who ran into this about fifteen years ago, I can tell you this is exactly what happens. But even better, the 'taxpayers' have had their tax relief and are now rarely in a position to be able to pay it back so ultimately HMRC appear to write it all off as 'no longer being pursued'.
It is absolutely diabolical that British Steel faces closure of Scunthorpe plants in the current geopolitical context.
Time for the government to start getting serious on stuff like this.
Starmer could bring in a law to ban "the closing of big important things", that'll fix it. He should promise to bring it in by June, then wait until next Christmas, then after that he will finally "take action" and bring in his powerful new law and, henceforth, as promised by the PM, no big important things will ever close again, and we'll all be rich
You forget the stage where a commission or inquiry is set up with a remit to deliver a "timely" report before a new law is drafted.
Quite right. The Commission on the Law Against The Closing of Big Important Things should start meeting in the summer. Then, when its findings are delivered = "closing big important things are bad", someone should send it for judicial review, then also to the ECHR, then back to the courts for a final appeal by big important things that actually want to be closed
Sixty eight years later, the Law Against the Closing of Big Important Things will come into powerful effect, and many big important things will be forced to stay open until they close anyway an hour later, costing the British taxpayer 400 trillion dollars, which the Labour government will give to Poland because the Foreign Secretary saw a sad film about Warsaw
Right now the Guardian website has four stories at the top, all different versions of “Rachel Reeves is a cruel, lying, incompetent clown”
Unbelievable hostility to a Labour Chancellor. I wonder if Labour’s polling might dip below 20
Unfair on Reeves because she's doing the right thing and no-one likes it.
If I may politely disagree. The function of the Labour Party is to increase the wealth and opportunities of the working class and the poor. To do this it increases equality by taxing the rich and spreading that wealth to the poor. But the belief has spread that one cannot tax the rich (because they leave) so the only tool Labour have left is to impoverish and immiserate the poor and/or working class, therefore obviating the entire point of the Labour movement.
If things keep going this way the South Wales Valleys will go Reform in 2029, which is Olympus has fallen for Labour. Starmer flirts unthinking with the destruction of his party, which as a metropolitan elite lawyer he failks to understand or even intuit.
You do have to think that a Labour Government taking a quarter of a million more into poverty has a fundamental problem.
But then, all Labour Governments leave office with fewer employed than they inherited.
At some point, voters WILL realise their business model is shite.
Employment in April 1997: 26.5mn Employment in April 2010: 29.5mn
Employment rate in April 1997: 58.1% Employment rate in April 2010: 58.2%
UK population rise between 1997 and 2010: 4.45m
That doesn't affect the rate though does it.
Because of the changing age pyramid in the country that expansion of the population is almost entirely of the retired. The working age population is pretty much unchanged. Without immigration taxes would be higher or pensions would be less, or both. This is the debate on immigration that we never have. Do we want to be pure but poor?
We need to increase our birthrate, on that Musk is right
No, we need to increase taxes.
We are taxed far more than the average nation on the planet already but have fewer children than the average nation too
Right now the Guardian website has four stories at the top, all different versions of “Rachel Reeves is a cruel, lying, incompetent clown”
Unbelievable hostility to a Labour Chancellor. I wonder if Labour’s polling might dip below 20
Unfair on Reeves because she's doing the right thing and no-one likes it.
If I may politely disagree. The function of the Labour Party is to increase the wealth and opportunities of the working class and the poor. To do this it increases equality by taxing the rich and spreading that wealth to the poor. But the belief has spread that one cannot tax the rich (because they leave) so the only tool Labour have left is to impoverish and immiserate the poor and/or working class, therefore obviating the entire point of the Labour movement.
If things keep going this way the South Wales Valleys will go Reform in 2029, which is Olympus has fallen for Labour. Starmer flirts unthinking with the destruction of his party, which as a metropolitan elite lawyer he failks to understand or even intuit.
You do have to think that a Labour Government taking a quarter of a million more into poverty has a fundamental problem.
But then, all Labour Governments leave office with fewer employed than they inherited.
At some point, voters WILL realise their business model is shite.
Employment in April 1997: 26.5mn Employment in April 2010: 29.5mn
Employment rate in April 1997: 58.1% Employment rate in April 2010: 58.2%
UK population rise between 1997 and 2010: 4.45m
That doesn't affect the rate though does it.
Because of the changing age pyramid in the country that expansion of the population is almost entirely of the retired. The working age population is pretty much unchanged. Without immigration taxes would be higher or pensions would be less, or both. This is the debate on immigration that we never have. Do we want to be pure but poor?
We need to increase our birthrate, on that Musk is right
We need to learn to live with a lower birth rate. Constantly trying to grow the population to maintain growth and create youngsters to provide for an ever increasing ageing population just leads water shortages, food shortages, migration, wars and climate warming.
We need alternative solutions, whatever they may be, but which does not mean Logan's run.
Do you appreciate how good robots are, now?
They are this good. This is not fake, this is not speeded up, this is real. They can, also, now do fine motor tasks - they can stack dishwashers and peel apples, they will be able to do nursing, tiling and plumbing
Why do you think China is pouring trillions into robotics (Unitree is a Chinese company)? This is the answer to falling birth rates
Well good. Problem solved then. Let's not keep trying to force people to have babies. We cannot keep increasing the planet's population and a decrease would be good for the planet.
A rare moment of complete agreement. There are, simply, far too many people on the planet. I see it on my travels. We are trashing our home and destroying nature. We need to get the human population down to about 2bn, which it was as recently as 1950
All the nasty jobs can be done by the Chinese robots
I like to think we agree more, I just don't go into hyperbole (he says having predicted the end of the world) unlike yourself so it just doesn't get noticed. I say this bearing in mind I am a liberal in the very sense of personal freedoms.
So because of the hyperbole I push back on stuff that if put more moderately I might be agreeing with you on.
Right now the Guardian website has four stories at the top, all different versions of “Rachel Reeves is a cruel, lying, incompetent clown”
Unbelievable hostility to a Labour Chancellor. I wonder if Labour’s polling might dip below 20
Unfair on Reeves because she's doing the right thing and no-one likes it.
If I may politely disagree. The function of the Labour Party is to increase the wealth and opportunities of the working class and the poor. To do this it increases equality by taxing the rich and spreading that wealth to the poor. But the belief has spread that one cannot tax the rich (because they leave) so the only tool Labour have left is to impoverish and immiserate the poor and/or working class, therefore obviating the entire point of the Labour movement.
If things keep going this way the South Wales Valleys will go Reform in 2029, which is Olympus has fallen for Labour. Starmer flirts unthinking with the destruction of his party, which as a metropolitan elite lawyer he failks to understand or even intuit.
You do have to think that a Labour Government taking a quarter of a million more into poverty has a fundamental problem.
But then, all Labour Governments leave office with fewer employed than they inherited.
At some point, voters WILL realise their business model is shite.
Employment in April 1997: 26.5mn Employment in April 2010: 29.5mn
Employment rate in April 1997: 58.1% Employment rate in April 2010: 58.2%
UK population rise between 1997 and 2010: 4.45m
That doesn't affect the rate though does it.
Because of the changing age pyramid in the country that expansion of the population is almost entirely of the retired. The working age population is pretty much unchanged. Without immigration taxes would be higher or pensions would be less, or both. This is the debate on immigration that we never have. Do we want to be pure but poor?
We need to increase our birthrate, on that Musk is right
No, we need to increase taxes.
We are taxed far more than the average nation on the planet already but have fewer children than the average nation too
Then scrap the triple lock and double child allowances.
Seriously disturbing. “"We need Greenland for international safety and security. We need it. We have to have it," Trump told podcaster Vince Coglianese. "I hate to put it that way, but we're going to have to have it."”
At what point does Denmark start shipping guns to Greenlandic citizens? This is literally a signpost to an invasion.
If Trump is serious then Greenland is finished. No way Denmark can defend it against the USA, nor can 50,000 Greenlanders fight off the USMC
It could all be done and dusted in a day
Don't fret. it isn't going to happen.
This is Trump. He very often does exactly what he says - eg tariffs
I thought he’d try and bribe the Greenlanders to accede. Give each one $50k. The USA can afford it
But maybe he’ll just fly in the Marines (if they are willing to obey)
He could, but the USA would just be a bullying occupying force. He knows that no-one (except Russia) would recognise territorial ownership so it would be like squatters in Trump Tower. It would be meaningless. He will hope he can buy it.
Any occupying force would be a the end of quite a long and vulnerable supply line. Everything would have to be flown or sailed in, over Canada or the sea. Supply ships and fat aircraft are very hittable targets for a missile.
So, for that matter, are Air Force One and Mar-a-Lago.
Who do you think is going to be firing missiles at them?
Anyone with a sub in the North Atlantic who has a Nato commitment to defend its members.
As you may know, I was disgusted by the recent award of a NHS contract to Peter Thiel. If you want to keep track of yet another billionaire buying the UK, may I recommend the Byline Times articles thus:
Right now the Guardian website has four stories at the top, all different versions of “Rachel Reeves is a cruel, lying, incompetent clown”
Unbelievable hostility to a Labour Chancellor. I wonder if Labour’s polling might dip below 20
Unfair on Reeves because she's doing the right thing and no-one likes it.
If I may politely disagree. The function of the Labour Party is to increase the wealth and opportunities of the working class and the poor. To do this it increases equality by taxing the rich and spreading that wealth to the poor. But the belief has spread that one cannot tax the rich (because they leave) so the only tool Labour have left is to impoverish and immiserate the poor and/or working class, therefore obviating the entire point of the Labour movement.
If things keep going this way the South Wales Valleys will go Reform in 2029, which is Olympus has fallen for Labour. Starmer flirts unthinking with the destruction of his party, which as a metropolitan elite lawyer he failks to understand or even intuit.
You do have to think that a Labour Government taking a quarter of a million more into poverty has a fundamental problem.
But then, all Labour Governments leave office with fewer employed than they inherited.
At some point, voters WILL realise their business model is shite.
Employment in April 1997: 26.5mn Employment in April 2010: 29.5mn
Employment rate in April 1997: 58.1% Employment rate in April 2010: 58.2%
UK population rise between 1997 and 2010: 4.45m
That doesn't affect the rate though does it.
Because of the changing age pyramid in the country that expansion of the population is almost entirely of the retired. The working age population is pretty much unchanged. Without immigration taxes would be higher or pensions would be less, or both. This is the debate on immigration that we never have. Do we want to be pure but poor?
We need to increase our birthrate, on that Musk is right
We need to learn to live with a lower birth rate. Constantly trying to grow the population to maintain growth and create youngsters to provide for an ever increasing ageing population just leads water shortages, food shortages, migration, wars and climate warming.
We need alternative solutions, whatever they may be, but which does not mean Logan's run.
Do you appreciate how good robots are, now?
They are this good. This is not fake, this is not speeded up, this is real. They can, also, now do fine motor tasks - they can stack dishwashers and peel apples, they will be able to do nursing, tiling and plumbing
Why do you think China is pouring trillions into robotics (Unitree is a Chinese company)? This is the answer to falling birth rates
Well good. Problem solved then. Let's not keep trying to force people to have babies. We cannot keep increasing the planet's population and a decrease would be good for the planet.
A rare moment of complete agreement. There are, simply, far too many people on the planet. I see it on my travels. We are trashing our home and destroying nature. We need to get the human population down to about 2bn, which it was as recently as 1950
All the nasty jobs can be done by the Chinese robots
I like to think we agree more, I just don't go into hyperbole (he says having predicted the end of the world) unlike yourself so it just doesn't get noticed. I say this bearing in mind I am a liberal in the very sense of personal freedoms.
So because of the hyperbole I push back on stuff that if put more moderately I might be agreeing with you on.
I go into hyperbolic mode because
1. it entertains me and
2. I am naturally hyperbolic
There are enough people on here being moderately sensible all the time, you need a bit of variety
On the sixth man prepares his final dream: In our image, let's make robots for our slaves Imagine all the time that we can save Computers, machines, the silicon dream Seventh he retired from the scene And he said: Behold what I have done I've made a better world for everyone
Right now the Guardian website has four stories at the top, all different versions of “Rachel Reeves is a cruel, lying, incompetent clown”
Unbelievable hostility to a Labour Chancellor. I wonder if Labour’s polling might dip below 20
Unfair on Reeves because she's doing the right thing and no-one likes it.
If I may politely disagree. The function of the Labour Party is to increase the wealth and opportunities of the working class and the poor. To do this it increases equality by taxing the rich and spreading that wealth to the poor. But the belief has spread that one cannot tax the rich (because they leave) so the only tool Labour have left is to impoverish and immiserate the poor and/or working class, therefore obviating the entire point of the Labour movement.
If things keep going this way the South Wales Valleys will go Reform in 2029, which is Olympus has fallen for Labour. Starmer flirts unthinking with the destruction of his party, which as a metropolitan elite lawyer he failks to understand or even intuit.
You do have to think that a Labour Government taking a quarter of a million more into poverty has a fundamental problem.
But then, all Labour Governments leave office with fewer employed than they inherited.
At some point, voters WILL realise their business model is shite.
Employment in April 1997: 26.5mn Employment in April 2010: 29.5mn
Employment rate in April 1997: 58.1% Employment rate in April 2010: 58.2%
UK population rise between 1997 and 2010: 4.45m
That doesn't affect the rate though does it.
Because of the changing age pyramid in the country that expansion of the population is almost entirely of the retired. The working age population is pretty much unchanged. Without immigration taxes would be higher or pensions would be less, or both. This is the debate on immigration that we never have. Do we want to be pure but poor?
We need to increase our birthrate, on that Musk is right
We need to learn to live with a lower birth rate. Constantly trying to grow the population to maintain growth and create youngsters to provide for an ever increasing ageing population just leads water shortages, food shortages, migration, wars and climate warming.
We need alternative solutions, whatever they may be, but which does not mean Logan's run.
Jenny Agutter in that dress. If that's what Logan's Run means, I think we should be considering it.
Right now the Guardian website has four stories at the top, all different versions of “Rachel Reeves is a cruel, lying, incompetent clown”
Unbelievable hostility to a Labour Chancellor. I wonder if Labour’s polling might dip below 20
Unfair on Reeves because she's doing the right thing and no-one likes it.
If I may politely disagree. The function of the Labour Party is to increase the wealth and opportunities of the working class and the poor. To do this it increases equality by taxing the rich and spreading that wealth to the poor. But the belief has spread that one cannot tax the rich (because they leave) so the only tool Labour have left is to impoverish and immiserate the poor and/or working class, therefore obviating the entire point of the Labour movement.
If things keep going this way the South Wales Valleys will go Reform in 2029, which is Olympus has fallen for Labour. Starmer flirts unthinking with the destruction of his party, which as a metropolitan elite lawyer he failks to understand or even intuit.
You do have to think that a Labour Government taking a quarter of a million more into poverty has a fundamental problem.
But then, all Labour Governments leave office with fewer employed than they inherited.
At some point, voters WILL realise their business model is shite.
Employment in April 1997: 26.5mn Employment in April 2010: 29.5mn
Employment rate in April 1997: 58.1% Employment rate in April 2010: 58.2%
UK population rise between 1997 and 2010: 4.45m
That doesn't affect the rate though does it.
Because of the changing age pyramid in the country that expansion of the population is almost entirely of the retired. The working age population is pretty much unchanged. Without immigration taxes would be higher or pensions would be less, or both. This is the debate on immigration that we never have. Do we want to be pure but poor?
We need to increase our birthrate, on that Musk is right
We need to learn to live with a lower birth rate. Constantly trying to grow the population to maintain growth and create youngsters to provide for an ever increasing ageing population just leads water shortages, food shortages, migration, wars and climate warming.
We need alternative solutions, whatever they may be, but which does not mean Logan's run.
Do you appreciate how good robots are, now?
They are this good. This is not fake, this is not speeded up, this is real. They can, also, now do fine motor tasks - they can stack dishwashers and peel apples, they will be able to do nursing, tiling and plumbing
Why do you think China is pouring trillions into robotics (Unitree is a Chinese company)? This is the answer to falling birth rates
Well good. Problem solved then. Let's not keep trying to force people to have babies. We cannot keep increasing the planet's population and a decrease would be good for the planet.
A rare moment of complete agreement. There are, simply, far too many people on the planet. I see it on my travels. We are trashing our home and destroying nature. We need to get the human population down to about 2bn, which it was as recently as 1950
All the nasty jobs can be done by the Chinese robots
I like to think we agree more, I just don't go into hyperbole (he says having predicted the end of the world) unlike yourself so it just doesn't get noticed. I say this bearing in mind I am a liberal in the very sense of personal freedoms.
So because of the hyperbole I push back on stuff that if put more moderately I might be agreeing with you on.
The reasons that birth rates are falling across the world are fascinating. One of my theories is that birth rate is falling because there are simply too many people on the planet: excess people leads to excess demand for housing, which drives up housing costs, which drives down the amount of money we have for everything else (e.g. babies). Having children in the modern world is ruinously expensive. This is true anywhere in the world with an urban population (and it is only places late to urbanise like Niger that still have high birth rates.) Why are birth rates falling? Because there are too many people.
I have toyed with writing a thread on birth rates. I find it fascinating that such a profound change is going on and has only recently started to attract a bit of attention. I find it even more fascinating that there is no consensus to why it happens.
Right now the Guardian website has four stories at the top, all different versions of “Rachel Reeves is a cruel, lying, incompetent clown”
Unbelievable hostility to a Labour Chancellor. I wonder if Labour’s polling might dip below 20
Unfair on Reeves because she's doing the right thing and no-one likes it.
If I may politely disagree. The function of the Labour Party is to increase the wealth and opportunities of the working class and the poor. To do this it increases equality by taxing the rich and spreading that wealth to the poor. But the belief has spread that one cannot tax the rich (because they leave) so the only tool Labour have left is to impoverish and immiserate the poor and/or working class, therefore obviating the entire point of the Labour movement.
If things keep going this way the South Wales Valleys will go Reform in 2029, which is Olympus has fallen for Labour. Starmer flirts unthinking with the destruction of his party, which as a metropolitan elite lawyer he failks to understand or even intuit.
You do have to think that a Labour Government taking a quarter of a million more into poverty has a fundamental problem.
But then, all Labour Governments leave office with fewer employed than they inherited.
At some point, voters WILL realise their business model is shite.
Employment in April 1997: 26.5mn Employment in April 2010: 29.5mn
Employment rate in April 1997: 58.1% Employment rate in April 2010: 58.2%
UK population rise between 1997 and 2010: 4.45m
That doesn't affect the rate though does it.
Because of the changing age pyramid in the country that expansion of the population is almost entirely of the retired. The working age population is pretty much unchanged. Without immigration taxes would be higher or pensions would be less, or both. This is the debate on immigration that we never have. Do we want to be pure but poor?
We need to increase our birthrate, on that Musk is right
No, we need to increase taxes.
We are taxed far more than the average nation on the planet already but have fewer children than the average nation too
Neither of those are true when comparing to similar countries, e.g. in Western Europe.
Seriously disturbing. “"We need Greenland for international safety and security. We need it. We have to have it," Trump told podcaster Vince Coglianese. "I hate to put it that way, but we're going to have to have it."”
At what point does Denmark start shipping guns to Greenlandic citizens? This is literally a signpost to an invasion.
If Trump is serious then Greenland is finished. No way Denmark can defend it against the USA, nor can 50,000 Greenlanders fight off the USMC
It could all be done and dusted in a day
Don't fret. it isn't going to happen.
This is Trump. He very often does exactly what he says - eg tariffs
I thought he’d try and bribe the Greenlanders to accede. Give each one $50k. The USA can afford it
But maybe he’ll just fly in the Marines (if they are willing to obey)
He could, but the USA would just be a bullying occupying force. He knows that no-one (except Russia) would recognise territorial ownership so it would be like squatters in Trump Tower. It would be meaningless. He will hope he can buy it.
Any occupying force would be a the end of quite a long and vulnerable supply line. Everything would have to be flown or sailed in, over Canada or the sea. Supply ships and fat aircraft are very hittable targets for a missile.
So, for that matter, are Air Force One and Mar-a-Lago.
Who do you think is going to be firing missiles at them?
Anyone with a sub in the North Atlantic who has a Nato commitment to defend its members.
Seriously disturbing. “"We need Greenland for international safety and security. We need it. We have to have it," Trump told podcaster Vince Coglianese. "I hate to put it that way, but we're going to have to have it."”
At what point does Denmark start shipping guns to Greenlandic citizens? This is literally a signpost to an invasion.
If Trump is serious then Greenland is finished. No way Denmark can defend it against the USA, nor can 50,000 Greenlanders fight off the USMC
It could all be done and dusted in a day
Don't fret. it isn't going to happen.
This is Trump. He very often does exactly what he says - eg tariffs
I thought he’d try and bribe the Greenlanders to accede. Give each one $50k. The USA can afford it
But maybe he’ll just fly in the Marines (if they are willing to obey)
He could, but the USA would just be a bullying occupying force. He knows that no-one (except Russia) would recognise territorial ownership so it would be like squatters in Trump Tower. It would be meaningless. He will hope he can buy it.
Any occupying force would be a the end of quite a long and vulnerable supply line. Everything would have to be flown or sailed in, over Canada or the sea. Supply ships and fat aircraft are very hittable targets for a missile.
So, for that matter, are Air Force One and Mar-a-Lago.
Who do you think is going to be firing missiles at them?
Anyone with a sub in the North Atlantic who has a Nato commitment to defend its members.
Right now the Guardian website has four stories at the top, all different versions of “Rachel Reeves is a cruel, lying, incompetent clown”
Unbelievable hostility to a Labour Chancellor. I wonder if Labour’s polling might dip below 20
Unfair on Reeves because she's doing the right thing and no-one likes it.
If I may politely disagree. The function of the Labour Party is to increase the wealth and opportunities of the working class and the poor. To do this it increases equality by taxing the rich and spreading that wealth to the poor. But the belief has spread that one cannot tax the rich (because they leave) so the only tool Labour have left is to impoverish and immiserate the poor and/or working class, therefore obviating the entire point of the Labour movement.
If things keep going this way the South Wales Valleys will go Reform in 2029, which is Olympus has fallen for Labour. Starmer flirts unthinking with the destruction of his party, which as a metropolitan elite lawyer he failks to understand or even intuit.
You do have to think that a Labour Government taking a quarter of a million more into poverty has a fundamental problem.
But then, all Labour Governments leave office with fewer employed than they inherited.
At some point, voters WILL realise their business model is shite.
Employment in April 1997: 26.5mn Employment in April 2010: 29.5mn
Employment rate in April 1997: 58.1% Employment rate in April 2010: 58.2%
UK population rise between 1997 and 2010: 4.45m
That doesn't affect the rate though does it.
Because of the changing age pyramid in the country that expansion of the population is almost entirely of the retired. The working age population is pretty much unchanged. Without immigration taxes would be higher or pensions would be less, or both. This is the debate on immigration that we never have. Do we want to be pure but poor?
We need to increase our birthrate, on that Musk is right
We need to learn to live with a lower birth rate. Constantly trying to grow the population to maintain growth and create youngsters to provide for an ever increasing ageing population just leads water shortages, food shortages, migration, wars and climate warming.
We need alternative solutions, whatever they may be, but which does not mean Logan's run.
Do you appreciate how good robots are, now?
They are this good. This is not fake, this is not speeded up, this is real. They can, also, now do fine motor tasks - they can stack dishwashers and peel apples, they will be able to do nursing, tiling and plumbing
Why do you think China is pouring trillions into robotics (Unitree is a Chinese company)? This is the answer to falling birth rates
Well good. Problem solved then. Let's not keep trying to force people to have babies. We cannot keep increasing the planet's population and a decrease would be good for the planet.
A rare moment of complete agreement. There are, simply, far too many people on the planet. I see it on my travels. We are trashing our home and destroying nature. We need to get the human population down to about 2bn, which it was as recently as 1950
All the nasty jobs can be done by the Chinese robots
I like to think we agree more, I just don't go into hyperbole (he says having predicted the end of the world) unlike yourself so it just doesn't get noticed. I say this bearing in mind I am a liberal in the very sense of personal freedoms.
So because of the hyperbole I push back on stuff that if put more moderately I might be agreeing with you on.
The reasons that birth rates are falling across the world are fascinating. One of my theories is that birth rate is falling because there are simply too many people on the planet: excess people leads to excess demand for housing, which drives up housing costs, which drives down the amount of money we have for everything else (e.g. babies). Having children in the modern world is ruinously expensive. This is true anywhere in the world with an urban population (and it is only places late to urbanise like Niger that still have high birth rates.) Why are birth rates falling? Because there are too many people.
I have toyed with writing a thread on birth rates. I find it fascinating that such a profound change is going on and has only recently started to attract a bit of attention. I find it even more fascinating that there is no consensus to why it happens.
All true, to a point (and I share your fascination), but birth rates are also declining in rich countries with lots of room and no housing problems
They are falling in democracies and autocracies, in Islamic, Christian and secular countries, in superpowers and tiny statelets, they are falling in South Korea and North Korea, they are falling despite many attempts to reverse them, worldwide. It'sa huge puzzle with varying answers. Female education is definitely a driver, but there are also physiological facts - sperm counts dropping, men becoming feminised. At the same time humanity is getting stupider quite fast
On the sixth man prepares his final dream: In our image, let's make robots for our slaves Imagine all the time that we can save Computers, machines, the silicon dream Seventh he retired from the scene And he said: Behold what I have done I've made a better world for everyone
I like to think (it has to be!) of a cybernetic ecology where we are free of our labors and joined back to nature, returned to our mammal brothers and sisters, and all watched over by machines of loving grace.
Scoop: Elise Stefanik's nomination for UN ambassador is in jeopardy as pressure mounts for her to back away from the UN ambassador position, partly because Republicans hold a small majority in the US House. There are discussions being held this morning about whether she should pull her nomination as soon as today, sources told @gabrielle_ake and me. @CBSNews
Trump likes good looking people who make good TV. That's his criterion.
He admires Starmer's accent and thinks he is handsome.
Speaking to Metro, Lip reading expert Jacqui Press reveals Trump reportedly said to Starmer: ‘How are you? Nice to see you here, good journey? ‘You look good… handsome.’
And as for Starmer's wife Vic, well ,,, The US president said he was “very impressed” with Sir Keir Starmer's "beautiful wife".
I wonder if the Reeves omnifeck will take them below 20, or is ~22 their floor?
Might bake in the green vote of 11%.
The things the gov't are doing competently - making nice with Trump, increasing defence spending, cutting welfare aren't going to butter many parsnips on his left flank.
Right now the Guardian website has four stories at the top, all different versions of “Rachel Reeves is a cruel, lying, incompetent clown”
Unbelievable hostility to a Labour Chancellor. I wonder if Labour’s polling might dip below 20
Unfair on Reeves because she's doing the right thing and no-one likes it.
If I may politely disagree. The function of the Labour Party is to increase the wealth and opportunities of the working class and the poor. To do this it increases equality by taxing the rich and spreading that wealth to the poor. But the belief has spread that one cannot tax the rich (because they leave) so the only tool Labour have left is to impoverish and immiserate the poor and/or working class, therefore obviating the entire point of the Labour movement.
If things keep going this way the South Wales Valleys will go Reform in 2029, which is Olympus has fallen for Labour. Starmer flirts unthinking with the destruction of his party, which as a metropolitan elite lawyer he failks to understand or even intuit.
You do have to think that a Labour Government taking a quarter of a million more into poverty has a fundamental problem.
But then, all Labour Governments leave office with fewer employed than they inherited.
At some point, voters WILL realise their business model is shite.
Employment in April 1997: 26.5mn Employment in April 2010: 29.5mn
Employment rate in April 1997: 58.1% Employment rate in April 2010: 58.2%
UK population rise between 1997 and 2010: 4.45m
That doesn't affect the rate though does it.
Because of the changing age pyramid in the country that expansion of the population is almost entirely of the retired. The working age population is pretty much unchanged. Without immigration taxes would be higher or pensions would be less, or both. This is the debate on immigration that we never have. Do we want to be pure but poor?
We need to increase our birthrate, on that Musk is right
We need to learn to live with a lower birth rate. Constantly trying to grow the population to maintain growth and create youngsters to provide for an ever increasing ageing population just leads water shortages, food shortages, migration, wars and climate warming.
We need alternative solutions, whatever they may be, but which does not mean Logan's run.
Do you appreciate how good robots are, now?
They are this good. This is not fake, this is not speeded up, this is real. They can, also, now do fine motor tasks - they can stack dishwashers and peel apples, they will be able to do nursing, tiling and plumbing
Why do you think China is pouring trillions into robotics (Unitree is a Chinese company)? This is the answer to falling birth rates
Well good. Problem solved then. Let's not keep trying to force people to have babies. We cannot keep increasing the planet's population and a decrease would be good for the planet.
A rare moment of complete agreement. There are, simply, far too many people on the planet. I see it on my travels. We are trashing our home and destroying nature. We need to get the human population down to about 2bn, which it was as recently as 1950
All the nasty jobs can be done by the Chinese robots
I like to think we agree more, I just don't go into hyperbole (he says having predicted the end of the world) unlike yourself so it just doesn't get noticed. I say this bearing in mind I am a liberal in the very sense of personal freedoms.
So because of the hyperbole I push back on stuff that if put more moderately I might be agreeing with you on.
I go into hyperbolic mode because
1. it entertains me and
2. I am naturally hyperbolic
There are enough people on here being moderately sensible all the time, you need a bit of variety
But you are the most hyperbolic (!!!) person in the whole history of the planet.
On the sixth man prepares his final dream: In our image, let's make robots for our slaves Imagine all the time that we can save Computers, machines, the silicon dream Seventh he retired from the scene And he said: Behold what I have done I've made a better world for everyone
I like to think (it has to be!) of a cybernetic ecology where we are free of our labors and joined back to nature, returned to our mammal brothers and sisters, and all watched over by machines of loving grace.
On the sixth man prepares his final dream: In our image, let's make robots for our slaves Imagine all the time that we can save Computers, machines, the silicon dream Seventh he retired from the scene And he said: Behold what I have done I've made a better world for everyone
I like to think (it has to be!) of a cybernetic ecology where we are free of our labors and joined back to nature, returned to our mammal brothers and sisters, and all watched over by machines of loving grace.
There's a New Yorker cartoon which may be about Trump. One businessman is telling another: "Not to worry. We'll put our best looking people on it." (Or something like that.)
The imposition of the tariffs on all auto parts is going to have a significant impact on American auto insurance prices. We have been totting up the additional costs of repairs due to tariffs and on Comprehensive, Collision and Physical Damage, the impact is likely to be in the high single digits.
Given that auto insurance is - behind housing - the second largest expense for younger and poorer Americans, this is going to hit pretty hard.
The imposition of the tariffs on all auto parts is going to have a significant impact on American auto insurance prices. We have been totting up the additional costs of repairs due to tariffs and on Comprehensive, Collision and Physical Damage, the impact is likely to be in the high single digits.
Given that auto insurance is - behind housing - the second largest expense for younger and poorer Americans, this is going to hit pretty hard.
Trump is the dumbest President in living memory, surrounded by the worst cabinet ever recorded.
The imposition of the tariffs on all auto parts is going to have a significant impact on American auto insurance prices. We have been totting up the additional costs of repairs due to tariffs and on Comprehensive, Collision and Physical Damage, the impact is likely to be in the high single digits.
Given that auto insurance is - behind housing - the second largest expense for younger and poorer Americans, this is going to hit pretty hard.
What do you mean high single digits? Another $8 or an extra 8% on the total cost?!
Right now the Guardian website has four stories at the top, all different versions of “Rachel Reeves is a cruel, lying, incompetent clown”
Unbelievable hostility to a Labour Chancellor. I wonder if Labour’s polling might dip below 20
Unfair on Reeves because she's doing the right thing and no-one likes it.
If I may politely disagree. The function of the Labour Party is to increase the wealth and opportunities of the working class and the poor. To do this it increases equality by taxing the rich and spreading that wealth to the poor. But the belief has spread that one cannot tax the rich (because they leave) so the only tool Labour have left is to impoverish and immiserate the poor and/or working class, therefore obviating the entire point of the Labour movement.
If things keep going this way the South Wales Valleys will go Reform in 2029, which is Olympus has fallen for Labour. Starmer flirts unthinking with the destruction of his party, which as a metropolitan elite lawyer he failks to understand or even intuit.
You do have to think that a Labour Government taking a quarter of a million more into poverty has a fundamental problem.
But then, all Labour Governments leave office with fewer employed than they inherited.
At some point, voters WILL realise their business model is shite.
Employment in April 1997: 26.5mn Employment in April 2010: 29.5mn
Employment rate in April 1997: 58.1% Employment rate in April 2010: 58.2%
UK population rise between 1997 and 2010: 4.45m
That doesn't affect the rate though does it.
Because of the changing age pyramid in the country that expansion of the population is almost entirely of the retired. The working age population is pretty much unchanged. Without immigration taxes would be higher or pensions would be less, or both. This is the debate on immigration that we never have. Do we want to be pure but poor?
We need to increase our birthrate, on that Musk is right
No, we need to increase taxes.
We are taxed far more than the average nation on the planet already but have fewer children than the average nation too
Neither of those are true when comparing to similar countries, e.g. in Western Europe.
Even true there in some places, Switzerland and Ireland tax less, France and Ireland have more children
Right now the Guardian website has four stories at the top, all different versions of “Rachel Reeves is a cruel, lying, incompetent clown”
Unbelievable hostility to a Labour Chancellor. I wonder if Labour’s polling might dip below 20
Unfair on Reeves because she's doing the right thing and no-one likes it.
If I may politely disagree. The function of the Labour Party is to increase the wealth and opportunities of the working class and the poor. To do this it increases equality by taxing the rich and spreading that wealth to the poor. But the belief has spread that one cannot tax the rich (because they leave) so the only tool Labour have left is to impoverish and immiserate the poor and/or working class, therefore obviating the entire point of the Labour movement.
If things keep going this way the South Wales Valleys will go Reform in 2029, which is Olympus has fallen for Labour. Starmer flirts unthinking with the destruction of his party, which as a metropolitan elite lawyer he failks to understand or even intuit.
You do have to think that a Labour Government taking a quarter of a million more into poverty has a fundamental problem.
But then, all Labour Governments leave office with fewer employed than they inherited.
At some point, voters WILL realise their business model is shite.
Employment in April 1997: 26.5mn Employment in April 2010: 29.5mn
Employment rate in April 1997: 58.1% Employment rate in April 2010: 58.2%
UK population rise between 1997 and 2010: 4.45m
That doesn't affect the rate though does it.
Because of the changing age pyramid in the country that expansion of the population is almost entirely of the retired. The working age population is pretty much unchanged. Without immigration taxes would be higher or pensions would be less, or both. This is the debate on immigration that we never have. Do we want to be pure but poor?
We need to increase our birthrate, on that Musk is right
We need to learn to live with a lower birth rate. Constantly trying to grow the population to maintain growth and create youngsters to provide for an ever increasing ageing population just leads water shortages, food shortages, migration, wars and climate warming.
We need alternative solutions, whatever they may be, but which does not mean Logan's run.
Do you appreciate how good robots are, now?
They are this good. This is not fake, this is not speeded up, this is real. They can, also, now do fine motor tasks - they can stack dishwashers and peel apples, they will be able to do nursing, tiling and plumbing
Why do you think China is pouring trillions into robotics (Unitree is a Chinese company)? This is the answer to falling birth rates
Well good. Problem solved then. Let's not keep trying to force people to have babies. We cannot keep increasing the planet's population and a decrease would be good for the planet.
A rare moment of complete agreement. There are, simply, far too many people on the planet. I see it on my travels. We are trashing our home and destroying nature. We need to get the human population down to about 2bn, which it was as recently as 1950
All the nasty jobs can be done by the Chinese robots
I like to think we agree more, I just don't go into hyperbole (he says having predicted the end of the world) unlike yourself so it just doesn't get noticed. I say this bearing in mind I am a liberal in the very sense of personal freedoms.
So because of the hyperbole I push back on stuff that if put more moderately I might be agreeing with you on.
The reasons that birth rates are falling across the world are fascinating. One of my theories is that birth rate is falling because there are simply too many people on the planet: excess people leads to excess demand for housing, which drives up housing costs, which drives down the amount of money we have for everything else (e.g. babies). Having children in the modern world is ruinously expensive. This is true anywhere in the world with an urban population (and it is only places late to urbanise like Niger that still have high birth rates.) Why are birth rates falling? Because there are too many people.
I have toyed with writing a thread on birth rates. I find it fascinating that such a profound change is going on and has only recently started to attract a bit of attention. I find it even more fascinating that there is no consensus to why it happens.
I think that it's quite simple. Most women quite like the idea of having a baby, or possibly two, but the actual process is traumatic and indeed potentially life threatening, so as soon as they have the technology to limit their families they do so. Sex is fun, but actually having babies isn't!
The imposition of the tariffs on all auto parts is going to have a significant impact on American auto insurance prices. We have been totting up the additional costs of repairs due to tariffs and on Comprehensive, Collision and Physical Damage, the impact is likely to be in the high single digits.
Given that auto insurance is - behind housing - the second largest expense for younger and poorer Americans, this is going to hit pretty hard.
What do you mean high single digits? Another $8 or an extra 8% on the total cost?!
I think it's easy to miss how expensive auto insurance is in the US. In Florida, the average price per car for full coverage is about $4,000. If prices need to move 7-8% due to the tariffs, that's going to absolutely hammer poor Americans:
Right now the Guardian website has four stories at the top, all different versions of “Rachel Reeves is a cruel, lying, incompetent clown”
Unbelievable hostility to a Labour Chancellor. I wonder if Labour’s polling might dip below 20
Unfair on Reeves because she's doing the right thing and no-one likes it.
If I may politely disagree. The function of the Labour Party is to increase the wealth and opportunities of the working class and the poor. To do this it increases equality by taxing the rich and spreading that wealth to the poor. But the belief has spread that one cannot tax the rich (because they leave) so the only tool Labour have left is to impoverish and immiserate the poor and/or working class, therefore obviating the entire point of the Labour movement.
If things keep going this way the South Wales Valleys will go Reform in 2029, which is Olympus has fallen for Labour. Starmer flirts unthinking with the destruction of his party, which as a metropolitan elite lawyer he failks to understand or even intuit.
You do have to think that a Labour Government taking a quarter of a million more into poverty has a fundamental problem.
But then, all Labour Governments leave office with fewer employed than they inherited.
At some point, voters WILL realise their business model is shite.
Employment in April 1997: 26.5mn Employment in April 2010: 29.5mn
Employment rate in April 1997: 58.1% Employment rate in April 2010: 58.2%
UK population rise between 1997 and 2010: 4.45m
That doesn't affect the rate though does it.
Because of the changing age pyramid in the country that expansion of the population is almost entirely of the retired. The working age population is pretty much unchanged. Without immigration taxes would be higher or pensions would be less, or both. This is the debate on immigration that we never have. Do we want to be pure but poor?
We need to increase our birthrate, on that Musk is right
We need to learn to live with a lower birth rate. Constantly trying to grow the population to maintain growth and create youngsters to provide for an ever increasing ageing population just leads water shortages, food shortages, migration, wars and climate warming.
We need alternative solutions, whatever they may be, but which does not mean Logan's run.
Do you appreciate how good robots are, now?
They are this good. This is not fake, this is not speeded up, this is real. They can, also, now do fine motor tasks - they can stack dishwashers and peel apples, they will be able to do nursing, tiling and plumbing
Why do you think China is pouring trillions into robotics (Unitree is a Chinese company)? This is the answer to falling birth rates
Well good. Problem solved then. Let's not keep trying to force people to have babies. We cannot keep increasing the planet's population and a decrease would be good for the planet.
A rare moment of complete agreement. There are, simply, far too many people on the planet. I see it on my travels. We are trashing our home and destroying nature. We need to get the human population down to about 2bn, which it was as recently as 1950
All the nasty jobs can be done by the Chinese robots
I like to think we agree more, I just don't go into hyperbole (he says having predicted the end of the world) unlike yourself so it just doesn't get noticed. I say this bearing in mind I am a liberal in the very sense of personal freedoms.
So because of the hyperbole I push back on stuff that if put more moderately I might be agreeing with you on.
The reasons that birth rates are falling across the world are fascinating. One of my theories is that birth rate is falling because there are simply too many people on the planet: excess people leads to excess demand for housing, which drives up housing costs, which drives down the amount of money we have for everything else (e.g. babies). Having children in the modern world is ruinously expensive. This is true anywhere in the world with an urban population (and it is only places late to urbanise like Niger that still have high birth rates.) Why are birth rates falling? Because there are too many people.
I have toyed with writing a thread on birth rates. I find it fascinating that such a profound change is going on and has only recently started to attract a bit of attention. I find it even more fascinating that there is no consensus to why it happens.
I think that it's quite simple. Most women quite like the idea of having a baby, or possibly two, but the actual process is traumatic and indeed potentially life threatening, so as soon as they have the technology to limit their families they do so. Sex is fun, but actually having babies isn't!
My wife said the pregnancy, the birth and the morning sickness she could go through. But conception, she said, never again.
The imposition of the tariffs on all auto parts is going to have a significant impact on American auto insurance prices. We have been totting up the additional costs of repairs due to tariffs and on Comprehensive, Collision and Physical Damage, the impact is likely to be in the high single digits.
Given that auto insurance is - behind housing - the second largest expense for younger and poorer Americans, this is going to hit pretty hard.
What do you mean high single digits? Another $8 or an extra 8% on the total cost?!
I think it's easy to miss how expensive auto insurance is in the US. In Florida, the average price per car for full coverage is about $4,000. If prices need to move 7-8% due to the tariffs, that's going to absolutely hammer poor Americans:
Ah so that's where all the comically high court pay-outs end up.
The imposition of the tariffs on all auto parts is going to have a significant impact on American auto insurance prices. We have been totting up the additional costs of repairs due to tariffs and on Comprehensive, Collision and Physical Damage, the impact is likely to be in the high single digits.
Given that auto insurance is - behind housing - the second largest expense for younger and poorer Americans, this is going to hit pretty hard.
What do you mean high single digits? Another $8 or an extra 8% on the total cost?!
I think it's easy to miss how expensive auto insurance is in the US. In Florida, the average price per car for full coverage is about $4,000. If prices need to move 7-8% due to the tariffs, that's going to absolutely hammer poor Americans:
Ah so that's where all the comically high court pay-outs end up.
The imposition of the tariffs on all auto parts is going to have a significant impact on American auto insurance prices. We have been totting up the additional costs of repairs due to tariffs and on Comprehensive, Collision and Physical Damage, the impact is likely to be in the high single digits.
Given that auto insurance is - behind housing - the second largest expense for younger and poorer Americans, this is going to hit pretty hard.
What do you mean high single digits? Another $8 or an extra 8% on the total cost?!
I think it's easy to miss how expensive auto insurance is in the US. In Florida, the average price per car for full coverage is about $4,000. If prices need to move 7-8% due to the tariffs, that's going to absolutely hammer poor Americans:
Ah so that's where all the comically high court pay-outs end up.
Ah, but no.
You see, in the US, auto insurance coverage is capped. So, your policy will have limits: i.e. the maximum amount your insurance company will pay out. In Florida, for example, many of those policies will have maximum payouts per accident of less than $50,000 or so.
Right now the Guardian website has four stories at the top, all different versions of “Rachel Reeves is a cruel, lying, incompetent clown”
Unbelievable hostility to a Labour Chancellor. I wonder if Labour’s polling might dip below 20
Unfair on Reeves because she's doing the right thing and no-one likes it.
If I may politely disagree. The function of the Labour Party is to increase the wealth and opportunities of the working class and the poor. To do this it increases equality by taxing the rich and spreading that wealth to the poor. But the belief has spread that one cannot tax the rich (because they leave) so the only tool Labour have left is to impoverish and immiserate the poor and/or working class, therefore obviating the entire point of the Labour movement.
If things keep going this way the South Wales Valleys will go Reform in 2029, which is Olympus has fallen for Labour. Starmer flirts unthinking with the destruction of his party, which as a metropolitan elite lawyer he failks to understand or even intuit.
You do have to think that a Labour Government taking a quarter of a million more into poverty has a fundamental problem.
But then, all Labour Governments leave office with fewer employed than they inherited.
At some point, voters WILL realise their business model is shite.
Employment in April 1997: 26.5mn Employment in April 2010: 29.5mn
Employment rate in April 1997: 58.1% Employment rate in April 2010: 58.2%
UK population rise between 1997 and 2010: 4.45m
That doesn't affect the rate though does it.
Because of the changing age pyramid in the country that expansion of the population is almost entirely of the retired. The working age population is pretty much unchanged. Without immigration taxes would be higher or pensions would be less, or both. This is the debate on immigration that we never have. Do we want to be pure but poor?
We need to increase our birthrate, on that Musk is right
We need to learn to live with a lower birth rate. Constantly trying to grow the population to maintain growth and create youngsters to provide for an ever increasing ageing population just leads water shortages, food shortages, migration, wars and climate warming.
We need alternative solutions, whatever they may be, but which does not mean Logan's run.
Do you appreciate how good robots are, now?
They are this good. This is not fake, this is not speeded up, this is real. They can, also, now do fine motor tasks - they can stack dishwashers and peel apples, they will be able to do nursing, tiling and plumbing
Why do you think China is pouring trillions into robotics (Unitree is a Chinese company)? This is the answer to falling birth rates
Well good. Problem solved then. Let's not keep trying to force people to have babies. We cannot keep increasing the planet's population and a decrease would be good for the planet.
A rare moment of complete agreement. There are, simply, far too many people on the planet. I see it on my travels. We are trashing our home and destroying nature. We need to get the human population down to about 2bn, which it was as recently as 1950
All the nasty jobs can be done by the Chinese robots
I like to think we agree more, I just don't go into hyperbole (he says having predicted the end of the world) unlike yourself so it just doesn't get noticed. I say this bearing in mind I am a liberal in the very sense of personal freedoms.
So because of the hyperbole I push back on stuff that if put more moderately I might be agreeing with you on.
The reasons that birth rates are falling across the world are fascinating. One of my theories is that birth rate is falling because there are simply too many people on the planet: excess people leads to excess demand for housing, which drives up housing costs, which drives down the amount of money we have for everything else (e.g. babies). Having children in the modern world is ruinously expensive. This is true anywhere in the world with an urban population (and it is only places late to urbanise like Niger that still have high birth rates.) Why are birth rates falling? Because there are too many people.
I have toyed with writing a thread on birth rates. I find it fascinating that such a profound change is going on and has only recently started to attract a bit of attention. I find it even more fascinating that there is no consensus to why it happens.
All true, to a point (and I share your fascination), but birth rates are also declining in rich countries with lots of room and no housing problems
They are falling in democracies and autocracies, in Islamic, Christian and secular countries, in superpowers and tiny statelets, they are falling in South Korea and North Korea, they are falling despite many attempts to reverse them, worldwide. It'sa huge puzzle with varying answers. Female education is definitely a driver, but there are also physiological facts - sperm counts dropping, men becoming feminised. At the same time humanity is getting stupider quite fast
Most nations still have above or at replacement level fertility outside of Europe, the West and Far East.
More women having full time careers, fewer younger people religious in the West and Far East and housing costs all issues
The imposition of the tariffs on all auto parts is going to have a significant impact on American auto insurance prices. We have been totting up the additional costs of repairs due to tariffs and on Comprehensive, Collision and Physical Damage, the impact is likely to be in the high single digits.
Given that auto insurance is - behind housing - the second largest expense for younger and poorer Americans, this is going to hit pretty hard.
What do you mean high single digits? Another $8 or an extra 8% on the total cost?!
I think it's easy to miss how expensive auto insurance is in the US. In Florida, the average price per car for full coverage is about $4,000. If prices need to move 7-8% due to the tariffs, that's going to absolutely hammer poor Americans:
Ah so that's where all the comically high court pay-outs end up.
Ah, but no.
You see, in the US, auto insurance coverage is capped. So, your policy will have limits: i.e. the maximum amount your insurance company will pay out. In Florida, for example, many of those policies will have maximum payouts per accident of less than $50,000 or so.
Given that apparent disconnect - do American's just have loads of accidents, or do insurance companies make abnormal levels of profit? (Edit - or is there something else that I'm missing)
I would normally assume for an insurance company that payout is roughly equal in cash terms to premiums - with OpEx and profit coming from float. But that level of premium, and the cap, would suggest that the average floridean has an accident which costs $20k once every 5 years?
Right now the Guardian website has four stories at the top, all different versions of “Rachel Reeves is a cruel, lying, incompetent clown”
Unbelievable hostility to a Labour Chancellor. I wonder if Labour’s polling might dip below 20
Unfair on Reeves because she's doing the right thing and no-one likes it.
If I may politely disagree. The function of the Labour Party is to increase the wealth and opportunities of the working class and the poor. To do this it increases equality by taxing the rich and spreading that wealth to the poor. But the belief has spread that one cannot tax the rich (because they leave) so the only tool Labour have left is to impoverish and immiserate the poor and/or working class, therefore obviating the entire point of the Labour movement.
If things keep going this way the South Wales Valleys will go Reform in 2029, which is Olympus has fallen for Labour. Starmer flirts unthinking with the destruction of his party, which as a metropolitan elite lawyer he failks to understand or even intuit.
You do have to think that a Labour Government taking a quarter of a million more into poverty has a fundamental problem.
But then, all Labour Governments leave office with fewer employed than they inherited.
At some point, voters WILL realise their business model is shite.
Employment in April 1997: 26.5mn Employment in April 2010: 29.5mn
Employment rate in April 1997: 58.1% Employment rate in April 2010: 58.2%
UK population rise between 1997 and 2010: 4.45m
That doesn't affect the rate though does it.
Because of the changing age pyramid in the country that expansion of the population is almost entirely of the retired. The working age population is pretty much unchanged. Without immigration taxes would be higher or pensions would be less, or both. This is the debate on immigration that we never have. Do we want to be pure but poor?
We need to increase our birthrate, on that Musk is right
We need to learn to live with a lower birth rate. Constantly trying to grow the population to maintain growth and create youngsters to provide for an ever increasing ageing population just leads water shortages, food shortages, migration, wars and climate warming.
We need alternative solutions, whatever they may be, but which does not mean Logan's run.
Do you appreciate how good robots are, now?
They are this good. This is not fake, this is not speeded up, this is real. They can, also, now do fine motor tasks - they can stack dishwashers and peel apples, they will be able to do nursing, tiling and plumbing
Why do you think China is pouring trillions into robotics (Unitree is a Chinese company)? This is the answer to falling birth rates
Well good. Problem solved then. Let's not keep trying to force people to have babies. We cannot keep increasing the planet's population and a decrease would be good for the planet.
A rare moment of complete agreement. There are, simply, far too many people on the planet. I see it on my travels. We are trashing our home and destroying nature. We need to get the human population down to about 2bn, which it was as recently as 1950
All the nasty jobs can be done by the Chinese robots
I like to think we agree more, I just don't go into hyperbole (he says having predicted the end of the world) unlike yourself so it just doesn't get noticed. I say this bearing in mind I am a liberal in the very sense of personal freedoms.
So because of the hyperbole I push back on stuff that if put more moderately I might be agreeing with you on.
The reasons that birth rates are falling across the world are fascinating. One of my theories is that birth rate is falling because there are simply too many people on the planet: excess people leads to excess demand for housing, which drives up housing costs, which drives down the amount of money we have for everything else (e.g. babies). Having children in the modern world is ruinously expensive. This is true anywhere in the world with an urban population (and it is only places late to urbanise like Niger that still have high birth rates.) Why are birth rates falling? Because there are too many people.
I have toyed with writing a thread on birth rates. I find it fascinating that such a profound change is going on and has only recently started to attract a bit of attention. I find it even more fascinating that there is no consensus to why it happens.
I think there is a doom loop that goes something like this (I'm not 100% sure)...
People want to spend more time travelling/working/having fun (this is a good thing)
This means there are fewer couples, so more bedrooms and homes are needed for the same number of young people in urban areas
(There is a similar effect from divorces, the end of multi-generational households, and older people not down-sizing)
All of the cost of this increased demand flows to young people, and all the benefit towards older people, because older people have got smaller mortgages or, increasingly, own their homes outright.
This means that while housing costs overall are lower than at any point since the early 80s, this masks an imbalance where they are falling for older people while increasing for younger people
These increased costs make it harder for young people to build enough capital to get on the housing ladder and raise children, which makes travelling, yoga classes and other consumables relatively more achievable - and that's us back at the beginning again.
The imposition of the tariffs on all auto parts is going to have a significant impact on American auto insurance prices. We have been totting up the additional costs of repairs due to tariffs and on Comprehensive, Collision and Physical Damage, the impact is likely to be in the high single digits.
Given that auto insurance is - behind housing - the second largest expense for younger and poorer Americans, this is going to hit pretty hard.
Meh. High single digits? Trump will probably get general inflation above that.
Scoop: Elise Stefanik's nomination for UN ambassador is in jeopardy as pressure mounts for her to back away from the UN ambassador position, partly because Republicans hold a small majority in the US House. There are discussions being held this morning about whether she should pull her nomination as soon as today, sources told @gabrielle_ake and me. @CBSNews
The imposition of the tariffs on all auto parts is going to have a significant impact on American auto insurance prices. We have been totting up the additional costs of repairs due to tariffs and on Comprehensive, Collision and Physical Damage, the impact is likely to be in the high single digits.
Given that auto insurance is - behind housing - the second largest expense for younger and poorer Americans, this is going to hit pretty hard.
What do you mean high single digits? Another $8 or an extra 8% on the total cost?!
I think it's easy to miss how expensive auto insurance is in the US. In Florida, the average price per car for full coverage is about $4,000. If prices need to move 7-8% due to the tariffs, that's going to absolutely hammer poor Americans:
Ah so that's where all the comically high court pay-outs end up.
Ah, but no.
You see, in the US, auto insurance coverage is capped. So, your policy will have limits: i.e. the maximum amount your insurance company will pay out. In Florida, for example, many of those policies will have maximum payouts per accident of less than $50,000 or so.
Given that apparent disconnect - do American's just have loads of accidents, or do insurance companies make abnormal levels of profit? (Edit - or is there something else that I'm missing)
I would normally assume for an insurance company that payout is roughly equal in cash terms to premiums - with OpEx and profit coming from float. But that level of premium, and the cap, would suggest that the average floridean has an accident which costs $20k once every 5 years?
$18,000 in legal fees; $2,000 in damages.
(Which is an exaggeration, but not much. The big issue with Florida is that so many drivers are uninsured, which means rates for those who are insured are really high, which means even more people are uninsured.)
Right now the Guardian website has four stories at the top, all different versions of “Rachel Reeves is a cruel, lying, incompetent clown”
Unbelievable hostility to a Labour Chancellor. I wonder if Labour’s polling might dip below 20
Unfair on Reeves because she's doing the right thing and no-one likes it.
If I may politely disagree. The function of the Labour Party is to increase the wealth and opportunities of the working class and the poor. To do this it increases equality by taxing the rich and spreading that wealth to the poor. But the belief has spread that one cannot tax the rich (because they leave) so the only tool Labour have left is to impoverish and immiserate the poor and/or working class, therefore obviating the entire point of the Labour movement.
If things keep going this way the South Wales Valleys will go Reform in 2029, which is Olympus has fallen for Labour. Starmer flirts unthinking with the destruction of his party, which as a metropolitan elite lawyer he failks to understand or even intuit.
You do have to think that a Labour Government taking a quarter of a million more into poverty has a fundamental problem.
But then, all Labour Governments leave office with fewer employed than they inherited.
At some point, voters WILL realise their business model is shite.
Employment in April 1997: 26.5mn Employment in April 2010: 29.5mn
Employment rate in April 1997: 58.1% Employment rate in April 2010: 58.2%
UK population rise between 1997 and 2010: 4.45m
That doesn't affect the rate though does it.
Because of the changing age pyramid in the country that expansion of the population is almost entirely of the retired. The working age population is pretty much unchanged. Without immigration taxes would be higher or pensions would be less, or both. This is the debate on immigration that we never have. Do we want to be pure but poor?
We need to increase our birthrate, on that Musk is right
We need to learn to live with a lower birth rate. Constantly trying to grow the population to maintain growth and create youngsters to provide for an ever increasing ageing population just leads water shortages, food shortages, migration, wars and climate warming.
We need alternative solutions, whatever they may be, but which does not mean Logan's run.
Do you appreciate how good robots are, now?
They are this good. This is not fake, this is not speeded up, this is real. They can, also, now do fine motor tasks - they can stack dishwashers and peel apples, they will be able to do nursing, tiling and plumbing
Why do you think China is pouring trillions into robotics (Unitree is a Chinese company)? This is the answer to falling birth rates
Well good. Problem solved then. Let's not keep trying to force people to have babies. We cannot keep increasing the planet's population and a decrease would be good for the planet.
A rare moment of complete agreement. There are, simply, far too many people on the planet. I see it on my travels. We are trashing our home and destroying nature. We need to get the human population down to about 2bn, which it was as recently as 1950
All the nasty jobs can be done by the Chinese robots
I like to think we agree more, I just don't go into hyperbole (he says having predicted the end of the world) unlike yourself so it just doesn't get noticed. I say this bearing in mind I am a liberal in the very sense of personal freedoms.
So because of the hyperbole I push back on stuff that if put more moderately I might be agreeing with you on.
The reasons that birth rates are falling across the world are fascinating. One of my theories is that birth rate is falling because there are simply too many people on the planet: excess people leads to excess demand for housing, which drives up housing costs, which drives down the amount of money we have for everything else (e.g. babies). Having children in the modern world is ruinously expensive. This is true anywhere in the world with an urban population (and it is only places late to urbanise like Niger that still have high birth rates.) Why are birth rates falling? Because there are too many people.
I have toyed with writing a thread on birth rates. I find it fascinating that such a profound change is going on and has only recently started to attract a bit of attention. I find it even more fascinating that there is no consensus to why it happens.
All true, to a point (and I share your fascination), but birth rates are also declining in rich countries with lots of room and no housing problems
They are falling in democracies and autocracies, in Islamic, Christian and secular countries, in superpowers and tiny statelets, they are falling in South Korea and North Korea, they are falling despite many attempts to reverse them, worldwide. It'sa huge puzzle with varying answers. Female education is definitely a driver, but there are also physiological facts - sperm counts dropping, men becoming feminised. At the same time humanity is getting stupider quite fast
Most nations still have above or at replacement level fertility outside of Europe, the West and Far East.
More women having full time careers, fewer younger people religious in the West and Far East and housing costs all issues
That's absolutely not true. Fertility rates are now below replacement around the world. About the only exceptions are Africa, bits of Mid East, central Asia, and Israel/Palestine
eg they are below replacement across South America - Brazil is 1.6
Breaking News: Attorney General Pam Bondi suggested that there was not likely to be a criminal inquiry into the sharing of military plans in an unsecured chat.
Breaking News: Attorney General Pam Bondi suggested that there was not likely to be a criminal inquiry into the sharing of military plans in an unsecured chat.
Right now the Guardian website has four stories at the top, all different versions of “Rachel Reeves is a cruel, lying, incompetent clown”
Unbelievable hostility to a Labour Chancellor. I wonder if Labour’s polling might dip below 20
Unfair on Reeves because she's doing the right thing and no-one likes it.
If I may politely disagree. The function of the Labour Party is to increase the wealth and opportunities of the working class and the poor. To do this it increases equality by taxing the rich and spreading that wealth to the poor. But the belief has spread that one cannot tax the rich (because they leave) so the only tool Labour have left is to impoverish and immiserate the poor and/or working class, therefore obviating the entire point of the Labour movement.
If things keep going this way the South Wales Valleys will go Reform in 2029, which is Olympus has fallen for Labour. Starmer flirts unthinking with the destruction of his party, which as a metropolitan elite lawyer he failks to understand or even intuit.
You do have to think that a Labour Government taking a quarter of a million more into poverty has a fundamental problem.
But then, all Labour Governments leave office with fewer employed than they inherited.
At some point, voters WILL realise their business model is shite.
Employment in April 1997: 26.5mn Employment in April 2010: 29.5mn
Employment rate in April 1997: 58.1% Employment rate in April 2010: 58.2%
UK population rise between 1997 and 2010: 4.45m
That doesn't affect the rate though does it.
Because of the changing age pyramid in the country that expansion of the population is almost entirely of the retired. The working age population is pretty much unchanged. Without immigration taxes would be higher or pensions would be less, or both. This is the debate on immigration that we never have. Do we want to be pure but poor?
We need to increase our birthrate, on that Musk is right
We need to learn to live with a lower birth rate. Constantly trying to grow the population to maintain growth and create youngsters to provide for an ever increasing ageing population just leads water shortages, food shortages, migration, wars and climate warming.
We need alternative solutions, whatever they may be, but which does not mean Logan's run.
Do you appreciate how good robots are, now?
They are this good. This is not fake, this is not speeded up, this is real. They can, also, now do fine motor tasks - they can stack dishwashers and peel apples, they will be able to do nursing, tiling and plumbing
Why do you think China is pouring trillions into robotics (Unitree is a Chinese company)? This is the answer to falling birth rates
Well good. Problem solved then. Let's not keep trying to force people to have babies. We cannot keep increasing the planet's population and a decrease would be good for the planet.
A rare moment of complete agreement. There are, simply, far too many people on the planet. I see it on my travels. We are trashing our home and destroying nature. We need to get the human population down to about 2bn, which it was as recently as 1950
All the nasty jobs can be done by the Chinese robots
I like to think we agree more, I just don't go into hyperbole (he says having predicted the end of the world) unlike yourself so it just doesn't get noticed. I say this bearing in mind I am a liberal in the very sense of personal freedoms.
So because of the hyperbole I push back on stuff that if put more moderately I might be agreeing with you on.
The reasons that birth rates are falling across the world are fascinating. One of my theories is that birth rate is falling because there are simply too many people on the planet: excess people leads to excess demand for housing, which drives up housing costs, which drives down the amount of money we have for everything else (e.g. babies). Having children in the modern world is ruinously expensive. This is true anywhere in the world with an urban population (and it is only places late to urbanise like Niger that still have high birth rates.) Why are birth rates falling? Because there are too many people.
I have toyed with writing a thread on birth rates. I find it fascinating that such a profound change is going on and has only recently started to attract a bit of attention. I find it even more fascinating that there is no consensus to why it happens.
All true, to a point (and I share your fascination), but birth rates are also declining in rich countries with lots of room and no housing problems
They are falling in democracies and autocracies, in Islamic, Christian and secular countries, in superpowers and tiny statelets, they are falling in South Korea and North Korea, they are falling despite many attempts to reverse them, worldwide. It'sa huge puzzle with varying answers. Female education is definitely a driver, but there are also physiological facts - sperm counts dropping, men becoming feminised. At the same time humanity is getting stupider quite fast
Most nations still have above or at replacement level fertility outside of Europe, the West and Far East.
More women having full time careers, fewer younger people religious in the West and Far East and housing costs all issues
That's absolutely not true. Fertility rates are now below replacement around the world. About the only exceptions are Africa, bits of Mid East, central Asia, and Israel/Palestine
eg they are below replacement across South America - Brazil is 1.6
They're below replacement rates even in places like Iran and Bangladesh.
Right now the Guardian website has four stories at the top, all different versions of “Rachel Reeves is a cruel, lying, incompetent clown”
Unbelievable hostility to a Labour Chancellor. I wonder if Labour’s polling might dip below 20
Unfair on Reeves because she's doing the right thing and no-one likes it.
If I may politely disagree. The function of the Labour Party is to increase the wealth and opportunities of the working class and the poor. To do this it increases equality by taxing the rich and spreading that wealth to the poor. But the belief has spread that one cannot tax the rich (because they leave) so the only tool Labour have left is to impoverish and immiserate the poor and/or working class, therefore obviating the entire point of the Labour movement.
If things keep going this way the South Wales Valleys will go Reform in 2029, which is Olympus has fallen for Labour. Starmer flirts unthinking with the destruction of his party, which as a metropolitan elite lawyer he failks to understand or even intuit.
You do have to think that a Labour Government taking a quarter of a million more into poverty has a fundamental problem.
But then, all Labour Governments leave office with fewer employed than they inherited.
At some point, voters WILL realise their business model is shite.
Employment in April 1997: 26.5mn Employment in April 2010: 29.5mn
Employment rate in April 1997: 58.1% Employment rate in April 2010: 58.2%
UK population rise between 1997 and 2010: 4.45m
That doesn't affect the rate though does it.
Because of the changing age pyramid in the country that expansion of the population is almost entirely of the retired. The working age population is pretty much unchanged. Without immigration taxes would be higher or pensions would be less, or both. This is the debate on immigration that we never have. Do we want to be pure but poor?
We need to increase our birthrate, on that Musk is right
We need to learn to live with a lower birth rate. Constantly trying to grow the population to maintain growth and create youngsters to provide for an ever increasing ageing population just leads water shortages, food shortages, migration, wars and climate warming.
We need alternative solutions, whatever they may be, but which does not mean Logan's run.
Do you appreciate how good robots are, now?
They are this good. This is not fake, this is not speeded up, this is real. They can, also, now do fine motor tasks - they can stack dishwashers and peel apples, they will be able to do nursing, tiling and plumbing
Why do you think China is pouring trillions into robotics (Unitree is a Chinese company)? This is the answer to falling birth rates
Well good. Problem solved then. Let's not keep trying to force people to have babies. We cannot keep increasing the planet's population and a decrease would be good for the planet.
A rare moment of complete agreement. There are, simply, far too many people on the planet. I see it on my travels. We are trashing our home and destroying nature. We need to get the human population down to about 2bn, which it was as recently as 1950
All the nasty jobs can be done by the Chinese robots
I like to think we agree more, I just don't go into hyperbole (he says having predicted the end of the world) unlike yourself so it just doesn't get noticed. I say this bearing in mind I am a liberal in the very sense of personal freedoms.
So because of the hyperbole I push back on stuff that if put more moderately I might be agreeing with you on.
The reasons that birth rates are falling across the world are fascinating. One of my theories is that birth rate is falling because there are simply too many people on the planet: excess people leads to excess demand for housing, which drives up housing costs, which drives down the amount of money we have for everything else (e.g. babies). Having children in the modern world is ruinously expensive. This is true anywhere in the world with an urban population (and it is only places late to urbanise like Niger that still have high birth rates.) Why are birth rates falling? Because there are too many people.
I have toyed with writing a thread on birth rates. I find it fascinating that such a profound change is going on and has only recently started to attract a bit of attention. I find it even more fascinating that there is no consensus to why it happens.
All true, to a point (and I share your fascination), but birth rates are also declining in rich countries with lots of room and no housing problems
They are falling in democracies and autocracies, in Islamic, Christian and secular countries, in superpowers and tiny statelets, they are falling in South Korea and North Korea, they are falling despite many attempts to reverse them, worldwide. It'sa huge puzzle with varying answers. Female education is definitely a driver, but there are also physiological facts - sperm counts dropping, men becoming feminised. At the same time humanity is getting stupider quite fast
Most nations still have above or at replacement level fertility outside of Europe, the West and Far East.
More women having full time careers, fewer younger people religious in the West and Far East and housing costs all issues
That's absolutely not true. Fertility rates are now below replacement around the world. About the only exceptions are Africa, bits of Mid East, central Asia, and Israel/Palestine
eg they are below replacement across South America - Brazil is 1.6
They're below replacement rates even in places like Iran and Bangladesh.
Given that Iran went from below 20m in 1950 to 90m now, I think they can cope.
Breaking News: Attorney General Pam Bondi suggested that there was not likely to be a criminal inquiry into the sharing of military plans in an unsecured chat.
Right now the Guardian website has four stories at the top, all different versions of “Rachel Reeves is a cruel, lying, incompetent clown”
Unbelievable hostility to a Labour Chancellor. I wonder if Labour’s polling might dip below 20
Unfair on Reeves because she's doing the right thing and no-one likes it.
If I may politely disagree. The function of the Labour Party is to increase the wealth and opportunities of the working class and the poor. To do this it increases equality by taxing the rich and spreading that wealth to the poor. But the belief has spread that one cannot tax the rich (because they leave) so the only tool Labour have left is to impoverish and immiserate the poor and/or working class, therefore obviating the entire point of the Labour movement.
If things keep going this way the South Wales Valleys will go Reform in 2029, which is Olympus has fallen for Labour. Starmer flirts unthinking with the destruction of his party, which as a metropolitan elite lawyer he failks to understand or even intuit.
You do have to think that a Labour Government taking a quarter of a million more into poverty has a fundamental problem.
But then, all Labour Governments leave office with fewer employed than they inherited.
At some point, voters WILL realise their business model is shite.
Employment in April 1997: 26.5mn Employment in April 2010: 29.5mn
Employment rate in April 1997: 58.1% Employment rate in April 2010: 58.2%
UK population rise between 1997 and 2010: 4.45m
That doesn't affect the rate though does it.
Because of the changing age pyramid in the country that expansion of the population is almost entirely of the retired. The working age population is pretty much unchanged. Without immigration taxes would be higher or pensions would be less, or both. This is the debate on immigration that we never have. Do we want to be pure but poor?
We need to increase our birthrate, on that Musk is right
We need to learn to live with a lower birth rate. Constantly trying to grow the population to maintain growth and create youngsters to provide for an ever increasing ageing population just leads water shortages, food shortages, migration, wars and climate warming.
We need alternative solutions, whatever they may be, but which does not mean Logan's run.
Do you appreciate how good robots are, now?
They are this good. This is not fake, this is not speeded up, this is real. They can, also, now do fine motor tasks - they can stack dishwashers and peel apples, they will be able to do nursing, tiling and plumbing
Why do you think China is pouring trillions into robotics (Unitree is a Chinese company)? This is the answer to falling birth rates
Well good. Problem solved then. Let's not keep trying to force people to have babies. We cannot keep increasing the planet's population and a decrease would be good for the planet.
A rare moment of complete agreement. There are, simply, far too many people on the planet. I see it on my travels. We are trashing our home and destroying nature. We need to get the human population down to about 2bn, which it was as recently as 1950
All the nasty jobs can be done by the Chinese robots
I like to think we agree more, I just don't go into hyperbole (he says having predicted the end of the world) unlike yourself so it just doesn't get noticed. I say this bearing in mind I am a liberal in the very sense of personal freedoms.
So because of the hyperbole I push back on stuff that if put more moderately I might be agreeing with you on.
The reasons that birth rates are falling across the world are fascinating. One of my theories is that birth rate is falling because there are simply too many people on the planet: excess people leads to excess demand for housing, which drives up housing costs, which drives down the amount of money we have for everything else (e.g. babies). Having children in the modern world is ruinously expensive. This is true anywhere in the world with an urban population (and it is only places late to urbanise like Niger that still have high birth rates.) Why are birth rates falling? Because there are too many people.
I have toyed with writing a thread on birth rates. I find it fascinating that such a profound change is going on and has only recently started to attract a bit of attention. I find it even more fascinating that there is no consensus to why it happens.
All true, to a point (and I share your fascination), but birth rates are also declining in rich countries with lots of room and no housing problems
They are falling in democracies and autocracies, in Islamic, Christian and secular countries, in superpowers and tiny statelets, they are falling in South Korea and North Korea, they are falling despite many attempts to reverse them, worldwide. It'sa huge puzzle with varying answers. Female education is definitely a driver, but there are also physiological facts - sperm counts dropping, men becoming feminised. At the same time humanity is getting stupider quite fast
Most nations still have above or at replacement level fertility outside of Europe, the West and Far East.
More women having full time careers, fewer younger people religious in the West and Far East and housing costs all issues
That's absolutely not true. Fertility rates are now below replacement around the world. About the only exceptions are Africa, bits of Mid East, central Asia, and Israel/Palestine
eg they are below replacement across South America - Brazil is 1.6
They're below replacement rates even in places like Iran and Bangladesh.
I know, it's extraordinary when you dig into the deets. Countries you simply assume must be breeding like rabbits are.... not
Right now the Guardian website has four stories at the top, all different versions of “Rachel Reeves is a cruel, lying, incompetent clown”
Unbelievable hostility to a Labour Chancellor. I wonder if Labour’s polling might dip below 20
Unfair on Reeves because she's doing the right thing and no-one likes it.
If I may politely disagree. The function of the Labour Party is to increase the wealth and opportunities of the working class and the poor. To do this it increases equality by taxing the rich and spreading that wealth to the poor. But the belief has spread that one cannot tax the rich (because they leave) so the only tool Labour have left is to impoverish and immiserate the poor and/or working class, therefore obviating the entire point of the Labour movement.
If things keep going this way the South Wales Valleys will go Reform in 2029, which is Olympus has fallen for Labour. Starmer flirts unthinking with the destruction of his party, which as a metropolitan elite lawyer he failks to understand or even intuit.
You do have to think that a Labour Government taking a quarter of a million more into poverty has a fundamental problem.
But then, all Labour Governments leave office with fewer employed than they inherited.
At some point, voters WILL realise their business model is shite.
Employment in April 1997: 26.5mn Employment in April 2010: 29.5mn
Employment rate in April 1997: 58.1% Employment rate in April 2010: 58.2%
UK population rise between 1997 and 2010: 4.45m
That doesn't affect the rate though does it.
Because of the changing age pyramid in the country that expansion of the population is almost entirely of the retired. The working age population is pretty much unchanged. Without immigration taxes would be higher or pensions would be less, or both. This is the debate on immigration that we never have. Do we want to be pure but poor?
We need to increase our birthrate, on that Musk is right
We need to learn to live with a lower birth rate. Constantly trying to grow the population to maintain growth and create youngsters to provide for an ever increasing ageing population just leads water shortages, food shortages, migration, wars and climate warming.
We need alternative solutions, whatever they may be, but which does not mean Logan's run.
Do you appreciate how good robots are, now?
They are this good. This is not fake, this is not speeded up, this is real. They can, also, now do fine motor tasks - they can stack dishwashers and peel apples, they will be able to do nursing, tiling and plumbing
Why do you think China is pouring trillions into robotics (Unitree is a Chinese company)? This is the answer to falling birth rates
Well good. Problem solved then. Let's not keep trying to force people to have babies. We cannot keep increasing the planet's population and a decrease would be good for the planet.
A rare moment of complete agreement. There are, simply, far too many people on the planet. I see it on my travels. We are trashing our home and destroying nature. We need to get the human population down to about 2bn, which it was as recently as 1950
All the nasty jobs can be done by the Chinese robots
I like to think we agree more, I just don't go into hyperbole (he says having predicted the end of the world) unlike yourself so it just doesn't get noticed. I say this bearing in mind I am a liberal in the very sense of personal freedoms.
So because of the hyperbole I push back on stuff that if put more moderately I might be agreeing with you on.
The reasons that birth rates are falling across the world are fascinating. One of my theories is that birth rate is falling because there are simply too many people on the planet: excess people leads to excess demand for housing, which drives up housing costs, which drives down the amount of money we have for everything else (e.g. babies). Having children in the modern world is ruinously expensive. This is true anywhere in the world with an urban population (and it is only places late to urbanise like Niger that still have high birth rates.) Why are birth rates falling? Because there are too many people.
I have toyed with writing a thread on birth rates. I find it fascinating that such a profound change is going on and has only recently started to attract a bit of attention. I find it even more fascinating that there is no consensus to why it happens.
All true, to a point (and I share your fascination), but birth rates are also declining in rich countries with lots of room and no housing problems
They are falling in democracies and autocracies, in Islamic, Christian and secular countries, in superpowers and tiny statelets, they are falling in South Korea and North Korea, they are falling despite many attempts to reverse them, worldwide. It'sa huge puzzle with varying answers. Female education is definitely a driver, but there are also physiological facts - sperm counts dropping, men becoming feminised. At the same time humanity is getting stupider quite fast
Most nations still have above or at replacement level fertility outside of Europe, the West and Far East.
More women having full time careers, fewer younger people religious in the West and Far East and housing costs all issues
That's absolutely not true. Fertility rates are now below replacement around the world. About the only exceptions are Africa, bits of Mid East, central Asia, and Israel/Palestine
eg they are below replacement across South America - Brazil is 1.6
They're below replacement rates even in places like Iran and Bangladesh.
I know, it's extraordinary when you dig into the deets. Countries you simply assume must be breeding like rabbits are.... not
The imposition of the tariffs on all auto parts is going to have a significant impact on American auto insurance prices. We have been totting up the additional costs of repairs due to tariffs and on Comprehensive, Collision and Physical Damage, the impact is likely to be in the high single digits.
Given that auto insurance is - behind housing - the second largest expense for younger and poorer Americans, this is going to hit pretty hard.
Trump is the dumbest President in living memory, surrounded by the worst cabinet ever recorded.
This is the result...
On the bright side though academic economists* are going to have a whole new and modern set of data on what happens when there is a worldwide trade war.
Given the supply chains in modern manufacturing it is in some senses going to be fascinating in a car crash way to watch in real-time.
* not american academics obviously, their universities are to be closed down this year.
Breaking News: Attorney General Pam Bondi suggested that there was not likely to be a criminal inquiry into the sharing of military plans in an unsecured chat.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 17m We should react to the US tariff on our cars by cutting the UK tariff on US cars (currently 10%, so plenty of scope to take it down to say 2%). That tariff cut will create a boost to our economy to help offset the negative impact of the US increase.
Right now the Guardian website has four stories at the top, all different versions of “Rachel Reeves is a cruel, lying, incompetent clown”
Unbelievable hostility to a Labour Chancellor. I wonder if Labour’s polling might dip below 20
Unfair on Reeves because she's doing the right thing and no-one likes it.
If I may politely disagree. The function of the Labour Party is to increase the wealth and opportunities of the working class and the poor. To do this it increases equality by taxing the rich and spreading that wealth to the poor. But the belief has spread that one cannot tax the rich (because they leave) so the only tool Labour have left is to impoverish and immiserate the poor and/or working class, therefore obviating the entire point of the Labour movement.
If things keep going this way the South Wales Valleys will go Reform in 2029, which is Olympus has fallen for Labour. Starmer flirts unthinking with the destruction of his party, which as a metropolitan elite lawyer he failks to understand or even intuit.
You do have to think that a Labour Government taking a quarter of a million more into poverty has a fundamental problem.
But then, all Labour Governments leave office with fewer employed than they inherited.
At some point, voters WILL realise their business model is shite.
Employment in April 1997: 26.5mn Employment in April 2010: 29.5mn
Employment rate in April 1997: 58.1% Employment rate in April 2010: 58.2%
UK population rise between 1997 and 2010: 4.45m
That doesn't affect the rate though does it.
Because of the changing age pyramid in the country that expansion of the population is almost entirely of the retired. The working age population is pretty much unchanged. Without immigration taxes would be higher or pensions would be less, or both. This is the debate on immigration that we never have. Do we want to be pure but poor?
We need to increase our birthrate, on that Musk is right
We need to learn to live with a lower birth rate. Constantly trying to grow the population to maintain growth and create youngsters to provide for an ever increasing ageing population just leads water shortages, food shortages, migration, wars and climate warming.
We need alternative solutions, whatever they may be, but which does not mean Logan's run.
Do you appreciate how good robots are, now?
They are this good. This is not fake, this is not speeded up, this is real. They can, also, now do fine motor tasks - they can stack dishwashers and peel apples, they will be able to do nursing, tiling and plumbing
Why do you think China is pouring trillions into robotics (Unitree is a Chinese company)? This is the answer to falling birth rates
Well good. Problem solved then. Let's not keep trying to force people to have babies. We cannot keep increasing the planet's population and a decrease would be good for the planet.
A rare moment of complete agreement. There are, simply, far too many people on the planet. I see it on my travels. We are trashing our home and destroying nature. We need to get the human population down to about 2bn, which it was as recently as 1950
All the nasty jobs can be done by the Chinese robots
I like to think we agree more, I just don't go into hyperbole (he says having predicted the end of the world) unlike yourself so it just doesn't get noticed. I say this bearing in mind I am a liberal in the very sense of personal freedoms.
So because of the hyperbole I push back on stuff that if put more moderately I might be agreeing with you on.
The reasons that birth rates are falling across the world are fascinating. One of my theories is that birth rate is falling because there are simply too many people on the planet: excess people leads to excess demand for housing, which drives up housing costs, which drives down the amount of money we have for everything else (e.g. babies). Having children in the modern world is ruinously expensive. This is true anywhere in the world with an urban population (and it is only places late to urbanise like Niger that still have high birth rates.) Why are birth rates falling? Because there are too many people.
I have toyed with writing a thread on birth rates. I find it fascinating that such a profound change is going on and has only recently started to attract a bit of attention. I find it even more fascinating that there is no consensus to why it happens.
All true, to a point (and I share your fascination), but birth rates are also declining in rich countries with lots of room and no housing problems
They are falling in democracies and autocracies, in Islamic, Christian and secular countries, in superpowers and tiny statelets, they are falling in South Korea and North Korea, they are falling despite many attempts to reverse them, worldwide. It'sa huge puzzle with varying answers. Female education is definitely a driver, but there are also physiological facts - sperm counts dropping, men becoming feminised. At the same time humanity is getting stupider quite fast
Most nations still have above or at replacement level fertility outside of Europe, the West and Far East.
More women having full time careers, fewer younger people religious in the West and Far East and housing costs all issues
That's absolutely not true. Fertility rates are now below replacement around the world. About the only exceptions are Africa, bits of Mid East, central Asia, and Israel/Palestine
eg they are below replacement across South America - Brazil is 1.6
Globally the fertility rate is 2.4 so still above replacement level.
In Afghanistan it is 4.5, so making fun illegal effectively and restricting female education and banning women from most careers clearly has an impact. The Taliban have many faults but they have kept a high birthrate even if their tactics go too far even for Andrew Tate
Right now the Guardian website has four stories at the top, all different versions of “Rachel Reeves is a cruel, lying, incompetent clown”
Unbelievable hostility to a Labour Chancellor. I wonder if Labour’s polling might dip below 20
Unfair on Reeves because she's doing the right thing and no-one likes it.
If I may politely disagree. The function of the Labour Party is to increase the wealth and opportunities of the working class and the poor. To do this it increases equality by taxing the rich and spreading that wealth to the poor. But the belief has spread that one cannot tax the rich (because they leave) so the only tool Labour have left is to impoverish and immiserate the poor and/or working class, therefore obviating the entire point of the Labour movement.
If things keep going this way the South Wales Valleys will go Reform in 2029, which is Olympus has fallen for Labour. Starmer flirts unthinking with the destruction of his party, which as a metropolitan elite lawyer he failks to understand or even intuit.
You do have to think that a Labour Government taking a quarter of a million more into poverty has a fundamental problem.
But then, all Labour Governments leave office with fewer employed than they inherited.
At some point, voters WILL realise their business model is shite.
Employment in April 1997: 26.5mn Employment in April 2010: 29.5mn
Employment rate in April 1997: 58.1% Employment rate in April 2010: 58.2%
UK population rise between 1997 and 2010: 4.45m
That doesn't affect the rate though does it.
Because of the changing age pyramid in the country that expansion of the population is almost entirely of the retired. The working age population is pretty much unchanged. Without immigration taxes would be higher or pensions would be less, or both. This is the debate on immigration that we never have. Do we want to be pure but poor?
We need to increase our birthrate, on that Musk is right
We need to learn to live with a lower birth rate. Constantly trying to grow the population to maintain growth and create youngsters to provide for an ever increasing ageing population just leads water shortages, food shortages, migration, wars and climate warming.
We need alternative solutions, whatever they may be, but which does not mean Logan's run.
Do you appreciate how good robots are, now?
They are this good. This is not fake, this is not speeded up, this is real. They can, also, now do fine motor tasks - they can stack dishwashers and peel apples, they will be able to do nursing, tiling and plumbing
Why do you think China is pouring trillions into robotics (Unitree is a Chinese company)? This is the answer to falling birth rates
Well good. Problem solved then. Let's not keep trying to force people to have babies. We cannot keep increasing the planet's population and a decrease would be good for the planet.
A rare moment of complete agreement. There are, simply, far too many people on the planet. I see it on my travels. We are trashing our home and destroying nature. We need to get the human population down to about 2bn, which it was as recently as 1950
All the nasty jobs can be done by the Chinese robots
I like to think we agree more, I just don't go into hyperbole (he says having predicted the end of the world) unlike yourself so it just doesn't get noticed. I say this bearing in mind I am a liberal in the very sense of personal freedoms.
So because of the hyperbole I push back on stuff that if put more moderately I might be agreeing with you on.
The reasons that birth rates are falling across the world are fascinating. One of my theories is that birth rate is falling because there are simply too many people on the planet: excess people leads to excess demand for housing, which drives up housing costs, which drives down the amount of money we have for everything else (e.g. babies). Having children in the modern world is ruinously expensive. This is true anywhere in the world with an urban population (and it is only places late to urbanise like Niger that still have high birth rates.) Why are birth rates falling? Because there are too many people.
I have toyed with writing a thread on birth rates. I find it fascinating that such a profound change is going on and has only recently started to attract a bit of attention. I find it even more fascinating that there is no consensus to why it happens.
I think there is a doom loop that goes something like this (I'm not 100% sure)...
People want to spend more time travelling/working/having fun (this is a good thing)
This means there are fewer couples, so more bedrooms and homes are needed for the same number of young people in urban areas
(There is a similar effect from divorces, the end of multi-generational households, and older people not down-sizing)
All of the cost of this increased demand flows to young people, and all the benefit towards older people, because older people have got smaller mortgages or, increasingly, own their homes outright.
This means that while housing costs overall are lower than at any point since the early 80s, this masks an imbalance where they are falling for older people while increasing for younger people
These increased costs make it harder for young people to build enough capital to get on the housing ladder and raise children, which makes travelling, yoga classes and other consumables relatively more achievable - and that's us back at the beginning again.
I think is simpler than that. Developed urban societies have delayed the onset of childbearing to the mean age of thirty or so, leaving little time for big families. In addition significant numbers never have children because either they don't want them, or never find a partner that they want to have children with.
A large part of this is due to extending childhood well past the school leaving age of my youth (14 then 16) so financial independence is rarely reached until mid to late twenties. Add in the delayed onset of dating, exacerbated by Incel teens and the atomisation of social life via social media, and you have a low fertility rate.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 13s Question. If Trump continues to impose tariffs. If he continues to support Putin. If he continues to threaten our allies and NATO partners. Does he still get rewarded with his state visit. Or does he actually have to do something for us, to earn it.
Even for Hodges, this is obtuse. Fwiw, I thought it ill-advised to invite President Trump but state visits are not doled out to nice children. Hodges has confused the King with Father Christmas.
The way it's going the police might have something to say.
Short of a horse drawn carriage driving down the Mall with Axel Rudakubana it's difficult to imagine a less easily controlled event
I'll be out shaking my fist if it goes ahead. In fact I hope it does because I'll enjoy that.
I would hope that if it goes ahead there isn't serious disorder. Controlling that, especially in those circumstances, would lower the reputation of the police even further.
Everyone turning their backs as Trump passes would be better.
Great idea. Shaking fists shows anger whereas that is more a sign of bottomless contempt, hence more powerful. It's the equivalent of when Trump comes on tv not shouting at the screen, or throwing things at it, but just casually turning it off or switching to a sports channel or a soap.
Waving Ukranian, Canadian and Greenland flags is the way to go.
I think that is a great idea, but did anyone here know (before looking it up) what a Greenland flag looked like. I didn't and it is rather interestingly odd.
Very Polish Deathstar.
Polishing a Death Star sounds a bit like cleaning a Courtyard with a toothbrush type of punishment
Breaking News: Attorney General Pam Bondi suggested that there was not likely to be a criminal inquiry into the sharing of military plans in an unsecured chat.
Says it all, doesn't it. FBI or whichever police are not being encouraged by Trump's White House gang this time.
I'm doing shots on "but Hillary" mentions this afternoon. I'm already well pissed.
Nation's highest ranking law officer...
Q: “In terms of the Signal chat controversy…is the DOJ involved at this point?”
Bondi: “…We're not going to comment any further on that. If you want to talk about classified information, talk about what was at Hillary Clinton's home that she was trying to BleachBit.” https://x.com/BulwarkOnline/status/1905279324753633772
Right now the Guardian website has four stories at the top, all different versions of “Rachel Reeves is a cruel, lying, incompetent clown”
Unbelievable hostility to a Labour Chancellor. I wonder if Labour’s polling might dip below 20
Unfair on Reeves because she's doing the right thing and no-one likes it.
If I may politely disagree. The function of the Labour Party is to increase the wealth and opportunities of the working class and the poor. To do this it increases equality by taxing the rich and spreading that wealth to the poor. But the belief has spread that one cannot tax the rich (because they leave) so the only tool Labour have left is to impoverish and immiserate the poor and/or working class, therefore obviating the entire point of the Labour movement.
If things keep going this way the South Wales Valleys will go Reform in 2029, which is Olympus has fallen for Labour. Starmer flirts unthinking with the destruction of his party, which as a metropolitan elite lawyer he failks to understand or even intuit.
You do have to think that a Labour Government taking a quarter of a million more into poverty has a fundamental problem.
But then, all Labour Governments leave office with fewer employed than they inherited.
At some point, voters WILL realise their business model is shite.
Employment in April 1997: 26.5mn Employment in April 2010: 29.5mn
Employment rate in April 1997: 58.1% Employment rate in April 2010: 58.2%
UK population rise between 1997 and 2010: 4.45m
That doesn't affect the rate though does it.
Because of the changing age pyramid in the country that expansion of the population is almost entirely of the retired. The working age population is pretty much unchanged. Without immigration taxes would be higher or pensions would be less, or both. This is the debate on immigration that we never have. Do we want to be pure but poor?
We need to increase our birthrate, on that Musk is right
We need to learn to live with a lower birth rate. Constantly trying to grow the population to maintain growth and create youngsters to provide for an ever increasing ageing population just leads water shortages, food shortages, migration, wars and climate warming.
We need alternative solutions, whatever they may be, but which does not mean Logan's run.
Do you appreciate how good robots are, now?
They are this good. This is not fake, this is not speeded up, this is real. They can, also, now do fine motor tasks - they can stack dishwashers and peel apples, they will be able to do nursing, tiling and plumbing
Why do you think China is pouring trillions into robotics (Unitree is a Chinese company)? This is the answer to falling birth rates
Well good. Problem solved then. Let's not keep trying to force people to have babies. We cannot keep increasing the planet's population and a decrease would be good for the planet.
A rare moment of complete agreement. There are, simply, far too many people on the planet. I see it on my travels. We are trashing our home and destroying nature. We need to get the human population down to about 2bn, which it was as recently as 1950
All the nasty jobs can be done by the Chinese robots
I like to think we agree more, I just don't go into hyperbole (he says having predicted the end of the world) unlike yourself so it just doesn't get noticed. I say this bearing in mind I am a liberal in the very sense of personal freedoms.
So because of the hyperbole I push back on stuff that if put more moderately I might be agreeing with you on.
The reasons that birth rates are falling across the world are fascinating. One of my theories is that birth rate is falling because there are simply too many people on the planet: excess people leads to excess demand for housing, which drives up housing costs, which drives down the amount of money we have for everything else (e.g. babies). Having children in the modern world is ruinously expensive. This is true anywhere in the world with an urban population (and it is only places late to urbanise like Niger that still have high birth rates.) Why are birth rates falling? Because there are too many people.
I have toyed with writing a thread on birth rates. I find it fascinating that such a profound change is going on and has only recently started to attract a bit of attention. I find it even more fascinating that there is no consensus to why it happens.
All true, to a point (and I share your fascination), but birth rates are also declining in rich countries with lots of room and no housing problems
They are falling in democracies and autocracies, in Islamic, Christian and secular countries, in superpowers and tiny statelets, they are falling in South Korea and North Korea, they are falling despite many attempts to reverse them, worldwide. It'sa huge puzzle with varying answers. Female education is definitely a driver, but there are also physiological facts - sperm counts dropping, men becoming feminised. At the same time humanity is getting stupider quite fast
Most nations still have above or at replacement level fertility outside of Europe, the West and Far East.
More women having full time careers, fewer younger people religious in the West and Far East and housing costs all issues
That's absolutely not true. Fertility rates are now below replacement around the world. About the only exceptions are Africa, bits of Mid East, central Asia, and Israel/Palestine
eg they are below replacement across South America - Brazil is 1.6
Globally the fertility rate is 2.4 so still above replacement level.
In Afghanistan it is 4.5, so making fun illegal effectively and restricting female education and banning women from most careers clearly has an impact. The Taliban have many faults but they have kept a high birthrate even if their tactics go too far even for Andrew Tate
Breaking News: Attorney General Pam Bondi suggested that there was not likely to be a criminal inquiry into the sharing of military plans in an unsecured chat.
David Frum @davidfrum · 4h Very Trump to push the North American economy into depression to change the subject from his national security team's carelessness and lies.
‼️ 🇫🇷🇬🇧🇺🇦 Allied countries today formalised the role of France and Britain as “co-pilots” of a “coalition of the willing” to bolster Ukraine’s defence and provide “reassurance forces” in the case of a ceasefire with Russia, President @EmmanuelMacron announced.
Right now the Guardian website has four stories at the top, all different versions of “Rachel Reeves is a cruel, lying, incompetent clown”
Unbelievable hostility to a Labour Chancellor. I wonder if Labour’s polling might dip below 20
Unfair on Reeves because she's doing the right thing and no-one likes it.
If I may politely disagree. The function of the Labour Party is to increase the wealth and opportunities of the working class and the poor. To do this it increases equality by taxing the rich and spreading that wealth to the poor. But the belief has spread that one cannot tax the rich (because they leave) so the only tool Labour have left is to impoverish and immiserate the poor and/or working class, therefore obviating the entire point of the Labour movement.
If things keep going this way the South Wales Valleys will go Reform in 2029, which is Olympus has fallen for Labour. Starmer flirts unthinking with the destruction of his party, which as a metropolitan elite lawyer he failks to understand or even intuit.
You do have to think that a Labour Government taking a quarter of a million more into poverty has a fundamental problem.
But then, all Labour Governments leave office with fewer employed than they inherited.
At some point, voters WILL realise their business model is shite.
Employment in April 1997: 26.5mn Employment in April 2010: 29.5mn
Employment rate in April 1997: 58.1% Employment rate in April 2010: 58.2%
UK population rise between 1997 and 2010: 4.45m
That doesn't affect the rate though does it.
Because of the changing age pyramid in the country that expansion of the population is almost entirely of the retired. The working age population is pretty much unchanged. Without immigration taxes would be higher or pensions would be less, or both. This is the debate on immigration that we never have. Do we want to be pure but poor?
We need to increase our birthrate, on that Musk is right
We need to learn to live with a lower birth rate. Constantly trying to grow the population to maintain growth and create youngsters to provide for an ever increasing ageing population just leads water shortages, food shortages, migration, wars and climate warming.
We need alternative solutions, whatever they may be, but which does not mean Logan's run.
Do you appreciate how good robots are, now?
They are this good. This is not fake, this is not speeded up, this is real. They can, also, now do fine motor tasks - they can stack dishwashers and peel apples, they will be able to do nursing, tiling and plumbing
Why do you think China is pouring trillions into robotics (Unitree is a Chinese company)? This is the answer to falling birth rates
Well good. Problem solved then. Let's not keep trying to force people to have babies. We cannot keep increasing the planet's population and a decrease would be good for the planet.
A rare moment of complete agreement. There are, simply, far too many people on the planet. I see it on my travels. We are trashing our home and destroying nature. We need to get the human population down to about 2bn, which it was as recently as 1950
All the nasty jobs can be done by the Chinese robots
I like to think we agree more, I just don't go into hyperbole (he says having predicted the end of the world) unlike yourself so it just doesn't get noticed. I say this bearing in mind I am a liberal in the very sense of personal freedoms.
So because of the hyperbole I push back on stuff that if put more moderately I might be agreeing with you on.
The reasons that birth rates are falling across the world are fascinating. One of my theories is that birth rate is falling because there are simply too many people on the planet: excess people leads to excess demand for housing, which drives up housing costs, which drives down the amount of money we have for everything else (e.g. babies). Having children in the modern world is ruinously expensive. This is true anywhere in the world with an urban population (and it is only places late to urbanise like Niger that still have high birth rates.) Why are birth rates falling? Because there are too many people.
I have toyed with writing a thread on birth rates. I find it fascinating that such a profound change is going on and has only recently started to attract a bit of attention. I find it even more fascinating that there is no consensus to why it happens.
All true, to a point (and I share your fascination), but birth rates are also declining in rich countries with lots of room and no housing problems
They are falling in democracies and autocracies, in Islamic, Christian and secular countries, in superpowers and tiny statelets, they are falling in South Korea and North Korea, they are falling despite many attempts to reverse them, worldwide. It'sa huge puzzle with varying answers. Female education is definitely a driver, but there are also physiological facts - sperm counts dropping, men becoming feminised. At the same time humanity is getting stupider quite fast
Most nations still have above or at replacement level fertility outside of Europe, the West and Far East.
More women having full time careers, fewer younger people religious in the West and Far East and housing costs all issues
That's absolutely not true. Fertility rates are now below replacement around the world. About the only exceptions are Africa, bits of Mid East, central Asia, and Israel/Palestine
eg they are below replacement across South America - Brazil is 1.6
Globally the fertility rate is 2.4 so still above replacement level.
In Afghanistan it is 4.5, so making fun illegal effectively and restricting female education and banning women from most careers clearly has an impact. The Taliban have many faults but they have kept a high birthrate even if their tactics go too far even for Andrew Tate
"In Poznan, Poland, women do not wear hijab or burqa and freely breastfeed their babies in the park without risking abuse from fake asylum seekers. This is the Europe we recognize ourselves in. We need more of this."
Right now the Guardian website has four stories at the top, all different versions of “Rachel Reeves is a cruel, lying, incompetent clown”
Unbelievable hostility to a Labour Chancellor. I wonder if Labour’s polling might dip below 20
Unfair on Reeves because she's doing the right thing and no-one likes it.
If I may politely disagree. The function of the Labour Party is to increase the wealth and opportunities of the working class and the poor. To do this it increases equality by taxing the rich and spreading that wealth to the poor. But the belief has spread that one cannot tax the rich (because they leave) so the only tool Labour have left is to impoverish and immiserate the poor and/or working class, therefore obviating the entire point of the Labour movement.
If things keep going this way the South Wales Valleys will go Reform in 2029, which is Olympus has fallen for Labour. Starmer flirts unthinking with the destruction of his party, which as a metropolitan elite lawyer he failks to understand or even intuit.
You do have to think that a Labour Government taking a quarter of a million more into poverty has a fundamental problem.
But then, all Labour Governments leave office with fewer employed than they inherited.
At some point, voters WILL realise their business model is shite.
Employment in April 1997: 26.5mn Employment in April 2010: 29.5mn
Employment rate in April 1997: 58.1% Employment rate in April 2010: 58.2%
UK population rise between 1997 and 2010: 4.45m
That doesn't affect the rate though does it.
Because of the changing age pyramid in the country that expansion of the population is almost entirely of the retired. The working age population is pretty much unchanged. Without immigration taxes would be higher or pensions would be less, or both. This is the debate on immigration that we never have. Do we want to be pure but poor?
We need to increase our birthrate, on that Musk is right
We need to learn to live with a lower birth rate. Constantly trying to grow the population to maintain growth and create youngsters to provide for an ever increasing ageing population just leads water shortages, food shortages, migration, wars and climate warming.
We need alternative solutions, whatever they may be, but which does not mean Logan's run.
Do you appreciate how good robots are, now?
They are this good. This is not fake, this is not speeded up, this is real. They can, also, now do fine motor tasks - they can stack dishwashers and peel apples, they will be able to do nursing, tiling and plumbing
Why do you think China is pouring trillions into robotics (Unitree is a Chinese company)? This is the answer to falling birth rates
Well good. Problem solved then. Let's not keep trying to force people to have babies. We cannot keep increasing the planet's population and a decrease would be good for the planet.
A rare moment of complete agreement. There are, simply, far too many people on the planet. I see it on my travels. We are trashing our home and destroying nature. We need to get the human population down to about 2bn, which it was as recently as 1950
All the nasty jobs can be done by the Chinese robots
I like to think we agree more, I just don't go into hyperbole (he says having predicted the end of the world) unlike yourself so it just doesn't get noticed. I say this bearing in mind I am a liberal in the very sense of personal freedoms.
So because of the hyperbole I push back on stuff that if put more moderately I might be agreeing with you on.
The reasons that birth rates are falling across the world are fascinating. One of my theories is that birth rate is falling because there are simply too many people on the planet: excess people leads to excess demand for housing, which drives up housing costs, which drives down the amount of money we have for everything else (e.g. babies). Having children in the modern world is ruinously expensive. This is true anywhere in the world with an urban population (and it is only places late to urbanise like Niger that still have high birth rates.) Why are birth rates falling? Because there are too many people.
I have toyed with writing a thread on birth rates. I find it fascinating that such a profound change is going on and has only recently started to attract a bit of attention. I find it even more fascinating that there is no consensus to why it happens.
All true, to a point (and I share your fascination), but birth rates are also declining in rich countries with lots of room and no housing problems
They are falling in democracies and autocracies, in Islamic, Christian and secular countries, in superpowers and tiny statelets, they are falling in South Korea and North Korea, they are falling despite many attempts to reverse them, worldwide. It'sa huge puzzle with varying answers. Female education is definitely a driver, but there are also physiological facts - sperm counts dropping, men becoming feminised. At the same time humanity is getting stupider quite fast
Most nations still have above or at replacement level fertility outside of Europe, the West and Far East.
More women having full time careers, fewer younger people religious in the West and Far East and housing costs all issues
That's absolutely not true. Fertility rates are now below replacement around the world. About the only exceptions are Africa, bits of Mid East, central Asia, and Israel/Palestine
eg they are below replacement across South America - Brazil is 1.6
Globally the fertility rate is 2.4 so still above replacement level.
In Afghanistan it is 4.5, so making fun illegal effectively and restricting female education and banning women from most careers clearly has an impact. The Taliban have many faults but they have kept a high birthrate even if their tactics go too far even for Andrew Tate
Right now the Guardian website has four stories at the top, all different versions of “Rachel Reeves is a cruel, lying, incompetent clown”
Unbelievable hostility to a Labour Chancellor. I wonder if Labour’s polling might dip below 20
Unfair on Reeves because she's doing the right thing and no-one likes it.
If I may politely disagree. The function of the Labour Party is to increase the wealth and opportunities of the working class and the poor. To do this it increases equality by taxing the rich and spreading that wealth to the poor. But the belief has spread that one cannot tax the rich (because they leave) so the only tool Labour have left is to impoverish and immiserate the poor and/or working class, therefore obviating the entire point of the Labour movement.
If things keep going this way the South Wales Valleys will go Reform in 2029, which is Olympus has fallen for Labour. Starmer flirts unthinking with the destruction of his party, which as a metropolitan elite lawyer he failks to understand or even intuit.
You do have to think that a Labour Government taking a quarter of a million more into poverty has a fundamental problem.
But then, all Labour Governments leave office with fewer employed than they inherited.
At some point, voters WILL realise their business model is shite.
Employment in April 1997: 26.5mn Employment in April 2010: 29.5mn
Employment rate in April 1997: 58.1% Employment rate in April 2010: 58.2%
UK population rise between 1997 and 2010: 4.45m
That doesn't affect the rate though does it.
Because of the changing age pyramid in the country that expansion of the population is almost entirely of the retired. The working age population is pretty much unchanged. Without immigration taxes would be higher or pensions would be less, or both. This is the debate on immigration that we never have. Do we want to be pure but poor?
We need to increase our birthrate, on that Musk is right
We need to learn to live with a lower birth rate. Constantly trying to grow the population to maintain growth and create youngsters to provide for an ever increasing ageing population just leads water shortages, food shortages, migration, wars and climate warming.
We need alternative solutions, whatever they may be, but which does not mean Logan's run.
Do you appreciate how good robots are, now?
They are this good. This is not fake, this is not speeded up, this is real. They can, also, now do fine motor tasks - they can stack dishwashers and peel apples, they will be able to do nursing, tiling and plumbing
Why do you think China is pouring trillions into robotics (Unitree is a Chinese company)? This is the answer to falling birth rates
Well good. Problem solved then. Let's not keep trying to force people to have babies. We cannot keep increasing the planet's population and a decrease would be good for the planet.
A rare moment of complete agreement. There are, simply, far too many people on the planet. I see it on my travels. We are trashing our home and destroying nature. We need to get the human population down to about 2bn, which it was as recently as 1950
All the nasty jobs can be done by the Chinese robots
I like to think we agree more, I just don't go into hyperbole (he says having predicted the end of the world) unlike yourself so it just doesn't get noticed. I say this bearing in mind I am a liberal in the very sense of personal freedoms.
So because of the hyperbole I push back on stuff that if put more moderately I might be agreeing with you on.
The reasons that birth rates are falling across the world are fascinating. One of my theories is that birth rate is falling because there are simply too many people on the planet: excess people leads to excess demand for housing, which drives up housing costs, which drives down the amount of money we have for everything else (e.g. babies). Having children in the modern world is ruinously expensive. This is true anywhere in the world with an urban population (and it is only places late to urbanise like Niger that still have high birth rates.) Why are birth rates falling? Because there are too many people.
I have toyed with writing a thread on birth rates. I find it fascinating that such a profound change is going on and has only recently started to attract a bit of attention. I find it even more fascinating that there is no consensus to why it happens.
I think there is a doom loop that goes something like this (I'm not 100% sure)...
People want to spend more time travelling/working/having fun (this is a good thing)
This means there are fewer couples, so more bedrooms and homes are needed for the same number of young people in urban areas
(There is a similar effect from divorces, the end of multi-generational households, and older people not down-sizing)
All of the cost of this increased demand flows to young people, and all the benefit towards older people, because older people have got smaller mortgages or, increasingly, own their homes outright.
This means that while housing costs overall are lower than at any point since the early 80s, this masks an imbalance where they are falling for older people while increasing for younger people
These increased costs make it harder for young people to build enough capital to get on the housing ladder and raise children, which makes travelling, yoga classes and other consumables relatively more achievable - and that's us back at the beginning again.
I think is simpler than that. Developed urban societies have delayed the onset of childbearing to the mean age of thirty or so, leaving little time for big families. In addition significant numbers never have children because either they don't want them, or never find a partner that they want to have children with.
A large part of this is due to extending childhood well past the school leaving age of my youth (14 then 16) so financial independence is rarely reached until mid to late twenties. Add in the delayed onset of dating, exacerbated by Incel teens and the atomisation of social life via social media, and you have a low fertility rate.
The issue has many factors. Another big one (thankfully!) is that far fewer babies and young children die young. In ye olden days, it was perfectly possible to have only two or three children of ten survive to adulthood, especially amongst the poor. This meant to have a family, the woman would have to be a baby-bearing machine. Now, a woman can have two babies and expect them to grow up hale and hearty. This gives women more time for careers, and the opportunity to start a family later.
So a simple 'solution' to the problem would be to increase infant mortality. The anti-vaxxers in the states are already on the case...
Right now the Guardian website has four stories at the top, all different versions of “Rachel Reeves is a cruel, lying, incompetent clown”
Unbelievable hostility to a Labour Chancellor. I wonder if Labour’s polling might dip below 20
Unfair on Reeves because she's doing the right thing and no-one likes it.
If I may politely disagree. The function of the Labour Party is to increase the wealth and opportunities of the working class and the poor. To do this it increases equality by taxing the rich and spreading that wealth to the poor. But the belief has spread that one cannot tax the rich (because they leave) so the only tool Labour have left is to impoverish and immiserate the poor and/or working class, therefore obviating the entire point of the Labour movement.
If things keep going this way the South Wales Valleys will go Reform in 2029, which is Olympus has fallen for Labour. Starmer flirts unthinking with the destruction of his party, which as a metropolitan elite lawyer he failks to understand or even intuit.
You do have to think that a Labour Government taking a quarter of a million more into poverty has a fundamental problem.
But then, all Labour Governments leave office with fewer employed than they inherited.
At some point, voters WILL realise their business model is shite.
Employment in April 1997: 26.5mn Employment in April 2010: 29.5mn
Employment rate in April 1997: 58.1% Employment rate in April 2010: 58.2%
UK population rise between 1997 and 2010: 4.45m
That doesn't affect the rate though does it.
Because of the changing age pyramid in the country that expansion of the population is almost entirely of the retired. The working age population is pretty much unchanged. Without immigration taxes would be higher or pensions would be less, or both. This is the debate on immigration that we never have. Do we want to be pure but poor?
We need to increase our birthrate, on that Musk is right
We need to learn to live with a lower birth rate. Constantly trying to grow the population to maintain growth and create youngsters to provide for an ever increasing ageing population just leads water shortages, food shortages, migration, wars and climate warming.
We need alternative solutions, whatever they may be, but which does not mean Logan's run.
Do you appreciate how good robots are, now?
They are this good. This is not fake, this is not speeded up, this is real. They can, also, now do fine motor tasks - they can stack dishwashers and peel apples, they will be able to do nursing, tiling and plumbing
Why do you think China is pouring trillions into robotics (Unitree is a Chinese company)? This is the answer to falling birth rates
Well good. Problem solved then. Let's not keep trying to force people to have babies. We cannot keep increasing the planet's population and a decrease would be good for the planet.
A rare moment of complete agreement. There are, simply, far too many people on the planet. I see it on my travels. We are trashing our home and destroying nature. We need to get the human population down to about 2bn, which it was as recently as 1950
All the nasty jobs can be done by the Chinese robots
I like to think we agree more, I just don't go into hyperbole (he says having predicted the end of the world) unlike yourself so it just doesn't get noticed. I say this bearing in mind I am a liberal in the very sense of personal freedoms.
So because of the hyperbole I push back on stuff that if put more moderately I might be agreeing with you on.
The reasons that birth rates are falling across the world are fascinating. One of my theories is that birth rate is falling because there are simply too many people on the planet: excess people leads to excess demand for housing, which drives up housing costs, which drives down the amount of money we have for everything else (e.g. babies). Having children in the modern world is ruinously expensive. This is true anywhere in the world with an urban population (and it is only places late to urbanise like Niger that still have high birth rates.) Why are birth rates falling? Because there are too many people.
I have toyed with writing a thread on birth rates. I find it fascinating that such a profound change is going on and has only recently started to attract a bit of attention. I find it even more fascinating that there is no consensus to why it happens.
All true, to a point (and I share your fascination), but birth rates are also declining in rich countries with lots of room and no housing problems
They are falling in democracies and autocracies, in Islamic, Christian and secular countries, in superpowers and tiny statelets, they are falling in South Korea and North Korea, they are falling despite many attempts to reverse them, worldwide. It'sa huge puzzle with varying answers. Female education is definitely a driver, but there are also physiological facts - sperm counts dropping, men becoming feminised. At the same time humanity is getting stupider quite fast
Most nations still have above or at replacement level fertility outside of Europe, the West and Far East.
More women having full time careers, fewer younger people religious in the West and Far East and housing costs all issues
That's absolutely not true. Fertility rates are now below replacement around the world. About the only exceptions are Africa, bits of Mid East, central Asia, and Israel/Palestine
eg they are below replacement across South America - Brazil is 1.6
Globally the fertility rate is 2.4 so still above replacement level.
In Afghanistan it is 4.5, so making fun illegal effectively and restricting female education and banning women from most careers clearly has an impact. The Taliban have many faults but they have kept a high birthrate even if their tactics go too far even for Andrew Tate
Three points I consider noteworthy: 1. The sharp decline in TFR, starting about 1972. 2. The recovery in TFR beginning about 1988, culminating in 2006 and 2007, when it passed 2.1. 3. The improvements in the environment, cleaner air, cleaner water, recoveries among some threatened species, and so on -- which occurred while the TFR was increasing after 1988.
Right now the Guardian website has four stories at the top, all different versions of “Rachel Reeves is a cruel, lying, incompetent clown”
Unbelievable hostility to a Labour Chancellor. I wonder if Labour’s polling might dip below 20
Unfair on Reeves because she's doing the right thing and no-one likes it.
If I may politely disagree. The function of the Labour Party is to increase the wealth and opportunities of the working class and the poor. To do this it increases equality by taxing the rich and spreading that wealth to the poor. But the belief has spread that one cannot tax the rich (because they leave) so the only tool Labour have left is to impoverish and immiserate the poor and/or working class, therefore obviating the entire point of the Labour movement.
If things keep going this way the South Wales Valleys will go Reform in 2029, which is Olympus has fallen for Labour. Starmer flirts unthinking with the destruction of his party, which as a metropolitan elite lawyer he failks to understand or even intuit.
You do have to think that a Labour Government taking a quarter of a million more into poverty has a fundamental problem.
But then, all Labour Governments leave office with fewer employed than they inherited.
At some point, voters WILL realise their business model is shite.
Employment in April 1997: 26.5mn Employment in April 2010: 29.5mn
Employment rate in April 1997: 58.1% Employment rate in April 2010: 58.2%
UK population rise between 1997 and 2010: 4.45m
That doesn't affect the rate though does it.
Because of the changing age pyramid in the country that expansion of the population is almost entirely of the retired. The working age population is pretty much unchanged. Without immigration taxes would be higher or pensions would be less, or both. This is the debate on immigration that we never have. Do we want to be pure but poor?
We need to increase our birthrate, on that Musk is right
No, we need to increase taxes.
We are taxed far more than the average nation on the planet already but have fewer children than the average nation too
Neither of those are true when comparing to similar countries, e.g. in Western Europe.
Even true there in some places, Switzerland and Ireland tax less, France and Ireland have more children
But mostly not true: FR DE NE BE NO IT etc all tax more. IT ES LUX have fewer children.
Right now the Guardian website has four stories at the top, all different versions of “Rachel Reeves is a cruel, lying, incompetent clown”
Unbelievable hostility to a Labour Chancellor. I wonder if Labour’s polling might dip below 20
Unfair on Reeves because she's doing the right thing and no-one likes it.
If I may politely disagree. The function of the Labour Party is to increase the wealth and opportunities of the working class and the poor. To do this it increases equality by taxing the rich and spreading that wealth to the poor. But the belief has spread that one cannot tax the rich (because they leave) so the only tool Labour have left is to impoverish and immiserate the poor and/or working class, therefore obviating the entire point of the Labour movement.
If things keep going this way the South Wales Valleys will go Reform in 2029, which is Olympus has fallen for Labour. Starmer flirts unthinking with the destruction of his party, which as a metropolitan elite lawyer he failks to understand or even intuit.
You do have to think that a Labour Government taking a quarter of a million more into poverty has a fundamental problem.
But then, all Labour Governments leave office with fewer employed than they inherited.
At some point, voters WILL realise their business model is shite.
Employment in April 1997: 26.5mn Employment in April 2010: 29.5mn
Employment rate in April 1997: 58.1% Employment rate in April 2010: 58.2%
UK population rise between 1997 and 2010: 4.45m
That doesn't affect the rate though does it.
Because of the changing age pyramid in the country that expansion of the population is almost entirely of the retired. The working age population is pretty much unchanged. Without immigration taxes would be higher or pensions would be less, or both. This is the debate on immigration that we never have. Do we want to be pure but poor?
We need to increase our birthrate, on that Musk is right
We need to learn to live with a lower birth rate. Constantly trying to grow the population to maintain growth and create youngsters to provide for an ever increasing ageing population just leads water shortages, food shortages, migration, wars and climate warming.
We need alternative solutions, whatever they may be, but which does not mean Logan's run.
Do you appreciate how good robots are, now?
They are this good. This is not fake, this is not speeded up, this is real. They can, also, now do fine motor tasks - they can stack dishwashers and peel apples, they will be able to do nursing, tiling and plumbing
Why do you think China is pouring trillions into robotics (Unitree is a Chinese company)? This is the answer to falling birth rates
Well good. Problem solved then. Let's not keep trying to force people to have babies. We cannot keep increasing the planet's population and a decrease would be good for the planet.
A rare moment of complete agreement. There are, simply, far too many people on the planet. I see it on my travels. We are trashing our home and destroying nature. We need to get the human population down to about 2bn, which it was as recently as 1950
All the nasty jobs can be done by the Chinese robots
I like to think we agree more, I just don't go into hyperbole (he says having predicted the end of the world) unlike yourself so it just doesn't get noticed. I say this bearing in mind I am a liberal in the very sense of personal freedoms.
So because of the hyperbole I push back on stuff that if put more moderately I might be agreeing with you on.
The reasons that birth rates are falling across the world are fascinating. One of my theories is that birth rate is falling because there are simply too many people on the planet: excess people leads to excess demand for housing, which drives up housing costs, which drives down the amount of money we have for everything else (e.g. babies). Having children in the modern world is ruinously expensive. This is true anywhere in the world with an urban population (and it is only places late to urbanise like Niger that still have high birth rates.) Why are birth rates falling? Because there are too many people.
I have toyed with writing a thread on birth rates. I find it fascinating that such a profound change is going on and has only recently started to attract a bit of attention. I find it even more fascinating that there is no consensus to why it happens.
There is evidence as well for things like falling sperm count possibly due to pollutants in the water
Right now the Guardian website has four stories at the top, all different versions of “Rachel Reeves is a cruel, lying, incompetent clown”
Unbelievable hostility to a Labour Chancellor. I wonder if Labour’s polling might dip below 20
Unfair on Reeves because she's doing the right thing and no-one likes it.
If I may politely disagree. The function of the Labour Party is to increase the wealth and opportunities of the working class and the poor. To do this it increases equality by taxing the rich and spreading that wealth to the poor. But the belief has spread that one cannot tax the rich (because they leave) so the only tool Labour have left is to impoverish and immiserate the poor and/or working class, therefore obviating the entire point of the Labour movement.
If things keep going this way the South Wales Valleys will go Reform in 2029, which is Olympus has fallen for Labour. Starmer flirts unthinking with the destruction of his party, which as a metropolitan elite lawyer he failks to understand or even intuit.
You do have to think that a Labour Government taking a quarter of a million more into poverty has a fundamental problem.
But then, all Labour Governments leave office with fewer employed than they inherited.
At some point, voters WILL realise their business model is shite.
Employment in April 1997: 26.5mn Employment in April 2010: 29.5mn
Employment rate in April 1997: 58.1% Employment rate in April 2010: 58.2%
UK population rise between 1997 and 2010: 4.45m
That doesn't affect the rate though does it.
Because of the changing age pyramid in the country that expansion of the population is almost entirely of the retired. The working age population is pretty much unchanged. Without immigration taxes would be higher or pensions would be less, or both. This is the debate on immigration that we never have. Do we want to be pure but poor?
We need to increase our birthrate, on that Musk is right
We need to learn to live with a lower birth rate. Constantly trying to grow the population to maintain growth and create youngsters to provide for an ever increasing ageing population just leads water shortages, food shortages, migration, wars and climate warming.
We need alternative solutions, whatever they may be, but which does not mean Logan's run.
Do you appreciate how good robots are, now?
They are this good. This is not fake, this is not speeded up, this is real. They can, also, now do fine motor tasks - they can stack dishwashers and peel apples, they will be able to do nursing, tiling and plumbing
Why do you think China is pouring trillions into robotics (Unitree is a Chinese company)? This is the answer to falling birth rates
Well good. Problem solved then. Let's not keep trying to force people to have babies. We cannot keep increasing the planet's population and a decrease would be good for the planet.
A rare moment of complete agreement. There are, simply, far too many people on the planet. I see it on my travels. We are trashing our home and destroying nature. We need to get the human population down to about 2bn, which it was as recently as 1950
All the nasty jobs can be done by the Chinese robots
I like to think we agree more, I just don't go into hyperbole (he says having predicted the end of the world) unlike yourself so it just doesn't get noticed. I say this bearing in mind I am a liberal in the very sense of personal freedoms.
So because of the hyperbole I push back on stuff that if put more moderately I might be agreeing with you on.
The reasons that birth rates are falling across the world are fascinating. One of my theories is that birth rate is falling because there are simply too many people on the planet: excess people leads to excess demand for housing, which drives up housing costs, which drives down the amount of money we have for everything else (e.g. babies). Having children in the modern world is ruinously expensive. This is true anywhere in the world with an urban population (and it is only places late to urbanise like Niger that still have high birth rates.) Why are birth rates falling? Because there are too many people.
I have toyed with writing a thread on birth rates. I find it fascinating that such a profound change is going on and has only recently started to attract a bit of attention. I find it even more fascinating that there is no consensus to why it happens.
All true, to a point (and I share your fascination), but birth rates are also declining in rich countries with lots of room and no housing problems
They are falling in democracies and autocracies, in Islamic, Christian and secular countries, in superpowers and tiny statelets, they are falling in South Korea and North Korea, they are falling despite many attempts to reverse them, worldwide. It'sa huge puzzle with varying answers. Female education is definitely a driver, but there are also physiological facts - sperm counts dropping, men becoming feminised. At the same time humanity is getting stupider quite fast
Most nations still have above or at replacement level fertility outside of Europe, the West and Far East.
More women having full time careers, fewer younger people religious in the West and Far East and housing costs all issues
That's absolutely not true. Fertility rates are now below replacement around the world. About the only exceptions are Africa, bits of Mid East, central Asia, and Israel/Palestine
eg they are below replacement across South America - Brazil is 1.6
Globally the fertility rate is 2.4 so still above replacement level.
In Afghanistan it is 4.5, so making fun illegal effectively and restricting female education and banning women from most careers clearly has an impact. The Taliban have many faults but they have kept a high birthrate even if their tactics go too far even for Andrew Tate
Do you read what you write before you post? Christ
@HYUFD is putting the Taliban back in the Turnip Taliban.
@HYUFD is a religious fundamentalist. His answer to this 'problem' is always about restricting women.
I'd suggest that the high birth rate in Afghanistan will be due to lack of access to contraception, high mortality rates and misogyny. In the near future that will be joined by an increase in death in childbirth due to the restrictions on female medical care. "You can say what you like about the Taliban" as long as you're not in Afghanistan.
Right now the Guardian website has four stories at the top, all different versions of “Rachel Reeves is a cruel, lying, incompetent clown”
Unbelievable hostility to a Labour Chancellor. I wonder if Labour’s polling might dip below 20
Unfair on Reeves because she's doing the right thing and no-one likes it.
If I may politely disagree. The function of the Labour Party is to increase the wealth and opportunities of the working class and the poor. To do this it increases equality by taxing the rich and spreading that wealth to the poor. But the belief has spread that one cannot tax the rich (because they leave) so the only tool Labour have left is to impoverish and immiserate the poor and/or working class, therefore obviating the entire point of the Labour movement.
If things keep going this way the South Wales Valleys will go Reform in 2029, which is Olympus has fallen for Labour. Starmer flirts unthinking with the destruction of his party, which as a metropolitan elite lawyer he failks to understand or even intuit.
You do have to think that a Labour Government taking a quarter of a million more into poverty has a fundamental problem.
But then, all Labour Governments leave office with fewer employed than they inherited.
At some point, voters WILL realise their business model is shite.
Employment in April 1997: 26.5mn Employment in April 2010: 29.5mn
Employment rate in April 1997: 58.1% Employment rate in April 2010: 58.2%
UK population rise between 1997 and 2010: 4.45m
That doesn't affect the rate though does it.
Because of the changing age pyramid in the country that expansion of the population is almost entirely of the retired. The working age population is pretty much unchanged. Without immigration taxes would be higher or pensions would be less, or both. This is the debate on immigration that we never have. Do we want to be pure but poor?
We need to increase our birthrate, on that Musk is right
We need to learn to live with a lower birth rate. Constantly trying to grow the population to maintain growth and create youngsters to provide for an ever increasing ageing population just leads water shortages, food shortages, migration, wars and climate warming.
We need alternative solutions, whatever they may be, but which does not mean Logan's run.
Do you appreciate how good robots are, now?
They are this good. This is not fake, this is not speeded up, this is real. They can, also, now do fine motor tasks - they can stack dishwashers and peel apples, they will be able to do nursing, tiling and plumbing
Why do you think China is pouring trillions into robotics (Unitree is a Chinese company)? This is the answer to falling birth rates
Well good. Problem solved then. Let's not keep trying to force people to have babies. We cannot keep increasing the planet's population and a decrease would be good for the planet.
A rare moment of complete agreement. There are, simply, far too many people on the planet. I see it on my travels. We are trashing our home and destroying nature. We need to get the human population down to about 2bn, which it was as recently as 1950
All the nasty jobs can be done by the Chinese robots
I like to think we agree more, I just don't go into hyperbole (he says having predicted the end of the world) unlike yourself so it just doesn't get noticed. I say this bearing in mind I am a liberal in the very sense of personal freedoms.
So because of the hyperbole I push back on stuff that if put more moderately I might be agreeing with you on.
The reasons that birth rates are falling across the world are fascinating. One of my theories is that birth rate is falling because there are simply too many people on the planet: excess people leads to excess demand for housing, which drives up housing costs, which drives down the amount of money we have for everything else (e.g. babies). Having children in the modern world is ruinously expensive. This is true anywhere in the world with an urban population (and it is only places late to urbanise like Niger that still have high birth rates.) Why are birth rates falling? Because there are too many people.
I have toyed with writing a thread on birth rates. I find it fascinating that such a profound change is going on and has only recently started to attract a bit of attention. I find it even more fascinating that there is no consensus to why it happens.
I think there is a doom loop that goes something like this (I'm not 100% sure)...
People want to spend more time travelling/working/having fun (this is a good thing)
This means there are fewer couples, so more bedrooms and homes are needed for the same number of young people in urban areas
(There is a similar effect from divorces, the end of multi-generational households, and older people not down-sizing)
All of the cost of this increased demand flows to young people, and all the benefit towards older people, because older people have got smaller mortgages or, increasingly, own their homes outright.
This means that while housing costs overall are lower than at any point since the early 80s, this masks an imbalance where they are falling for older people while increasing for younger people
These increased costs make it harder for young people to build enough capital to get on the housing ladder and raise children, which makes travelling, yoga classes and other consumables relatively more achievable - and that's us back at the beginning again.
I think is simpler than that. Developed urban societies have delayed the onset of childbearing to the mean age of thirty or so, leaving little time for big families. In addition significant numbers never have children because either they don't want them, or never find a partner that they want to have children with.
A large part of this is due to extending childhood well past the school leaving age of my youth (14 then 16) so financial independence is rarely reached until mid to late twenties. Add in the delayed onset of dating, exacerbated by Incel teens and the atomisation of social life via social media, and you have a low fertility rate.
The issue has many factors. Another big one (thankfully!) is that far fewer babies and young children die young. In ye olden days, it was perfectly possible to have only two or three children of ten survive to adulthood, especially amongst the poor. This meant to have a family, the woman would have to be a baby-bearing machine. Now, a woman can have two babies and expect them to grow up hale and hearty. This gives women more time for careers, and the opportunity to start a family later.
So a simple 'solution' to the problem would be to increase infant mortality. The anti-vaxxers in the states are already on the case...
Worth noting that age at childbirth was unusually young for boomers and Gen X. It used to be higherin the Twenties and Thirties too, not just in recent years.
We need to get youngsters off their phones, off their heads on drink and drugs and behind the bikesheds, just like the good old days.
Right now the Guardian website has four stories at the top, all different versions of “Rachel Reeves is a cruel, lying, incompetent clown”
Unbelievable hostility to a Labour Chancellor. I wonder if Labour’s polling might dip below 20
Unfair on Reeves because she's doing the right thing and no-one likes it.
If I may politely disagree. The function of the Labour Party is to increase the wealth and opportunities of the working class and the poor. To do this it increases equality by taxing the rich and spreading that wealth to the poor. But the belief has spread that one cannot tax the rich (because they leave) so the only tool Labour have left is to impoverish and immiserate the poor and/or working class, therefore obviating the entire point of the Labour movement.
If things keep going this way the South Wales Valleys will go Reform in 2029, which is Olympus has fallen for Labour. Starmer flirts unthinking with the destruction of his party, which as a metropolitan elite lawyer he failks to understand or even intuit.
You do have to think that a Labour Government taking a quarter of a million more into poverty has a fundamental problem.
But then, all Labour Governments leave office with fewer employed than they inherited.
At some point, voters WILL realise their business model is shite.
Employment in April 1997: 26.5mn Employment in April 2010: 29.5mn
Employment rate in April 1997: 58.1% Employment rate in April 2010: 58.2%
UK population rise between 1997 and 2010: 4.45m
That doesn't affect the rate though does it.
Because of the changing age pyramid in the country that expansion of the population is almost entirely of the retired. The working age population is pretty much unchanged. Without immigration taxes would be higher or pensions would be less, or both. This is the debate on immigration that we never have. Do we want to be pure but poor?
We need to increase our birthrate, on that Musk is right
We need to learn to live with a lower birth rate. Constantly trying to grow the population to maintain growth and create youngsters to provide for an ever increasing ageing population just leads water shortages, food shortages, migration, wars and climate warming.
We need alternative solutions, whatever they may be, but which does not mean Logan's run.
Do you appreciate how good robots are, now?
They are this good. This is not fake, this is not speeded up, this is real. They can, also, now do fine motor tasks - they can stack dishwashers and peel apples, they will be able to do nursing, tiling and plumbing
Why do you think China is pouring trillions into robotics (Unitree is a Chinese company)? This is the answer to falling birth rates
Well good. Problem solved then. Let's not keep trying to force people to have babies. We cannot keep increasing the planet's population and a decrease would be good for the planet.
A rare moment of complete agreement. There are, simply, far too many people on the planet. I see it on my travels. We are trashing our home and destroying nature. We need to get the human population down to about 2bn, which it was as recently as 1950
All the nasty jobs can be done by the Chinese robots
I like to think we agree more, I just don't go into hyperbole (he says having predicted the end of the world) unlike yourself so it just doesn't get noticed. I say this bearing in mind I am a liberal in the very sense of personal freedoms.
So because of the hyperbole I push back on stuff that if put more moderately I might be agreeing with you on.
The reasons that birth rates are falling across the world are fascinating. One of my theories is that birth rate is falling because there are simply too many people on the planet: excess people leads to excess demand for housing, which drives up housing costs, which drives down the amount of money we have for everything else (e.g. babies). Having children in the modern world is ruinously expensive. This is true anywhere in the world with an urban population (and it is only places late to urbanise like Niger that still have high birth rates.) Why are birth rates falling? Because there are too many people.
I have toyed with writing a thread on birth rates. I find it fascinating that such a profound change is going on and has only recently started to attract a bit of attention. I find it even more fascinating that there is no consensus to why it happens.
All true, to a point (and I share your fascination), but birth rates are also declining in rich countries with lots of room and no housing problems
They are falling in democracies and autocracies, in Islamic, Christian and secular countries, in superpowers and tiny statelets, they are falling in South Korea and North Korea, they are falling despite many attempts to reverse them, worldwide. It'sa huge puzzle with varying answers. Female education is definitely a driver, but there are also physiological facts - sperm counts dropping, men becoming feminised. At the same time humanity is getting stupider quite fast
Most nations still have above or at replacement level fertility outside of Europe, the West and Far East.
More women having full time careers, fewer younger people religious in the West and Far East and housing costs all issues
That's absolutely not true. Fertility rates are now below replacement around the world. About the only exceptions are Africa, bits of Mid East, central Asia, and Israel/Palestine
eg they are below replacement across South America - Brazil is 1.6
They're below replacement rates even in places like Iran and Bangladesh.
I know, it's extraordinary when you dig into the deets. Countries you simply assume must be breeding like rabbits are.... not
When we attend large family gatherings in Sri Lanka the demographic transition is evident - it's a big gathering because my father in law had nine siblings, but of all of my wife's cousins there's only one other (apart from us) with three children. Even in my wife's generation two-child families are the norm - she's an outlier with two siblings. One or two children is the norm now. It's not surprising though for a country with a good healthcare system (including family planning) and high levels of female education, and a norm of both parents working, so it's revealing that you think they must be "breeding like rabbits".
Right now the Guardian website has four stories at the top, all different versions of “Rachel Reeves is a cruel, lying, incompetent clown”
Unbelievable hostility to a Labour Chancellor. I wonder if Labour’s polling might dip below 20
Unfair on Reeves because she's doing the right thing and no-one likes it.
If I may politely disagree. The function of the Labour Party is to increase the wealth and opportunities of the working class and the poor. To do this it increases equality by taxing the rich and spreading that wealth to the poor. But the belief has spread that one cannot tax the rich (because they leave) so the only tool Labour have left is to impoverish and immiserate the poor and/or working class, therefore obviating the entire point of the Labour movement.
If things keep going this way the South Wales Valleys will go Reform in 2029, which is Olympus has fallen for Labour. Starmer flirts unthinking with the destruction of his party, which as a metropolitan elite lawyer he failks to understand or even intuit.
You do have to think that a Labour Government taking a quarter of a million more into poverty has a fundamental problem.
But then, all Labour Governments leave office with fewer employed than they inherited.
At some point, voters WILL realise their business model is shite.
Employment in April 1997: 26.5mn Employment in April 2010: 29.5mn
Employment rate in April 1997: 58.1% Employment rate in April 2010: 58.2%
UK population rise between 1997 and 2010: 4.45m
That doesn't affect the rate though does it.
Because of the changing age pyramid in the country that expansion of the population is almost entirely of the retired. The working age population is pretty much unchanged. Without immigration taxes would be higher or pensions would be less, or both. This is the debate on immigration that we never have. Do we want to be pure but poor?
We need to increase our birthrate, on that Musk is right
We need to learn to live with a lower birth rate. Constantly trying to grow the population to maintain growth and create youngsters to provide for an ever increasing ageing population just leads water shortages, food shortages, migration, wars and climate warming.
We need alternative solutions, whatever they may be, but which does not mean Logan's run.
Do you appreciate how good robots are, now?
They are this good. This is not fake, this is not speeded up, this is real. They can, also, now do fine motor tasks - they can stack dishwashers and peel apples, they will be able to do nursing, tiling and plumbing
Why do you think China is pouring trillions into robotics (Unitree is a Chinese company)? This is the answer to falling birth rates
Well good. Problem solved then. Let's not keep trying to force people to have babies. We cannot keep increasing the planet's population and a decrease would be good for the planet.
A rare moment of complete agreement. There are, simply, far too many people on the planet. I see it on my travels. We are trashing our home and destroying nature. We need to get the human population down to about 2bn, which it was as recently as 1950
All the nasty jobs can be done by the Chinese robots
I like to think we agree more, I just don't go into hyperbole (he says having predicted the end of the world) unlike yourself so it just doesn't get noticed. I say this bearing in mind I am a liberal in the very sense of personal freedoms.
So because of the hyperbole I push back on stuff that if put more moderately I might be agreeing with you on.
The reasons that birth rates are falling across the world are fascinating. One of my theories is that birth rate is falling because there are simply too many people on the planet: excess people leads to excess demand for housing, which drives up housing costs, which drives down the amount of money we have for everything else (e.g. babies). Having children in the modern world is ruinously expensive. This is true anywhere in the world with an urban population (and it is only places late to urbanise like Niger that still have high birth rates.) Why are birth rates falling? Because there are too many people.
I have toyed with writing a thread on birth rates. I find it fascinating that such a profound change is going on and has only recently started to attract a bit of attention. I find it even more fascinating that there is no consensus to why it happens.
I think there is a doom loop that goes something like this (I'm not 100% sure)...
People want to spend more time travelling/working/having fun (this is a good thing)
This means there are fewer couples, so more bedrooms and homes are needed for the same number of young people in urban areas
(There is a similar effect from divorces, the end of multi-generational households, and older people not down-sizing)
All of the cost of this increased demand flows to young people, and all the benefit towards older people, because older people have got smaller mortgages or, increasingly, own their homes outright.
This means that while housing costs overall are lower than at any point since the early 80s, this masks an imbalance where they are falling for older people while increasing for younger people
These increased costs make it harder for young people to build enough capital to get on the housing ladder and raise children, which makes travelling, yoga classes and other consumables relatively more achievable - and that's us back at the beginning again.
I think is simpler than that. Developed urban societies have delayed the onset of childbearing to the mean age of thirty or so, leaving little time for big families. In addition significant numbers never have children because either they don't want them, or never find a partner that they want to have children with.
A large part of this is due to extending childhood well past the school leaving age of my youth (14 then 16) so financial independence is rarely reached until mid to late twenties. Add in the delayed onset of dating, exacerbated by Incel teens and the atomisation of social life via social media, and you have a low fertility rate.
The issue has many factors. Another big one (thankfully!) is that far fewer babies and young children die young. In ye olden days, it was perfectly possible to have only two or three children of ten survive to adulthood, especially amongst the poor. This meant to have a family, the woman would have to be a baby-bearing machine. Now, a woman can have two babies and expect them to grow up hale and hearty. This gives women more time for careers, and the opportunity to start a family later.
So a simple 'solution' to the problem would be to increase infant mortality. The anti-vaxxers in the states are already on the case...
Worth noting that age at childbirth was unusually young for boomers and Gen X. It used to be higherin the Twenties and Thirties too, not just in recent years.
We need to get youngsters off their phones, off their heads on drink and drugs and behind the bikesheds, just like the good old days.
‘Make Teenagers Drunk Again’ is a political slogan I could get behind.
Right now the Guardian website has four stories at the top, all different versions of “Rachel Reeves is a cruel, lying, incompetent clown”
Unbelievable hostility to a Labour Chancellor. I wonder if Labour’s polling might dip below 20
Unfair on Reeves because she's doing the right thing and no-one likes it.
If I may politely disagree. The function of the Labour Party is to increase the wealth and opportunities of the working class and the poor. To do this it increases equality by taxing the rich and spreading that wealth to the poor. But the belief has spread that one cannot tax the rich (because they leave) so the only tool Labour have left is to impoverish and immiserate the poor and/or working class, therefore obviating the entire point of the Labour movement.
If things keep going this way the South Wales Valleys will go Reform in 2029, which is Olympus has fallen for Labour. Starmer flirts unthinking with the destruction of his party, which as a metropolitan elite lawyer he failks to understand or even intuit.
You do have to think that a Labour Government taking a quarter of a million more into poverty has a fundamental problem.
But then, all Labour Governments leave office with fewer employed than they inherited.
At some point, voters WILL realise their business model is shite.
Employment in April 1997: 26.5mn Employment in April 2010: 29.5mn
Employment rate in April 1997: 58.1% Employment rate in April 2010: 58.2%
UK population rise between 1997 and 2010: 4.45m
That doesn't affect the rate though does it.
Because of the changing age pyramid in the country that expansion of the population is almost entirely of the retired. The working age population is pretty much unchanged. Without immigration taxes would be higher or pensions would be less, or both. This is the debate on immigration that we never have. Do we want to be pure but poor?
We need to increase our birthrate, on that Musk is right
We need to learn to live with a lower birth rate. Constantly trying to grow the population to maintain growth and create youngsters to provide for an ever increasing ageing population just leads water shortages, food shortages, migration, wars and climate warming.
We need alternative solutions, whatever they may be, but which does not mean Logan's run.
Do you appreciate how good robots are, now?
They are this good. This is not fake, this is not speeded up, this is real. They can, also, now do fine motor tasks - they can stack dishwashers and peel apples, they will be able to do nursing, tiling and plumbing
Why do you think China is pouring trillions into robotics (Unitree is a Chinese company)? This is the answer to falling birth rates
Well good. Problem solved then. Let's not keep trying to force people to have babies. We cannot keep increasing the planet's population and a decrease would be good for the planet.
A rare moment of complete agreement. There are, simply, far too many people on the planet. I see it on my travels. We are trashing our home and destroying nature. We need to get the human population down to about 2bn, which it was as recently as 1950
All the nasty jobs can be done by the Chinese robots
I like to think we agree more, I just don't go into hyperbole (he says having predicted the end of the world) unlike yourself so it just doesn't get noticed. I say this bearing in mind I am a liberal in the very sense of personal freedoms.
So because of the hyperbole I push back on stuff that if put more moderately I might be agreeing with you on.
The reasons that birth rates are falling across the world are fascinating. One of my theories is that birth rate is falling because there are simply too many people on the planet: excess people leads to excess demand for housing, which drives up housing costs, which drives down the amount of money we have for everything else (e.g. babies). Having children in the modern world is ruinously expensive. This is true anywhere in the world with an urban population (and it is only places late to urbanise like Niger that still have high birth rates.) Why are birth rates falling? Because there are too many people.
I have toyed with writing a thread on birth rates. I find it fascinating that such a profound change is going on and has only recently started to attract a bit of attention. I find it even more fascinating that there is no consensus to why it happens.
There is evidence as well for things like falling sperm count possibly due to pollutants in the water
Right now the Guardian website has four stories at the top, all different versions of “Rachel Reeves is a cruel, lying, incompetent clown”
Unbelievable hostility to a Labour Chancellor. I wonder if Labour’s polling might dip below 20
Unfair on Reeves because she's doing the right thing and no-one likes it.
If I may politely disagree. The function of the Labour Party is to increase the wealth and opportunities of the working class and the poor. To do this it increases equality by taxing the rich and spreading that wealth to the poor. But the belief has spread that one cannot tax the rich (because they leave) so the only tool Labour have left is to impoverish and immiserate the poor and/or working class, therefore obviating the entire point of the Labour movement.
If things keep going this way the South Wales Valleys will go Reform in 2029, which is Olympus has fallen for Labour. Starmer flirts unthinking with the destruction of his party, which as a metropolitan elite lawyer he failks to understand or even intuit.
You do have to think that a Labour Government taking a quarter of a million more into poverty has a fundamental problem.
But then, all Labour Governments leave office with fewer employed than they inherited.
At some point, voters WILL realise their business model is shite.
Employment in April 1997: 26.5mn Employment in April 2010: 29.5mn
Employment rate in April 1997: 58.1% Employment rate in April 2010: 58.2%
UK population rise between 1997 and 2010: 4.45m
That doesn't affect the rate though does it.
Because of the changing age pyramid in the country that expansion of the population is almost entirely of the retired. The working age population is pretty much unchanged. Without immigration taxes would be higher or pensions would be less, or both. This is the debate on immigration that we never have. Do we want to be pure but poor?
We need to increase our birthrate, on that Musk is right
We need to learn to live with a lower birth rate. Constantly trying to grow the population to maintain growth and create youngsters to provide for an ever increasing ageing population just leads water shortages, food shortages, migration, wars and climate warming.
We need alternative solutions, whatever they may be, but which does not mean Logan's run.
Do you appreciate how good robots are, now?
They are this good. This is not fake, this is not speeded up, this is real. They can, also, now do fine motor tasks - they can stack dishwashers and peel apples, they will be able to do nursing, tiling and plumbing
Why do you think China is pouring trillions into robotics (Unitree is a Chinese company)? This is the answer to falling birth rates
Well good. Problem solved then. Let's not keep trying to force people to have babies. We cannot keep increasing the planet's population and a decrease would be good for the planet.
A rare moment of complete agreement. There are, simply, far too many people on the planet. I see it on my travels. We are trashing our home and destroying nature. We need to get the human population down to about 2bn, which it was as recently as 1950
All the nasty jobs can be done by the Chinese robots
I like to think we agree more, I just don't go into hyperbole (he says having predicted the end of the world) unlike yourself so it just doesn't get noticed. I say this bearing in mind I am a liberal in the very sense of personal freedoms.
So because of the hyperbole I push back on stuff that if put more moderately I might be agreeing with you on.
The reasons that birth rates are falling across the world are fascinating. One of my theories is that birth rate is falling because there are simply too many people on the planet: excess people leads to excess demand for housing, which drives up housing costs, which drives down the amount of money we have for everything else (e.g. babies). Having children in the modern world is ruinously expensive. This is true anywhere in the world with an urban population (and it is only places late to urbanise like Niger that still have high birth rates.) Why are birth rates falling? Because there are too many people.
I have toyed with writing a thread on birth rates. I find it fascinating that such a profound change is going on and has only recently started to attract a bit of attention. I find it even more fascinating that there is no consensus to why it happens.
All true, to a point (and I share your fascination), but birth rates are also declining in rich countries with lots of room and no housing problems
They are falling in democracies and autocracies, in Islamic, Christian and secular countries, in superpowers and tiny statelets, they are falling in South Korea and North Korea, they are falling despite many attempts to reverse them, worldwide. It'sa huge puzzle with varying answers. Female education is definitely a driver, but there are also physiological facts - sperm counts dropping, men becoming feminised. At the same time humanity is getting stupider quite fast
Most nations still have above or at replacement level fertility outside of Europe, the West and Far East.
More women having full time careers, fewer younger people religious in the West and Far East and housing costs all issues
That's absolutely not true. Fertility rates are now below replacement around the world. About the only exceptions are Africa, bits of Mid East, central Asia, and Israel/Palestine
eg they are below replacement across South America - Brazil is 1.6
Globally the fertility rate is 2.4 so still above replacement level.
In Afghanistan it is 4.5, so making fun illegal effectively and restricting female education and banning women from most careers clearly has an impact. The Taliban have many faults but they have kept a high birthrate even if their tactics go too far even for Andrew Tate
Comments
We need alternative solutions, whatever they may be, but which does not mean Logan's run.
Africa may be growing its population still but we aren't
Time for the government to start getting serious on stuff like this.
They are this good. This is not fake, this is not speeded up, this is real. They can, also, now do fine motor tasks - they can stack dishwashers and peel apples, they will be able to do nursing, tiling and plumbing
https://x.com/UnitreeRobotics/status/1903092199287578763
Why do you think China is pouring trillions into robotics (Unitree is a Chinese company)? This is the answer to falling birth rates
As Sherlock Holmes nearly said: 'Once you have eliminated the impossible parties of government, whatever remains, however unlikely and useless, must get your vote'. Grim. But it's worse for our American friends.
All the nasty jobs can be done by the Chinese robots
The NHS provides a valuable service, but can we afford it to operate the way it currently does? Can it really do everything that we currently expect of it? Can we afford our current pensions system - we certainly can’t afford the triple lock to continue. And how do we get people on board with all this?
I do fear that Western society is headed towards greater authoritarianism because of some of these challenges - and because politicians have sold easy answers for too long people do not expect to hear hard truths.
But even better, the 'taxpayers' have had their tax relief and are now rarely in a position to be able to pay it back so ultimately HMRC appear to write it all off as 'no longer being pursued'.
Sixty eight years later, the Law Against the Closing of Big Important Things will come into powerful effect, and many big important things will be forced to stay open until they close anyway an hour later, costing the British taxpayer 400 trillion dollars, which the Labour government will give to Poland because the Foreign Secretary saw a sad film about Warsaw
So because of the hyperbole I push back on stuff that if put more moderately I might be agreeing with you on.
- OpenDemocracy: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/
- The Bureau of Investigative Journalism: https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/
- The London Economic: https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/
- Tortoise Media: https://www.tortoisemedia.com/
- Novara Media: https://novaramedia.com/
- The Canary: https://www.thecanary.co/
- Full Fact: https://fullfact.org/
- Media Lens: https://www.medialens.org/
I have no idea if they are any good and I suspect some of them are not (I thought the Canary had shut down, or was that Skwarkbox?)1. it entertains me and
2. I am naturally hyperbolic
There are enough people on here being moderately sensible all the time, you need a bit of variety
REF: 26% (-1)
LAB: 23% (+1)
CON: 22% (+1)
LDEM: 12% (-2)
GRN: 11% (-)
via
@FindoutnowUK
, 26 Mar
Chgs. w/ 19 Mar
Labour are now consistently below 25
I wonder if the Reeves omnifeck will take them below 20, or is ~22 their floor?
On the sixth man prepares his final dream:
In our image, let's make robots for our slaves
Imagine all the time that we can save
Computers, machines, the silicon dream
Seventh he retired from the scene
And he said: Behold what I have done
I've made a better world for everyone
I have toyed with writing a thread on birth rates. I find it fascinating that such a profound change is going on and has only recently started to attract a bit of attention. I find it even more fascinating that there is no consensus to why it happens.
They are falling in democracies and autocracies, in Islamic, Christian and secular countries, in superpowers and tiny statelets, they are falling in South Korea and North Korea, they are falling despite many attempts to reverse them, worldwide. It'sa huge puzzle with varying answers. Female education is definitely a driver, but there are also physiological facts - sperm counts dropping, men becoming feminised. At the same time humanity is getting stupider quite fast
(it has to be!)
of a cybernetic ecology
where we are free of our labors
and joined back to nature,
returned to our mammal
brothers and sisters,
and all watched over
by machines of loving grace.
Scoop: Elise Stefanik's nomination for UN ambassador is in jeopardy as pressure mounts for her to back away from the UN ambassador position, partly because Republicans hold a small majority in the US House. There are discussions being held this morning about whether she should pull her nomination as soon as today, sources told @gabrielle_ake and me.
@CBSNews
https://x.com/JenniferJJacobs/status/1905278270855147687
The things the gov't are doing competently - making nice with Trump, increasing defence spending, cutting welfare aren't going to butter many parsnips on his left flank.
(Or something like that.)
The imposition of the tariffs on all auto parts is going to have a significant impact on American auto insurance prices. We have been totting up the additional costs of repairs due to tariffs and on Comprehensive, Collision and Physical Damage, the impact is likely to be in the high single digits.
Given that auto insurance is - behind housing - the second largest expense for younger and poorer Americans, this is going to hit pretty hard.
This is the result...
Sex is fun, but actually having babies isn't!
You see, in the US, auto insurance coverage is capped. So, your policy will have limits: i.e. the maximum amount your insurance company will pay out. In Florida, for example, many of those policies will have maximum payouts per accident of less than $50,000 or so.
More women having full time careers, fewer younger people religious in the West and Far East and housing costs all issues
I would normally assume for an insurance company that payout is roughly equal in cash terms to premiums - with OpEx and profit coming from float. But that level of premium, and the cap, would suggest that the average floridean has an accident which costs $20k once every 5 years?
the headline here is that Republicans are worried about having a special election in a seat that Trump won 60-40
https://bsky.app/profile/leahgreenberg.bsky.social/post/3llen5jgvwc2y
Either that or margin-of-error changes.
(Which is an exaggeration, but not much. The big issue with Florida is that so many drivers are uninsured, which means rates for those who are insured are really high, which means even more people are uninsured.)
eg they are below replacement across South America - Brazil is 1.6
Breaking News: Attorney General Pam Bondi suggested that there was not likely to be a criminal inquiry into the sharing of military plans in an unsecured chat.
https://bsky.app/profile/nytimes.com/post/3llep3cynkc2q
https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/IRN/iran/population
Bangladesh's population growth was just as insane:
https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/BGD/bangladesh/population
Colombia: 1.69
Sri Lanka: 1.97
Thailand: 1.32
Mexico: 1.8
Malaysia: 1.7
Given the supply chains in modern manufacturing it is in some senses going to be fascinating in a car crash way to watch in real-time.
* not american academics obviously, their universities are to be closed down this year.
That it took her so long.
Crow: You were also traveling during this discussion, correct?
Gabbard: Yes.
Crow: And where were you?
Gabbard: I don't recall which country I was in at that time.
Crow: You don't remember the country?
https://x.com/Acyn/status/1904916894169411628
@andrew_lilico
·
17m
We should react to the US tariff on our cars by cutting the UK tariff on US cars (currently 10%, so plenty of scope to take it down to say 2%). That tariff cut will create a boost to our economy to help offset the negative impact of the US increase.
In Afghanistan it is 4.5, so making fun illegal effectively and restricting female education and banning women from most careers clearly has an impact. The Taliban have many faults but they have kept a high birthrate even if their tactics go too far even for Andrew Tate
https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/wld/world/fertility-rate
A large part of this is due to extending childhood well past the school leaving age of my youth (14 then 16) so financial independence is rarely reached until mid to late twenties. Add in the delayed onset of dating, exacerbated by Incel teens and the atomisation of social life via social media, and you have a low fertility rate.
I'm already well pissed.
Nation's highest ranking law officer...
Q: “In terms of the Signal chat controversy…is the DOJ involved at this point?”
Bondi: “…We're not going to comment any further on that. If you want to talk about classified information, talk about what was at Hillary Clinton's home that she was trying to BleachBit.”
https://x.com/BulwarkOnline/status/1905279324753633772
@davidfrum
·
4h
Very Trump to push the North American economy into depression to change the subject from his national security team's carelessness and lies.
‼️ 🇫🇷🇬🇧🇺🇦 Allied countries today formalised the role of France and Britain as “co-pilots” of a “coalition of the willing” to bolster Ukraine’s defence and provide “reassurance forces” in the case of a ceasefire with Russia, President @EmmanuelMacron announced.
https://x.com/RadioGenoa/status/1904863320890388588
Nigel Farage is apparently a fake asylum seeker....
So a simple 'solution' to the problem would be to increase infant mortality. The anti-vaxxers in the states are already on the case...
Three points I consider noteworthy:
1. The sharp decline in TFR, starting about 1972.
2. The recovery in TFR beginning about 1988, culminating in 2006 and 2007, when it passed 2.1.
3. The improvements in the environment, cleaner air, cleaner water, recoveries among some threatened species, and so on -- which occurred while the TFR was increasing after 1988.
eg https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230327-how-pollution-is-causing-a-male-fertility-crisis
It would not surprise me to find a corresponding increase in female fertility
"You can say what you like about the Taliban" as long as you're not in Afghanistan.
We need to get youngsters off their phones, off their heads on drink and drugs and behind the bikesheds, just like the good old days.
It's not surprising though for a country with a good healthcare system (including family planning) and high levels of female education, and a norm of both parents working, so it's revealing that you think they must be "breeding like rabbits".