|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 6, 2011 20:51:33 GMT 1
I was having a conversation about the differences in ethnic demographic structure in the UK that I think is more suitable for this board since I think I can rely on your understanding of the technical jargon of demography like "birth rate", "population ageing", "longevity", "mean/average age" and "median age". Here is the gist.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 6, 2011 20:52:00 GMT 1
Marchesa said
....it cannot be denied that net immigration per se HAS increased the population and the demographic structure of the immigrant population (young) means it has a much higher birthrate than the indigenous population, too.
This differential is further exacerbated by the importation of spouses which doubles the fertile proportion of a certain immigrant group with every marriage cohort. This is, sadly, skewing the UK demography ever more towards the Third World pattern. Until this transformation of our demography in the last few decades via immigration the UK was on track for a stabilising and then a falling population.
However, immigration apart, a reduction in annual birth rate can be achieved simply through people starting their families LATER and by spreading their child-bearing over a longer a period of time. Over a couple of generations this alone (irrespective of reduction in average family size) would have a big impact on growth.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 6, 2011 20:55:13 GMT 1
Visitor saidThis is just yet another example of your lack of scientific credibility - you're just plain wrong. The proportion of elderly people in our (UK) population is increasing and it is only by immigration that we are able to ensure adequate numbers of a younger generation capable of generating sufficient wealth to cope with the increasing cost of our elderly. "In mid-2009 the average age of the population was 39.5 years, up from 37.3 in 1999." from www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=6
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 6, 2011 20:56:53 GMT 1
Marchesa said The "ageing" of the population was a natural consequence of the falling birthrate in the UK. It would have been a tempoprary "problem" only until the demography stabilised at the new level after a couple of generations. Third world immigration with third world birth rates and Third World importation of spouses via the arranged marriage has changed this trend rapidly so the population is now growing much faster that it would have done otherwise. This is incontrovertible. Visitor should look at table 2 in this paper www.statistics.gov.uk/articles/population_trends/PT124LargeGhosh.pdf if she doubts the differential growth rates of the immigrant descended and indigenous populations (England). Table 3 shows that the proportion of under-16s in the population as a whole is 20% (and less for whites only) whereas for Pakistani and Bangladeshi ethnic groups it is 33% and 36%. It is from this ghastly disparity that ever MORE growth of the population will come. This survey period covers only a couple of years but you can clearly see that almost ALL the growth (surplus of births over deaths) is coming from the non-white groups. The alarmism over the "ageing population" is just a stategy to justify immigration. An "ageing" population is the desireable hallmark of a stable (i.e. NOT growing) population.Visitor's "information" shows only the total population profile NOT the big differential between native and immigrant subgroups of the population. Without immigration the UK population was approaching zero growth with a less than replacement level birth rate. Extraordinary that "visitor" (is she an immigrant?) should be PROMOTING a higher birthrate. Does she think the world has not enough inhabitants already and vast swathes of them also jobless because Third World economic growth cannot keep up with the birthrate in providing jobs for them?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 6, 2011 20:58:23 GMT 1
Visitor said
Marchesarosa - you said that immigration is "skewing the UK demography ever more towards the Third World pattern. "
I showed evidence that you were wrong. The UK has an increasingly aging population.
However, you don't like those facts so you choose to ignore them - just like you do with regards climate science.
You're a joke.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 6, 2011 20:59:06 GMT 1
Marchesa said
You did NOT show that the the UK has an ageing population, visitor. An "ageing population" is not to do with the age or longevity of people, as the simple-minded might believe. It is about the BIRTH RATE.
The keynote of an "ageing population" is a smaller proportion of younger people relative to older in the population due to a reducing birthrate - smaller family size.
The birthrate in the UK is now increasing again after declining in the latter part of the 20th century and the proportion under 25 is most certainly increasing again over the last couple of decades due almost entirely to immigration.
In particular it is due to the practices of Pakistani and Bangladeshi immigrants and descendants of immigrants importing spouses for each marriage cohort which further skews the ethnic demography even more to growth of the PROPORTION under 25. This further exaggerates the already higher birthrate in these groups. Importation of spouses, far from declining over time, is increasing.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 6, 2011 21:26:25 GMT 1
Visitor said
God you're an even bigger joke than I thought - just what do you think "In mid-2009 the average age of the population was 39.5 years, up from 37.3 in 1999." means?
It means exactly "The keynote of an ageing population is a smaller proportion of younger people relative to older in the population"
How do you get an average getting higher if the proportions aren't changing - good grief woman, and Nickcosmosonde thought that you had the ability to understand science?
You show yourself up with every gormless post.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 6, 2011 21:27:15 GMT 1
Marchesa said
On the contrary, I would suggest that it is quite possible for average overall UK age to increase (due to increased longevity) and ALSO for the birth rate to be increasing both because of larger family size of immigrants and the perennial importation of young spouses. This is what, demographically speaking, is meant by the "ageing of the population". It is NOT a measure of longevity or of average age, as such.
Have you not been able to understand the tables in the link I posted? They were a little more detailed than the graphic you posted.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 6, 2011 21:28:01 GMT 1
Visitor said
No it's not. You can't just make up new definitions for words because you don't like the old ones.
The UK demographic refers to a description of the relative ages of the population. It says nothing about birth rate or longevity.
Try looking it up in a dictionary.
Foolish woman.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 6, 2011 21:28:35 GMT 1
Marchesa said...Try doing a simple course in demography if you want to understand the census data, visitor (or Gillo). Technical terms like "birth rate" and "ageing of the population" will be explained to you. You should also learn the difference between the "median" and the "average" age. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_ageingSo, you see, Gillo, my 40 year old recall of my Demography course at LSE WAS correct - wiki confirms it. There CAN be an increase in average age alongside an increase in the birthrate.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 6, 2011 21:31:19 GMT 1
Marchesa saidAsk someone a bit smarter than you what the difference between the median age and average (mean) age is, Visitor. Read the tables in the link I provided if you are capable of it. www.statistics.gov.uk/articles/population_trends/PT124LargeGhosh.pdf Otherwise don't make silly statements about technical subjects you are ill-informed about. The British population IS growing more rapidly now whereas before mass immigration it WAS stabilising with the desireable "ageing population" demographic profile that the whole world aspires to! Third World marriage practices and fertility levels have been imported, much to the detriment of native demographic structure, sadly. The population growth is NOT coming very much from the indigenous population but mainly from the immigrants - even though they are a minority.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 6, 2011 21:32:58 GMT 1
Visitor said
Do you know what the third world pattern is? It is an increasingly young demographic - exactly the opposite to that which we have in the UK where the UK demography is that of an increasingly older demographic.
You can harp on about immigrants having large families as much as you like but it does not alter the fact that in the last ten years the average age of the UK population has got older - not younger as would be the case if we had a third world demographic.
You clearly have as much grasp of english as you have of statistics and we can all see from your pathetic efforts here and when discussing the climate that that is clearly not much.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 6, 2011 21:34:19 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 6, 2011 21:35:31 GMT 1
Marchesa said
Britain HAD an ageing population i.e the desireable, stabilising, approaching-zero-growth population that was the envy of the world and which ALL nations desire. The late 20th century birthrate was considerably less than replacement level. Your rationale is a recipe for an unsustainable ever-growing population, Visitor.
Now, through mass immigration, the UK has imported a Third World demographic that means its population is growing (and will grow) rapidly again. This is to be abhorred. But it has to be understood and you clearly don't understand it, Visitor.
What does it mean when the overall UK proportion of under 16s is 20% but amongst Pakistani and Bangladeshi immigrants it is 33% and 36%?
This is where the future rapid growth will come from - this skewed immigrant demographic of grossly more young people relative to the older in this ethnic group that already has typically larger family size and, moreover, imports extra young spouses for every young immigrant already resident here? If you can't understand this, tough. I've given it my best shot.
Scaremongering about an 'elderly' population is just that - a feeble justification for a policy of mass immigration. However, after a relatively short period a zero-growth population would have stabilised at a new BALANCED age structure.
It is only the existence of post-WWII "baby boomers" (my generation and jean's) that complicates the issue in the West. When we are gone the temporary imbalance disappears. In 20-25 years the 'PROBLEM" of a short-lived bulge in the birthrate reaching retirement will have gone. It's not a permanent feature of the "ageing population", neither here, nor in Japan. You are confusing longevity with the technical demographic effect of "population ageing".
These ideas need some intellectual effort to follow. Ask your friends to explain it to you, visitor.
In the 1960s and 1970's a stable, ie, zero-growth population, in the UK was within reach. That benign possibility has now been assaulted by mass immigration accompanied by the importation of Third World demographics and a new skewing of the population in favour of the under 16s not seen since the temporary post WWII baby boom.
P.S. Learn the difference, and the significance of the difference, between "average" age and "median" age, visitor. It is the basis of your misunderstanding.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 6, 2011 21:38:16 GMT 1
That was the point at which the conversation ended. Here is my rejoinder: Since visitor is so keen on her simplistic overall (mean) “average age” of the British population, let's look at it a bit closer. I wonder what her opinion is of the (mean) "average age" of Pakistanis and Bangladeshis in the UK? In 2001 the average age of white folk in England was about 39.5yrs. The average age of Pakistanis was 25.6yrs and the average age of Bangladeshis was 23.7yrs. (The last two are even lower today.) www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/cross_fac/healthatwarwick/publications/occasional/ethnicprofile.pdfThis gross difference in even the AVERAGE age of whites and Pakistanis/Bangladeshis is surely large enough to give visitor pause for thought re her insistence about the continued ageing of the British population? But what happens when we look at the MEDIAN age of these ethnic groups which is the REALLY important demographic measure for predicting population growth. For whites it is 36.5yrs, for Pakistanis 19.5 yrs and for Bangladeshis it is 16.5 yrs! I would remind visitor that the median age is the point in the age distribution where 50% of the population lie above and 50% below it. Is it not slightly gobsmacking to know that 50% of British Bangladeshis are under 16.5 years old and 50% of British Pakistanis are under 19.5 years old? In view of this profound demographic differential, in which ethnic group does visitor think the population growth of England will disportionately be located henceforward - amongst the predominantly “middle aged" white folk or amongst the MUCH younger (perennially replenished with imported spouses) Asian immigrants? The demography of the white population is pretty “stable” i.e. hardly growing. The demography of Pakistanis and Bangladeshis is already hugely skewed towards the young and is set to EXPLODE in absolute terms because more than HALF of them today are only children and teenagers! More like Gaza than Godalming, in fact! This is why I can state with complete confidence that the British government’s policy of mass immigration HAS indeed imported Third World demography and birth rates into the UK, a nation which was until then on track for a stable, i.e zero growth population. I don’t want my country to resemble Pakistan or Bangladesh in any way, thank you, and certainly not in its demographic structure.
|
|