Can the pros and cons of immigration be measured solely by money?
In response to the swelling unpopularity of mass immigration here in Britain, many people like to point to the enormous financial contribution that they (supposedly) have given our country, as shown by last week's report from UCL.
However, can you justify immigration with just one number: £20bn?
This figure does not recognise:
-The enormous stretch on house prices which could keep our generation off the ladder permanently.
-The enormous pressure on the NHS, which is now at breaking point.
-The huge pressure on jobs; it is thought that 26 existing residents will become unemployed for every 100 immigrants which enter the country.
-The displeasure of having a local area transform into a ghetto of immigrants from the same background, where no attempts are made to integrate with the native community.
- The increased crime rates which inevitably come with some 3rd world migrants.
- The threats to the nation's security which foreign cultures bring with them (e.g. Sharia law and Jihad)
On the other hand, non monetary benefits of immigration include:
-Enrichment of diverse culture (if you see this as a good thing)
-Filling in genuine skills gaps
-Individuals who give a lot to the local communities
-Individuals who introduce effective, foreign derived initiative in our industries.
Most voters will not vote for a pro-immigration party because the £20bn contribution which immigrants have made has never been shared out amongst them.
Businesses do way better out of mass immigration than people do. (And even then, only about 63% of businesses support it!)
But what do you think?
However, can you justify immigration with just one number: £20bn?
This figure does not recognise:
-The enormous stretch on house prices which could keep our generation off the ladder permanently.
-The enormous pressure on the NHS, which is now at breaking point.
-The huge pressure on jobs; it is thought that 26 existing residents will become unemployed for every 100 immigrants which enter the country.
-The displeasure of having a local area transform into a ghetto of immigrants from the same background, where no attempts are made to integrate with the native community.
- The increased crime rates which inevitably come with some 3rd world migrants.
- The threats to the nation's security which foreign cultures bring with them (e.g. Sharia law and Jihad)
On the other hand, non monetary benefits of immigration include:
-Enrichment of diverse culture (if you see this as a good thing)
-Filling in genuine skills gaps
-Individuals who give a lot to the local communities
-Individuals who introduce effective, foreign derived initiative in our industries.
Most voters will not vote for a pro-immigration party because the £20bn contribution which immigrants have made has never been shared out amongst them.
Businesses do way better out of mass immigration than people do. (And even then, only about 63% of businesses support it!)
But what do you think?
(edited 9 years ago)
Scroll to see replies
In a word? No.
All of your negative points are valid. Add to that wage compression, which is very tangible these days.
I guess I'll have a stab at analysing the positives...
Enrichment of diverse culture. This can be good, but it just isn't in the volume we see it today. This process takes decades, as it has in the past. The migration of people from all over the Empire, and later the Commonwealth, was slow, limited, and took place over generations. Their cultural traits gradually melded into our own, to form what we call British today. Since 1997, and particularly 2004, we've seen a sharp increase in net migration in a very short amount of time. There has been no time for immigrants to adapt. Instead, they've fragmented into, as you listed above, ghetto-like communities, with no desire to integrate. There is currently no practical reason to integrate. As an immigrant, you can exist perfectly well within your own social circles, with friends or state-sponsored translators at the ready should you ever need to sort something out in English. This is a non-argument, in my opinion, as for enrichment to take place, you must have integration first, right? There is also a difference between gradual enrichment and the sudden introduction of (sometimes) vastly different, immediately incompatible cultures. Forced multiculturalism will never work.
Filling in genuine skill gaps. There is a huge grey area here, and cannot be argued successfully by either the pro or anti-(European)immigration movements. Yes and no is as close as either will get. However, on the whole, logic favours the anti stance. Yes, there is a skill shortage in very specialised fields (mostly medical), but for most things, we already have the necessary skill set. The question for employers is pay. Immigrants simply have lower expectations when it comes to pay, and are perfectly happy to work for less. Any of you reading this ever been to an Eastern European country? Well, you can live very comfortably there on money which wouldn't buy much here. This leads to British people being slowly priced out of the jobs market. The average wage isn't rising below inflation because the economy is still struggling; the main problem is overpopulation, which allows for more low-mid skilled jobs have lower pay attached to them.
Individuals who give a lot to local communities. This has nothing to do with immigration. Pillars of communities were already present, and it is ludicrous to suggest that immigration is necessary to have figureheads like this at a local level. If anything, the trend is that migrants keep to themselves. Only with 2nd/3rd generation immigrants do we see more community engagement, but even then...not really. Community leaders are on the decline, for both good and bad reasons. As for things like community efforts, migrants rarely engage in these either, as they are not invested into the community in the same way that someone who grew up there is. It is far more likely that someone who was born in a community would want to help better it than someone who moved there (often) temporarily. This is also a non-argument, in my opinion. I live in a community with plenty of migrants, and I can tell you..they don't do anything to benefit the larger community whatsoever.
Individuals who introduce effective, foreign derived initiative to our industries. Again, yes and no. While there is expertise and problem solving that is valuable from outside the UK, do we really need mass immigration for this? No. There are people paid to improve industry already. The average migrant worked has nothing to say in his workplace, either because it's already as efficient as practically possible, or because he doesn't know, or because he doesn't care. Besides, we are the UK. One of the most forward countries in the world in terms of problem solving. We already have expertise and foreign trade links. Foreign business are lining up to trade with us, we don't need to go looking for them. Non-argument again.
Your bottom point hits the nail on the head. High level immigration directly benefits big business and corporations. Almost nobody else. Anybody who says otherwise is either in the 'almost' section of the population, or has hardline political ideas impermeable to logic and real-world statistics. It's all very well bouncing figures off the walls, but these figures are often manipulated anyway. I doubt they take things such as overseas child benefit, for example, into account. Even assuming they're not, you're right in stating that there's more to the issue of immigration than just a number. £20bn is spitting in a bucket for the UK economy anyway. And if it doesn't benefit the public, it cannot be seen as a net benefit to the UK.
All of your negative points are valid. Add to that wage compression, which is very tangible these days.
I guess I'll have a stab at analysing the positives...
Enrichment of diverse culture. This can be good, but it just isn't in the volume we see it today. This process takes decades, as it has in the past. The migration of people from all over the Empire, and later the Commonwealth, was slow, limited, and took place over generations. Their cultural traits gradually melded into our own, to form what we call British today. Since 1997, and particularly 2004, we've seen a sharp increase in net migration in a very short amount of time. There has been no time for immigrants to adapt. Instead, they've fragmented into, as you listed above, ghetto-like communities, with no desire to integrate. There is currently no practical reason to integrate. As an immigrant, you can exist perfectly well within your own social circles, with friends or state-sponsored translators at the ready should you ever need to sort something out in English. This is a non-argument, in my opinion, as for enrichment to take place, you must have integration first, right? There is also a difference between gradual enrichment and the sudden introduction of (sometimes) vastly different, immediately incompatible cultures. Forced multiculturalism will never work.
Filling in genuine skill gaps. There is a huge grey area here, and cannot be argued successfully by either the pro or anti-(European)immigration movements. Yes and no is as close as either will get. However, on the whole, logic favours the anti stance. Yes, there is a skill shortage in very specialised fields (mostly medical), but for most things, we already have the necessary skill set. The question for employers is pay. Immigrants simply have lower expectations when it comes to pay, and are perfectly happy to work for less. Any of you reading this ever been to an Eastern European country? Well, you can live very comfortably there on money which wouldn't buy much here. This leads to British people being slowly priced out of the jobs market. The average wage isn't rising below inflation because the economy is still struggling; the main problem is overpopulation, which allows for more low-mid skilled jobs have lower pay attached to them.
Individuals who give a lot to local communities. This has nothing to do with immigration. Pillars of communities were already present, and it is ludicrous to suggest that immigration is necessary to have figureheads like this at a local level. If anything, the trend is that migrants keep to themselves. Only with 2nd/3rd generation immigrants do we see more community engagement, but even then...not really. Community leaders are on the decline, for both good and bad reasons. As for things like community efforts, migrants rarely engage in these either, as they are not invested into the community in the same way that someone who grew up there is. It is far more likely that someone who was born in a community would want to help better it than someone who moved there (often) temporarily. This is also a non-argument, in my opinion. I live in a community with plenty of migrants, and I can tell you..they don't do anything to benefit the larger community whatsoever.
Individuals who introduce effective, foreign derived initiative to our industries. Again, yes and no. While there is expertise and problem solving that is valuable from outside the UK, do we really need mass immigration for this? No. There are people paid to improve industry already. The average migrant worked has nothing to say in his workplace, either because it's already as efficient as practically possible, or because he doesn't know, or because he doesn't care. Besides, we are the UK. One of the most forward countries in the world in terms of problem solving. We already have expertise and foreign trade links. Foreign business are lining up to trade with us, we don't need to go looking for them. Non-argument again.
Your bottom point hits the nail on the head. High level immigration directly benefits big business and corporations. Almost nobody else. Anybody who says otherwise is either in the 'almost' section of the population, or has hardline political ideas impermeable to logic and real-world statistics. It's all very well bouncing figures off the walls, but these figures are often manipulated anyway. I doubt they take things such as overseas child benefit, for example, into account. Even assuming they're not, you're right in stating that there's more to the issue of immigration than just a number. £20bn is spitting in a bucket for the UK economy anyway. And if it doesn't benefit the public, it cannot be seen as a net benefit to the UK.
Original post by SmallDuck
-The enormous stretch on house prices which could keep our generation off the ladder permanently.
-The enormous stretch on house prices which could keep our generation off the ladder permanently.
If you want someone to blame for this then blame Buy-to-Rent. Blame private landlords snatching up properties that could go to first time buyers and forcing up prices (seriously, take a look at what's happening to the New Era estate). Blame investment purchasers from Russia and the Gulf States speculating on the London property market.
A polish family coming over to work is not the reason we can't afford homes.
I think OTH covered the positive bases relatively well. Problematically, however, this issue always divides opinions without much scope for more objective approaches.
I won't go into the negatives as much as OTH did for the positives, but to provide a couple of examples: the culture of the host country is watered down; rapid changes can cause social anxiety, community tension, and social isolation; the introduction of immigrants at too fast a rate, political integration doesn't occur as it should and therefore leading to corruption and electoral fraud, for example (Tower Hamlets ring a bell?).
One thing I do find curious, however, is that enriching the host culture and diversity are considered inherently positive. Why? Why is diversity an inherent good? Why does my communities culture need enriching? I rather like my culture as it is. Must I have it enriched or diversified against my will? This is perhaps the most concerning aspect of immigration that is often ignored. This process can often lead to traditional working class communities become disconnected from the country they once knew. You only have to visit Clacton to appreciate this. What is even more insidious is that those who raise concerns about this process are instantly dismissed as racists, prejudiced, or bigots. Expressing your concern over the social and political isolation of a population does not make one a bigot or racist, and it is thoroughly outrageous for people to suggest it.
Immigration has both good and negative aspects, both of which should be brought into the debate. Yes, immigration has benefits for our economy and yes immigration has benefits for our culture. However, immigration does also have negative aspects for our culture - depending on how you perceive it.
I won't go into the negatives as much as OTH did for the positives, but to provide a couple of examples: the culture of the host country is watered down; rapid changes can cause social anxiety, community tension, and social isolation; the introduction of immigrants at too fast a rate, political integration doesn't occur as it should and therefore leading to corruption and electoral fraud, for example (Tower Hamlets ring a bell?).
One thing I do find curious, however, is that enriching the host culture and diversity are considered inherently positive. Why? Why is diversity an inherent good? Why does my communities culture need enriching? I rather like my culture as it is. Must I have it enriched or diversified against my will? This is perhaps the most concerning aspect of immigration that is often ignored. This process can often lead to traditional working class communities become disconnected from the country they once knew. You only have to visit Clacton to appreciate this. What is even more insidious is that those who raise concerns about this process are instantly dismissed as racists, prejudiced, or bigots. Expressing your concern over the social and political isolation of a population does not make one a bigot or racist, and it is thoroughly outrageous for people to suggest it.
Immigration has both good and negative aspects, both of which should be brought into the debate. Yes, immigration has benefits for our economy and yes immigration has benefits for our culture. However, immigration does also have negative aspects for our culture - depending on how you perceive it.
Original post by ManifoldManifest
If you want someone to blame for this then blame Buy-to-Rent. Blame private landlords snatching up properties that could go to first time buyers and forcing up prices (seriously, take a look at what's happening to the New Era estate). Blame investment purchasers from Russia and the Gulf States speculating on the London property market.
A polish family coming over to work is not the reason we can't afford homes.
A polish family coming over to work is not the reason we can't afford homes.
I agree that greedy BTL investors are part of the problem.
However, mass immigration (not exclusively poles) has inevitably pushed up prices too, as building rates have not increased accordingly. This is based on the very basic laws of supply and demand. Can you deny that?
Original post by SmallDuck
In response to the swelling unpopularity of mass immigration here in Britain, many people like to point to the enormous financial contribution that they (supposedly) have given our country, as shown by last week's report from UCL.
However, can you justify immigration with just one number: £20bn?
This figure does not recognise:
-The enormous stretch on house prices which could keep our generation off the ladder permanently.
-The enormous pressure on the NHS, which is now at breaking point.
-The huge pressure on jobs; it is thought that 26 existing residents will become every immigrants which enter the country.
-The displeasure of having a local area transform into a ghetto of immigrants from the same background, where no attempts are made to integrate with the native community.
- The increased crime rates which inevitably come with some 3rd world migrants.
- The threats to the nation's security which foreign cultures bring with them (e.g. Sharia law and Jihad)
On the other hand, non monetary benefits of immigration include:
-Enrichment of diverse culture (if you see this as a good thing)
-Filling in genuine skills gaps
-Individuals who give a lot to the local communities
-Individuals who introduce effective, foreign derived initiative in our industries.
Most voters will not vote for a pro-immigration party because the £20bn contribution which immigrants have made has never been shared out amongst them.
Businesses do way better out of mass immigration than people do. (And even then, only about 63% of businesses support it!)
But what do you think?
However, can you justify immigration with just one number: £20bn?
This figure does not recognise:
-The enormous stretch on house prices which could keep our generation off the ladder permanently.
-The enormous pressure on the NHS, which is now at breaking point.
-The huge pressure on jobs; it is thought that 26 existing residents will become every immigrants which enter the country.
-The displeasure of having a local area transform into a ghetto of immigrants from the same background, where no attempts are made to integrate with the native community.
- The increased crime rates which inevitably come with some 3rd world migrants.
- The threats to the nation's security which foreign cultures bring with them (e.g. Sharia law and Jihad)
On the other hand, non monetary benefits of immigration include:
-Enrichment of diverse culture (if you see this as a good thing)
-Filling in genuine skills gaps
-Individuals who give a lot to the local communities
-Individuals who introduce effective, foreign derived initiative in our industries.
Most voters will not vote for a pro-immigration party because the £20bn contribution which immigrants have made has never been shared out amongst them.
Businesses do way better out of mass immigration than people do. (And even then, only about 63% of businesses support it!)
But what do you think?
Your points are entirely valid and non-monetary aspects are one of the key reasons i don't support African and Muslim immigration.
The problem with these non-monetary aspects though is that they can often be subjective or countered. To pick 3..
Wage Compression - Only really occurs in unskilled jobs, little impact on the masses
Jobs - It tends to be untrue in a lot of cases that an immigrant takes your job. People forget that rising labour costs encourage outsourcing or automation for a start and actually immigration can create jobs (more demand for lawyers, accountants), plus of course many immigrants are entrepreneurial.
Housing - While it's certainly true that immigrants push up rents by virtue of supply and demand, they often come from cultures that don't share our manic obsession with the housing ladder and then you've got to ask if the limited impact from immigration outweighs other factors like government intervention in the credit market
Original post by Rakas21
Your points are entirely valid and non-monetary aspects are one of the key reasons i don't support African and Muslim immigration.
The problem with these non-monetary aspects though is that they can often be subjective or countered. To pick 3..
Wage Compression - Only really occurs in unskilled jobs, little impact on the masses
Jobs - It tends to be untrue in a lot of cases that an immigrant takes your job. People forget that rising labour costs encourage outsourcing or automation for a start and actually immigration can create jobs (more demand for lawyers, accountants), plus of course many immigrants are entrepreneurial.
Housing - While it's certainly true that immigrants push up rents by virtue of supply and demand, they often come from cultures that don't share our manic obsession with the housing ladder and then you've got to ask if the limited impact from immigration outweighs other factors like government intervention in the credit market
The problem with these non-monetary aspects though is that they can often be subjective or countered. To pick 3..
Wage Compression - Only really occurs in unskilled jobs, little impact on the masses
Jobs - It tends to be untrue in a lot of cases that an immigrant takes your job. People forget that rising labour costs encourage outsourcing or automation for a start and actually immigration can create jobs (more demand for lawyers, accountants), plus of course many immigrants are entrepreneurial.
Housing - While it's certainly true that immigrants push up rents by virtue of supply and demand, they often come from cultures that don't share our manic obsession with the housing ladder and then you've got to ask if the limited impact from immigration outweighs other factors like government intervention in the credit market
Lots of generalizations in that answer. I tend to agree with you though.
The key point is that not all GDP growth is good. So even if we accept the recent UCL study that immigration has an overall positive effect on our economy, you look at other factors. Things like a rise in security costs to combat religious extremism counts to GDP but is that good?
The truth is our public sector is reaching full capacity, we have a housing shortage and unemployment is too large. And Multiculturalism hasn't worked. And we're no longer in control of our borders. And it's for those reasons that we should look to radically reduce migration, regardless of economic impact. I'd take being 1% poorer if it meant get immigration down to about 40k a year which is what it should be. The hundreds of thousands are bloody ridiculous.
The truth is our public sector is reaching full capacity, we have a housing shortage and unemployment is too large. And Multiculturalism hasn't worked. And we're no longer in control of our borders. And it's for those reasons that we should look to radically reduce migration, regardless of economic impact. I'd take being 1% poorer if it meant get immigration down to about 40k a year which is what it should be. The hundreds of thousands are bloody ridiculous.
I am a a rabid Malthusian. Population growth only makes us richer on paper. Everyone is universally poorer because there are more people to feed.
Original post by ManifoldManifest
If you want someone to blame for this then blame Buy-to-Rent. Blame private landlords snatching up properties that could go to first time buyers and forcing up prices (seriously, take a look at what's happening to the New Era estate). Blame investment purchasers from Russia and the Gulf States speculating on the London property market.
A polish family coming over to work is not the reason we can't afford homes.
A polish family coming over to work is not the reason we can't afford homes.
How many Russians have bought property?
Since 2004 we have received about 4 million immigrants......
Gee- wonder which one has affected housing more?
Any policy for me requires there to be an economic benefit to it.
Immigration where it is properly managed can have an enormous potential. The problem is UK simply did a poor job at managing it and allowed too many in too short a period.
Some of the points raised :-
1) Housing, immigration hardly ever causes a spike in housing prices. How many of the EU-10 migrants have actually bought a home in UK? Highly unlikely many from 3rd world places could afford to buy. Prices are high due to lack of new builds which in part are due to restrictive planning laws and the unwillingness to adapt to using high rise type buildings. Some interesting facts, Germany has far more foreigners than UK does and property prices have mostly kept pace with inflation only. Singapore is a tiny island-state, it opened the doors to mass migration, primarily from China and India as well as nationals from any country that wanted to be there. Property prices hasn't increased beyond inflation other than during the financial crisis when it had loads of overseas investors.
2) Wage compression, I view this as a good thing. Aldi and Lidl requires such an ecosystem to develop and many more similar kinds can develop. In any case high wage levels must not be viewed as a good thing as all it does is it offshores jobs or introduces more automation, it should be remembered that there are actually very little tasks out there that cannot be fully automated.
3) Ghettos, this is simply due to poor integration and management policies. I suppose this is simply something UK isn't good at. Need some good examples? Singapore has an excellent model as does Australia, Switzerland and Finland.
4) Crime, very simple solution to solve this. Commit a crime no matter how minor and your residence permit gets cancelled. If you start looking at it through the lenses of human rights and all that kind of garbage nonsense then you will just have to deal with all the **** that comes with it and criminals is just one of them.
5) Jobs, I only believe in the best person for the job. If Brits are just that crappy that some EU-10 or 3rd World migrant could "steal" their job then they only have themselves to blame.
6) Cultures, **** like jihad and islamic radicalism were long since present in UK. They didn't just pop up during Liebour's mass migration policies. I simply view it that there were far too many overtly liberal policies in allowing such groups to fester. Also hardly any of these are migrants, majority were UK-born and bred. Could only mean poor integration or too much welfare that allows for too much idleness. Time to curb some of the overtly generous benefits perhaps? Some interesting facts : South Asian migrants in US are among the wealthiest ethnic group, usually far better educated and hold many more professional jobs than their own native Whites. You hardly find them involved in islamic extremism. The real question must be asked, why isn't this the case in UK?
I don't view importation of cultures as a good thing, generally don't view diversity as all that good a thing either as it is a stupid neo-liberal/socialist thinking. I'm of the view that if you want to move to live in a certain countries then you are moving there to adapt to the way of life there and the onus is on you to integrate rather than hope others change for you.
Immigration where it is properly managed can have an enormous potential. The problem is UK simply did a poor job at managing it and allowed too many in too short a period.
Some of the points raised :-
1) Housing, immigration hardly ever causes a spike in housing prices. How many of the EU-10 migrants have actually bought a home in UK? Highly unlikely many from 3rd world places could afford to buy. Prices are high due to lack of new builds which in part are due to restrictive planning laws and the unwillingness to adapt to using high rise type buildings. Some interesting facts, Germany has far more foreigners than UK does and property prices have mostly kept pace with inflation only. Singapore is a tiny island-state, it opened the doors to mass migration, primarily from China and India as well as nationals from any country that wanted to be there. Property prices hasn't increased beyond inflation other than during the financial crisis when it had loads of overseas investors.
2) Wage compression, I view this as a good thing. Aldi and Lidl requires such an ecosystem to develop and many more similar kinds can develop. In any case high wage levels must not be viewed as a good thing as all it does is it offshores jobs or introduces more automation, it should be remembered that there are actually very little tasks out there that cannot be fully automated.
3) Ghettos, this is simply due to poor integration and management policies. I suppose this is simply something UK isn't good at. Need some good examples? Singapore has an excellent model as does Australia, Switzerland and Finland.
4) Crime, very simple solution to solve this. Commit a crime no matter how minor and your residence permit gets cancelled. If you start looking at it through the lenses of human rights and all that kind of garbage nonsense then you will just have to deal with all the **** that comes with it and criminals is just one of them.
5) Jobs, I only believe in the best person for the job. If Brits are just that crappy that some EU-10 or 3rd World migrant could "steal" their job then they only have themselves to blame.
6) Cultures, **** like jihad and islamic radicalism were long since present in UK. They didn't just pop up during Liebour's mass migration policies. I simply view it that there were far too many overtly liberal policies in allowing such groups to fester. Also hardly any of these are migrants, majority were UK-born and bred. Could only mean poor integration or too much welfare that allows for too much idleness. Time to curb some of the overtly generous benefits perhaps? Some interesting facts : South Asian migrants in US are among the wealthiest ethnic group, usually far better educated and hold many more professional jobs than their own native Whites. You hardly find them involved in islamic extremism. The real question must be asked, why isn't this the case in UK?
I don't view importation of cultures as a good thing, generally don't view diversity as all that good a thing either as it is a stupid neo-liberal/socialist thinking. I'm of the view that if you want to move to live in a certain countries then you are moving there to adapt to the way of life there and the onus is on you to integrate rather than hope others change for you.
Original post by Eboracum
The key point is that not all GDP growth is good.
Exactly. It is also worth understanding how little this £20bn is. When shared across the population, we are only a few hundred pounds richer. That measured against the loss of culture, social and political isolation, and other issues that many established communities are concerned about, is that few hundred pounds really worth it?
Consider that humans are willing to become poorer in order to maintain social norms and enforce those social norms. This sort of research from behavioural economics suggests to me that the majority of people in this country would prefer the culture they are familiar with than the small economic benefit.
Let's be clear, £20bn against a £1trillion economy is chicken feed.
Original post by moggis
The OP states that big business gains far more from immigration than people do while also claiming that they cause house price rises.
Yet most people stand to gain from house price rises.
Yet most people stand to gain from house price rises.
Our generation DOES NOT benefit from high house prices. I thought this forum was for young people, the clue's in the name.
That said, we are up for perhaps larger inheritances from our parents perhaps, but no human being would wish their inheritance too soon.
Original post by moggis
The OP states that big business gains far more from immigration than people do while also claiming that they cause house price rises.
Yet most people stand to gain from house price rises.
Yet most people stand to gain from house price rises.
Most people will gain in the sense that the majority of people will become homeowners but for the first time, the percentage people owning a home actually fell between 2001-2011. So that's rather concerning for future generations.
Taking a long term view, we do need to see affordability increase via stagnant/slowly falling house prices (though that of course does raise concerns about negative equity).
Original post by SmallDuck
Our generation DOES NOT benefit from high house prices. I thought this forum was for young people, the clue's in the name.
That said, we are up for perhaps larger inheritances from our parents perhaps, but no human being would wish their inheritance too soon.
That said, we are up for perhaps larger inheritances from our parents perhaps, but no human being would wish their inheritance too soon.
Well that was a lot easier than I was expecting.You have readily changed your original point to now saying that it's only young people who apparently don't benefit from immigration.
So anyone who has a mortgage and most businesses benefit from large scale immigration.
No wonder politicians allow it.
Original post by Rakas21
Most people will gain in the sense that the majority of people will become homeowners but for the first time, the percentage people owning a home actually fell between 2001-2011. So that's rather concerning for future generations.
Taking a long term view, we do need to see affordability increase via stagnant/slowly falling house prices (though that of course does raise concerns about negative equity).
Taking a long term view, we do need to see affordability increase via stagnant/slowly falling house prices (though that of course does raise concerns about negative equity).
I'm sorry but I didn't really understand your point in the first paragraph.edit,oh sorry I misread it.
Please don't misunderstand my position,I am very much for immigration and wholeheartedly believe that the 1 million Poles who have come here are the best thing to have happened to this country since the war but I absolutely hate houses going up in price.But having said that I must ask why we need to see affordability increase? I mean what will happen if,as is likely, it doesn't?
Will young people be rioting?Leaving the country?Staying at home til they're 40?What?
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by moggis
I'm sorry but I didn't really understand your point in the first paragraph.
Please don't misunderstand my position,I am very much for immigration and wholeheartedly believe that the 1 million Poles who have come here are the best thing to have happened to this country since the war but I absolutely hate houses going up in price.But having said that I must ask why we need to see affordability increase? I mean what will happen if,as is likely, it doesn't?
Will young people be rioting?Leaving the country?Staying at home til they're 40?What?
Please don't misunderstand my position,I am very much for immigration and wholeheartedly believe that the 1 million Poles who have come here are the best thing to have happened to this country since the war but I absolutely hate houses going up in price.But having said that I must ask why we need to see affordability increase? I mean what will happen if,as is likely, it doesn't?
Will young people be rioting?Leaving the country?Staying at home til they're 40?What?
Home ownership is still at 60%+ of the population so it's likely that even for our generation, over 50%+ will own their home by the time they die. As such, we may still gain from rising prices. But, the last decade actually saw a fall in the proportion of home owners which implies that home ownership is becoming increasingly unafordable.
Well, home ownership is generally positive because it's an asset that people can borrow against and psychologically people feel more secure and better off, this all conspires keep the wheels of our consumption economy turning and especially in old age covers the costs of age. If we don't see affordability increase then with less people owning their own home we will see inflationary pressure on rents, we will see poorer pensioners in old age and yes, people living with parents longer.
Personally i feel the mark of country that it middle rather than working class is home ownership, after going from ~70% renting in 1900 to ~70% owning in 2000 i think it would be terrible if we saw what amounts to a decline in inter-generational living standards (which since your constrained when renting is what it amounts to).
House prices growth must slow to a point where wage real wage growth exceeds it. This was seen in 2010-2012 when lending fell to levels seen in the 70's and house prices outside London carried on falling a few percent.
Original post by Eboracum
The key point is that not all GDP growth is good. So even if we accept the recent UCL study that immigration has an overall positive effect on our economy, you look at other factors. Things like a rise in security costs to combat religious extremism counts to GDP but is that good?
The truth is our public sector is reaching full capacity, we have a housing shortage and unemployment is too large. And Multiculturalism hasn't worked. And we're no longer in control of our borders. And it's for those reasons that we should look to radically reduce migration, regardless of economic impact. I'd take being 1% poorer if it meant get immigration down to about 40k a year which is what it should be. The hundreds of thousands are bloody ridiculous.
The truth is our public sector is reaching full capacity, we have a housing shortage and unemployment is too large. And Multiculturalism hasn't worked. And we're no longer in control of our borders. And it's for those reasons that we should look to radically reduce migration, regardless of economic impact. I'd take being 1% poorer if it meant get immigration down to about 40k a year which is what it should be. The hundreds of thousands are bloody ridiculous.
You are incorrect.
The public sector was reduced due to government cuts.
The housing shortage is a fiction, there are plenty of houses just look in any estate agent window. What there is is a shotage of affordable housing to buy and rent due to banks giving out too much money in mortgages. When banks don't lend such as 2007 credit crunch, house prices fall.
Neither has anything to do with immigrants.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- LSE vs UCLA as an international
- confused between Twente and Manchester
- pros and cons of degree apprenticeships
- AI course
- kings or bristol for medicine?
- Sixth form- where should i go?
- Commuting to London or staying at Warwick
- what laptop should i get?
- Durham Pros and Cons
- HELP!! LSE Accommodation Carr-Saunders VS International hall
- Psychology 9 mark question
- medicine or finance ?
- Aitken Accomodation- UoB
- Mazars
- URGENT HELP NEEDED: Gap Year before or after university as a mature student?
- warwick vs university of birmingham for computer science
- St Andrews or King's College London for postgraduate master degree?
- Masters dual or normal degree
- degree at top 10t uni or apprenticeship at low ranked uni
- Moving out for 2nd year after commuting
Latest
Posted 1 minute ago
Civil service - location allocations and preference DWPLast reply 1 minute ago
Official: Imperial College London A100 2024 Entry ApplicantsLast reply 4 minutes ago
emmanuella's study discussions #1: motivation and disciplineLast reply 8 minutes ago
Woodhouse College applicants 2024Last reply 9 minutes ago
Haven't heard back from LSELast reply 10 minutes ago
Official Durham University Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 12 minutes ago
Official: Queen's University Belfast A100 2024 Entry ApplicantsLast reply 12 minutes ago
JK Rowling in ‘arrest me’ challenge over hate crime lawLast reply 13 minutes ago
Edexcel A Level Mathematics Paper 1 (9MA0 01) - 4th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 17 minutes ago
Official UCL Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryTrending
Last reply 4 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 6 days ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 2 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Last reply 3 weeks ago
How did John Major become PM with barely any qualifications?Trending
Last reply 4 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 6 days ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 2 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Last reply 3 weeks ago
How did John Major become PM with barely any qualifications?
