Blog Tools
Edit your Blog
Build a Blog
RSS Feed
View Profile
« October 2006 »
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31
You are not logged in. Log in
Entries by Topic
All topics  «
Misc.
Poker
Politics
Religion
Television
Sleepless in Fulham: Rambling and gambling by David Young
Monday, 9 October 2006
Mark Steyn replies.
Topic: Politics

Mark Steyn is doing a live question and answer session to promote his new book, America Alone. Despite being a Steyn junkie I've not read it yet, but I know that demographics play a key part and asked a question about family formation. He responded within half an hourL

The whole Q and A is here:

http://www.steynonline.com/index2.cfm?edit_id=64 

But in case that link is broken before you read it, I'll quote our correspondence:

QUESTION: Do you think the birth rate of indigenous Britons would increase if there were more new property being built in England? I'm in my late 30s living in London and like a lot of my friends I missed out on the great house price boom of the 90s onwards. Many of us live like adolescents because the one thing that's worth saving up for isn't available -so what's the point? Almost none of us have children.

In my case, I can't see how I could ever afford to own a home unless their prices fell by about 60 per cent. A three bedroom house, which I would want in order to have a two-child family (needed to keep the population stable) is hopelessly out of reach.

Will there ever be the politcal will to build more in the South-East, where I live? I'm encouraged that the Tories have at last seen what the Green Belt has done to people like me, but will they permit enough building to make family formation affordable or will the votes of the older generation who don't want new houses spoiling the view from their windows win out?

I feel like Britain is turning into a big retirement home.

David Young
England

 

MARK: That's a very interesting point. When I was in Australia, I said that I thought one of the biggest threats to their relatively healthy birth rates was the fact that Aussie cities are among the most expensive housing markets in the world. Obviously London and most of southern England fall into that category, too. Conversely, one of the reasons why America has the healthiest fertility rates in the western world is that it's the country in which it's easiest to get a four-bedroom house with a big yard in a nice neighborhood. Nobody wants to raise three kids in a small apartment. I happen to think that also explains the difference between the US and Canadian birth rates. Canada is, paradoxically, more urban than America, mainly because 99% of it's too bloody cold so the population huddles in cities strung along the border. Londoners earning what by most standards are huge salaries claim not to be able to "afford" children, in part because they've paid half-a-million quid for a bedsit in Hackney. It's not the money, it's that they're paying family-estate-sized money for a bachelor pad. 


Monday, 9 October 2006 - 5:43 PM BST

Name: "Cartman"

So why are birth rates so high among the impoverished, highly urbanised muslim populations of, say, France and Holland? Or indeed in the scrum of refugee camps in the occupied territories? This is something that Steyn never fails to remind us of. Either he - and you - are mistaken, and there are other factors involved, or you're a shade away from racism: "they breed like rabbits wherever you put them etc etc"

Monday, 9 October 2006 - 9:46 PM BST

Name: "David Young"

My personal answer to that is that westerners are accustomed to having more personal space and that there is a link to religion - i.e. religious people, whether christian or muslim are more likely to see having children as a duty regardless of personal space, while secular people see children as something you have to be able to afford.

Attitudes to contraception may come into it too.

DY

Monday, 9 October 2006 - 9:56 PM BST

Name: "David Young"

And I should add attitudes to abotion to that too. Here's a table of Percentage of Pregnancies aborted, by country. Over 21 per cent in the UK - incredible. I'm not one of those anti-abortion nuts, but this still astonishes me.

DY

Tuesday, 10 October 2006 - 2:14 AM BST

Name: "Sarah Baps Beeny"

What good would building more houses in the green belt do?

 

I very much doubt it would bring prices down so that you and your friends would be able to afford a new Barrett Home. 

If you really want a home, work harder and save more(this may also attract this mythical mate you have dreamt up).

 

People who missed out on the property boom are almost as boring as those that made a mint and now have a windmill on The Lot.

 

 

Tuesday, 10 October 2006 - 3:20 AM BST

Name: "David Young"

Generally speaking, creating more of something makes it cheaper. See any book on economics and check out the bits about supply and demand. The point I was making to Steyn is that prices are so ludicrously high that it would not make a difference if I got a job paying £50,000 tomorrow. That doesn't get you far in London, yet it's considered a big salary by most people. Households are incurring record debt on store cards, personal loans and credit cards. People who earn, say, £30,000 feel that they are doing well, but in fact if they're south of Watford, they aren't. And to make up the diference between what they think they should be able to own and what they can afford they are driving themselves into debt.

I'm a free marketeer and I'm not asking for subsidy. I asking for a more free market. I'm saying that the anti-development bias should be removed, so that the needs of those who don't yet own property are heard, not just those who already own. I suggest you read about the Barker Report.

DY

Tuesday, 10 October 2006 - 10:09 AM BST

Name: "anonymous"

Lady Young wants to have her cake and eat it.

Lifestyle choice? - not negotiable

Whose at fault? - somebody else 

Building more houses will be like building more or wider roads. More roads don't reduce traffic congestion. Building more houses will only allow the wealthy to buy more buy-to-let houses and/or provide greater investment opportunities for overseas investors.

The house prices might correct every now and again but the trend is always up. A rather unimportant person missed the boat. Tough.

As just about everything has been sold off in this country and headed east the only sound investment is property. Land goes to the highest bidder who builds and sells on to the wealthiest buyers.

It's not the price of a house that is expensive. It's the land it sits on. It's a tiny island with 55 million people on it. Look at Japan. Look at Holland. Look at Monaco. The UK is not far behind. You should be grateful for a decreasing population. Then AND ONLY THEN will prices drop. 

That's your free market for you. Live with it.

Solutions to your predicament, 

1) Go and live somewhere cheaper and commute to your "job"

2) Get off your fat arse and be a player in the city you call home. The South East is a money makers' "paradise". You are obviously in the wrong "job". You could probably flip burgers in the midlands for the same money AND buy a house

Your post is just talk anyway. You won't get married and have children because,

1) No sane woman would have you

2) You would be a ghastly father. Remember you have to set an example to your children so they will only end up lazy bigoted no hopers like you. 

Why do so-called "professional poker players" live in this kind of dream state all the time? No free lunches matey! 

Tuesday, 10 October 2006 - 10:52 AM BST

Name: "anonymous"

"DY" wrote:
Many of us live like adolescents because the one thing that's worth saving up for isn't available -so what's the point? Almost none of us have children.

I don't know anyone who doesn't own their own property. The difference between my friends and yours is that mine don't spend their time hanging around the Vic telling everyone how great it is that they don't have to work 9-5. My friends opted for financial security. Dull, I know, but I don't hear them bemoaning their lot. 

The lifestyle you and your friends have opted for might also explain why none of you have children. With respect, none of you are ever going to meet a woman - other than a fellow poker player - and even if you did, your not exactly great catches. Women are looking for a bit more from prospective life partners and sperm donors than the ability to defend your blinds.

Tuesday, 10 October 2006 - 12:35 PM BST

Name: "David Young"

Thanks for all the personal abuse folks. But I think you're seeing things that aren't there. Not all my friends are full time gamblers. Not all are single. I was also referring to people I know who DO have jobs and wives/girlfriends, but who don't own homes and aren't likely to soon. They can't 'afford' a two-child family even though they have joint salaries of about £50,000 or so. It's not enough. And one of the main reasons for this is the Green Belt protectionism.

DY

Tuesday, 10 October 2006 - 1:05 PM BST

Name: "anonymous"

"David Young" wrote:

They can't 'afford' a two-child family even though they have joint salaries of about £50,000 or so. It's not enough. 

DY

You know what the chief difference is between your friends and your friends' parents? Your friends' parents made sacrifices for the sake of their children. Your friends are not prepared to compromise their lifestyle, but prefer to whinge self-pityingly about what a raw deal they get. How the hell do you think poor people cope? (And please, no puns about benefits)

The idea that a couple who earn £50,000 but can't afford to bring up children is ridiculous. I speak from experience here when I tell you that it can be done.

You and your friends won life's lottery. You're white, middle class, well-eductaed and grew up in a time of peace and prosperity. Yet, you spend your time moaning about how unfair life is. 

 

Tuesday, 10 October 2006 - 1:21 PM BST

Name: "anonymous"

Hear! Hear! To everything everyone is saying to the spineless one.

Spiney, stop spunking and start saving.

You need a reality check.

Your lifestyle is a pile of shit.

Shape up! 

Tuesday, 10 October 2006 - 3:09 PM BST

Name: "Cartman"

I think the personal attacks are rather cheap. If you can't respond to David's points in a civil manner I think you're wasting your time and showing yourself to be a bit tragic. I mean who seriously writes dozens of words on an obscure blog with the intention of belittling and ridiculing the owner unless they have some major axe to grind and plenty of time in which to do it? I really would consider getting another hobby.

 

As to your reply David, if secularism is such a virulent enemy of demographic growth why are you such an enthusiastic advocate of it?

Tuesday, 10 October 2006 - 3:49 PM BST

Name: "David Young"

Cartman,

Secularism's biggest weakess is that it doesn't do as much as religion does to promote the raising of the next generation. This worries me, as I fear something I call the 'shrinking of the rational world'. Israel is an example, though it's not unique. The religious jews have larger families than the secular ones. I can't see this helping matters in the long term. In the US, states like Utah have far higher fertility rates than, say, California or Connecticut. Religious countries like Saudi Arabia have far higher birth rates than secular countries like Japan and Romania. And so on, and so on.

That's why I mention this topic from time to time. I don't want the world slipping back into the middle ages. It's a shame that my personality and personal life evokes such strong reaction, as it seems that this thread is being predicated on the basis that I'm only talking about my own current circumstances. I can assure you that when I was making £30k in a stable job in the City, I still didn't think I was close to making enough to raise a two child family if I met a woman earning less than me. Notice I say two-child. I do know a few people who've had one.

David

Wednesday, 11 October 2006 - 10:57 AM BST

Name: "Mahmood"

"David Young" wrote:

Cartman,

Secularism's biggest weakess is that it doesn't do as much as religion does to promote the raising of the next generation. This worries me, as I fear something I call the 'shrinking of the rational world'. Israel is an example, though it's not unique. The religious jews have larger families than the secular ones. I can't see this helping matters in the long term. In the US, states like Utah have far higher fertility rates than, say, California or Connecticut. Religious countries like Saudi Arabia have far higher birth rates than secular countries like Japan and Romania. And so on, and so on.

That's why I mention this topic from time to time. I don't want the world slipping back into the middle ages. It's a shame that my personality and personal life evokes such strong reaction, as it seems that this thread is being predicated on the basis that I'm only talking about my own current circumstances. I can assure you that when I was making £30k in a stable job in the City, I still didn't think I was close to making enough to raise a two child family if I met a woman earning less than me. Notice I say two-child. I do know a few people who've had one.

David

Religious societies are sexist. God is Ceasar, the husband is his general and the wife is the foot soldier. Secular societies on the other hand allow women to be Ceasar, his general or his soldier. The reason for the change in the demography is due primarly to the emancipation of women after the second world war. Women in secular societies have the economic freedom that allows them to be independent.

Wednesday, 11 October 2006 - 12:10 PM BST

Name: "David Young"

Mahmood, that reminds me of something else - divorce. Any male of my age (37) will have heard dozens of horror stories from older guys about the financial disaster of divorce. I'll pass on one from my generation -

A friend of mine from school, with whom I shared a flat for two years, has recently told me that his wife and he are to separate. Somehow in her mid thirties she's decided that she's a lesbian and has run off with another woman. Her 'conversion' took place in the space of six weeks. When I last went to stay with them in spring, all seemed fine. I am stunned. She lived in the same flat as me during the second of the two years he lived with me and I saw nothing 'lesbian' about her at all. She seemed very heterosexual to me.

Now he faces disaster. This will cost him an absolute fortune. He's done nothing wrong. He's not broken any of his marriage vows, he provided for her and the children magnificently (he was earning a fortune in private banking, having done all the right things - degree from Oxford, qualified as an accountant with a major firm, worked for a big bank, headhunted to be No 1 in offshore private banking for a respected bank). But despite the fact that he's done nothing wrong and that his wife has run off with an heiress who's richer than he is, he will have to compensate her for the crime of ... well er ... not being female. Young men in their twenties can't keep hearing these stories without it having an effect. At some point they must realise that marriage is a huge gamble, where the women hold the edge.

DY

Wednesday, 11 October 2006 - 1:15 PM BST

Name: "anonymous"

Ah, the famous "my friend" story.

How many dykes have you made David? 

Friday, 20 October 2006 - 2:04 AM BST

Name: "chaos"

You do get hard a time, however on this post, 

"Somehow in her mid thirties she's decided that she's a lesbian and has run off with another woman. Her 'conversion' took place in the space of six weeks. When I last went to stay with them in spring, all seemed fine. I am stunned. She lived in the same flat as me during the second of the two years he lived with me and I saw nothing 'lesbian' about her at all. She seemed very heterosexual to me." very Homer J Simpson 

"(he was earning a fortune in private banking, having done all the right things - degree from Oxford, qualified as an accountant with a major firm, worked for a big bank, headhunted to be No 1 in offshore private banking for a respected bank)" - too big a statement about yourself DY.

"young men in their twenties can't keep hearing these stories without it having an effect. At some point they must realise that marriage is a huge gamble, where the women hold the edge."

No bloke is going to stop getting married becasue he's afraid his wife is going to turn into a leasbian.  Ultmately all blokes over value their judgement and most believe it won't happen to them.

Agree though that if you build more houses affordability must prosper.

later.

Friday, 20 October 2006 - 2:26 AM BST

Name: "chaos"

I should add I don't think its that kids aren't affordable on Xk, they're always affordable, but a matter of 'value for money' for some.  If you value having children highly enough, you'll afford them.  


Friday, 20 October 2006 - 7:20 AM BST

Name: "David Young"

"No bloke is going to stop getting married because he's afraid his wife is going to turn into a lesbian."

That's not the point. Having your wife turn into a lesbian after ten years is a 'black swan' and most men will correctly think that it won't happen to them. My point was that my friend is going to be forced to cough up hundreds of thousands because of this, when he's about as blameless as it's possible to be. That's the sort of lesson that will make young men think twice - that no matter how blameless you are, you the male will have to pay.

I've heard it called the 'marriage strike' -

http://www.mattweeks.com/strike.htm

and don't forget the site that got me more traffic in the early days of this blog than any other -

http://www.nomarriage.com/ 

 

DY

Friday, 20 October 2006 - 11:40 AM BST

Name: "chaos"

I'm no big fan of marriafe and I certainly don't dispute your friend was hard done by; but I just don't feel such examples have a huge impact. The link you sent was highly amusing, but boy what a bunch of cynics. They blame the contract because it is easier than to blame themselves - their lack of judgement.  Some women are that devious and ultimately, if sex is such a key criteria when choosing a long-term girlfriend then they are going to wind up with these problems when married. If a guy marries on the premise he's going to get great sex 5 days a week for, well, not quite the rest of his life, then he's going to wind up in trouble.  Kids complicate things, but don't forget women enjoy sex too!
 
 
 

 


View Latest Entries