We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Labour people, its time to dump Corbyn
Comments
-
Do you want to put a cost on the extra infrastructure consumed by the average migrant then? And the cost in total for that infrastructure?
I bet you 20p the former as a percentage of the latter is near zero.
there are 8 million immigrant in the UK
are you saying that they cost nothing and the costs are all due to the othe 58 million people
are you saying immigrants don't live in houses?
or use public services
you clearly have no understanding of average v marginal costs0 -
there are 8 million immigrant in the UK
are you saying that they cost nothing and the costs are all due to the othe 58 million people
are you saying immigrants don't live in houses?
or use public services
you clearly have no understanding of average v marginal costs
I think we should assume that infrastructure per migrant is much higher than average population.
Most Migrants live in London (3 million), infrastructure costs in London are far far higher than anywhere else. Cross Rail alone is estimated at £7 billion.
The news today is full of information about the consequences of losing some infrastructure, any guesses how London would have coped had the population been 3 million smaller?0 -
there are 8 million immigrant in the UK
are you saying that they cost nothing and the costs are all due to the othe 58 million people
are you saying immigrants don't live in houses?
or use public services
you clearly have no understanding of average v marginal costs[/QUOTE]
They make up about 13% of the population? If so, they consume about 13% of the cost of infrastructure. Less, actually, since they are less likely to be old and using a disproportionate amount of NHS time.
Remove all of the migrants, and you'll still find your houses are too expensive, that your public transport is a joke, and so on.
How hard is that to understand?
No, I'm just not abusing it to further my agenda.you clearly have no understanding of average v marginal costs0 -
you clearly have no understanding of average v marginal costsThey make up about 13% of the population? If so, they consume about 13% of the cost of infrastructure. Less, actually, since they are less likely to be old and using a disproportionate amount of NHS time.
Remove all of the migrants, and you'll still find your houses are too expensive, that your public transport is a joke, and so on.
How hard is that to understand?
no difference to our balance of trade?
No, I'm just not abusing it to further my agenda.
you genuinely think that 8 million less people would make no difference to housing availablity and price.
no difference to the overcrowding of our roads and railways?0 -
They make up about 13% of the population? If so, they consume about 13% of the cost of infrastructure. Less, actually, since they are less likely to be old and using a disproportionate amount of NHS time.
Remove all of the migrants, and you'll still find your houses are too expensive, that your public transport is a joke, and so on.
How hard is that to understand?
No, I'm just not abusing it to further my agenda.
It's not a straight 13% for 13% is it... come on.
My wife is able to get work whenever she wants as a translator, in the courts, in the NHS, in most walks of life due to the language barriers FoM has presented. You may argue that it's economic activity, I would say that it's additional cost that wouldn't be there if the migrants spoke the native language. Then consider all the public service signage that's been put into multiple languages. Do you think the tender for signage would be cheaper for the taxpayer if it was only one language required? What about support in schools for children whose first language isn't English? Yes it is another job that wouldn't have existed if there wasn't a need for it, but that job is paid out of the taxpayer pot. So there's less to go around. What about all the low cost trades men and women who work for pennies on the pound, cash in hand more often than not? If they're not in the tax system then they're only taking out of it if they have children in school or they need medical attention. What about how council tax works? When these people are happy to live 5 to a 2 bed house, they're paying the same rates as a family of 3 next door. Yet they'll be using more council services than the family of 3, but they're paying the same.
There's no way that low paid migrants are a net contributors to the economy. If they're even paying tax at all.0 -
13% for 13% is a gross oversimplification. As is the notion that adding 1 million immigrants results in about a 1.6% increase in people and corresponding 1.6% increased strain on stuff (that's near zero, in statistical terms).
Sure, some migrants will need translators, some will need additional signage, some won't be paying tax. But plenty of them pay tax and read/speak English better than the locals.
There are also plenty of elderly locals that need additional care, and plenty of locals that need help with reading/writing, or don't pay tax.you genuinely think that 8 million less people would make no difference to housing availablity and price.
no difference to the overcrowding of our roads and railways?
No. I think 8 million less people will mean about 13% less demand for stuff, which will mean about 13*% less people on public transport, 13*% less demand for housing. So that'd push house prices down a bit, but they'd still be unaffordable to most. Trains would still be overcrowded and so on. None of the problems you're complaining about would actually be solved.
*Simplified. There's obviously much more nuanced impacts on housing and public transport depending on exactly which stations are losing the population.0 -
13% for 13% is a gross oversimplification. As is the notion that adding 1 million immigrants results in about a 1.6% increase in people and corresponding 1.6% increased strain on stuff (that's near zero, in statistical terms).
No. I think 8 million less people will mean about 13% less demand for stuff, which will mean about 13*% less people on public transport, 13*% less demand for housing. So that'd push house prices down a bit, but they'd still be unaffordable to most. Trains would still be overcrowded and so on. None of the problems you're complaining about would actually be solved.
*Simplified. There's obviously much more nuanced impacts on housing and public transport depending on exactly which stations are losing the population.
It's not near zero...
It would only be near zero if the incoming population was spread out evenly. Do you honestly think they are spread out in the way you've implied?
I'm sure if you could graph (heat map) the concentration of migrant settlement you would see that the impact is much more severe because they're not choosing to settle in Skegness over London/Birmingham/etc...0 -
13% for 13% is a gross oversimplification. As is the notion that adding 1 million immigrants results in about a 1.6% increase in people and corresponding 1.6% increased strain on stuff (that's near zero, in statistical terms).
Sure, some migrants will need translators, some will need additional signage, some won't be paying tax. But plenty of them pay tax and read/speak English better than the locals.
There are also plenty of elderly locals that need additional care, and plenty of locals that need help with reading/writing, or don't pay tax.
No. I think 8 million less people will mean about 13% less demand for stuff, which will mean about 13*% less people on public transport, 13*% less demand for housing. So that'd push house prices down a bit, but they'd still be unaffordable to most. Trains would still be overcrowded and so on. None of the problems you're complaining about would actually be solved.
*Simplified. There's obviously much more nuanced impacts on housing and public transport depending on exactly which stations are losing the population.
thank goodness, you aren't responsible for planning a pint of beer in a brewery0 -
TrickyTree83 wrote: »It's not near zero...
It would only be near zero if the incoming population was spread out evenly. Do you honestly think they are spread out in the way you've implied?
I'm sure if you could graph (heat map) the concentration of migrant settlement you would see that the impact is much more severe because they're not choosing to settle in Skegness over London/Birmingham/etc...
Oh it's definitely not going to be an even spread, I never said it was.
Fullfact has the annual EU migration numbers as about 300,000 (https://fullfact.org/immigration/eu-migration-and-uk/), so we're talking about an annual EU based population growth of approximately 0.46% of the population every year (3.3% if you only count London).
If they all land in the same town, that'll cause some real problems, but they won't.
The strain EU migration is putting on our infrastructure is negligible.0 -
Oh it's definitely not going to be an even spread, I never said it was.
Fullfact has the annual EU migration numbers as about 300,000 (https://fullfact.org/immigration/eu-migration-and-uk/), so we're talking about an annual EU based population growth of approximately 0.46% of the population every year (3.3% if you only count London).
If they all land in the same town, that'll cause some real problems, but they won't.
The strain EU migration is putting on our infrastructure is negligible.
I'll simply say that the fact that classrooms full of English as a second language students exist is a testament to the impact of migration on our infrastructure. If this situation can exist why are all other situations where migration puts a strain on services and infrastructure thrown out?
Quite obviously they shouldn't be, and the impact is then obviously not negligible either. It might be negligible if you live in the home counties, or a town or village. Certainly not elsewhere in the inner cities and the cheaper towns of the UK (particularly England).0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards