UK's population growth highest in EU

[SevenRivers]

We've had constant waves of immigration since the war and we're a lot better off than we were then.

 

But it still wasn't on a scale as introduced by Labour, and it's not like 1997 followed a world war in which our towns and cities were bombed and millions of our citizens died, when we had a nation to rebuild. That was when we had a demand for labour, all we have done since 1997 is import a labour market surplus.

[LeMaquis]

My parents and my wife's parents have just arrived at an age where they have now been working for longer than they have been working, and my wife's parents started working at age 14. My generation started working later than them, and my children's generation even later, whilst the age at which people retire has stayed approximately the same.

 

Stating that "a Ponzi scheme runs out of people eventually" is effectively an admittance that it is a Ponzi scheme, unless you think that the planet can support an infinite number of people.

 

If a population is living longer and healthier, but expects to work less and have that work done for them by an increasing population, who will in turn live longer and healthier, then it's the very definition of a Ponzi scheme.

 

Except that people are working longer as the retirement age is being put back. A lot of pensioners still work. And it's not just a question of how long people work but of how much wealth they create while working.

 

Also, ask yourself the opposite question, Can we stay as affluent a nation with fewer people? Obviously not as the most powerful economies have the largest populations. And so if our economy shrank as the population declined who'd pay for the debt, pensions, NHS, etc?

[Ridgeway84]

White British are no longer in the majority there but British people are. London generates a fifth of the UK's GDP from about an eigth of the population so it's not a good example to say immigration holds London back economically.

 

And the workers who produce it leave the city at the end of the working day and at weekends. During this period it's mainly populated by the underclass and working poor who drive cabs, buses, work in the public sector or at best the masses of convenience stores and kebab/chicken shops. Remove the small hardcore of middle class producers and you'd be left with a giant benefits sponge.

 

Leicester and Slough are already minority majority and Birningham and Bradford aren't far behind. I see little evidence of any immigrants of the new wave taking Britain seriously. If they did they wouldn't sit in enclaves watching homeland TV, hanging out in homeland clubs/cafes and visiting homeland food shops. Many do this while dressed in long gowns, again from the homeland. These people have nothing to do with Britain, it's just a platform.

[LeMaquis]

But it still wasn't on a scale as introduced by Labour, and it's not like 1997 followed a world war in which our towns and cities were bombed and millions of our citizens died, when we had a nation to rebuild. That was when we had a demand for labour, all we have done since 1997 is import a labour market surplus.

 

And so everyone accepted the immigrants after the war, did they? Clearly not. Powell was saying over 40 years ago what people say now and there was full employment then. An economy also may need a labour market surplus because it has to import specialist skills. Native people may not have those skills and may not want to do that kind of work. Capitalists are the ones doing the employing. They tend to be right-wing. Labour let the Poles in but it wasn't Labour giving them jobs. It was employers.

[angos]

Except that people are working longer as the retirement age is being put back. A lot of pensioners still work. And it's not just a question of how long people work but of how much wealth they create while working.

 

Also, ask yourself the opposite question, Can we stay as affluent a nation with fewer people? Obviously not as the most powerful economies have the largest populations. And so if our economy shrank as the population declined who'd pay for the debt, pensions, NHS, etc?

 

The economy can shrink whilst the population gets wealthier, there are countries with smaller populations than ours that have less poverty than ours, there are countries with significantly more people but with significantly more poverty, population expansion will just increase poverty.

[LeMaquis]

And the workers who produce it leave the city at the end of the working day and at weekends. During this period it's mainly populated by the underclass and working poor who drive cabs, buses, work in the public sector or at best the masses of convenience stores and kebab/chicken shops. Remove the small hardcore of middle class producers and you'd be left with a giant benefits sponge.

 

What utter crap. Have you seen house prices in Westminster, Islington, Hackney, Hampstead, Notting Hill, etc? Do you think it's all factory workers who live there? Loads of formerly working class parts of London have been gentrified to the point that house prices have rocketed over the years. Over eight million people live in London and you think all the wealth is created by commuters from the Home Counties? Ridiculous.

[milquetoast1]

Except that people are working longer as the retirement age is being put back. A lot of pensioners still work. And it's not just a question of how long people work but of how much wealth they create while working.

 

Also, ask yourself the opposite question, Can we stay as affluent a nation with fewer people? Obviously not as the most powerful economies have the largest populations. And so if our economy shrank as the population declined who'd pay for the debt, pensions, NHS, etc?

 

Why are you conflating affluence and power as if they are the same?

 

Of course a country can be affluent with a small population:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita

 

China and Russia are powerful, some from those countries are very rich, but most are poor.

 

Take a look at that list, rising population does not mean affluence ... quite the opposite.

 

What you are arguing for in your last sentence is the very definition of a Ponzi scheme.

[SevenRivers]

And so everyone accepted the immigrants after the war, did they? Clearly not. Powell was saying over 40 years ago what people say now and there was full employment then. An economy also may need a labour market surplus because it has to import specialist skills. Native people may not have those skills and may not want to do that kind of work. Capitalists are the ones doing the employing. They tend to be right-wing. Labour let the Poles in but it wasn't Labour giving them jobs. It was employers.

 

We've not been importing specialist skills though have we? Because we're in the EU any EU citizen can come here speculating for work. We are not like Australia or USA where we specify what skills we need and award points based on demand for skills.

 

Business loves it because an oversupply in the labour market depresses wages, a universally accepted fact even by Ed Miliband as having happened.

[LeMaquis]

The economy can shrink whilst the population gets wealthier, there are countries with smaller populations than ours that have less poverty than ours, there are countries with significantly more people but with significantly more poverty, population expansion will just increase poverty.

 

And these countries with smaller populations than ours also have smaller GDPs than ours. Ours is the 6th largest in the world. If our population shrank we'd shrink to their level and we'd then have a skills shortage. Countries with smaller economies than ours - Norway, Switzerland - do import labour, you know.

 

---------- Post added 08-08-2013 at 22:19 ----------

 

Why are you conflating affluence and power as if they are the same?

 

Of course a country can be affluent with a small population:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita

 

China and Russia are powerful, some from those countries are very rich, but most are poor.

 

Take a look at that list, rising population does not mean affluence ... quite the opposite.

 

What you are arguing for in your last sentence is the very definition of a Ponzi scheme.

 

I never mentioned power. A country can be affluent with a small population but it's hard to go from being a large population to a declining population and pay all the debt that the large population built up as well as for future debt like pensions.

[angos]

And these countries with smaller populations than ours also have smaller GDPs than ours. Ours is the 6th largest in the world. If our population shrank we'd shrink to their level and we'd then have a skills shortage. Countries with smaller economies than ours - Norway, Switzerland - do import labour, you know.

 

What does GDP have to do with the wealth of the population?

 

A country with one billion poor people could easily have a higher GDP than a country with one million rich people.