UK needs +7 Million immigrants to keep debt down

Generali

mEwbie wrote: »

What do the right resort to?

A glass of claret and beating a servant or 2 if you believe the stereotypes.

Sampong

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

There has been a fairly massive immigration movement over a period of a couple of centuries.

Yes there has, but none of that compares to current mass immigration, which is unprecedented - it is far beyond the levels of immigration at any other point in history. Massive immigration over a couple of centuries is gradual and can be assimilated.

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

I wonder if we are actually debating the collapse of family & community structure in the native population, rather than the need to import migrants and pay them to take on family responsibilities at minimum wage, plus all their welfare state entitlements.

This thread is clearly about the economics so far. But there is also a cost on social cohesion and an impact on society. Also legitimate concerns particularly due to the current pace of immigration, however it's unlikely that could be meaningfully debated here before someone tries to label and dismiss it as racism and xenophobia.

nicko33

so, all these people that might come here and increase investment and number of jobs. Why hasn't their presence in their current location made their country great?

System

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

It's maintaining the ratio's we had in the past, not creating new ones.

Exactly. And those ratios are unsustainable because although the ratio stays the same, the absolute numbers have to keep going up.

That's a pyramid scheme. The slope of the pyramid stays the same, but growth becomes more and more unsustainable because we are using up resources to build it.

Or you could say it's an Easter Island statue scheme. Perfectly sustainable, until the trees run out.

John_Pierpoint

There has been a fairly massive immigration movement over a period of a couple of centuries. After the USA war of independence, the British Isles could no longer export from the lowest decile of their unwanted population across the Atlantic and had to resort to shipping them on mass to the Australian continent.
One of the major reasons for abandoning the project, and replacing it with the export of orphans and £10 volunteers, was the cost of supporting the ex cons in their old age.
It was in places like Tasmania, where the population was as high as 1/3 rd ex con migrant, that this forerunner of families no longer being available to support the old folks, became most acute.

Sampong wrote: »

Yes there has, but none of that compares to current mass immigration, which is unprecedented - it is far beyond the levels of immigration at any other point in history. Massive immigration over a couple of centuries is gradual and can be assimilated.

I am not sure the Red Indians (Native Americans) or Aborigines (Indigenous Australians); especially the Tasmanian ones would regard the immigration into their countries as gradual and assimilated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_Australians

Perhaps they were lucky that their immigrants (with the exception of the criminals) were driven by commerce and their particular brands of religion.

I am particularly unsettled by the immigrants who know that their (almost uniform) medieval religion is the only one true contact with God.
The immigrants who came looking for easy riches and fame, and backed up by a religious global administration tended to produce results like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potos%C3%AD.

It was only 100 years ago that USA engineering managed to construct this railway. It is a triumph of engineering, in that the train zig zags backwards and forwards to climb the Andes. However it is my understanding that there was a simpler route, BUT the Church of Rome refused to cooperate with a wayleave over church estates, for fear that the new method of communication might introduce the native Americans to new ideas.

http://www.trenecuador.com/index.php/rutas-del-tren/nariz-del-diablo
http://www.guardian.co.uk/travel/gallery/2013/mar/19/ecuador-greatest-train-repoens-rail-travel-in-pictures#/?picture=405658761&index=0

The world's largest migration is internal to China as "farmers" surge into the the mega cities.
I'm not sure I want to host a proportional share of the world's ever increasing population here in the UK.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_proper_by_population

Cornucopia

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

... but growth becomes more and more unsustainable because we are using up resources to build it.

It depends on what the resources are. If they are renewable or virtual, then there is no issue.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Cornucopia wrote: »

It depends on what the resources are. If they are renewable or virtual, then there is no issue.

We have more than enough resources.

Less than 4% of the UK is built on.

John_Pierpoint

When I was a teenager the garages advertised petrol as 5 gallons for £1.
The newspapers were full of stories about another "gusher" being found somewhere in the desert.
We are still finding them:


40 years ago water from the local borehole was "free at the point of use", the borehole is still there but it has been over pumped and gone salty.
The water now comes from the River Trent 100 of miles away but is extracted directly from Chelmsford sewage works and emerges from a high tech processing plant at as very reasonable £1.35 a tonne, though it would cost another £1 if I gave it back for another bout of recycling.

There have been improvements in the road system, and on a good day I could leave home at 05:00 and get to Aberdeen several hours sooner than 45 years ago, probably dual carriageway all the way ? [The cost of the journey is another discussion]. The same logic applies to Heathrow airport. LHR is less than 50 miles away and in the early hours of the morning would take less than 2 hours, however any time after 06:00 could take as much as all day if there is an accident on the motorway. Five hours of going nowhere is my record.

The government has had 25 years of oil boom in which to organise the infra structure of the country - there is no money now to do the job.

There is a country whose revolutionary government embraced the mantra of liberty, equality & fraternity and made all the inhabitants of its colonies into citizens of the mother country. Some of the resulting flow of immigrants into the cities pied noir or not, did contribute and prosper.
However here in the downside:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLt_hMWw3OE

Here is the Southern land border of Europe, I crossed it 45 years ago, when some migrants were given a pair of scissors and told they would not be allowed to travel South until they had cut their hair.
That simple lift barrier now looks like this:

grizzly1911

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

We have more than enough resources.

Less than 4% of the UK is built on.

How much can be built up on physically and practically?

How much capacity, physical land and supporting infrastructure, is there in places where the population is attracted to?

How much land do wee need for farming and regeneration?

How much is at flood risk? Ho much is at erosion risk?

How much do we need?

N1AK

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And all those we usher into the country will require pensions too...

It's a pyramid scheme, nothing more, nothing less.

It is a pyramid scheme. The problem is that just stopping the scheme would mean removing the state pension immediately; people who are currently retired getting nothing and everyone else being expected to fund their own (or their own generations) pension(s).

If we want to avoid doing that to our elderly, and yet still want to move away from the pyramid scheme, then we need to gradually reduce it:

• Control pensioner spending so that less funding comes from younger generations
• Encourage/require younger generations to put more money into pension savings
• Limit pensions further in future

By using immigration to bring in additional workforce over the next, for example, 20 years we can stop the current pension pyramid from collapsing while changing the structure so that people retiring in 20 years have paid enough in before retiring that it is no longer a pyramid. Thus an immigrant who comes here are 30 would during his 38 years working pay in enough to cover his own pension and some extra that helps keep current pensioners reliant on the current pension pyramid out of poverlt.