If the Vatican City is taking in two families as reported (so let's say 10 people), then that is equivalent to more than 1% of their existing population (packed within a small area). Very similar in ratio to Germany taking in 800,000 against their population of 80 million, an exact 1% equivalent.

Regardless, the countries that accept the refugees, make them feel welcome and harness their energy and enthusiasm will reap the benefits. The countries that shun immigration will stutter and struggle as their population continues to age, and their economies bankrupt in the face of lack of working age productivity.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 6

sachinisgod

21

Original post by Rat_Bag

If the Vatican City is taking in two families as reported (so let's say 10 people), then that is equivalent to more than 1% of their existing population (packed within a small area). Very similar in ratio to Germany taking in 800,000 against their population of 8 million, an exact 1% equivalent.

Regardless, the countries that accept the refugees, make them feel welcome and harness their energy and enthusiasm will reap the benefits. The countries that shun immigration will stutter and struggle as their population continues to age, and their economies bankrupt in the face of lack of working age productivity.

you mean 80 million dont you?

Reply 7

saeed97

5

Original post by Rat_Bag

If the Vatican City is taking in two families as reported (so let's say 10 people), then that is equivalent to more than 1% of their existing population (packed within a small area). Very similar in ratio to Germany taking in 800,000 against their population of 8 million, an exact 1% equivalent.

Regardless, the countries that accept the refugees, make them feel welcome and harness their energy and enthusiasm will reap the benefits. The countries that shun immigration will stutter and struggle as their population continues to age, and their economies bankrupt in the face of lack of working age productivity.

Germany has a population of over 80 million not 8mil.

Reply 8

Reue

20

Original post by Rat_Bag

The countries that shun immigration will stutter and struggle as their population continues to age, and their economies bankrupt in the face of lack of working age productivity.

What a load of crap, especially given the advancement in automation and future predictable trends.

Reply 9

Rat_Bag

1

Original post by sachinisgod

you mean 80 million dont you?

Yes I do, hence the 800,000/Germany's population=1%

Reply 10

Rat_Bag

1

Original post by saeed97

Germany has a population of over 80 million not 8mil.

Apologies, my typo. 800,000/80 Million is 1%, hence the original assertion I was making was correct

Reply 11

Rat_Bag

1

Original post by Reue

What a load of crap, especially given the advancement in automation and future predictable trends.

The advancement in automation and technology will only safeguard against the problems of the demographic timebomb in a socialist economy (which I don't support). In a capitalist economy (which I do support), the productivity gains from automation translate into corporate assets, and will therefore not trickle down into supporting the ageing and unproductive population

Reply 12

Reue

20

Original post by Rat_Bag

translate into corporate assets, and will therefore not trickle down into supporting the ageing and unproductive population

Most people's accumulated wealth comes from a combination of property and pensions, the later of which are invested to own a proportion of those corporate assets. The trickle down comes in the form of annuities and pension fund growth.

Reply 13

saeed97

5

Original post by Rat_Bag

Apologies, my typo. 800,000/80 Million is 1%, hence the original assertion I was making was correct

Yeh i know i was just correcting the typo :smile:

Reply 14

BaconandSauce

5

Original post by Sam280297

The pope has already said that the Vatican will be housing 2 migrant families

I'm sure if they moved a few of the priceless works of art they keep into a different space they could manage at least 3

Reply 15

Rat_Bag

1

Original post by Reue

Most people's accumulated wealth comes from a combination of property and pensions, the later of which are invested to own a proportion of those corporate assets. The trickle down comes in the form of annuities and pension fund growth.

The lack of widespread pension planning and declining home ownership are some of the reasons that the demographic timebomb is potentially so harmful.

Likewise, the greying demographic and loss of productivity will subsequently lead to devaluation of property's value. Something similar may also happen with stock holdings (which make up pension funds)

Reply 16

Reue

20

Original post by Rat_Bag

The lack of widespread pension planning and declining home ownership are some of the reasons that the demographic timebomb is potentially so harmful.

Likewise, the greying demographic and loss of productivity will subsequently lead to devaluation of property's value. Something similar may also happen with stock holdings (which make up pension funds)

Arguably there's been a bigger push for widespread pension planning in the past 2 years than there has been in the past half a century.

If property values drops, ownership will likely increase.

Reply 17

Rat_Bag

1

Original post by Reue

Arguably there's been a bigger push for widespread pension planning in the past 2 years than there has been in the past half a century.

Yes, but it isn't necessarily translating into people taking ownership of their pension responsibilities

Original post by Reue

If property values drops, ownership will likely increase.

Indeed, but if you have a large unproductive segment of the population which is dependent on their property value as some sort of equity, then problems will arise.