Turn on thread page Beta

If 300,000 people arrive in the UK every year, you won't be able to buy a home! FACT watch

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    But the housing crisis has nothing to do with immigration! It's purely a supply-side issue! (sarcasm)
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reue)
    Strongly disagree.

    There's plenty of brownfield sites to support a sustainable population.
    Whether there is or not, it remains the case that plenty of brownfield is undesirable or inefficient to build on. Some, for example, may be better used for community green spaces in areas of greater population, while green belt may be isolated and of a lower utility value in its undeveloped state.

    There is, for example, considerable greenbelt land in our large cities that is far better served by existing infrastructure - whether it be major roads, commuter rail or simply access to developed community centres.

    In more rural areas, what is categorised as brownfield may well be of greater civic amenity. The pictures that "greenbelt" and "brownfield" conjure up in our minds are often fairly narrow and rarely represent the actual state of individual areas. I am also no fan of expanding villages and small towns to ridiculous degrees by popping housing developments wherever we can find them - in rural Britain, I tend towards the view developing new villages and towns on formerly intensively farmed greenbelt would be better than simply perverting what currently exists.

    Consider also - whether brownfield land really can satisfy our housing needs depends rather on what you believe these needs are. In comparison to most developed countries, our homes are small and a great many new build estates bungle detached houses so close together that they may as well be terraces.

    While that suits a certain level of density, I'd prefer to move away from this intensive use of land that greenbelt necessitates. Can you imagine something like the Hampstead Garden Suburb if it had been as restricted by space as developers are today?

    EDIT: I also failed to notice your emphasis on sustainable population growth. While perhaps we should be considering what sort of level that would be (surely any consistent level of population growth is unsustainable over a long enough timeframe?) we should also consider the current situation with housing even without that growth in demand: it's already fairly dire.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reue)
    What? No. It means that we require the non-EU migrants. How many of the EU Migrants we require is different and almost certainly not the full amount arriving.
    You have already conceded that the migration from outside the EU is a top-up over and above what the EU labour market can supply. It is a simple matter of logic that the total requirement is therefore c300,000 - given that we would then be outside the EU I'm not sure where those people would be coming from, just as likely non-EU states as those from the EU (who would possibly no longer have free movement into the UK).

    That's not the case in other countries so why would it be here? My brother migrated to New Zealand as a kitchen fitter. He's now retraining as an electrician. He has left and returned to the country multiple times.
    Sorry, that is quite often the case with visas. If you leave the country your visa is cancelled. It would depend how that worked on a case by case basis, but it certainly isn't uncommon.

    What I also meant was that someone with a work visa from outside the UK would want to avoid leaving the UK for say 18 months to work elsewhere, because the probability would be that their visa would lapse (I take it you agree that we aren't going to be giving all of these people citizenship or ongoing leave to remain?).

    That same pressure does not apply to an EU citizen, because they can come and go as they please (the point of free movement is that people can move around as the labour market develops in different regions of the EU).
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    well this is bad for those who are staying but as soon as i can afford it i'm off to california
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by INTit)
    The artificial scarcity of houses will keep prices high and we can pretend we are trying to sort out the housing problem for future gens.
    I don't really believe that there is a scarcity of homes - we don't see lots of people camping out on the streets or sleeping in parks. The problem isn't so much supply, but that successive governments and low interest rates have conspired to give those capital an incentive to invest in property. Houses are no longer just people's homes, those wanting to buy a house for their own occupation are competing with investors to purchase those properties. Due to the way the tax system works there is a built-in advantage for those investors over owner occupiers.

    That successive governments have done little to address this issue is the crux of the problem, not immigration.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bill_Gates)
    if 300k less people come every year and the ones already here are sent back. You will have a MUCH better chance.

    - Cheaper rent
    - Lower prices


    fewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    You have already conceded that the migration from outside the EU is a top-up over and above what the EU labour market can supply. It is a simple matter of logic that the total requirement is therefore c300,000
    Not at all.

    The Non-EU is a top-up over what the EU market can supply in specific job roles for which we are lacking in people to fill.

    Most of those coming from the EU do not fill roles which we are unable to fill with British people.

    (Original post by typonaut)
    (I take it you agree that we aren't going to be giving all of these people citizenship or ongoing leave to remain?).
    You take it wrong. If someone has come here with a skill we lack in the country and to fill open job roles with that skill then I see no reason why we wouldn't want them here long-term.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jamesthehustler)
    well this is bad for those who are staying but as soon as i can afford it i'm off to california
    Good luck with that visa application.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    I'm an out supporter, but maybe the housing issue is more to do with not enough houses being built deliberately, so that vested interests could profit off the increase in prices.

    There's actually plenty of space in the UK to build on. The media and politicians are just scaremongering about the UK being full.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reue)
    Not at all.

    The Non-EU is a top-up over what the EU market can supply in specific job roles for which we are lacking in people to fill.

    Most of those coming from the EU do not fill roles which we are unable to fill with British people.
    Again, immigration from outside the EU is a top-up over and above what the EU labour market can provide. It does not follow that those specific job roles cannot be filled by EU citizens, just that they do not want those jobs.

    You cannot say at what level EU workers are filling UK vacancies - but whether they are unskilled labour picking vegetables in Lincolnshire or neurosurgeons working at UCH they are required by the UK labour market.

    It follows that total immigration is not going to change much. Even the premise of the original poster is flawed, because we know that c200,000 of the immigrants are from outside the EU. And you are conceding that at least some will come from the EU even if we leave.

    How are we going to go from 300,000 to zero? Just not going to happen.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bill_Gates)
    I am a landlord myself, university educated, i run a global business.

    I am here to warn you kids!
    Because if there's one thing people always respond well to, its being talked down to, right?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    Again, immigration from outside the EU is a top-up over and above what the EU labour market can provide. It does not follow that those specific job roles cannot be filled by EU citizens, just that they do not want those jobs.
    I don't see how you can make that assumption. It may well be that there is not enough skilled labour avaliable for certain job roles within the EU and so we recruit from elsewhere.

    (Original post by typonaut)
    You cannot say at what level EU workers are filling UK vacancies - but whether they are unskilled labour picking vegetables in Lincolnshire or neurosurgeons working at UCH they are required by the UK labour market.
    No, the EU labour is not required.. general labour is. You don't seem to be able (or willing) to seperate non-skilled EU labour from skilled non-EU labour.

    (Original post by typonaut)
    It follows that total immigration is not going to change much. Even the premise of the original poster is flawed, because we know that c200,000 of the immigrants are from outside the EU. And you are conceding that at least some will come from the EU even if we leave.
    Why is that conceding anything? I didn't suggest otherwise.

    (Original post by typonaut)
    How are we going to go from 300,000 to zero? Just not going to happen.
    Again; where did I suggest this was (or desirable) to happen?
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    Also, the EU is responsible for:

    Cancer of the ovaries
    Congestion
    The Catholic Church
    Zica virus
    High university tuition fees
    The Milibands (Poles, aren't they?)

    Vote out!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reue)
    No, the EU labour is not required.. general labour is. You don't seem to be able (or willing) to seperate non-skilled EU labour from skilled non-EU labour.
    It obviously is required, because these people are working and the unemployment level is decreasing.

    Again; where did I suggest this was (or desirable) to happen?
    I say that even if we leave the EU the migration issue will not go away to any significant degree. You seem not to oppose this point. Or are you making some other point?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sisuphos)
    Also, the EU is responsible for:


    The Catholic Church
    The EU is the modern day (Holy) Roman Empire
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Knowing Smile)
    The EU is the modern day (Holy) Roman Empire
    Clearly.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sisuphos)
    Clearly.
    We need a high Tory Anglican resistance

    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    I say that even if we leave the EU the migration issue will not go away to any significant degree. You seem not to oppose this point. Or are you making some other point?
    My point was that we can control migration to those areas we are lacking in domestic skills to fill.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alcohonick)
    Go away with your stupid isolationist views, we need to stay in the EU instead of cowering out
    What a strong and well sourced argument. You've convinced me!
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    An alternate view: From 1946 to about 1984, the average price for a house in the US was about 3x to 3.5x times the average income in that area. In Nevada, people didn't make much money, so houses were cheap. Near NY City, people made considerably more, so houses were more expensive - but still 3x to 3.5x. A couple years ago, i checked around where i live [near Dulles airport - which services D.C.], and the average house price was about 8x average income. Putting it another way, a small, single family house with a 1 car garage, would be about $300,000 to $350,000. With a 10% down payment, this would require a house payment of about $2500 to $3500 a month. Two bedroom flats are renting at about $2500 a month, in neighbourhoods where you can go outside without being attacked. With a $3000 a month payment, plus food, car maintenance, and other costs, you'd have to have two ppl living in the house with a combined income of $144,000 before taxes. With the conventional 80%/20% split [male/female] - this would mean the guy would have to earn about $115,200 before taxes. This is in an area populated by lawn care, drywall hangers, and plumbers. This is way, way above what they could earn. Often the wife drives a school bus. Clearly this is NOT sustainable. The politicos have "balooned" house prices by making "easy money" available. This has resulted in a rise in prices, with no increase in real income. People have NOT seen an increase in salary (in real terms) since about 1982. Salary numbers have increased, but so have prices. Result - less and less disposable income. As a ref: i bought my house in 1971 for $37,800. At the time, i was working as an electrical engineer [4 yr degree], at about $22,000 a year. The current price for my house [according to a broker], would be about $300,000. My salary certainly hasn't hit those heights. Until house prices "adjust" back to the 3x to 3.5x classic level, the housing "squeeze" is going to continue here, and i suspect in the Uk. Good luck to all of us - i fear we're gonna need it!! Cheers.
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
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.