Tuesday, January 04, 2011

Is it the other way round?

You often hear the argument that Europe needs mass immigration to offset its ageing population. The immigrants, it is thought, will work to pay the pensions of the elderly Europeans.

But is that really how it's panning out? One of the wikileaks revelations is that 24% of Muslim men in the UK and 21% of Muslim women are living off disability pensions. At the same time, the UK Government has announced plans to raise the retirement age, over time, to 68 for both men and women.

In many cases, therefore, it will be older Britons who will be working longer in life to fund the pensions paid to younger immigrants. The situation will be the very reverse of that portrayed by the open borders lobby.

There's some other interesting data on this issue presented here. For instance:
  • It would take vast levels of immigration to maintain the current age ratio in Europe. The population of the UK, for instance, would have to rise from 59 million in 2005 to 136 million by 2050.
  • The problem of funding retirees is not that great anyway. In the UK, it would require a rise in the percentage of GDP devoted to state pensions from 6.2% to 8.5% of GDP.
  • This extra cost would be offset by not having to pay the infrastructure costs associated with mass immigration.
  • The immigrants themselves would eventually have to have their own pensions funded. Would hundreds of millions of extra migrants then have to be brought in to do this? Are we talking here of a population pyramid scam?

28 comments:

  1. ""24% of Muslim men in the UK and 21% of Muslim women are living off disability pensions""

    I knew the problem was large but that is just shocking.

    The truth of the matter is that many migrant groups contribute economically to their new countries, traditionally Chinese have filled this role across much of the world.

    This is not to say that mass immigration is a good thing, just that it could be justified economically if the immigrants were from cultures that promote hard work and frugality.

    Needless to say when you consider African and Islamic immigration these economic arguments no longer hold water. These people COST money, they do not contribute economically to the society till at least the third or fourth generation and in the case of the above groups probablky not even then.

    It is sad as i know many young Muslims here in Australia who are hard workers, but even they have to admit that they do not represent the norm in their communities.

    ReplyDelete
  2. There's no economic reason to justify immigration from 3rd world countries. The people who started all this immigration knew that.

    The goal was and always has been to genocide us.

    That's it. All these other economic b.s. are just that...b.s.- what's sad is that many white people buy it instead of using critical thinking skills.

    ReplyDelete
  3. One of the ways in which the true unemployment figures in the UK are concealed, is by allowing a (large) number of able-bodied shirkers to be classified as "disabled". This keeps them off the register of people nominally seeking work and drawing unemployment benefits.

    It's not surprising that 24% of Muslims have latched on to this scam. It gives them a comfortable "life-style" which they would never enjoy in their countries of origin with the added bonus of not having the trouble of climbing out of bed on a cold and frosty morning.

    They are of course aware that government complicity in this "compassionate" shakedown is included on their warranty of welfare entitlements.

    When anyone draws attention to what's going on, there's always the fallback position of racial victimhood.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Muslims in the UK aren't scamming the welfare system merely because they're lazy or greedy. Islam itself demands that as an ideological matter. There are two doctrines and one cultural meme that cover this:

    1) The Quran states that Allah owns everything. In Islamic theology, non-Muslims have no legitimate right to own anything, hence theft from non-Muslims not just allowed but laudable. Bonus points are awarded for imitating Muhammad.

    2) The doctrine of jizya. Non-Muslims must pay the Muslims a special tax, paid only by them, for the right to exist. If Muslims live for free at infidel expense, that is merely what the Muslims are owed by right.

    3) Arab culture deems working for a living to be low class. Working is greatly frowned upon. The Muslim in question might be Pakistani or Indonesian, and so cannot obtain the exalted status of actually being Arab, but they assiduously seek to emulate them in thought and deed.

    You might say "but Britain is not (yet) an Islamic state". That doesn't matter, a Muslim believes that Islamic law applies everywhere to everyone.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Not to mention the second wives of muslim men getting single parent pensions.

    ReplyDelete
  6. James wrote,

    "Mass immigration could be justified economically if the immigrants were from cultures [meaning Chinese] that promote hard work and frugality."

    I'm not so sure about that.

    Simply because the East Asian cultures encourage hard work does not make them interchangeable with our own.

    I was closely acquainted with an office worker in China while I lived there who thought nothing of running an elaborate tax evasion scheme involving three countries and two international bank accounts. According to him, everyone there does it.

    Maybe he exaggerated. Or maybe there are people like him in every office across the West too. But the fact alone that he felt comfortable telling me this and without expecting a rebuke tells me that he is used to operating under a very different set of values than the one under which I have worked at every job I've ever held in the U.S.

    I could go on about the Chinese attitude toward intellectual property. The Chinese are distinct from Europeans. The differences are real, and if they are allowed to occupy our countries, they will change our societies and our ways to liken their own.

    But the biggest reason why we must oppose mass immigration from any nation is simply because we must oppose replacement by any nation: After all, if we fail and are replaced, there won't be a "we" to fail at anything else, ever again.

    We must not fail.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Wait till eighty year old muslims start marrying sixteen year olds in order to pass on pension benefits creating a seventy year or more obligation from the state. All for what a handful of years working in the west.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Wait, wait a second...your not implying a leftist 'conspiracy'?

    Why that is preposterous, show me evidence that the left has ever changed borders, made wholesale population changes, committed genocide on non compliant peoples, instigated ethnic conflict, arbitrarily redrew maps, divided and conquered, used false flag operations...etc.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Bartholomew said,

    "I was closely acquainted with an office worker in China while I lived there who thought nothing of running an elaborate tax evasion scheme involving three countries and two international bank accounts. According to him, everyone there does it."

    I've heard similar things from Chinese. Aside from their attitudes to money if they feel little loyalty to our countries they'll hardly make good citizens. Look at Bladerunner, virtually all the jobs are done by Chinese, food service, technical manufacture. What a wonderful society that looks like.

    ReplyDelete
  10. When non-western immigration began in earnest in the 1960s there were still a lot of low skilled manufacturing jobs which could absorb large numbers of immigrants with poor language skills. Today not only are there few low skill manufacturing jobs but even service jobs (the final frontier) are rapidly disappearing.

    Labour saving technology is now infiltrating all areas of the economy and there are no sectors requiring significant amounts of low skilled immmigrant labour.

    Technologically illiterate economists assume that the market controls technology and can magically new jobs and industries for all comers.

    If reality, the market is severely limited by culture, geography, resources and human biology.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Yes its a weak economic argument. They provide more domestic consumers though? Eg more people in the shops?

    ReplyDelete
  12. We also hear we need "high skilled" labour, eg doctors, radiotherapists, accountants.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Yes, government pensions would be a kind of population-based pyramid scheme, they have been for generations, it's just that native population growth masked this fact in the 1950's, 60's and 70's. With all industrialized countries hitting the zero population growth level in the late 70's or early 80's, the Ponzi-scheme nature of "pay-go" pensions (such as US "Social Security") became obvious.

    Various stopgaps have been enacted over the years, usually featuring payroll tax increases on younger people, raising retirement age, and so forth. But those work only for a generation or so; the US "fixed" Social Security in the early 1980', now that Baby Boomers are retiring in earnest it will have to be "fixed" again.

    One thing that economists do not note is quite simple: you can't support a population of professionals on pensions with a horde of illiterates working for stoop-labor wages. No matter how many Mexicans are brought into the US, or Algerians/Moroccans/West Africans are brought into France, or East Africans are brought into Greece, the fact that most of them are unable to do more than menial work guarantees they won't pay enough into the pension system to make a difference.

    Europensions will have to be adjusted no matter what, but replacing the native population with another one is worse than any economic crisis.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Johnycomelately

    Mark, Rome showed that once a population becomes complacent, lazy and greedy it imports people. Blaming the imports is besides the point.

    Trads are statists, statism can't survive without the growth mantra, ergo Trads support immigration.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Johhnycomelately said,

    "Trads are statists, statism can't survive without the growth mantra, ergo Trads support immigration."

    Nice try but trads aren't tied to growth, that's right liberals you're talking about. This article even questions whether immigration adds to growth.

    ReplyDelete
  16. A lot of arguments have been used over the years to justify mass third world immigration. Everything from economic benefits, which Mark has rightly pointed out, are nothing but elaborate pyramid scams. Also the enriching of Australian culture with a foreign one. I never actually got this, I mean apart from greasy Chinese/Indian cuisine, what else is of benefit? If a large population was needed for a strong economy then Africa and the Indian sub continent would be the richest in the world, however they are not. To me it would seem that immigration stopped bringing benefits since European migration stopped. The most recent third world migrants have brought nothing but increased costs in policing, welfare and endemic corruption. That's probably why over the last 10 years or so people have actually started to notice the loss in the quality of their lives. Transport is packed and useless (at least in Melbourne), ethnic gang crime and out of control violence. The Europeans are slowly waking up to trojan horse they have invited in, but what can they do about it now? Same problem here, how do you tell people to go back home?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Johnycomelately

    Trad = Statist = centralized government = taxation = wealth transfer = representative taxation = representative government = democracy = representation of largest voting block = women largest voting block = transfer of responsibilities = growth mantra = immigration = autonomy

    Ergo Trads support immigration, unless of course your all for removing female suffrage.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anonymous said:

    ""Trads are statists, statism can't survive without the growth mantra, ergo Trads support immigration.""

    Rolls eyes....

    I am qa trad and also a libertarian. Wanna know how or are you too pleased with yourself for figuring out the world to care?

    The Family is a natural biological construct for supporting humanity.

    The STATE has usurped this position by growing larger and larger and taking on the responsibilities, and thus the power, traditionally wielded by the family, tribe, or nation [health, welfare, security etc].

    The bigger the state gets the less economic reason there is to have children, you no longer need someone to look after you in your dotage, you don't need a large clan to protect you from outside threats and the welfare state provides the safety net the family once did.

    Anyone who claims to be trad and advocates a larger place for the state does not understand their own ideology.

    Just as you seem not to understand it Anonymous.

    ReplyDelete
  19. ''Trad = Statist = centralized government = taxation = wealth transfer = representative taxation = representative government = democracy = representation of largest voting block = women largest voting block = transfer of responsibilities = growth mantra = immigration = autonomy''

    You're either talking about right-liberals or left-liberals. Not traditional conservatives.

    ReplyDelete
  20. James

    Yeh anyone who proposes to be a libertarian and opposes open borders doesn't know their own ideology...

    ReplyDelete
  21. Yeh anyone who proposes to be a libertarian and opposes open borders doesn't know their own ideology.

    Really? Open borders are insane. Let us presume you live in an honest-to-god libertarian state. You have open borders. How long do you think it will take before invaders (excuse me, open border immigrants) end up taking over and destroying any libertarianism that might exist?

    Let us look at an example, shall we? Mexican illegals in the US tend to create Mexican-only communities here in the US. What do we see about the culture such communities have? Do they adopt American values? Do they reject bribery, influence peddling, nepotism, and violence to the remarkably great extent seen in the US? Heck no, those communities are as corrupt as the ones said Mexicans supposedly left Mexico to avoid. How could it be otherwise, they are no more interested in becoming American and adopting American values than the hypothetical open-borders immigrant to Libertopia is.

    Muslim immigrants are even worse, they have a religion that instructs them to reject all non-Muslim cultural values. They're doing a pretty good job ripping up the UK as we speak. So much for "open borders".

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anon you can be a libertarian in favour of open borders, a libertarian in favour of some other immigration structure or you can be a traditionalist libertarian.

    Being a traditionalist pretty much means you believe in human nature and that the nature of humanity runs a certain way and that it is non-sensical to pretend otherwise.

    Liberals try to build an entire society on an inncorrect assumption, the assumption of a blank slate for humanity on which any masterpiece can be written, the last 40 years of science sorta blows it out of the water but it is such an entrenched view that it probably wont be going away any time soon.

    Many people come on this site claiming to know what a traditionalist is without seeming to know the first thing about it.

    Strange that.

    ReplyDelete
  23. "Anon you can be a libertarian in favour of open borders", I think thats called mental gymnastics.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Technically libertarians tend to favour open borders. Anything that is infected with liberalism in it's worldview (equality, tolerance, diversity, progress, autonomy, multiculturalism, etc) will be in favour. And sadly libertarianism is. While statism attacks society from top to bottom libertariarism attacks society from bottom to top. It's emphasis on the indidual and freedom (the liberal definition of freedom) makes it so that a society doesn't exist (or function).

    ReplyDelete
  25. The City of Paterson, New Jersey is predominantly black and hispanice (comprising 70-75% of the city's total population). Of that, over 30% of the city's adults are in some form of government disability--be it social security disability (SSD), social security income (SSI)(Federal welfare), or state disability. Most of the allegedly disabled are claiming mental disabilities.

    In other words, they're shirkers who don't want to work for a living. This is what is meant by redistribution of wealth: "government takes from the makers and gives to the takers".

    ReplyDelete
  26. Sorry I meant the individual (not indidual).

    ReplyDelete
  27. And when they do work maybe they'll be something like this.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGQuURkgmbw

    ReplyDelete
  28. It's not just the UK public purse that's being drained!

    Aussie Tax-Payers Funding 'International Ambassadors for Indonesian Islam!'

    now on Ross's Right Angle
    http://rossrightangle.info/

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.