111–120 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does "reduce pensions" mean? Pensions are people's property. You can take pensions like you can confiscate property, a la communism.
So close! Pensions are actually property taken from the younger generation and given to retirees.
1. A state provided welfare benefit Or 2. A privately held long term savings/investment account
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Raising the birth rate is extremely difficult and immigration will destroy a country's culture if not managed properly. For an interesting case study, compare Japan (who refuses to allow mass immigration and is at risk of going extinct) and the UK (who has embraced it and is on the way to becoming Muslim-majority). It'll be interesting to see in 50 years which one has had better outcomes.
According to Wikipedia[1] you are quite off base as Muslims form only 6.5% of the population as opposed to Christians (46.2%) and a-religious (37.2%). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_Kingdom
> Between 2001 and 2009, the Muslim population increased almost 10 times faster than the non-Muslim population.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_United_Kingdom?wp...
Granted 2009 was a while ago but they're still the fastest growing population in the UK by a lot.
Seems the US will have to do this soon. Just very very unpopular. Not sure which party will actually pull the trigger.
My guess - they'll just gut the benefits to anemic levels for everyone slowly rather than some big easy to point to maneuver like this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Raising the birth rate is extremely difficult and immigration will destroy a country's culture if not managed properly. For an interesting case study, compare Japan (who refuses to allow mass immigration and is at risk of going extinct) and the UK (who has embraced it and is on the way to becoming Muslim-majority). It'll be interesting to see in 50 years which one has had better outcomes.
According to Wikipedia[1] you are quite off base as Muslims form only 6.5% of the population as opposed to Christians (46.2%) and a-religious (37.2%). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_Kingdom
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is. And this is the case in all western countries. It is just being realized in different ways. Fundamentalle there are 3 ways to cope 1. reduce pensions 2. Raise taxes 3. Decrease amount of benefit receivers. Denmark choose number 3
Wouldn't the fourth way be via increasing either birth rate or immigration?
[0] Figure 2.7 of the Danish Government report "Økonomisk Analyse: Indvandreres nettobidrag til de offentlige finanser i 2018" - https://fm.dk/udgivelser/2021/oktober/oekonomisk-analyse-ind...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Raising the birth rate is extremely difficult and immigration will destroy a country's culture if not managed properly. For an interesting case study, compare Japan (who refuses to allow mass immigration and is at risk of going extinct) and the UK (who has embraced it and is on the way to becoming Muslim-majority). It'll be interesting to see in 50 years which one has had better outcomes.
UK is in no conceivable way “on the way to becoming Muslim-majority”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_Kingdom
This is because of their low birth rate primarily right? I think the system has failed at this point, when you are expected to work that long.
It is. And this is the case in all western countries. It is just being realized in different ways. Fundamentalle there are 3 ways to cope 1. reduce pensions 2. Raise taxes 3. Decrease amount of benefit receivers. Denmark choose number 3
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Raising the birth rate is extremely difficult and immigration will destroy a country's culture if not managed properly. For an interesting case study, compare Japan (who refuses to allow mass immigration and is at risk of going extinct) and the UK (who has embraced it and is on the way to becoming Muslim-majority). It'll be interesting to see in 50 years which one has had better outcomes.
Way to undermine your point by using a completely made up statistic.
In 1930 Keynes projected that by 2000 their grandchildren could work 15 hours per week¹. Now the projection is that we will work more and longer in the future.
And what is this labor supposed to even do? How much of even current work really increases wellbeing?
Graeber's thesis of bullshit jobs becomes increasingly more convincing: work isn't about production, it's about social control².
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Raising the birth rate is extremely difficult and immigration will destroy a country's culture if not managed properly. For an interesting case study, compare Japan (who refuses to allow mass immigration and is at risk of going extinct) and the UK (who has embraced it and is on the way to becoming Muslim-majority). It'll be interesting to see in 50 years which one has had better outcomes.
it is 6% muslim majority?