>The unpleasant fact is that proper integration costs money //
For those selecting to immigrate why not put the onus on them to integrate too? Why should the onus be on the established population to adapt? [That's obviously not appropriate for some classes of migrant like refugees, but I'm sure that's clear.]
>The alternative is to create an underclass visibly different to the majority - that doesn't end well. //
Muslims in the UK often choose to be visibly different to set themselves apart from kafirs; they're not an underclass though. You don't have to wear a shalwar kameez and a big beard or wear a hijab to follow the Koran. [Non-abrogated verses do demand violent oppression of others though]. It's basically cultural AFAICT, predominantly British Islam appears to be about importing Middle-Eastern culture and traditions, like forced marriage, that had previously been forced out of the local culture at great length. Muslims in my city in the UK go "back home" to Pakistan or support the Indian cricket team or whatever, they're not interested in adopting the established UK culture but instead creating a different culture here. Islam is not just a religion it proscribes a legal system which by tradition Muslims are obliged to instigate where ever they are.
Cultures that demand other cultures to be subservient can't integrate in to a multicultural society, it doesn't work. In order to integrate they must change; for Islam that means it must become not-Islam, it needs to deny some of its central tenets to make it compatible with other cultures.
Thankfully most Muslims I meet seem to be not at all like the Mohammed [depicted in the Koran and Hadith] they suppose to try and emulate.
>the only way to make sure there's someone left to pay for tomorrow's pensions //
Pensions are basically a massive pyramid scheme; it's going to fail eventually. The only way it can continue is if there is no limit on availability of natural resources for the manufacture of new stuff on which Western Capitalism appears to depend.
> Pensions are basically a massive pyramid scheme; it's going to fail eventually. The only way it can continue is if there is no limit on availability of natural resources for the manufacture of new stuff on which Western Capitalism appears to depend.
Pensions don't require that. Unlimited aggregate output growth requires that (and, therefore, unlimited per capita consumption growth without proportional decreases in population requires that.)
> For those selecting to immigrate why not put the onus on them to integrate too? Why should the onus be on the established population to adapt?
What's the point of assigning blame? The established population can either close the borders completely, or help immigrants immigrate at their own expense - becuase THEY are the ones who stand to lose or gain the most. Purely as a matter of pragmatism, it's the established residents who will have to pay, as they're the only ones who can. They can also choose to close the borders completely, but I don't think there is any other alternative. To assign blame may make one feel self righteous but it is hardly a solution.
>Pensions are basically a massive pyramid scheme; it's going to fail eventually. The only way it can continue is if there is no limit on availability of natural resources for the manufacture of new stuff on which Western Capitalism appears to depend.
This is a common misconception. You should do some research on what is known as "productivity growth" and then come back for a rational discussion.
You should give at least some semblance of a reason why "productivity growth" prevents pensions from being pyramid schemes instead of implicitly dismissing the parent commenter's remark as irrational discussion.
There are a lot of lazy scare tactics that pension opponents use. The parent commenter's use of "pyramid scheme" means that he or she is trotting out some variation of the argument that current benefits for retirees are paid by current employees, that in 1940 there were 30 workers for every one retiree but it'll someday be 2:1, etc. etc.
"Productivity growth" is my admittedly lazy shorthand for "You cannot ignore the effects that improved productivity has on pensions, especially when by necessity we're talking decade-or-century long timeframes. Even historically modest productivity growth means that if a worker is supporting 1 retiree this year, then next year he can support 1.015 retirees and in 60 years the average worker can support 2.4 retirees. Without mentioning why you (the parent commenter) think that productivity won't continue to grow at at least a very low level over the next several decades, then we can't really have a good discussion about pensions being pyramid schemes."
And that's before we even touch on other topics like the retiree population shrinking as baby boomers start dying over the next 30 years, the double-standard of treating purchases of U.S. Treasury bills by current workers (for U.S. Social Security) as different than, say, a hedge fund buying them, etc.
Bottom line is that pensions are complicated and can't be treated simply as if they were just a regular investment fund or savings account, and it's a waste of time to argue with somebody who just wants to handwave away the differences.
OK, so productivity increases and in 100 years 1 worker's production can support 100 retirees. How? They create stuff using natural resources. That stuff gets sold, who is buying it now that 99/100 people are out of work? How are those 99/100 going to pay in to a pension?
Oh right of course, new areas of industry develop so now all 100 people are still employed and they're producing enough stuff for 10,000 people. But that means they have to also be consuming 100 times what they did. Where is the energy coming from, where are the resources coming from to make this stuff?
Isn't it really the case that improved productivity gets to benefit the wealthy disproportionately - suppose in 60 years a worker can produce 2.4 times more output and thus support 2.4 times more retirees. That's not how it works financially, the worker gets paid maybe enough to support 1.5 times more [through taxation] and the other output increase goes to benefit the wealthy capitalist. Regardless population has tripled in the last 60 years [Wikipedia figures].
In practice state pensions in my country [UK] are reduced year on year and recently pension ages have been increased.
It sounds like you're banking on a sudden reversal of global population growth (the best case scenario of UN statistics shows continued growth for at least a couple more decades; their "best guess" is continued growth until at least 2100).
For those selecting to immigrate why not put the onus on them to integrate too? Why should the onus be on the established population to adapt? [That's obviously not appropriate for some classes of migrant like refugees, but I'm sure that's clear.]
>The alternative is to create an underclass visibly different to the majority - that doesn't end well. //
Muslims in the UK often choose to be visibly different to set themselves apart from kafirs; they're not an underclass though. You don't have to wear a shalwar kameez and a big beard or wear a hijab to follow the Koran. [Non-abrogated verses do demand violent oppression of others though]. It's basically cultural AFAICT, predominantly British Islam appears to be about importing Middle-Eastern culture and traditions, like forced marriage, that had previously been forced out of the local culture at great length. Muslims in my city in the UK go "back home" to Pakistan or support the Indian cricket team or whatever, they're not interested in adopting the established UK culture but instead creating a different culture here. Islam is not just a religion it proscribes a legal system which by tradition Muslims are obliged to instigate where ever they are.
Cultures that demand other cultures to be subservient can't integrate in to a multicultural society, it doesn't work. In order to integrate they must change; for Islam that means it must become not-Islam, it needs to deny some of its central tenets to make it compatible with other cultures.
Thankfully most Muslims I meet seem to be not at all like the Mohammed [depicted in the Koran and Hadith] they suppose to try and emulate.
>the only way to make sure there's someone left to pay for tomorrow's pensions //
Pensions are basically a massive pyramid scheme; it's going to fail eventually. The only way it can continue is if there is no limit on availability of natural resources for the manufacture of new stuff on which Western Capitalism appears to depend.