UK Population to grow 25%, Britain biggest country in Europe by 2050

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Malcolm. wrote: »

Have you not heard of the public sector?

:rotfl:

Very good.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

kabayiri wrote: »

Don't patronise people Hamish.
It makes you look like a t*sser in truth.

Better a patronising t*sser than an ignorant racist.

The fact that you're so quick to come to his defence and argue much of the same case speaks volumes.....

FATBALLZ

I can see on the one hand you will be very pleased if this happens because your housing values may be high in 2050, on the other hand I think you've forgotten that you're also quite likely to be dead.

nearlynew

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Better a patronising t*sser than an ignorant racist.

This is great......


McTittish portraying himself as the immigrants' champion.

All because he has been told that larger populations mean higher house prices.


He is a very silly boy.

Exocet

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Better a patronising t*sser than an ignorant racist.

The fact that you're so quick to come to his defence and argue much of the same case speaks volumes.....

tbh Hamish, after suffering the HPI message from endless boring angles, your latest sledgehammer contribution is unfortunately clouding the message. I may even agree with what you are saying on the subject of immigration, but the presentation and manner of speaking from on high just grates.

kabayiri

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Better a patronising t*sser than an ignorant racist.

It's good to see you acknowledging your new title, can i abbreviate it to PT in the future, to save on typing?

wymondham

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

False..... The entire population of Britain lives in just 8% of the land mass.

Our population density is lower than Holland's, and much of the Uk is incredibly sparsely populated.

You may have a point about London and the South East.... But that is not "Britain".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2008/09/map_of_the_week_crowded_britai.html

I'd rather live in Monaco though!!

nearlynew

McTosserish.


I like it

Kohoutek

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

One more time......

Right, because when an academic economist says immigration raises wages then it must be true. Economists are never wrong, are they?

This is what the study cited in your report actually says:

http://www.econ.ucl.ac.uk/cream/pages/LPC.pdf

Economic theory on the impact of immigration on wages shows that, if production is based on a combination of capital and different skill groups of labour only, and if capital is supplied at a price fixed on international markets, immigration will have on average a positive wage effect, as long as immigrants differ from natives in their skill composition. This is the immigration surplus. However, across the distribution of wages, some workers will lose, while others will gain.

In accordance with theory, we find evidence of overall positive wage effects of immigration over the period of study, although the statistical significance of these effects is not always very robust.

Our estimates suggest that immigration over this period contributed about one penny per year to this wage growth.

Investigation of the effects of immigration along the distribution of wages of non-immigrant workers suggests that there are clear and significant differences. Non-immigrant individuals in the middle of the wage distribution gain from immigration, while individuals at the bottom of the distribution lose in terms of wages.

These estimated effects must be regarded as specific to the particular pattern of immigration over the period considered and should not be assumed to be a guide to the potential impact of immigration of different composition.

So to sum up: people that earn low wages lose, people that earn medium wages make a small gain, overall the effect is adds 1p/year to wage growth, although the study may not be statistically robust, and the economic theory underpinning the study may be wrong and is not a guide to future immigration.

Sounds like a very watertight argument for future mass immigration...I think you just want those houses prices up :rotfl:

marklv

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Oh dear....

I'm going to try and explain this very simply, in the hope you understand.

A population of 1 million people requires a certain number of doctors, taxi drivers, chefs, shop assistants, bank managers, solicitors, lorry drivers, toilet cleaners, teachers, etc....

In a developed economy, efficiency and productivity already run at close to maximum levels.

So when population increases, so does the number of jobs required to support that population, more or less in direct proportion to the growth of population.

You can argue around the edges about efficiencies of scale, or surplus capacity in the couple of years after a recession, but broadly speaking it holds true that 2 million people require almost twice the number of people to service them as one million people do.

This is why unemployment has remained at more or less constant levels in percentage terms even when population has increased greatly over the last few decades. And some level of unemployment (spare capacity in the labour pool) is necessary to prevent excessive inflation anyway.

Now that we've dealt with the employment issue, lets move onto services......

Again, very simply, the amount of tax that a person pays in their adult working lifetime broadly speaking has to pay for the services consumed in the three stages of their life.

1. Childhood.
2. Working life.
3. Retirement.

A significant percentage of immigrants come here as young adults, meaning that our society does not have to pay for their childhood. Yet these people, who by definition cost the state less than the native born population, do not receieve a discount on their tax despite the fact we bear none of the costs of their childhood medical care, education, university, etc.

Which is one of the big reasons why immigrants as a group use far less services than native born people do, and cost the state significantly less money over the cost of a lifetime.

Immigrants are a net financial gain to society. They subsidise the native born population, not the other way around.

Your arguments are only based on raw economics and ignore the human and social consequences of mass immigration. Immigration is not the solution to solving the issue of an ageing population; the solution should be in encouraging the native population to form family units and have children. This is the missing element in government policy. Governments are afraid of introducing legislation to encourage family life because of politically correct nonsense about freedom of choice etc. The result is that soon we will see mass immigration from muslim countries where no such political correctness exists. Then we'll see if you are still happy.