5 ms·
This isn't strictly true. It costs considerably less for the state to support a child than an elderly person. Furthermore, your plan results in a massive baby s
by objclxt 12y ago
This isn't strictly true. It costs considerably less for the state to support a child than an elderly person. Furthermore, your plan results in a massive baby surge regardless - if you start allowing mass immigration of young workers, many of them are going to have children anyway.
- pcrh 12y ago>It costs considerably less for the state to support a child than an elderly person. I would like to see the numbers on this... In today's world, a young person is supported for at least 20 years, sometimes more. Life expectancy in Japan is 84.6 yr (the minimum Japanese retirement age is 61 yr, set to increase to 65), so older people are supported for at most 23.6 yr. Further, older people are most often supported by their own investments and assets, which can be invested in any productive location, rather than by the earnings of a couple of related adults.
- ctdonath 12y agoBut at what point are a procreating mass of young workers considered replacing the native culture? Is it still [insert country with plummeting replacement rates] if [insert labeled high-fertility immigrating group], bringing their own genes & memes, out-populate the host population?
- IndianAstronaut 12y agoThere is a trick to prevent this. In Britain, at first they brought in many male immigrants from Pakistan. Since they didn't have their families or female kin with them, they assimilated well. They stopped assimilating once they brought their families. For immigrants to assimilate better, it would be a better policy to bring onky one gender. Like say a quota of 500k women from the Philippines and a 500k quota of males from another country.