PowerSwitch

There seems. to have been a dramatic drop in the birth rate for England and Wales between the latest reporting period 2012 to 2013

Key Findings
There were 698,512 live births in England and Wales in 2013, a decrease of 4.3% from 729,674 in 2012.
In 2013, the Total Fertility Rate (TFR) decreased to 1.85 children per woman, from 1.94 in 2012.
In 2013 the stillbirth rate fell to 4.7 per thousand total births, from 4.9 in 2012.
The average age of mothers in 2013 increased to 30.0 years, compared with 29.8 years in 2012.
Over a quarter (26.5%) of live births were to mothers born outside the UK; a small increase compared with 25.9% in 2012.
Get all the tables for this publication in the data section of this publication .

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/vsob1/bir ... -2013.html

We seem to have a birthrate way below replacement level.

for me being malthusian, thats a ray of hope, but still too high. I'd feel much happier with a global TFR of about 1

we're running out of resources.
The rational response is a lower birth rate.. below replacement so the population actually falls.

the worst possible thing you could do is meddle to try and artificially encourage births.

If more people are born, there will just be proportionally more deaths in coming wars.


Where we messed up collectively was trying to cover over peak oil with ponzi-economics. Both left and right did it in slightly different ways. If we had sane economics, we'd have felt the pinch earlier, and a lower birth rate earlier aswell.

ceti331 wrote:for me being malthusian, thats a ray of hope, but still too high. I'd feel much happier with a global TFR of about 1

You can't have that you irresponsible idiot! What about growth? The banks will collapse and there'll be an unending recession. The government will fall and there'll be revolution. It'll be the end of the world!

(Takes economists hat off and returns to the real world)

If the rate drops too low there could be all sorts of unintended consequences, Ceti, such as the Chinese problem of aborted female foetuses and a shortage of women. Anything below replacement rate will cause some of the problems above which will be ameliorated by the government allowing immigration to keep the population growing as Labour did and the Tories can't stop.

Until the banking system is changed to get rid of interest charges and payments they have to ensure growth in the economy to stop recession and a banking collapse.

ceti331 wrote:we're running out of resources.
The rational response is a lower birth rate.. below replacement so the population actually falls.

The birth rate usually falls in response to female education and emancipation. Women decide to have fewer children when educated, which usually leads to increased family wealth and fewer deaths in childhood, because they don't have to have spares to keep the parents in old age. An educated woman is more likely to have more say in the family which is why male dominated cultures don't like female education.

The Islamist hatred of female education along with the segregation and covering of women is rooted in the medieval culture of male domination in the region rather than the religion of Islam. This male domination also accounts for the higher birthrate in non secular Islamic countries. Men's brains tend to be between their legs and in the west a large car often compensates for a large family! Sad really.

Poverty tends to increase the birthrate as the infant death rate increases and people want more children as an insurance for old age. Poor people have less money for other forms of entertainment and contraception which also increases birthrate.

Unfortunately humans don't react logically to a shortage of resources.

In the UK large car is often indicative of a large family. A long, pointy, unnecessarily noisy car with 2 doors indicates compensation for absence of a large family

My kids are in the middle of the demographic bulge which peaked about 10 years ago, so they are spending their education in overfull classes whilst younger years have spare places. A bit like me, born in the peak year of 1962.

kenneal - lagger wrote: Until the banking system is changed to get rid of interest charges and payments they have to ensure growth in the economy to stop recession and a banking collapse.

Probably a thread all by its 'self but just how would a bank work if it didn't charge interest and service fees?
On topic: The UK can have its low birth rate because the NHS takes care of you in old age not your surviving children.

vtsnowedin wrote:Probably a thread all by its 'self but just how would a bank work if it didn't charge interest and service fees?

They might not work - so what? Who cares?

Only the state should have the power to create money, which would be destroyed as any loans are repaid.

Islamic banks get by without usury. They charge a set fee to cover their administration costs and don't pay interest on money held.

The lower birthrate in educated women is a common theme across Africa even where there is no health service or welfare system. The god awful system in the US might have led to the retention of some third world traits in procreation.

PS_RalphW wrote:In the UK large car is often indicative of a large family. A long, pointy, unnecessarily noisy car with 2 doors indicates compensation for absence of a large family

In the UK second hand large car is often indicative of a large family and a new large car is often indicative of a small d**k.

emordnilap wrote:

vtsnowedin wrote:Probably a thread all by its 'self but just how would a bank work if it didn't charge interest and service fees?

They might not work - so what? Who cares?

.

Just the people that need a safe place to keep their money and those that need a loan. In short almost everybody.

kenneal - lagger wrote:Islamic banks get by without usury. They charge a set fee to cover their administration costs and don't pay interest on money held.

The lower birthrate in educated women is a common theme across Africa even where there is no health service or welfare system. The god awful system in the US might have led to the retention of some third world traits in procreation.

What are you referring to? The USA birth rate is just 1.86 (2013).

vtsnowedin wrote:

emordnilap wrote:

vtsnowedin wrote:Probably a thread all by its 'self but just how would a bank work if it didn't charge interest and service fees?

They might not work - so what? Who cares?

.

Just the people that need a safe place to keep their money and those that need a loan. In short almost everybody.

No need for banks for that. Banks do not belong on the high street.

vtsnowedin wrote: On topic: The UK can have its low birth rate because the NHS takes care of you in old age not your surviving children.

The NHS (and pensions) are paid for out of current taxation. So as people live longer, and have fewer kids, each person of working age has to support an increasing number of wrinklies through taxes on their income. This is not sustainable, even in a BAU economy, and a complete non-starter, post peak.

Already the state retirement age is a receding horizon, rising 8 years (for women) in recent years. I am 52 and do not expect to ever 'retire'. My dad retired at 62 (he could have retired at 60) and lived another 28 years.

My inheritance is being eaten up in care home fees for my 90 y/o mum. I don't mind, but they will be gone entirely if she lives as long as my grandmother.

So far, the NHS has more or less survived the 2008 recession, because old people are a very active political force and vote for lots of money for their health care. Not for much longer.

Ironically, the NHS is heavily dependent on immigration, both to supply its staff, and as a source of tax income to fund it. Many people in the UK cite cost of welfare for immigrants as a reason to shut the borders.

One reason I adopted kids was to have at least the possibility of someone to keep an eye on me when I am geriatric. They may chose to piss off but that would be true even if they were home brewed.

PS_RalphW wrote:

vtsnowedin wrote: On topic: The UK can have its low birth rate because the NHS takes care of you in old age not your surviving children.

The NHS (and pensions) are paid for out of current taxation. So as people live longer, and have fewer kids, each person of working age has to support an increasing number of wrinklies through taxes on their income. This is not sustainable, even in a BAU economy, and a complete non-starter, post peak.

Already the state retirement age is a receding horizon, rising 8 years (for women) in recent years. I am 52 and do not expect to ever 'retire'. My dad retired at 62 (he could have retired at 60) and lived another 28 years.

My inheritance is being eaten up in care home fees for my 90 y/o mum. I don't mind, but they will be gone entirely if she lives as long as my grandmother.

So far, the NHS has more or less survived the 2008 recession, because old people are a very active political force and vote for lots of money for their health care. Not for much longer.

Ironically, the NHS is heavily dependent on immigration, both to supply its staff, and as a source of tax income to fund it. Many people in the UK cite cost of welfare for immigrants as a reason to shut the borders.

One reason I adopted kids was to have at least the possibility of someone to keep an eye on me when I am geriatric. They may chose to piss off but that would be true even if they were home brewed.

You mean to say that "care homes" are not covered by the NHS? Just what do they cover if not that?