Turn on thread page Beta

Is the UK full? Population to be 70 million before 2030 watch

Announcements
  • View Poll Results: Is the UK full?
    Yes
    50.00%
    No
    50.00%

    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    And what happens when those younger people become old? Get even more younger people from other countries?
    Aye. People are living longer - that's a fact. So more money is needed for pensions and health. The way to get that money is to have more younger people, earning and paying taxes so we reduce the ratio of dependants - non dependants.

    One of the main reasons I'm hugely in favour of immigration.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Smashby25)
    Sure, we have space, but for how long? There has to be a time when the population needs serious consideration. If we keep on using this space, there is less of it. Then what? We can't build a bigger country.

    Well we could build 1000s of ships and moor them off the coast.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Yes we have space, I mean we could fill this country to the brim with housing if needed. I think the real question is, should we use that space.
    I think that with increasing technological advances in urban farming we aren't going to need large areas for agriculture, however we then come across the problem of removing the habitats of an already dwindling wildlife population and of course with more people comes more pollution, all these people create waste which has to go somewhere, which is normally in the ground and in the air, while storing waste underground is okay it's more the air pollution I'm worried about.

    Also we have the issue of creating an economy that REQUIRES an ever increasing population to survive. This is unsustainable. in the US the largest part of it's outgoing budget is on pensions, as we all live longer we need to pay for this ever increasing number in the budget, we need a new outlook on these things.

    Also if we are talking about immigration, especially from cultures not similar to our own, we risk creating large ghettos/sects in our society, this is especially true with large numbers of immigrants over a short period of time.

    We all know that restricting population growth slow economic growth, so this topic i feel will be come a lot more prevalent in the future.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by United1892)
    We have 63 million people and still have 93% which is pretty much spare. An increase of 11% isn't going to massively affect this.
    No, and we probably won't face this problem in our lifetime. I'm simply stating that the population can't carry on increasing at its current rate in the future.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Smashby25)
    No, and we probably won't face this problem in our lifetime. I'm simply stating that the population can't carry on increasing at its current rate in the future.
    Well, no but it won't
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I'd invite anyone who claims we 'have space' to come and sit in the Royal Berks A&E department on a Friday evening and continue trying to make that claim with a straight face.

    The same goes for a local primary, maternity ward, police custody station or even just a cruise down the M4.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Aye. People are living longer - that's a fact. So more money is needed for pensions and health. The way to get that money is to have more younger people, earning and paying taxes so we reduce the ratio of dependants - non dependants.

    One of the main reasons I'm hugely in favour of immigration.
    That analysis fails to take into account the actual costs of immigration and the long-term unsustainability of this approach. You also don't say what kind of immigration you're in favour of -- skilled or unskilled? Or both?

    Immigration isn't quite the natural solution to an ageing population you make it out to be.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reue)
    I'd invite anyone who claims we 'have space' to come and sit in the Royal Berks A&E department on a Friday evening and continue trying to make that claim with a straight face.

    The same goes for a local primary, maternity ward, police custody station or even just a cruise down the M4.

    You seem to live a pretty full life judging by that post I must say.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Smashby25)
    How long would these protected areas be protected? In many years, if the population has increased so much that there is a desperate need for new houses, do you think people would care about protecting rural areas?
    They wouldn't be built on and they will remain protected. They don't need be built on, there is plenty of other land devoid of life in the barren green wasteland created by farming etc. also you can build more Green friendly cities and urban spaces. The issue on how it will badly effect wildlife is not an issue based on facts as far as I can tell. That doesn't mean there are not other legitimate argument against it. One of the reasons we supposedly need to build more houses is because governments and people are incapable of tackling the way the housing market and financial systems work. Building more houses to make them more affordable is just pushing that problem under the rug.

    http://positivemoney.org/issues/house-prices/
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by moggis)
    You seem to live a pretty full life judging by that post I must say.
    Thanks.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    That analysis fails to take into account the actual costs of immigration and the long-term unsustainability of this approach. You also don't say what kind of immigration you're in favour of -- skilled or unskilled? Or both?

    Immigration isn't quite the natural solution to an ageing population you make it out to be.
    Aye nothing is ever simple and there are always lots of factors.
    In general immigrants contribute more than they take, many also tend to actually return to their home countries when they've finished working so they pay taxes and then don't claim a pension.

    Again, the trend is people are living longer and a higher proportion of people are going to be older than what used to be the case. We need young people to work and pay taxes or else we won't have the money in the future. Our NHS will suffer and we won't be able to give out pensions.

    I'm obviously more in favour of skilled immigration but I don't agree that there is a clear distinction between skilled and unskied as some make out. Often immigrants start in unskilled jobs and work their way up and pay lots of taxes. On a personal level I've found immigrants to be among the most hard working and determined.


    Obviously with that you have the issue of wages being undercut for Brits but to deal with that we should have a far higher minimum wage for all.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reue)
    I'd invite anyone who claims we 'have space' to come and sit in the Royal Berks A&E department on a Friday evening and continue trying to make that claim with a straight face.

    The same goes for a local primary, maternity ward, police custody station or even just a cruise down the M4.
    All those things do not in and off themselves mean we do not have 'space'

    Under funding, lack of resources going towards building infrastructure and mismanagement can create the symptoms you describe even with a falling population.

    I'm not on any particular side on this but there are a whole heap of variables to take into account. For example, if immigration generated more people to tax you can end up with more money per person to spend on hospitals and schools etc resulting in individuals getting more 'space' to go to school and hospital.

    The problem I have with this debate is those who are against immigration treat it in the same way as fiscal policy is treated, useless and just plain wrong analogies and thought processes are used to justify their stance, and these explanation are normally cynically wielded to carry out and agenda that has nothing to do with the facing the problems being described. Example being the attack on Tax credits being justified for fiscal discipline. In the immigration we focus on locking down the borders rather than sorting out how our financially system creates massive housing bubbles. Anger at crisis in the NHS and public services is instead diverted to immigration rather than other causes of those issues. A government that is averse to spending on the NHS for ideological reason can get away with not doing so.

    Of course it may be that immigration is having a bad effect, but I trust the people saying that about as far as I can throw them.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I'd like to say that compared to the comments on the Times online website you guys are so much more measured in your response to this story.

    Anyone reading the comments on that website would likely get the impression that we are well and truly "screwed" to quote one poster


    " I really fear for my children's future"

    "Tony Blair and Gordon Brown should be tried for treason"

    "Stupid,stupid politicians"

    "We must stop this now"


    And on and on and on.


    Jesus.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I'm open to the idea that London may be close (though we should build taller) however the UK certainly is not.

    I'm all for a larger population, a larger labour force increases output which increases tax revenues which increases the defense budget which increases our economic and diplomatic importance in the world maintaining our power. Case in point is that India (a poor country on aggregate) is more important than Norway (tiny but rich population).

    The only thing I don't agree with is this diversity rubbish. I want a higher native birthrate and to import those who are ethnically and/or culturally similar (whites, Hispanics and Orientals).

    So long as we elect governments who get a grip on infrastructure I'll be quite happy with a booming population.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    All those things do not in and off themselves mean we do not have 'space'

    Under funding, lack of resources going towards building infrastructure and mismanagement can create the symptoms you describe even with a falling population.
    Nail. On. Head.
    The Right wing tend to hate the public sector and have constantly underfunded, criticised and neglected the NHS. Yet when it comes to immigration they suddenly love them.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I'm open to the idea that London may be close (though we should build taller) however the UK certainly is.

    I'm all for a larger population, a larger labour force increases output which increases tax revenues which increases the defense budget which increases our economic and diplomatic importance in the world maintaining our power. Case in point is that India (a poor country on aggregate) is more important than Norway (tiny but rich population).

    The only thing I don't agree with is this diversity rubbish. I want a higher native birthrate and to import those who are ethnically and/or culturally similar (whites, Hispanics and Orientals).

    So long as we elect governments who get a grip on infrastructure I'll be quite happy with a booming population.
    I agree. With an ageing population we need more young people in work, earning money and paying taxes. If not our NHS, among other services will suffer.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Smashby25)
    No, and we probably won't face this problem in our lifetime. I'm simply stating that the population can't carry on increasing at its current rate in the future.
    It seems a lot in number but 01-11 population growth was only about 0.7% per year. That's slower than the increase in food output so its certainly sustainable if we get going on infrastructure.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Redwoods)
    A higher population means that more schools, hospitals, roads, and houses will need to be built.
    But conversely, there will be more people around to build those houses, schools and hospitals and more people with the right skills to staff them. Only this morning a news report was going on about the lack of labour to driving housebuilding. So there will be more jobs generating more taxation and adding to the economy - as numerous reports have shown.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    the problem is numbers and pace of immigration. mass immigration has caused segregation between people as certain groups do not integrate at all
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Aye nothing is ever simple and there are always lots of factors.
    In general immigrants contribute more than they take, many also tend to actually return to their home countries when they've finished working so they pay taxes and then don't claim a pension.
    Yes, but they're under no obligation to do so. It's not really an argument for further immigration to claim that they might go back to their countries of origin, it's speculation. Not to mention money lost to the economy through remittances.

    Immigrants' overall contribution, while important, doesn't really address a lot of the problems with high immigration. Sure, on the surface more money = more schools, hospitals, houses, but that's not exactly how it works out in practice. Look at it a little closer and you find that, actually, more money might build schools but the lack of maths and science teachers to teach in these new schools isn't exactly something that more money can solve given that so many of them leave the profession within three years of qualifying. Looking into the other factors reveals problems of a similar nature.

    Again, the trend is people are living longer and a higher proportion of people are going to be older than what used to be the case. We need young people to work and pay taxes or else we won't have the money in the future. Our NHS will suffer and we won't be able to give out pensions.
    Again, I worry that you're making a jump that needn't be made. Immigration isn't the only and best solution to an ageing population. It may help be a short-term solution for labour shortages but to expect to continue this game of catch-up indefinitely is unrealistic.

    The problem of an ageing population is in many ways a self-created problem and a natural consequence of having an NHS committed to making people live for as long as possible on a finite budget. I would suggest that one needs to look at the root cause of the expected disparity between dependents and independents and fix that rather than trying to alleviate the consequences of that, and in so doing not doing anything about the problem itself, by endless immigration.

    I'm obviously more in favour of skilled immigration but I don't agree that there is a clear distinction between skilled and unskied as some make out. Often immigrants start in unskilled jobs and work their way up and pay lots of taxes. On a personal level I've found immigrants to be among the most hard working and determined.
    It's fairly clear, I think. Anything that requires extensive training is skilled and anything that doesn't is unskilled. The specifics can be worked out by the appropriate government agency.

    Again, that's speculation: It's no argument to say that because some immigrants start off in unskilled jobs and end up paying a lot of taxes over their lifetime therefore future immigrants are likely to do the same so we should increase immigration. That just isn't a good argument. Immigrants may generally be hardworking and determined but those aren't valid criteria for who to admit, I don't think, and nor are those qualities exactly measurable at the point of entry. With plenty of unemployment among the native population, there's no need to recruit people to do unskilled jobs such as manning the cash register at a supermarket -- anybody can do that and would likely pay more or less the same amount of tax in the job as an immigrant would.

    Obviously with that you have the issue of wages being undercut for Brits but to deal with that we should have a far higher minimum wage for all.
    Which isn't going to do anything for the levels of unemployment in this country.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.