National debt would soar if immigration reduced...

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Actually I was referring to the point that we don't pay for their birth and childhood, so immigrants cost society less than the native born.

The children of immigrants cost us the same as the children of the native born. But as we need more children anyway, that's not really an issue, and doesn't change the fact immigrants are a net fiscal benefit to society.

OK, so theres a "quick fix" issue there.

But as you say, immigrants have babies. The people having babies will require pensions.

You can only do your "quick fix" once. We don't have the space to keep importing millions of 20 year old immigrants ripe for working, but having had their education paid for elsewhere.

So it appears your solution is a VERY short term one covering probably a decade's worth of problems.

So what happens then? How do we, if we have a problem paying our own pensions, pay for all the immigrants pensions in 50 years time, aswell as the eductation and healthcare costs for them and their children?

Essentially you are back to square one. Having saved one generation probably a decades worth of pension issues, you've created an even bigger headache for everyone else.

Funnily enough though, that decade would sort me and you out. I'm sure the timing of this is all just co-incidence?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

kabayiri wrote: »

There is no doubt we are living in an area of free movement of Labour.

Is there a rate of change which is acceptable to society though?

The panic stories we see in the press arise through a lack of planning.

Surely we should build new infrastructure before large numbers of people arrive?

The government under Labour were woefully inept at estimating numbers and tracking people in general. It is little wonder services have come under such pressure.

Ah.... Finally.

A well thought out response.

I'd actually agree with much of that.

We do need to build more modern and better infrastructure. We'll need to anyway, as most of ours dates to Victorian times, but it would be helpful to see that process accelerated.

The panic stories we see in the press however, are largely blown out of all proportion to sell copies, as the press know full well that a significant minority of people are frightened of change and such stories appeal to their insecurities.

What really needs to happen in this country is for political leaders to stop pandering to the anti-immigration feelings of a significant minority to get elected while then quietly dropping or fudging their promises once in government as they know full well the catastrophic effects that would occur if they actually did what they said they would.

We need a grown up debate that clearly explains to the masses the benefits of immigration, and just as clearly explains the fairly horrific economic and social consequences of meaningfully reducing immigration.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

kabayiri wrote: »

A dispassionate analysis would be helpful to know the true state of affairs.

Agreed.

Can we agree on an income figure whereby someone becomes a net contributor? Either individual or family unit?

We probably could.

But it's also more complicated than that.

We will need more people to physically care for the elderly as well as to keep our economy and tax revenue at a size large enough to support the ageing population.

The old "many hands make light work" argument.

Not all of these people will be net fiscal contributors. But their participation is vital regardless.

For example, pavements and roads need to be gritted, swept, etc. Lawns need to be mowed. Fruit needs to be picked. Public toilets need to be cleaned.

Those are low paying jobs requiring unskilled workers.

But they'll need to be done regardless of whether the person doing them is a 'net contributor'.

The shortage of physical labour created by an ageing population will be that of low skilled and low paid, as much as that of high skilled and high paid.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

But as you say, immigrants have babies.

Well, good.... We need more babies.

You can only do your "quick fix" once. We don't have the space to keep importing millions of 20 year old immigrants ripe for working, but having had their education paid for elsewhere.

We most certainly do have the space.

More land is used for grazing horses in this country than for housing people.

I'm not particularly upset if a few less little Henrys and Henriettas can't have their rich daddy buy them a pony....

But instead the economy and society get to thrive and prosper for the next 50 years.

Selfish of me, I know.....:o

So it appears your solution is a VERY short term one covering probably a decade's worth of problems.

The OBR have run the numbers for 50 years.

Half a century is hardly a "VERY" short term solution.

Chances are we'll both be dead by then anyway.

And if Kabayiri is right then the generations after that will all be cared for by robots and never have to work so it won't matter.:p

kabayiri

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

...
And if Kabayiri is right then the generations after that will all be cared for by robots and never have to work so it won't matter.:p

Finally....we arrive. You saved me typing

It's the wrong way of looking at the problem though.

An analogy. Early generations of automobile were pretty unreliable, break downs were not uncommon.

Technology has allowed us to proactively maintain cars, and anticipate when parts might fail.

There is no reason why we can not do the same for humans.

We need to reduce the amount of manpower needed to look after people, not increase it. The amount of money the state spends on welfare and health is in danger of running out of control.

Immigration does not solve that problem. We need to be smarter.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

kabayiri wrote: »

Early generations of automobile were pretty unreliable, break downs were not uncommon.

Technology has allowed us to proactively maintain cars, and anticipate when parts might fail.

There is no reason why we can not do the same for humans.

It's taken over 100 years to get to where cars are as reliable as they are today.

Proactively maintaining the far more complicated machine that is a human is proving a tad more difficult.

The elderly live longer now for sure, which is a big part of the imbalanced population issue, but are still frail and mostly have diminished capacity.

It is unlikely that will realistically change in the short to mid term.

We need to reduce the amount of manpower needed to look after people, not increase it. The amount of money the state spends on welfare and health is in danger of running out of control.

So invent the tools that enable us to do that, roll them out in a cost effective manner, and then come back and have this conversation.

Because until that happens, there really is no other choice.

Immigration does not solve that problem. .

Immigration solves the problem of today and the next 50 years.

Buying time for us to find a different solution, such as your robots, and implement it.

What we absolutely can't afford to do though, is not use the proven and implementable solution we have now and for the next 50 years, and blindly hope another solution is invented in time.

Risking the welfare and prosperity of society to pander to the anti-immigration lobby would be reckless and dangerous.

grizzly1911

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Risking the welfare and prosperity of society to pander to the anti-immigration lobby would be reckless and dangerous.

In your opinion.

We still have close to 2.5million people formally unemployed.

We probably have 3- 4 times that amount underemployed or not classed as unemployed. We have something like 1million unemployed youngsters.

Balanced immigration has a place but there are elements in our current model that are under utilised.

Being a more effective UK in the first place would seem a good place to start.

CLAPTON

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Immigration solves the problem of today and the next 50 years.

Buying time for us to find a different solution, such as your robots, and implement it.

What we absolutely can't afford to do though, is not use the proven and implementable solution we have now and for the next 50 years, and blindly hope another solution is invented in time.

Risking the welfare and prosperity of society to pander to the anti-immigration lobby would be reckless and dangerous.

The OBR figures clearly show that there is no significant problem until at least 2040

so we have plenty of time to see what the next 25 years bring

Loughton_Monkey

To keep our trains running, we need the right sort of snow and the right sort of leaves on the line. To get healthy economic growth, we need the right sort of GDP growth, the right sort of debt and the right sort of inflation.....

So it is with immigration. It needs to be the 'right sort' of immigration.

I give you two scenarios. Both highly exaggerated to make the point:

1. Immigration gathers huge pace from 1/1/2014 with 260,000 new people from Eastern Europe. They spurn normal conventions and choose to live on land that's either free or can be 'squatted upon' and use ancient wooden or dilpidated caravans. The men will generally forge a living by doing shoddy tarmac work to local unsophisticated households, and dealing in scrap metal/horsemeat the provenance of which is dubious..... No taxes are paid. Social Security is claimed. Use of schools is sporadic, the children generally being used to do menial tasks instead of being educated, but the NHS is used to the full.

2. Alternatively, immigration reaches 260,000 from a complete mixture of American, Australian, Indian, Chinese and other Asian sources. Those of working age tend to come with above average education and vocational skills, and easily secure jobs in medicine, finance, technical and scientific industries. Their children are avidly educated and with the propensity to save, money is available for capital to be invested in small businesses with the result that access to benefits is very 'light' and their retired/working/child ratios are 'sustainable'.

Now at what point - in the middle of these two extremes - are the OBR drawing their assumptions?

kabayiri

3. Rich multi-millionaires from emerging nations like Russia, who have grown weary of the locals trying to abduct them for high ransoms. Preferably people who are fond of being seen in the best designer gear purchased from London stores, and feasting in our best restaurants.

Your average impoverished Romanian is more likely to be seen haggling over the price of a Gregg's "Xmas special" pasty with the weary staff.