Net migration down nearly 100,000 over the year

ILW

Are there figures as to what percentage of the population that are going to be beyond retirement age in say 20 years, are immigrants or the children of immigrants?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

ILW wrote: »

Are there figures as to what percentage of the population that are going to be beyond retirement age in say 20 years, are immigrants or the children of immigrants?

I'm sure there are somewhere, but it doesn't change the reality that in order to implement a self funding system you have to move the burden down by 3 generations, and you can't do that overnight.

As we're moving to a system where everyone pays for themselves rather than paying for their grandparents and parents generations, then mass immigration under that system carries an even bigger profit to society than immigration today does. (as immigrants are already net contributors in terms of costs)

And in the meantime, the more people you have paying for the aged care burden the better.

It really is a win-win financially and economically to have mass immigration.

Percy1983

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

The Percy scheme is the same as the Hamish scheme is the same as the Government scheme.

What Percy has failed to understand is you can't flick a switch and make it happen overnight, or you kill the economy.

It will take decades to implement.

And during those decades you need immigration.

I fully agree it can't just change over night.

Either we can kick the can down the road with immigration or we can all accept a lower and sustainable standard of living.

wotsthat

Percy1983 wrote: »

Either we can kick the can down the road with immigration or we can all accept a lower and sustainable standard of living.

A choice between a lower standard of living or a sensible policy approach in which immigration is but a part and we get a higher standard of living. Hmm - tough choice.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Percy1983 wrote: »

Either we can kick the can down the road with immigration or we can all accept a lower and sustainable standard of living.

Immigration isn't kicking the can, its a part of the solution, which will allow us to transition to a sustainable model while not sacrificing living standards.

So why should we accept a lower standard of living to appease people who don't like immigrants?

kabayiri

I personally don't care were the labour force is from.

If you look at some of the data in the Work Programme, it's startling.

There are large numbers of people whose literacy is poor / very poor to non-existent levels of English / extremely poor motivation.

Large numbers of these types of people are not going to power us ahead to a brighter future.

Blanket immigration is a waste of time. Selective cherry picking of the best tells the world we set a high standard.

Hamish, you're in a minority in your views mate. You need to up the campaign

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

kabayiri wrote: »

Large numbers of these types of people are not going to power us ahead to a brighter future.

You absolutely never know where the next Bill Gates, Alan Sugar or Richard Branson is going to come from.

Some of the very best entrepreneurs come from the most deprived of backgrounds, and indeed are immigrants or the children thereof.

Blanket immigration is a waste of time. Selective cherry picking of the best tells the world we set a high standard.

Nonsense.

We need fruit pickers and toilet cleaners every bit as much as we need bankers or other city spivs. Some might argue more so, given the events of late.;)

There are large numbers of people whose literacy is poor / very poor to non-existent levels of English / extremely poor motivation.

You've just described the British born occupants of half the sink estates in the country.

Thought we were talking about immigrants?

Hamish, you're in a minority in your views mate. You need to up the campaign

When you objectively look at the facts, welcoming an increase in immigration is the only rational response.

People that don't are either unable to comprehend the (sometimes counter-intuitive, admittedly, but no less true because of it) facts, or are unable to accept the results of the data because it conflicts with their own prejudices, or are willing to accept a worse standard of living for us all in order to accommodate those prejudices.

None of which are particularly rational or intelligent responses.

Fortunately, our politicians so far have managed to keep broadly the right line between pandering to the ignorant with promises to "crack down", while doing very little about it once elected as they also know it's essential to the economy and society.

UKIP are irksome, but a flash in the pan, and will fade into obscurity once the economy starts recovering.

kabayiri

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

...
When you objectively look at the facts, welcoming an increase in immigration is the only rational response.

People that don't are either unable to comprehend the (sometimes counter-intuitive, admittedly, but no less true because of it) facts, or are unable to accept the results of the data because it conflicts with their own prejudices, or are willing to accept a worse standard of living for us all in order to accommodate those prejudices.
...

That sounds borderline arrogant. Politicians who act this way are considered out of touch, and we all know what happens to them.

Technological advancement is the only rational response to an uncertain future. There are countries where the workforce will work for longer and for lower returns.

If we don't want to compete on labour costs, we have to improve productivity. We can do more with less.

That's just as valid an alternative as yours. Just because you personally don't understand what technology can offer doesn't mean it is invalid.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

kabayiri wrote: »

Technological advancement is the only rational response to an uncertain future. There are countries where the workforce will work for longer and for lower returns.

If we don't want to compete on labour costs, we have to improve productivity. We can do more with less.

That's just as valid an alternative as yours. Just because you personally don't understand what technology can offer doesn't mean it is invalid.

Improved efficiency and productivity is one part of the equation.

Immigration is another part of the equation.

They are not mutually exclusive.

angrypirate

Hamish, right now there are 2 million people unemployed. Surely it is better to stop all unskilled immigration / throw out 2 million unskilled immigrants (painters, waiters, supermarket shelf stackers) until all of these 2 million people are employed? That way there is a lower benefits bill, fewer people in this country putting a demand on the infrustrature in the country and lower housing cost?