[Helliconia]

(Original post by de_monies)
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

And i agree with you. We will have to have mass immigration to keep the status quo.

(Original post by icouldntthinkofone)
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...

Not at all, even if i had i cant see the problem with that, marx is very interesting. I have, however, studied the history of, what we call today, free market capitalism, and can tell you that mass immigration was not a necessary factor in most countries economic growth.

No offence, but i dont see what the rest of your post has to do with my post. However...The UK is a waning power in terms of international influence, and has been since the end of WWII. The structure of our economy and its massive bias towards the financial sector is what will ultimately see us off the international scene, or at least be reliant on the EU behemoth. Its a shame to an extent, because as a relatively liberal country we could do some good in the world, but im not sure i really care that much tbh.

[Llamageddon]

just an fyi call for the plebs that can't read:

OBR isn't actually an abbreviation of Osborne. It's an abbreviation of the OFFICE FOR BUDGET RESPONSIBILITY who are INDEPENDENT, give ADVICE and FORECASTS but do not LEGISLATE because they are not ELECTED MPS.

[besarlalluvia]

I'm not an expert on this topic, but I'd just like to add that my mother is a manager for one of the top cleaning services provider (MITIE), and there have only ever been about two British people applying for the cleaner positions so far (well over five years). Thus, pretty much all the cleaners are immigrants.

[Miryo]

(Original post by Helliconia)
Yes i know, just thought id reply because i knew the answer, sorry.



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.

Accept a lower wage then, it is a free market. And employers are xoncerned with productivity, how much output they get per unit input. So if you are better skilled than them, you should be getting the jobs even with a higher wage.

[NB_ide]

(Original post by RowingGoose)
How?

Are you a racist?

[RowingGoose]

(Original post by NB_ide)
Are you a racist?

No. I was asking how "more unemployed people makes the whole country better off"

[NB_ide]

(Original post by RowingGoose)
No. I was asking how "more unemployed people makes the whole country better off"

Higher population is a GOOD thing. There is a lot of land being wasted as countryside at the moment and studies have shown that the UK alone could home 500 million people comfortably. Stop being so selfish.

[Observatory]

It's difficult to reduce to economics what is ultimately a social and ideological issue. A lot of people would rather have a country that is full of people who look like them and have similar life experiences to them, but that has less money for state pensions, than live in a country in which they are generously provided for by people they regard as foreign. Similarly many people think that living in a country with lots of people who look different and have different life experiences is good regardless of economics.

I think a lot of it could be solved with simply better and more intelligent filters on who is allowed to immigrate. On the whole, people do not like immigrants with overly strange or divisive religious and ideological views, and like immigrants who adapt to the indigenous culture and live more or less like them. A lot of this could be solved simply by offering expedited citizenship to irreligious people here on student visas, or who already hold good degrees, and making that the main route for immigration.

[TheHansa]

(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.

Abso-bloody-lootly. Something has to change so people are supporting themselves throughout their old age or that their children are doing it for them, because using it to balance out the population cannot work as a long term strategy, it's simply impossible.

(Original post by Observatory)
It's difficult to reduce to economics what is ultimately a social and ideological issue. A lot of people would rather have a country that is full of people who look like them and have similar life experiences to them, but that has less money for state pensions, than live in a country in which they are generously provided for by people they regard as foreign. Similarly many people think that living in a country with lots of people who look different and have different life experiences is good regardless of economics.

I think a lot of it could be solved with simply better and more intelligent filters on who is allowed to immigrate. On the whole, people do not like immigrants with overly strange or divisive religious and ideological views, and like immigrants who adapt to the indigenous culture and live more or less like them. A lot of this could be solved simply by offering expedited citizenship to irreligious people here on student visas, or who already hold good degrees, and making that the main route for immigration.

It's the opposite, people care more about leading a middle class life throughout their entire lives than living in a homogenous country, but as jacketpotato said it's nothing more than a Ponzi scheme.

[RowingGoose]

(Original post by NB_ide)
Higher population is a GOOD thing. There is a lot of land being wasted as countryside at the moment and studies have shown that the UK alone could home 500 million people comfortably. Stop being so selfish.

Why are you trying to start an argument? You said more UNEMPLOYED people is a good thing i.e. people without a job, and I was simply asking why you thought that?

And now you have gone on to a higher population.... population and unemployment are two totally different things!

[Observatory]

(Original post by TheHansa)
It's the opposite, people care more about leading a middle class life throughout their entire lives than living in a homogenous country, but as jacketpotato said it's nothing more than a Ponzi scheme.

I don't see how these are "opposites". How does the presence of immigrants stop natives living a middle class life anyway?

[ThisIsTheLife]

(Original post by PicardianSocialist)
Why exactly is immigration a bad thing again?

Because a sizeable proportion of immigrants do more TAKING from the economy than GIVING, and they also refuse to leave their backward cultures at the entrance on their way in.

Additionally, there's only so much space on this tiny island before our cities start becoming uncomfortable to live in (like London already is). I don't want to end up like Japan, and with our birth rates already providing more people, year on year, adding immigration (people from cultures with even higher birth rates) is only going to exacerbate.

[TheHansa]

(Original post by Observatory)
I don't see how these are "opposites". How does the presence of immigrants stop natives living a middle class life anyway?

I meant people don't want to take a reduction to their pensions so the government allows immigrants in to make up what they haven't paid in, during their working lives. Most people overlook that the immigrant population won't want to take a reduction to their pensions when they get old, who can blame them, so I don't know what the government at that point will offer as a solution.

[Observatory]

(Original post by TheHansa)
I meant people don't want to take a reduction to their pensions so the government allows immigrants in to make up what they haven't paid in, during their working lives. Most people overlook that the immigrant population won't want to take a reduction to their pensions when they get old, who can blame them, so I don't know what the government at that point will offer as a solution.

You're pretty optimistic if you think the state pension is going to give you a middle class standard of living in any plausible scenario. Keeping it at subsistence level might be a fairer goal. Personally I think the whole thing is silly - people need to pay for their own retirement. Immigration has nothing to do with it. The problem is governments hardly care what is going to happen in 4 years let alone 40.

[PicardianSocialist]

(Original post by ThisIsTheLife)

Because a sizeable proportion of immigrants do more TAKING from the economy than GIVING, and they also refuse to leave their backward cultures at the entrance on their way in.

How exactly are immigrants "taking" from the economy?

[ThisIsTheLife]

(Original post by PicardianSocialist)
How exactly are immigrants "taking" from the economy?

By showing up without qualifications, refusing to get jobs, having tonnes of children who do just the same and ending up on the myriad benefits we offer in this country.

And I didn't say all immigrants - I said a sizeable proportion.

[ConnorB]

He may be right in theory, but it's not a sustainable solution!

[PicardianSocialist]

(Original post by ThisIsTheLife)
By showing up without qualifications, refusing to get jobs, having tonnes of children who do just the same and ending up on the myriad benefits we offer in this country.

And I didn't say all immigrants - I said a sizeable proportion.

Then that's a problem with the welfare state, not with immigration.

[JacobW]

Whatever the merits of the economic case for increased immigration, this comment strikes me as symptomatic of the calculating, technocratic approach to issues of immense cultural and social importance adopted by far too many politicians. The half-hearted utilitarianism implicit in this approach is not in any way value neutral as technocrats like to pretend; and the impact of immigration cannot be measured by its contribution to GDP. I think it's incredibly difficult for a society to develop in any kind of organic way when it has no power to prevent hoards of foreigners from importing alien values whenever they wish, to say nothing about the social tension immigration causes.

[FreeHat]

(Original post by PicardianSocialist)
Why exactly is immigration a bad thing again?

Because they come from 3rd world countries? Most don't have the capacity to perform any roles beyond menial jobs.