Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Hibou Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,alt.usage.english Subject: Re: OT: US administration "yes people" Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2026 07:45:06 +0000 Lines: 53 Message-ID: References: <1rs0axa.l2ss0oqt3hd9N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> <10p66qd$12kpm$1@dont-email.me> <10p789f$3unfc$1@dont-email.me> <10p8i8m$1ro00$1@dont-email.me> <10p932h$2147v$2@dont-email.me> <10pa1dv$2d5dl$6@dont-email.me> <10pa6el$2f963$2@dont-email.me> <5PGcnQm5n5eAYiX0nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <10pb5r2$2obtv$13@dont-email.me> <4luo8mxm8o.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> <10pd71s$3grlr$1@dont-email.me> <1rs7tbh.gpe5481mficwpN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> <10pgt0i$mdso$7@dont-email.me> <6slv8mxh47.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> <1rs9smu.jbxbeu1db40cvN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> <1rsbpkc.vc5k1918vdagaN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> <10pn28v$2pchc$2@dont-email.me> <10po3dn$32pc2$1@dont-email.me> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net n2IBwpqS4RDQfRQPxgQhrAgwN6FXsGvhHSrA0DhuAmz2e3RW0B Cancel-Lock: sha1:JTkj6jWDV2wPGRJjcHFwWupHt1k= sha256:IdTEw+vqQw0L5YP+XQTIxh02qaOmldHfHjibYeCKGUQ= User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-GB, fr In-Reply-To: <10po3dn$32pc2$1@dont-email.me> Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.misc:83698 alt.usage.english:1140379 Le 22/03/2026 à 06:49, Lawrence D’Oliveiro a écrit : > On Sun, 22 Mar 2026 06:42:45 +0000, Hibou wrote: >> >> Does mass migration - more workers - improve just GDP or GDP per >> capita? Does it make the average person better off? This is a hard >> question to answer ... > > Here’s a question that’s easier to answer: as the proportion of old > people in your population increases, where are you going to get the > money for all those pensions? That has to come, at least in part, from > taxes on those still of working age. If your nation’s birth rate is > below the replacement level, then the relative size of that tax-paying > base is going to decline accordingly. > > I’ll ask my question again: if the women don’t want to have more > babies, how else are you going to make up the shortfall, if not by > mass migration? If I were in charge, you mean? There's a thought. Well I'll tell you… If you're talking about taxes and pensions, then you're talking about the State Pension (Pension Credit etc.), i.e. about Government spending. Pensions are ~12% of UK Government spending. I believe the Government is only about 70% efficient in spending our money. My source for this is the experience of one Leslie Chapman, a Regional Director at the Ministry of Public Buildings and Works (later the PSA) in the late 60s and early 70s¹. He instituted an efficiency drive, sending small teams of experts into every corner of his department, to see exactly how it was operating. They consistently found that savings of the order of 30% were possible. The same method was tried in other Government departments, with similar results, but there was resistance to it, so it was eventually dropped. As I recall, Chapman then left the Civil Service. That was half a century ago, but I see no evidence that anything much has changed. Quite the opposite, in fact; I've seen examples of inefficiency in local and national government that suggest it's normal - and unsurprising, since many managers in public service seem to me to be no-hopers who would not survive in the private sector. If this is right, then there's plenty of money. All we need to do is spend it properly. We do not need migrant workers to fill the gap. ¹'Your Disobedient Servant', Leslie Chapman, 1978. It has no index, alas, and isn't easy to scan for figures, but I see 46.3% in Table 2 of Case Study No. 1 and 27.1% in Table 3. The 30% figure I remember as being typical, regardless of where he looked.