UK needs +7 Million immigrants to keep debt down

TruckerT

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.

I would still like to know why the meeja has chosen to bury this story - I would have expected it to run and run.

The NAIRU predictions are, no doubt, as unreliable as all the other predictions from which economists earn their very generous living.

TruckerT

TruckerT

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.

I posted on another thread that it would be possible to do away altogether with the idea of a 'retirement age'. Everyone would be regarded as available for work until the day they died (if there were medical reasons to the contrary, then they would be taken into account, just as they are already taken into account throughout everyone's working life).

Healthy 80-year-olds would be entitled to the same benefits as a healthy 30-year-old.

Obviously, it would be an option for everybody to pay into a private pension scheme from an early age, so that they would be able to give up working at a time of their choice.

TruckerT

kabayiri

When you are looking at a projection over a timeframe of 2,3 or more decades, surely you must factor in the next recession?

It's great when our work-ready population is 25% bigger in the good times, what happens when a recession comes and we have 6m/7m officially unemployed? That will only add to the debt burden won't it?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

kabayiri wrote: »

When you are looking at a projection over a timeframe of 2,3 or more decades, surely you must factor in the next recession?

It's great when our work-ready population is 25% bigger in the good times, what happens when a recession comes and we have 6m/7m officially unemployed? That will only add to the debt burden won't it?

I reckon it's highly probable the very bright economists at the OBR may have thought of that and included it in their projections.

kabayiri

Hey, we better get building then. That way they will have somewhere to live before they arrive.

I suspect most will flock to the wealthy South East anyway. What has to happen? Do we let London grow out to the M25 boundary, for example? There is a lot of green space in London which could be used for accommodation without expanding the city.

No problem, I suspect the clever peeps at the OBR have thought of this as well

CLAPTON

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I reckon it's highly probable the very bright economists at the OBR may have thought of that and included it in their projections.

are those the same very bright economists that missed the banking crisis and were all in favour of the UK joining the euro?

anyway no need to take action for a few years is there?

antrobus

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I reckon it's highly probable the very bright economists at the OBR may have thought of that and included it in their projections.

If you're doing long term projections you pick averages that take into account the economic cycle. So the next recession, or the next boom, for that matter, is of no particular consequence.

kabayiri

antrobus wrote: »

If you're doing long term projections you pick averages that take into account the economic cycle. So the next recession, or the next boom, for that matter, is of no particular consequence.

I agree they have to try.

But if we wind the clock back to 1983 say, who would have predicted things like
- the dramatic resurgence in the Chinese and Indian economies
- the break up of the Soviet Union
- the GFC, and record low interest rates not seen in hundreds of years

The margin for error must be pretty large.

grizzly1911

kabayiri wrote: »

Hey, we better get building then. That way they will have somewhere to live before they arrive.

I suspect most will flock to the wealthy South East anyway. What has to happen? Do we let London grow out to the M25 boundary, for example? There is a lot of green space in London which could be used for accommodation without expanding the city.

No problem, I suspect the clever peeps at the OBR have thought of this as well

And all the infrastructure to go with them transport, schools, hospitals, energy loading, water supply, sewage and waste disposal etc.

I thought they were going to be net contributors.

TruckerT

The collapse of property prices was being predicted by the punter on the street for several years before 2007. But the experts turned a deaf ear.

When I took out my liar loan in summer 2007, it was because I had calculated that it was probably my last chance to get my hands on so much easy money. I was right, and I repaid the loan according to plan.

Why was it so obvious to me, and millions of others, but invisible to the elite?

TruckerT