UK needs +7 Million immigrants to keep debt down

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

shortchanged wrote: »

Won't this help push house prices up further Hamish?

Not if we build more of them.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Sampong wrote: »

The theory looks like madness to me.

It's economically sound.

If you want to reduce the public debt, you need immigration on a massive scale to do it.

We need to find a way of managing the economy without relying on millions of immigrants.

Why?

Well you're absolutely bang on with this point, a proper debate about immigration is years overdue. It needs to be unprejudiced and allow reasoned debate form both sides of the argument.

Well on the one side of the argument, there is an absolutely overwhelming body of evidence that immigration is a net fiscal and economic benefit to society.

And on the other side of the argument is UKIP.;)

TruckerT

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Or to euthanise the old.

Neither of which would be a palatable option to civilised society.

Well, now you have to define what you mean by 'civilised society'. My definition would be 'a society which requires all of its members to conform to a pre-determined standard'. Infanticide and euthanasia has taken place in many different guises (but please don't ask me to provide evidence - I'm sure the internet will provide the answers which you need).

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Not if we build more of them.

But building more houses will simply reduce their value, won't it?

TruckerT

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

TruckerT wrote: »

But building more houses will simply reduce their value, won't it?

We need to build 250,000 houses a year just to keep up with housing need and hold values at current levels over the long run in real terms.

In addition to that, we need around another million houses to compensate for the last decade of under building.

Building beyond those two parameters would reduce values. Building less will increase values.

TruckerT

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

We need to build 250,000 houses a year just to keep up with housing need and hold values at current levels over the long run in real terms.

In addition to that, we need around another million houses to compensate for the last decade of under building.

Building beyond those two parameters would reduce values. Building less will increase values.

The shock-horror numbers about the housing shortage have been around for years, but there are beds available for pretty well everyone.

Is that what you would call a 'civilised society'?

TruckerT

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

TruckerT wrote: »

The shock-horror numbers about the housing shortage have been around for years, but there are beds available for pretty well everyone.

There is no bedroom shortage, and never has been.

Rising prices and rents will force sufficient people to share that demand and supply equalise.

That's the market allocating goods by price. Exactly as it should.

TruckerT

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

There is no bedroom shortage, and never has been.

Rising prices and rents will force sufficient people to share that demand and supply equalise.

That's the market allocating goods by price. Exactly as it should.

That's what it was like before WW2 - the council houses which were built during the post-war years re-defined 'civilisation', but we are in a phase of (rapid?) regression.

TruckerT

CLAPTON

Young people get older as the years go by

Uk is a self sufficient entity with no shortage of energy or food; no balance of payment problems, no unemployment problems, no housing problems , no infrastructure issues

Young foreigners may well, once they are nicely settled invite, their parents and grandparents to come to the UK to live with them


Obviously Hamish knows that young people don't age and has written guarantees for each and every immigrant that they won't invite (older, unproductive ) family to come and live here.

It's a winner 100,million, 200 million, the more the better (and of course one or two may actually go to Scotland)

tberry6686

Quote:
It's a pyramid scheme,
It's nothing of the sort, and that suggestion is laughable.

Immigration is simply rebalancing demographic profiles to counteract an increase in people living longer, and falling birth rates.

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

Sorry to disagree with you but it is nothing but a pyramid scheme. The only true way out of this situation is to stop spending more than we take in. Basic economics - something every single chancellor should learn before being allowed to take office.

Perhaps if a law was introduced, that could not be revoked that the government of the day could not spend more money than it raised then this pyramid scheme would not be needed

Sampong

michaels wrote: »

Suppose that people are economically productive on average from 20-67 and live to 94.

This means the average person is productive for 47 years (20-70) and needs supporting for 47 years (0-20 and 67-95) so a ratio of 1 year productive for each year requiring support.

Now consider an immigrant who arrives in the coutry at 20. Still provide 47 years of output but only need 27 years of looking after.

Now if each woman on average has less than two children immigration could fill the gap to keep the population stable and would improve the ratio of working years to years requiring support - no need for a spiralling population, migration clearly bringing benefit.

Of course this is just an example of the maths, it is not making any moral / social judgement.

ONS data reveals that Immigrant mothers have a higher birth rate than the rest of the population - they account for a quarter of all births in the England and Wales, so probably not much chance of keeping that "stability".