[callum9999]

I hardly see why this is so surprising... Even doing Geography to GCSE level would have told you that immigration is a good way to counter an aging population - from an economics perspective.

Which is what this report is - an economic report, not a social report. We all get it - a huge number of people hate the idea of foreigners living in this country (particularly those pesky ones who dare look different to us!) - but that is based on personal opinion, and not a scrap of "real science".

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by pr0view)
I'd have to get some lessons from the three main parties on how they managed to keep the floodgates open in a democratic country despite how unpopular the policy has been before I could reply to you with some real insight.

People are far more complacent about immigration than they are about pensions.

I'm not sure i have claimed it would increase employment, my main reason for advocating such a policy is to reduce our reliance on immigration as a demographic gap filler.

Migrants are needed to fill the employment and economic output lacuna caused by the retirement of the baby boomer generation; your policies are, therefore, inextricably connected to this issue of employment and economic output. I posit your suggestion will only make the domestic workforce weaker and cause an even greater reliance on childless migrants.

[jacketpotato]

(Original post by callum9999)
I hardly see why this is so surprising... Even doing Geography to GCSE level would have told you that immigration is a good way to counter an aging population - from an economics perspective.

(Original post by whyumadtho)
Migrants are needed to fill the employment and economic output lacuna caused by the retirement of the baby boomer generation; your policies are, therefore, inextricably connected to this issue of employment and economic output. I posit your suggestion will only make the domestic workforce weaker and cause an even greater reliance on childless migrants.

There is no employment "lacuna" caused by the retirement of the baby boomers. We do not have a shortage of workers - to the contrary, young adults are experiencing high unemployment.

Its not about the fact that baby-boomers have stopped work, its about the fact young people have to subsidise them. Immigration is only a temporary fix. In the short-term immigration provides society with more young people. In the long-term, those immigrants will grow old and we will need yet more young people to pay for their retirement benefits.

Using immigration to address the structural problem of longer life expectancy is basically just a ponzi scheme. It can only work for as long as the country has permanently high immigration and as long as the country's population keeps increasing at the same % rate. As soon as immigration or population increase slow, the house of cards collapses as the ratio of young people to old people reverts to its natural position. When this happens, the pyramid collapses and large tax increases or benefit cuts are required.

Regardless of the merits/problems with immigration, IMO it would be irresponsible for the government to use immigration as a "short term fix" to avoid addressing the difficult issue of how we pay for the elderly.

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by jacketpotato)
There is no employment "lacuna" caused by the retirement of the baby boomers. We do not have employment shortages - to the contrary, young adults are experiencing high unemployment.

Its not about the fact that baby-boomers have stopped work, its about the fact young people have to subsidise them. The subsidy young adults have to pay for the elderly today is much greater than the subsidy paid for the elderly when they were working, because today's elderly draw a pension for longer and consume more healthcare.

Immigration is only a temporary fix. In the short-term immigration provides society with more young people, but eventually young immigrants grow old. They will then need more immigrants to pay for their benefits. Using immigration to addresss long-term structural problems is basically a ponzi scheme: it only works if the country has permanently high immigration and the population keeps increasing at the same % rate. It is not a solution that can work for more than a generation or two, eventually the pyramid will collapse and large tax increases or benefit cuts will be required.

I meant employment in relation to economic output—there needs to be more tax revenue. The full extent of retirement has not yet been felt and this recession isn't permanent.

Resolving the present wave of the pension problem will allow more time to fix the structural issue that you have mentioned.

[jacketpotato]

(Original post by whyumadtho)
I meant employment in relation to economic output—there needs to be more tax revenue.

Resolving the present wave of the pension problem will allow more time to fix the structural issue that you have mentioned.

I think you are right about immigration allowing "more time". The status quo is completely unsustainable, but I have no doubt politicians will use short term solutions like immigration and debt to delay angering old people. The issue probably won't get addressed until it becomes extremely serious in 20-30 years time.

[Cable]

(Original post by jacketpotato)
There is no employment "lacuna" caused by the retirement of the baby boomers. We do not have a shortage of workers - to the contrary, young adults are experiencing high unemployment.

Its not about the fact that baby-boomers have stopped work, its about the fact young people have to subsidise them. Immigration is only a temporary fix. In the short-term immigration provides society with more young people. In the long-term, those immigrants will grow old and we will need yet more young people to pay for their retirement benefits.

Using immigration to address the structural problem of longer life expectancy is basically just a ponzi scheme. It can only work for as long as the country has permanently high immigration and as long as the country's population keeps increasing at the same % rate. As soon as immigration or population increase slow, the house of cards collapses as the ratio of young people to old people reverts to its natural position. When this happens, the pyramid collapses and large tax increases or benefit cuts are required.

Regardless of the merits/problems with immigration, IMO it would be irresponsible for the government to use immigration as a "short term fix" to avoid addressing the difficult issue of how we pay for the elderly.

Spot on. +1.

Nothing else to add really.

[PicardianSocialist]

(Original post by pr0view)
Some people may be able to find work here but in doing so they will be putting someone who was born here out of a job. The same amount of people are still working but instead someone else is now claiming JSA.



Because there are plenty of unemployed people in the UK who can do these jobs and before you said they won't do them well lets just make it clear the government should make them by withdrawing JSA as soon as it is clear a job has been made available to them.

If you increase the supply of labour you don't get unemployment, you get lower wages. If it were otherwise then we ought to be terrified of the world's increasing population. And yes, I'm all for getting rid of JSA.

[icouldntthinkofone]

(Original post by lesley keith)
..........to help improve the "economy."

Do they think the English. Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish people are still dumb enough to fall for this excuse? I am surprised he didn't add "we need more doctors" and "to do they jobs the British won't do."

So current predictions would be England would be minority White by 2066, yet DESPITE knowing this "politicians" such as Osborne are continuing to insist we need MORE immigration.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...g-7939667.html

At least Miliband said Blair got it wrong on EU IMMIGRATION.........oh wait Millipede....i just realized........what about the NON EU IMMIGRATION

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...gration-labour

If we start investing in our infrastructure (and this is the first government since the early 1970s to announce serious transport improvements...) then why is this a problem?

The UK has endless free space, there is plenty of opportunity to start building upwards in UK city's - making more effective use of space. Assuming train links/road networks improve, it needent negatively affect quality of life.

And if the UK wants to remain relevant, in a world of 400m Americans (2050), 1.4 billion Chinese, 1.75 billion Indians, then you are going to need a strong economy, which does require immigration...

Or else, we become irrelevant, much like say Switzerland or Austria on the world stage. At least as a sizable island, with a very high GDP per capita (predicted to be top 3 by many analysts by 2050), then we can try and influence global events, agreements etc, by leveraging our relationship with the US, European countries.

[Helliconia]

(Original post by icouldntthinkofone)
If we start investing in our infrastructure (and this is the first government since the early 1970s to announce serious transport improvements...) then why is this a problem?

The UK has endless free space, there is plenty of opportunity to start building upwards in UK city's - making more effective use of space. Assuming train links/road networks improve, it needent negatively affect quality of life.

And if the UK wants to remain relevant, in a world of 400m Americans (2050), 1.4 billion Chinese, 1.75 billion Indians, then you are going to need a strong economy, which does require immigration...

Or else, we become irrelevant, much like say Switzerland or Austria on the world stage. At least as a sizable island, with a very high GDP per capita (predicted to be top 3 by many analysts by 2050), then we can try and influence global events, agreements etc, by leveraging our relationship with the US, European countries.

Not necessarily. To keep the status quo of wealth inequality then sure we do, but it is not necessary to a strong economy, as many countries throughout history can attest to.

Also, just because the country can sustain more people, doesnt mean it should.

[de_monies]

(Original post by lesley keith)
At least Miliband said Blair got it wrong on EU IMMIGRATION.........oh wait Millipede....i just realized........what about the NON EU IMMIGRATION

Um, it's Non EU immigration which has been capped. It's EU immigration which is the "problem" I however would seriously not be surprised if in about 50-70 years, we have an influx of immigrants to work when the economy is full of us oldies

See the Japan issue. Japan now realises that they HAVE to allow immigration, in order to care for it's population and bring in revenue

[de_monies]

(Original post by bmqib)
Yup, just be selective about who you allow in. Kick out the non contributing immigrants if you have to.

What do you define as an immigrant?

Say, you get a Polish dentist, who is quite obviously paying a lot of tax over their lifetime and they have a son/daughter who is just quite lazy, but is considered British and they see themselves as British. Do you kick them out?

[de_monies]

(Original post by pr0view)
I'm sure we could find a fix rather than use it as a pathetic excuse to keep shipping in immigrants.

Well, the solution for that is not something we want. It would be decrease the use of technology, decrease health care, ban contraception, decrease education and ban female education, ban all "knowledge" jobs, make most jobs agricultural etc...

That would make people have more kids yes, and the whole not having as many kids thing, it's seen the whole world over

[de_monies]

(Original post by Helliconia)
Not necessarily. To keep the status quo of wealth inequality then sure we do, but it is not necessary to a strong economy, as many countries throughout history can attest to.

Also, just because the country can sustain more people, doesnt mean it should.

I think it's fair to say that modern countries are nothing like countries of the past. The 20th and 21st century have been real turners in our history. Japan's realised that their population can not or soon will not be able to work, due to old age

People don't exactly die at the age of 40 any more

[Helliconia]

(Original post by de_monies)
What do you define as an immigrant?

Say, you get a Polish dentist, who is quite obviously paying a lot of tax over their lifetime and they have a son/daughter who is just quite lazy, but is considered British and they see themselves as British. Do you kick them out?

Well they would be a british citizen (or should i say subject? ) so no, they wouldnt be kicked out.

(Original post by de_monies)
I think it's fair to say that modern countries are nothing like countries of the past. The 20th and 21st century have been real turners in our history. Japan's realised that their population can not or soon will not be able to work, due to old age

People don't exactly die at the age of 40 any more

Like i say, to keep the status quo of massive wealth inequality (and thus a heavy reliance on the state in later life), then yes, increased immigration is needed, or another baby boom. My point however, is that it is not necessary to a strong economy, which is the point i was referring to.

[Miryo]

if your complaining about these immigrants taking your jobs, you must be pretty dam rubbish if your getting replaced by these "low skilled" immigrants as your calling them.

[de_monies]

(Original post by Helliconia)
Well they would be a british citizen (or should i say subject? ) so no, they wouldnt be kicked out.

With all due fairness, that comment was not directed at yourself

[RowingGoose]

(Original post by NB_ide)
More unemployed people makes the whole country better off. OP is a racist scumbag.

How?

[icouldntthinkofone]

(Original post by Helliconia)
Not necessarily. To keep the status quo of wealth inequality then sure we do, but it is not necessary to a strong economy, as many countries throughout history can attest to.

Also, just because the country can sustain more people, doesnt mean it should.

Your last point - sure - I agree. That's what I meant when I was talking about investing in infrastructure so quality of life doesn't suffer - which it has done over the last 10 years...

Your first point makes you sound like you have read a lot of Marxist historians - aware of it or not. Unfortunately, whether people like to accept it or not, it is just reality that the countries with wealth and GDP are more likely to shape global events, and negotiations, than those which are not so important.

So for example, the EU recently basically said all phone manufactures must use a common interface for mobile phone chargers. Most manufacturers have adopted the micro USB connection because of this, and all will in a few years...this means people wont have to bin their chargers when they change phones etc...

If a small, relatively poor did this, no-body would care and probably, a lot of co's would simply not operate in that country...

But because the EU is such a monumental market - all phone manufacturers are aware of it. The same is true on a smaller scale, with the UK. Almost every (but not all...) car is manufactured in right hand drive versions, as the UK is a significant enough market (even for car manufacturers historically operating just in Europe) for people to sell in the market.

In the same way, by being considered a globally significant country (G20) or a 'major power' (G7 with very high GDP per capita), when the UK talks about say climate change at the UN, other countries are more likely to pay attention...

[Helliconia]

(Original post by de_monies)
With all due fairness, that comment was not directed at yourself

Yes i know, just thought id reply because i knew the answer, sorry.

(Original post by Miryo)
if your complaining about these immigrants taking your jobs, you must be pretty dam rubbish if your getting replaced by these "low skilled" immigrants as your calling them.

Who's complaining? Immigrants arent employed over british people because they are 'better', its because they are willing to accept lower rates of pay, and thus employers can get away with paying as low wages as they possibly can.

[de_monies]

(Original post by Helliconia)
Like i say, to keep the status quo of massive wealth inequality (and thus a heavy reliance on the state in later life), then yes, increased immigration is needed, or another baby boom. My point however, is that it is not necessary to a strong economy, which is the point i was referring to.

See, the thing is I do think that in 50-70 years time, we will either need a baby boom or immigration, to care for us oldies, and to bring in revenue - governments listen to pensioners. Japan is already having issues with it's population

I don't think it takes a genius to figure out that an economy comprised mostly of young people is going to be stronger than an economy comprised mainly of old people. By young I mean 18-50