UK needs +7 Million immigrants to keep debt down

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Sampong wrote: »

Do the more densely populated have the same level as multiculturalism as the UK?

I've lived in 2 of the top 10, and worked in a third, and know for a fact they're exponentially more multicultural than the UK.

antrobus

TruckerT wrote: »

Yo cleverclogs - you know Latin as well as Economics!

Enoch Powell was in a previous 30-year lifetime.

Latin has long been regarded as superfluous to the modern world.

Let's replace 'Thybrim' with 'MSE', and see if the way forward becomes any more clear...

TruckerT

No, I just like to pretend I know Latin, so that people gain the quite false impression that I had a proper education. As opposed to simply being an oik from a comp. (Which is what I really am, of course.)

I was just making the point that predicting that immigration will create social unrest isn't new. But it does make me wonder what kind of social unrest one would expect if there wasn't any immigration, and the OBR is right, and the consequence is debt hitting 140% of GDP. Or whatever the number was,

kabayiri

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Where in the UK can we build 7 new Birmingham's.......?

Unsurprisingly, economic migrants will flock to the places where they perceive they can find work and hence wealth.

Otherwise, why else would they bother coming?

I think realistically, if you allow migration to follow natural market forces, most of these +7m will head to the South East.

It's what I would do. People already moan on here about the price of property and rents in London. Imagine increasing demand by 30 or 50%!

kabayiri

On a wider note are people here comfortable with the notion of essentially economists driving social policy by offering the "solution" with no room for alternates?

On a plus note, they will try and take a hard nosed long term view. Politicians will sugar coat solutions or downright lie about things.

On a negative note, how do we know if they have an understanding of implementing social or structural change?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

kabayiri wrote: »

Imagine increasing demand by 30 or 50%!

Better get building then.... As the people are coming.

There simply is no other viable option.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

kabayiri wrote: »

On a wider note are people here comfortable with the notion of essentially economists driving social policy by offering the "solution" with no room for alternates?

If the choice is a comprehensive, evidence based, solution.....

Or....

Believing that "the robots will save us".....

I'll go with the economists, thanks.;)

Thrugelmir

kabayiri wrote: »

I think realistically, if you allow migration to follow natural market forces, most of these +7m will head to the South East.

Resulting in London starting in Brighton and ending in Luton........

TruckerT

antrobus wrote: »

Don't know. Does it matter?

If we had the same population density as San Marino we could fit in twice as many people. And San Marino's terrain is described as "rugged mountains" which sounds a bit less usable than the UK's "mostly rugged hills and low mountains; level to rolling plains in east and southeast".

The point; if we had to find room for another 7 million, we could.

antrobus wrote: »

No, I just like to pretend I know Latin, so that people gain the quite false impression that I had a proper education. As opposed to simply being an oik from a comp. (Which is what I really am, of course.)

I was just making the point that predicting that immigration will create social unrest isn't new. But it does make me wonder what kind of social unrest one would expect if there wasn't any immigration, and the OBR is right, and the consequence is debt hitting 140% of GDP. Or whatever the number was,

San Marino is roughly 5 miles square, and I am disappointed that you would try to use this as a meaningful comparison with any other part of the world.

The current social unrest in Greece seems to feature a fair bit of anti-immigration/racist opinion, so I'm still not convinced that the OBR has felt the need to try to take into account the human consequences of its purely statistical analysis. I guess that is the job of the politicians and/or the electorate.

I am beginning to work out for myself that the OBR has no real influence at all on what may or may not happen to us all in the near or far future. Just as the government handed over the responsibility for controlling inflation to the BoE (with no discernible effect), the OBR spokespeople come onto the TV screens and speak their words, whilst the government carries on regardless.

TruckerT

cotleigh

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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

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

Well said.

The new immigrants might start off as "cheap to run" youngish adults, but unless they are of a new species, then it won't be long before they:

bring in non-working spouses and family members
settle down and have kids, who will need schools, teachers, social care, homes of their own later on, etc
perhaps become ill
become unemployed
get old

Yes - that's right, those "cheap labour" immigrants that we bring in to do the dirty jobs on the cheap, will exhibit normal human characteristics! The sneaky b*ggers! Ruining our cunning plan to save ourselves from having too many oldies to support!

So, in a generation or less, we will be in the same bind, except with 10 million or more extra people.

What will we do then?

Rely on importing even more (move up! plenty of room inside!)?

Why not get the 2.5 million+ unemployed people working (clue: stop paying them to sit around) and THEN if there are still jobs going begging, think about bringing in more people?

Or am I missing something here?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

cotleigh wrote: »

am I missing something here?

Yes.

With zero net migration debt soars off the charts and the country collapses economically under the burden of aged care.

With an extra 7m people debt grows to 100% of GDP, but it's just about manageable.

With an extra 14m people debt falls to 40% of GDP, and the country prospers.