LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!
Comments
-
Is claiming asylum a criminal activity?Stevo_666 said:
Because its illegal and its costing us a lot of money as mentioned upthread? Are you suggesting we turn a blind eye to criminal activity?rjsterry said:
Well yes. It's not illegal to come to the UK to claim asylum, so who do you mean? People who overstay their visa? Why is it too many when it's a small percentage of overall immigration?Stevo_666 said:
Too many people coming to the UK illegally. Do I really need to spell it out?rjsterry said:
You need to articulate the problem. What is *the problem* that you think needs solving?Stevo_666 said:
More than one poster has said that we are signed up to treaties that we have to honour by taking asylum seekers in and that we should make it easier for people to apply for asylum. Read between the lines and that is effectively saying 'come on in'.Jezyboy said:
It's very on brand for the party of personal responsibility to try and wipe our hands of it though.pblakeney said:Maybe if we hadn't contributed just so much to make some places in the world so shitty than this wouldn't be happening.
So what other solutions do you suggest?0 -
Ok as I am in a good mood (despite still not and never have worked in the City) I will try again.rjsterry said:
No, it's just that working in the City gives a skewed view of where the middle is.surrey_commuter said:
Considering min wage would put you on £21k this must include part timers which does not seem terribly helpfulrick_chasey said:Don’t forget *average* wage of under 30s is around £25k
Surely the legal requirement to pay the min wage puts a floor on average earnings of £21k. Even allowing for me being sh1te at sums surely the average for full time employees has to be above £25k.
If the £25k includes non-full time then it is an irrelevant stat in the context of full time childcare costs.1 -
He might be right - he was referring to under 25s, who are by definition early in careers.surrey_commuter said:
Ok as I am in a good mood (despite still not and never have worked in the City) I will try again.rjsterry said:
No, it's just that working in the City gives a skewed view of where the middle is.surrey_commuter said:
Considering min wage would put you on £21k this must include part timers which does not seem terribly helpfulrick_chasey said:Don’t forget *average* wage of under 30s is around £25k
Surely the legal requirement to pay the min wage puts a floor on average earnings of £21k. Even allowing for me being sh1te at sums surely the average for full time employees has to be above £25k.
If the £25k includes non-full time then it is an irrelevant stat in the context of full time childcare costs.
Doesn't seem wildly out, since the average wage of the whole country is still under £30k.
Suspect neither number is an FTE, which makes sense because not being able to actually find full tike employment is a problem in itself.0 -
*All* my mates’ parents had their first child in their mid 20s to late 20s.First.Aspect said:
Well yes we get the part about low birth rate increasing the need for immigration. No dispute there.rick_chasey said:
Low birth rate.First.Aspect said:I'm not following the thread of your argument RC. Are you drawing a link between a high cost of living and immigration?
Which is why immigration is so necessary
Less sure it's anything to do with the average wage. Much less sure.
I don't live in that much less of a bubble than you do, but I am married to a social worker, who does tend to keep me somewhat grounded. Based on her work, I see absolutely no causal relationship between income and human reproduction rates. If anything, rather the opposite.
The concept also falls flat on its face if you consider how national GDP per capita relates to current birth rate across the world.
It is a nice hypothesis to discuss over a cigar and a single malt in the drawing room, but unfortunately it's total nonsense.
I am the first of all my mates with children and I had mine at 30. Most of them haven’t had any because, and they tell me, they have no idea how they could afford it. Most still live in flat shares. In their 30s.
The ones who have children, bar me, have all had some form of inheritance to help pay for a place and even then they need two incomes to keep afloat.
You’ve got your head in the sand if you can’t see that.0 -
Oh and I wanted to preemptively say that this isn't a leftie vs rightie thing, it is just apolitical right vs wrong.First.Aspect said:
Is claiming asylum a criminal activity?Stevo_666 said:
Because its illegal and its costing us a lot of money as mentioned upthread? Are you suggesting we turn a blind eye to criminal activity?rjsterry said:
Well yes. It's not illegal to come to the UK to claim asylum, so who do you mean? People who overstay their visa? Why is it too many when it's a small percentage of overall immigration?Stevo_666 said:
Too many people coming to the UK illegally. Do I really need to spell it out?rjsterry said:
You need to articulate the problem. What is *the problem* that you think needs solving?Stevo_666 said:
More than one poster has said that we are signed up to treaties that we have to honour by taking asylum seekers in and that we should make it easier for people to apply for asylum. Read between the lines and that is effectively saying 'come on in'.Jezyboy said:
It's very on brand for the party of personal responsibility to try and wipe our hands of it though.pblakeney said:Maybe if we hadn't contributed just so much to make some places in the world so shitty than this wouldn't be happening.
So what other solutions do you suggest?
I feel sorry in some ways for the large number of decent conservatives who, whilst I might disagree with on a number of philosophical points, have to be associated with the awful attitudes of the people leading their party right now.0 -
Sorry RC, it's you who have your head in the sand.rick_chasey said:
*All* my mates’ parents had their first child in their mid 20s to late 20s.First.Aspect said:
Well yes we get the part about low birth rate increasing the need for immigration. No dispute there.rick_chasey said:
Low birth rate.First.Aspect said:I'm not following the thread of your argument RC. Are you drawing a link between a high cost of living and immigration?
Which is why immigration is so necessary
Less sure it's anything to do with the average wage. Much less sure.
I don't live in that much less of a bubble than you do, but I am married to a social worker, who does tend to keep me somewhat grounded. Based on her work, I see absolutely no causal relationship between income and human reproduction rates. If anything, rather the opposite.
The concept also falls flat on its face if you consider how national GDP per capita relates to current birth rate across the world.
It is a nice hypothesis to discuss over a cigar and a single malt in the drawing room, but unfortunately it's total nonsense.
I am the first of all my mates with children and I had mine at 30. Most of them haven’t had any because, and they tell me, they have no idea how they could afford it. Most still live in flat shares. In their 30s.
The ones who have children, bar me, have all had some form of inheritance to help pay for a place and even then they need two incomes to keep afloat.
You’ve got your head in the sand if you can’t see that.
Find some data to support the notion that people are deciding not to have children for financial reasons and it might merit discussion. I'm willing to bet that any correlation you do see will show the opposite. But even that's not causal, it is just based on other societal factors, such as education level.0 -
It is. People drowning and encouraging organised crime are obviously bad things. I just think you're mad if you think that is actually what they are trying to do.Stevo_666 said:
Why is it not a valid goal?rjsterry said:
I'm amazed you think stopping boats is actually the goal.Stevo_666 said:Anyhow, maybe we should look more closely at the Australian experience with curtailing small boat immigration as they seem to have got results:
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/18/they-said-i-couldnt-stop-the-boats-they-were-wrong/1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I shouldn't laugh, but I did have a chuckle about this.
0 -
I’m not convinced people starting families later is down to affordability. Pretty sure in most cases it is down to more people going to Uni and entering the workplace later, wanting to enjoy life a bit before settling down and building a career. In previous generations women were far less likely to have a career and being a mother first and foremost was a bit of an expectation for most.0
-
There's no sense trying to be rational.Pross said:I’m not convinced people starting families later is down to affordability. Pretty sure in most cases it is down to more people going to Uni and entering the workplace later, wanting to enjoy life a bit before settling down and building a career. In previous generations women were far less likely to have a career and being a mother first and foremost was a bit of an expectation for most.
0 -
https://ifstudies.org/blog/higher-rent-fewer-babies-housing-costs-and-fertility-declineFirst.Aspect said:
Sorry RC, it's you who have your head in the sand.rick_chasey said:
*All* my mates’ parents had their first child in their mid 20s to late 20s.First.Aspect said:
Well yes we get the part about low birth rate increasing the need for immigration. No dispute there.rick_chasey said:
Low birth rate.First.Aspect said:I'm not following the thread of your argument RC. Are you drawing a link between a high cost of living and immigration?
Which is why immigration is so necessary
Less sure it's anything to do with the average wage. Much less sure.
I don't live in that much less of a bubble than you do, but I am married to a social worker, who does tend to keep me somewhat grounded. Based on her work, I see absolutely no causal relationship between income and human reproduction rates. If anything, rather the opposite.
The concept also falls flat on its face if you consider how national GDP per capita relates to current birth rate across the world.
It is a nice hypothesis to discuss over a cigar and a single malt in the drawing room, but unfortunately it's total nonsense.
I am the first of all my mates with children and I had mine at 30. Most of them haven’t had any because, and they tell me, they have no idea how they could afford it. Most still live in flat shares. In their 30s.
The ones who have children, bar me, have all had some form of inheritance to help pay for a place and even then they need two incomes to keep afloat.
You’ve got your head in the sand if you can’t see that.
Find some data to support the notion that people are deciding not to have children for financial reasons and it might merit discussion. I'm willing to bet that any correlation you do see will show the opposite. But even that's not causal, it is just based on other societal factors, such as education level.e result is interesting. Faster-rising rents are associated with lower fertility for all age groups: for women in their 20s or 30s, if rent is rising, fertility is falling. While some families get income from rental properties, this is far less numerous than the families paying rent, and families earning money from rent tend to be older, more geographically dispersed, and less fertile anyway. Higher rent has the strongest correlation with lower fertility for women in their 20s, which makes a lot of sense because women in their 20s are the most likely to be renters, and so rising rent hammers these women’s budgets the most.
But for home prices, the story is different. Rising home prices reduce birth rates for younger women, but for women in their upper 30s, there is actually a very slightly positive association between home prices and fertility! Higher prices reduce fertility for younger women but might increase fertility for older women. This, again, makes sense: younger women are less likely to own homes, so higher prices lock them out of getting a newer, bigger, better house. But for older women who are more likely to already own homes, higher housing prices can be a good thing, as it gives them more wealth.0 -
-
Really RC? When the data scatter is so great it looks like an ink blot, it is meaningless to put a straight line through it.rick_chasey said:Loads stuff in there. Also looks at overcrowding etc living with parents as an adult etc
Yes, you can find the closest fit.
But you could also put a parabola through those data and it start talking about what that means. Would that show an optimal house price? Would that be associated with the likelihood that men and women find themselves the right distance apart to feel horny?
It is a blog post. And not terribly good. Aside from the data that doesn't really show anything, like this:
It includes lots of data about rent and home ownership without any link to birth rates other than the conclusion the author is working back from.0 -
Ah. When you say 'too many people are coming here illegally', that wasn't actually your own opinion. OK.Stevo_666 said:
Seems to be enough to be an issue that the government is trying to address.tailwindhome said:
How many people are coming illegally?Stevo_666 said:
Too many people coming to the UK illegally. Do I really need to spell it out?rjsterry said:
You need to articulate the problem. What is *the problem* that you think needs solving?Stevo_666 said:
More than one poster has said that we are signed up to treaties that we have to honour by taking asylum seekers in and that we should make it easier for people to apply for asylum. Read between the lines and that is effectively saying 'come on in'.Jezyboy said:
It's very on brand for the party of personal responsibility to try and wipe our hands of it though.pblakeney said:Maybe if we hadn't contributed just so much to make some places in the world so shitty than this wouldn't be happening.
So what other solutions do you suggest?
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Not had time to look in any detail, but this is more the sort of thing I was thinking about.rick_chasey said:Loads stuff in there. Also looks at overcrowding etc living with parents as an adult etc
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/livebirths/articles/anoteonchildbearingbysocioeconomicstatusandcountryofbirthofmother/2016#births-by-socio-economic-status-and-age-of-mothers
"Table 2 shows the number of births in England and Wales by age group and full (8-class) NS-SEC of the mother for 2014.
Detailed NS-SEC occupations reveal that, for all births in 2014 in England and Wales, 8% of babies were born to mothers who had a higher managerial and professional occupation. This compared with 22% of births to mothers with lower managerial and professional occupations. A further 14% of births were to mothers in intermediate occupations and 12% were to mothers in semi-routine occupations. A larger percentage (33%) of births were to mothers who had an unclassified NS-SEC1."0 -
In summary, most people renting are young and most landlords are older?rick_chasey said:
https://ifstudies.org/blog/higher-rent-fewer-babies-housing-costs-and-fertility-declineFirst.Aspect said:
Sorry RC, it's you who have your head in the sand.rick_chasey said:
*All* my mates’ parents had their first child in their mid 20s to late 20s.First.Aspect said:
Well yes we get the part about low birth rate increasing the need for immigration. No dispute there.rick_chasey said:
Low birth rate.First.Aspect said:I'm not following the thread of your argument RC. Are you drawing a link between a high cost of living and immigration?
Which is why immigration is so necessary
Less sure it's anything to do with the average wage. Much less sure.
I don't live in that much less of a bubble than you do, but I am married to a social worker, who does tend to keep me somewhat grounded. Based on her work, I see absolutely no causal relationship between income and human reproduction rates. If anything, rather the opposite.
The concept also falls flat on its face if you consider how national GDP per capita relates to current birth rate across the world.
It is a nice hypothesis to discuss over a cigar and a single malt in the drawing room, but unfortunately it's total nonsense.
I am the first of all my mates with children and I had mine at 30. Most of them haven’t had any because, and they tell me, they have no idea how they could afford it. Most still live in flat shares. In their 30s.
The ones who have children, bar me, have all had some form of inheritance to help pay for a place and even then they need two incomes to keep afloat.
You’ve got your head in the sand if you can’t see that.
Find some data to support the notion that people are deciding not to have children for financial reasons and it might merit discussion. I'm willing to bet that any correlation you do see will show the opposite. But even that's not causal, it is just based on other societal factors, such as education level.e result is interesting. Faster-rising rents are associated with lower fertility for all age groups: for women in their 20s or 30s, if rent is rising, fertility is falling. While some families get income from rental properties, this is far less numerous than the families paying rent, and families earning money from rent tend to be older, more geographically dispersed, and less fertile anyway. Higher rent has the strongest correlation with lower fertility for women in their 20s, which makes a lot of sense because women in their 20s are the most likely to be renters, and so rising rent hammers these women’s budgets the most.
But for home prices, the story is different. Rising home prices reduce birth rates for younger women, but for women in their upper 30s, there is actually a very slightly positive association between home prices and fertility! Higher prices reduce fertility for younger women but might increase fertility for older women. This, again, makes sense: younger women are less likely to own homes, so higher prices lock them out of getting a newer, bigger, better house. But for older women who are more likely to already own homes, higher housing prices can be a good thing, as it gives them more wealth.
Wow! Mind blown. In other news...The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.1 -
Yes but they've said it so often it is now actually true.tailwindhome said:
Ah. When you say 'too many people are coming here illegally', that wasn't actually your own opinion. OK.Stevo_666 said:
Seems to be enough to be an issue that the government is trying to address.tailwindhome said:
How many people are coming illegally?Stevo_666 said:
Too many people coming to the UK illegally. Do I really need to spell it out?rjsterry said:
You need to articulate the problem. What is *the problem* that you think needs solving?Stevo_666 said:
More than one poster has said that we are signed up to treaties that we have to honour by taking asylum seekers in and that we should make it easier for people to apply for asylum. Read between the lines and that is effectively saying 'come on in'.Jezyboy said:
It's very on brand for the party of personal responsibility to try and wipe our hands of it though.pblakeney said:Maybe if we hadn't contributed just so much to make some places in the world so shitty than this wouldn't be happening.
So what other solutions do you suggest?0 -
Yikes you lot score poorly on comprehension. “Faster rising rents are associated with lower fertility in all age groups”pblakeney said:
In summary, most people renting are young and most landlords are older?rick_chasey said:
https://ifstudies.org/blog/higher-rent-fewer-babies-housing-costs-and-fertility-declineFirst.Aspect said:
Sorry RC, it's you who have your head in the sand.rick_chasey said:
*All* my mates’ parents had their first child in their mid 20s to late 20s.First.Aspect said:
Well yes we get the part about low birth rate increasing the need for immigration. No dispute there.rick_chasey said:
Low birth rate.First.Aspect said:I'm not following the thread of your argument RC. Are you drawing a link between a high cost of living and immigration?
Which is why immigration is so necessary
Less sure it's anything to do with the average wage. Much less sure.
I don't live in that much less of a bubble than you do, but I am married to a social worker, who does tend to keep me somewhat grounded. Based on her work, I see absolutely no causal relationship between income and human reproduction rates. If anything, rather the opposite.
The concept also falls flat on its face if you consider how national GDP per capita relates to current birth rate across the world.
It is a nice hypothesis to discuss over a cigar and a single malt in the drawing room, but unfortunately it's total nonsense.
I am the first of all my mates with children and I had mine at 30. Most of them haven’t had any because, and they tell me, they have no idea how they could afford it. Most still live in flat shares. In their 30s.
The ones who have children, bar me, have all had some form of inheritance to help pay for a place and even then they need two incomes to keep afloat.
You’ve got your head in the sand if you can’t see that.
Find some data to support the notion that people are deciding not to have children for financial reasons and it might merit discussion. I'm willing to bet that any correlation you do see will show the opposite. But even that's not causal, it is just based on other societal factors, such as education level.e result is interesting. Faster-rising rents are associated with lower fertility for all age groups: for women in their 20s or 30s, if rent is rising, fertility is falling. While some families get income from rental properties, this is far less numerous than the families paying rent, and families earning money from rent tend to be older, more geographically dispersed, and less fertile anyway. Higher rent has the strongest correlation with lower fertility for women in their 20s, which makes a lot of sense because women in their 20s are the most likely to be renters, and so rising rent hammers these women’s budgets the most.
But for home prices, the story is different. Rising home prices reduce birth rates for younger women, but for women in their upper 30s, there is actually a very slightly positive association between home prices and fertility! Higher prices reduce fertility for younger women but might increase fertility for older women. This, again, makes sense: younger women are less likely to own homes, so higher prices lock them out of getting a newer, bigger, better house. But for older women who are more likely to already own homes, higher housing prices can be a good thing, as it gives them more wealth.
Wow! Mind blown. In other news...0 -
Classic cake stop behaviour. Demand data, declare the data wrong. Make it an argument about the data.0
-
This has nothing to do with the rising cost of living.First.Aspect said:
Not had time to look in any detail, but this is more the sort of thing I was thinking about.rick_chasey said:Loads stuff in there. Also looks at overcrowding etc living with parents as an adult etc
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/livebirths/articles/anoteonchildbearingbysocioeconomicstatusandcountryofbirthofmother/2016#births-by-socio-economic-status-and-age-of-mothers
"Table 2 shows the number of births in England and Wales by age group and full (8-class) NS-SEC of the mother for 2014.
Detailed NS-SEC occupations reveal that, for all births in 2014 in England and Wales, 8% of babies were born to mothers who had a higher managerial and professional occupation. This compared with 22% of births to mothers with lower managerial and professional occupations. A further 14% of births were to mothers in intermediate occupations and 12% were to mothers in semi-routine occupations. A larger percentage (33%) of births were to mothers who had an unclassified NS-SEC1."
If this is evidence, it needs to demonstrate how growing cost of living is impacting the fertility rate one way or another. I don’t think we’re arguing the same point here. You’re talking about income, I’m talking about living costs.
In general, higher incomes are associated with lower fertility across the world.
But in the higher income groups, I would argue the rising cost of living also impacts fertility inversely ie higher the cost the lower the fertility.
And that also correlates with my own experience.0 -
It's the analysis of the data I'm quibbling with, not the data.rick_chasey said:Classic cake stop behaviour. Demand data, declare the data wrong. Make it an argument about the data.
What do you think the range or error is on any of those linear plots? Will be at least an order of magnitude greater than that actual gradients. That means that the trends are not statistically significant.
An actual data scientist would stop there and conclude that the hypothesis has not lead to a theory.
An unskilled blogger would spraff on regardless.
I don't think that's an unfair analysis.0 -
Yes but it is still nonsense no matter how you say it. Birth rate in developing countries is much higher. End of discussion.rick_chasey said:
This has nothing to do with the rising cost of living.First.Aspect said:
Not had time to look in any detail, but this is more the sort of thing I was thinking about.rick_chasey said:Loads stuff in there. Also looks at overcrowding etc living with parents as an adult etc
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/livebirths/articles/anoteonchildbearingbysocioeconomicstatusandcountryofbirthofmother/2016#births-by-socio-economic-status-and-age-of-mothers
"Table 2 shows the number of births in England and Wales by age group and full (8-class) NS-SEC of the mother for 2014.
Detailed NS-SEC occupations reveal that, for all births in 2014 in England and Wales, 8% of babies were born to mothers who had a higher managerial and professional occupation. This compared with 22% of births to mothers with lower managerial and professional occupations. A further 14% of births were to mothers in intermediate occupations and 12% were to mothers in semi-routine occupations. A larger percentage (33%) of births were to mothers who had an unclassified NS-SEC1."
If this is evidence, it needs to demonstrate how growing cost of living is impacting the fertility rate one way or another. I don’t think we’re arguing the same point here. You’re talking about income, I’m talking about living costs.
In general, higher incomes are associated with lower fertility across the world.
But in the higher income groups, I would argue the rising cost of living also impacts fertility inversely ie higher the cost the lower the fertility.
And that also correlates with my own experience.
In fact, you could argue that the ONS data would lead to the expectation that lowering socioeconomic levels in the UK would lead to an increased birth rate, because Table 2 shows higher birth rate in the lower socioeconomic bands.
But that would be a load of bollox as well.0 -
0 -
Not sure why you keep repeating something that you know isn't true.Stevo_666 said:
Because its illegal and its costing us a lot of money as mentioned upthread? Are you suggesting we turn a blind eye to criminal activity?rjsterry said:
Well yes. It's not illegal to come to the UK to claim asylum, so who do you mean? People who overstay their visa? Why is it too many when it's a small percentage of overall immigration?Stevo_666 said:
Too many people coming to the UK illegally. Do I really need to spell it out?rjsterry said:
You need to articulate the problem. What is *the problem* that you think needs solving?Stevo_666 said:
More than one poster has said that we are signed up to treaties that we have to honour by taking asylum seekers in and that we should make it easier for people to apply for asylum. Read between the lines and that is effectively saying 'come on in'.Jezyboy said:
It's very on brand for the party of personal responsibility to try and wipe our hands of it though.pblakeney said:Maybe if we hadn't contributed just so much to make some places in the world so shitty than this wouldn't be happening.
So what other solutions do you suggest?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Who is the “unskilled blogger”??
There’s endless stuff on this.
https://www.adamsmith.org/research/children-of-when-why-housing-is-the-solution-to-britains-fertility-crisis?format=amp0 -
You realise that the only data in that one is about home ownership vs age, right? And the rest is just what the author thinks?rick_chasey said:Who is the “unskilled blogger”??
There’s endless stuff on this.
https://www.adamsmith.org/research/children-of-when-why-housing-is-the-solution-to-britains-fertility-crisis?format=amp
Look, find something not from an agenda driven think tank, can you? I went to uni with people who ended up in think tanks, and you'd be better off with a large room full of typewriters and lots of monkeys.1 -
Tbh I’ve provided the evidence and the data.
You provided something irrelevant as it was about income and not cost of living.
My argument also has fairly clear logic. Those who can’t afford to live near work in places suitable for bringing children up are less likely to have them; that makes sense.
Those who value work but the cost of childcare versus their earnings will also find less logic in having children, or will have fewer of them.
Or people will delay when they have children as now you are likely to be in your 30s when you buy a home not in your 20s. Delaying children also affects birth rates.
It isn’t rocket science. Just because people who require input from a social worker have more kids does not mean much, other than messy families that need social services intervention don’t necessarily plan that effectively.0 -
rick_chasey said:
Tbh I’ve provided the evidence and the data.
You provided something irrelevant as it was about income and not cost of living.
My argument also has fairly clear logic. Those who can’t afford to live near work in places suitable for bringing children up are less likely to have them; that makes sense.
Those who value work but the cost of childcare versus their earnings will also find less logic in having children, or will have fewer of them.
Or people will delay when they have children as now you are likely to be in your 30s when you buy a home not in your 20s. Delaying children also affects birth rates.
It isn’t rocket science. Just because people who require input from a social worker have more kids does not mean much, other than messy families that need social services intervention don’t necessarily plan that effectively.
Elon Musk thinks we are heading for population collapse. Consequently we should build more property for people to live in like the Bosco Verticale. 0 -
Affordable, good for Cities where the work is.0
-
I'm done.
The ONS data is relevant to the extent I've suggested. It casts doubt on the causal link between how mu h money you have (also, probably linked to one's living conditions) and birth rate. And suggests the opposite. Although it would be grossly stupid to suggest the link is causal, given the multitude of other factors not taken into account.
You keep following your own logic and deciding you are right. The Adam Smith article hasn't got any relevant data in it. The IFS article has appalling hindsight data analysis.
Like I have ad nauseum in the past, I point out glaring flaws that any halfway competent stem graduate would spot immediately and rather than address those (because you can't - you dont have any relevant training and I'm right anyway), and you instead post something equally crap and repeat yourself.
I have not found any data that supports the opposite view, necessarily, because it would need a few years' meta analysis to figure out. The difference is that unlike you, I know that I haven't.0
