UK needs +7 Million immigrants to keep debt down

TruckerT

grizzly1911 wrote: »

60/70s was my time line but I am sure it can be tracked back closer to the start of the century by people who really know their stuff.

I don't suppose the starting point is the issue more when it started to become less controllable. .

I think it is the bankers who really know their stuff, and they are in perfect control.

TruckerT

kabayiri

jayjay88 wrote: »

Why is this so stupid? This was actually the response to the same problem in Japan - many older people and declining numbers of the younger generation. Instead of opening its borders it has put a lot of energy into developing robotic technology to care for the elderly, which is why the nation is one of the leaders in robotics. The technology might not be that great right now, but like a lot of things it is rapidly advancing and this won't be so far fetched in a couple of decades.

Indeed.

Hamish only sees the one solution, and somewhat fortuitously, it involves lots more people who need lots more houses.

If we were to pioneer the next wave of robotics, it could be our nation pushing at the forefront of the next wave of industrial development. It's not just robotics; it's genetics and 3D printing which will also transform our ideas on health and the workplace.

This country doesn't plan enough to introduce 7m more to our society. Propose a new town the size of Bracknell in any of the home counties, and just watch the resistance to the idea. We aren't building enough houses as it is. What makes us think this could turn around rapidly?

Efficiency, innovation, progress. The new political slogan for the 21st century?

TruckerT

kabayiri wrote: »

Indeed.

Hamish only sees the one solution, and somewhat fortuitously, it involves lots more people who need lots more houses.

If we were to pioneer the next wave of robotics, it could be our nation pushing at the forefront of the next wave of industrial development. It's not just robotics; it's genetics and 3D printing which will also transform our ideas on health and the workplace.

This country doesn't plan enough to introduce 7m more to our society. Propose a new town the size of Bracknell in any of the home counties, and just watch the resistance to the idea. We aren't building enough houses as it is. What makes us think this could turn around rapidly?

Efficiency, innovation, progress. The new political slogan for the 21st century?

You have to remember that Hamish's original quote, at the top of his original post, was from the Office of Budget Responsibilty. I saw the item on the news a few days before Hamish's post, but no eyebrows were raised at the time. Since then, I have seen no reference at all to the item, apart from on this forum.

I think it was a mistake.

TruckerT

antrobus

TruckerT wrote: »

You have to remember that Hamish's original quote, at the top of his original post, was from the Office of Budget Responsibilty. I saw the item on the news a few days before Hamish's post, but no eyebrows were raised at the time. Since then, I have seen no reference at all to the item, apart from on this forum.

I think it was a mistake.

TruckerT

No mistake.

The OBR, founded in 2010, provides independent economic forecasts as background for the preparation of the UK Budget.

It said that to overcome the effects of the ageing population over the coming decades, there should be a steady influx of immigrants each year. The report said that allowing more than 140,000 immigrants a year into the the UK from 2016, would increase the number of people in work, and would improve the national public finances.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23343111

It's quite simple really. If you have an ageing population that is imposing costs on the public sector, you need more young people to work and produce the income to pay these costs. If your existing population isn't producing these young people in sufficient numbers, then you need to import them from somewhere else.

kabayiri

Do they not accept the possibility of increasing GDP per capita?

Economic improvement through efficiency gains is often at the heart of many a company, after all. Why should it not apply?

CLAPTON

antrobus wrote: »

No mistake.

The OBR, founded in 2010, provides independent economic forecasts as background for the preparation of the UK Budget.

It said that to overcome the effects of the ageing population over the coming decades, there should be a steady influx of immigrants each year. The report said that allowing more than 140,000 immigrants a year into the the UK from 2016, would increase the number of people in work, and would improve the national public finances.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23343111

It's quite simple really. If you have an ageing population that is imposing costs on the public sector, you need more young people to work and produce the income to pay these costs. If your existing population isn't producing these young people in sufficient numbers, then you need to import them from somewhere else.

yes indeed

In an economy that was overheating with full employment, large number of vacancies and rising wage inflation then importing workers might make some economic sense.

At the moment this doesn't describe the UK very well.

antrobus

kabayiri wrote: »

Do they not accept the possibility of increasing GDP per capita?

Yes. It's in the report. They anticipate growth in GDP per capita in the range of 1.9% to 2.1%. See Table A4.

http://budgetresponsibility.independent.gov.uk/fiscal-sustainability-report-july-2013/

kabayiri wrote: »

....Economic improvement through efficiency gains is often at the heart of many a company, after all. Why should it not apply?

From a brief examination of the report it would appear that the issue is this; whilst anticipated growth in GDP per capita is in the order of 1.9% to 2.1%, increases in per capita expenditure on certain things such as Health and State Pensions is greater.

CLAPTON wrote: »

....In an economy that was overheating with full employment, large number of vacancies and rising wage inflation then importing workers might make some economic sense....

The OBR forecast is based "on a assumed non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment (NAIRU) of 5.4 per cent of the labour force". If you wanted to, you could pick another unemployment rate and crunch that through the model and see what happens. You might end up with a lower figure for net migration.

However the OBR do say that the "biggest factor driving these projections is the size of the population rather than the smaller differences in employment rates between the variants", so it might not make that much difference.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

kabayiri wrote: »

This country doesn't plan enough to introduce 7m more to our society.

7m is the bare minimum to keep debt below 100% of GDP over the long term.

If we want to reduce debt to below 50% of GDP, we need closer to another 14m people.

Many hands make light work....;)

CLAPTON

antrobus wrote: »

Yes. It's in the report. They anticipate growth in GDP per capita in the range of 1.9% to 2.1%. See Table A4.

http://budgetresponsibility.independent.gov.uk/fiscal-sustainability-report-july-2013/



From a brief examination of the report it would appear that the issue is this; whilst anticipated growth in GDP per capita is in the order of 1.9% to 2.1%, increases in per capita expenditure on certain things such as Health and State Pensions is greater.



The OBR forecast is based "on a assumed non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment (NAIRU) of 5.4 per cent of the labour force". If you wanted to, you could pick another unemployment rate and crunch that through the model and see what happens. You might end up with a lower figure for net migration.

However the OBR do say that the "biggest factor driving these projections is the size of the population rather than the smaller differences in employment rates between the variants", so it might not make that much difference.

well, we might as well wait to import more immigrants until we have full employment and see whether wage inflation starts to build up.

Maybe all those economically inactive people may decide they would like to work too.

Graham_Devon

OffGridLiving wrote: »

The only way to get out of this is to encourage people to sort out their own pensions and pay a state pension that is basically minimum wage and to use a 'guest worker' scheme where economic migrants can work here and pay income tax but a lower level of national insurance and no citizenship entitlement. They will be entitled to NHS, etc. as they pay tax but won't qualify for a state pension. Once they finish work, they return to their original country.

Everyone's a winner.

Could never be done.

Equal rights simply wouldn't allow it. For good reason to, it's outright exploitation.