Why do we always need more houses, roads, trains, hospitals, schools?

[Bowater]

Originally Posted by jamiefearon

We live in a Global economy, people should be allowed to live and work wherever they please.

I too find this point a little odd. I would like to work in California, I'm welll educated and well paid but I'm not sure if that entitles me to a job in USA? And under the current immigration laws of the USA it most likely wouldn't. I don't see that as unreasonable.

[cnapan]

Originally Posted by sirstan74

UK fertility rate last year was 1.98 children per female
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/vsob1/...b-Key-findings

Replacement level is 2.1 children per female in developed countries
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility

My apologies - I was looking at the wrong chart. You're right.

This Office of National Statistics video gives the run down on recent birth rate trends. The total figure is about 4 minutes in:

http://youtu.be/yMzcOZHL9NU

In which case, it'd be possible to allow slightly more people to immigrate than emigrate without pushing up the population.

[cnapan]

Originally Posted by Bowater

that our birth rate is below the replacement level is good news.

The only sliver of good news in the projections for the world population is the possibility that the population may top out at somewhere between 8 and 12 billion people, as a result of rising affluence.

The bad news is that even if the population didn't go up at all from the present 7 billion, but that all the poor peasants got to live a comfortable developed life that we enjoy (and who can deny them that life?), then that alone would profoundly increase the demands on the planet.

So it is absolutely the best thing for the developed world to shrink in population.

The 'old age problem' isn't a problem at all. It just means we'll have a greater percentage of the working population working in the parts of the economy dealing with old age, and a smaller percentage of the working population working in the parts of the economy servicing the needs and desires of younger people. It also means that most of us will retire a few years later, which of course is possible thanks to greater longevity and health compared with 100 years ago.

[jamiefearon]

Originally Posted by cnapan

Well if you had taken the care to read what I had written in the first message, you would have found that was precisely what I was suggesting.

Instead, you decided to call me a xenophobe, you offensive idiot.




How can it be? My solution is to balance immigration and emigration, a solution which will allow a city's worth of immigrants into the country each year.

Can't you read simple english? Idiot.


The vast majority of countries don't agree with you, including the most powerful engines of the global economy. And neither do I.

Good grief.

I think you need to douche as you have sand in your vagina.

[cnapan]

Originally Posted by jamiefearon

I think you need to douche as you have sand in your vagina.

A simple 'sorry' would have sufficed

[potto]

Originally Posted by cnapan

The only sliver of good news in the projections for the world population is the possibility that the population may top out at somewhere between 8 and 12 billion people, as a result of rising affluence.

The bad news is that even if the population didn't go up at all from the present 7 billion, but that all the poor peasants got to live a comfortable developed life that we enjoy (and who can deny them that life?), then that alone would profoundly increase the demands on the planet.

So it is absolutely the best thing for the developed world to shrink in population.

The 'old age problem' isn't a problem at all. It just means we'll have a greater percentage of the working population working in the parts of the economy dealing with old age, and a smaller percentage of the working population working in the parts of the economy servicing the needs and desires of younger people. It also means that most of us will retire a few years later, which of course is possible thanks to greater longevity and health compared with 100 years ago.

So what exactly are you worrying about? The planet population will stabilise with increased affluence. The Developed worlds birth rate is falling and there will always be economic migration.

You bring up the count of 7 billion people on the planet and start your hysterics regarding 200'000 migrants

most of which are students (conveniently included in the immigration statistics fed to the gutter press for the idiots like you to digest so that the government can pretend to cut immigration in 2 years just by refusing student visas and therefore killing off another successful British industry sector). Genius.

what exactly is your point? And why are you on a skyscraper forum?

Xenophobia and little englandism are the only logical conclusions to the majority of your posts.

[jamiefearon]

Exactly my point. People always go-on "Oh... You can't talk about immigration without being called a racist..."

But nearly every time people do complain about immigration it is almost always based on Xenophobic thoughts.

[ill tonkso]

Not always, with me it is the fact that our population is increasing faster than our jobs market. I am not 'anti-immigration', I just believe it should be better managed. I am also aware that many of these immigrants are students. If we stopped all of the Chinese coming to Portsmouth Uni it would cripple us!

[jamiefearon]

Originally Posted by cnapan

The bad news is that even if the population didn't go up at all from the present 7 billion, but that all the poor peasants got to live a comfortable developed life that we enjoy (and who can deny them that life?), then that alone would profoundly increase the demands on the planet.

You can deny them that life.

"Get out of my country, it's too full, I might have to wait an extra minute in a traffic jam. Get out and go back to your sh*t life and have lots of children who will most probably die from disease or war. How dare you try to better yourself and your children by steeping foot on the land I was lucky enough to be born on"

[potto]

Originally Posted by ill tonkso

Not always, with me it is the fact that our population is increasing faster than our jobs market.

I don't see how killing off the education sector or the development industry with Nimbysm which is also fed by this obsession over population numbers will help the jobs market.

[ill tonkso]

I just said I understand how many of them are students and that losing the foreign students would be damaging to our economy....

However, at the moment we have more and more people on benefits that are actively seeking work, unqualified AND graduates. Should we not be getting those people into work before we employ people from overseas? It is exactly this that breeds resentment and leads to greater support for the far right.

[Bowater]

Originally Posted by potto

I don't see how killing off the education sector or the development industry with Nimbysm which is also fed by this obsession over population numbers will help the jobs market.

What's the development industry? I don't know of an industry that doesn't develop things.

[Bowater]

Originally Posted by ill tonkso

I just said I understand how many of them are students and that losing the foreign students would be damaging to our economy....

However, at the moment we have more and more people on benefits that are actively seeking work, unqualified AND graduates. Should we not be getting those people into work before we employ people from overseas? It is exactly this that breeds resentment and leads to greater support for the far right.

I agree! Here, here.

[potto]

right, what has apprenticeship programs and training and investing in education got to do with less "houses, roads, trains, hospitals, schools?".

You put a ban on economic immigration and watch the brain drain begin (again).

[Bowater]

Originally Posted by potto

right, what has apprenticeship programs and training and investing in education got to do with less "houses, roads, trains, hospitals, schools?".

You put a ban on economic immigration and watch the brain drain begin (again).

Potto you are the first person on this thread to propose a ban on economic immigration, let me be the first to reject it.

• Why is the workforce of Pret-A-Manger almost entirely foreign?
  
• Why is the workforce of any Indian restuatant almost entirely foreign?
  
• Why can a Brit marry a Thai Bride and she receive citizenship?
  
• Why can a British Asain be married off to an Indian/Pakistani for her passport?

Answers please! We ban the above and the economy remains unaltered. So economics has ziltch to do with controlled immigration. As opposed to your rubbish proposal for an outright ban.

[jamiefearon]

Are you high Bowater? What the hell are you talking about??

[Bowater]

Originally Posted by jamiefearon

Are you high Bowater? What the hell are you talking about??

Are you simple? If you are then I cannot help you.

[jamiefearon]

But Potto didn't propose a ban on economic immigration.

[Bowater]

Originally Posted by jamiefearon

But Potto didn't propose a ban on economic immigration.

Originally Posted by potto

You put a ban on economic immigration and watch the brain drain begin (again).

Definition of propose:

Put forward (an idea or plan) for consideration or discussion by others: "he proposed a new peace plan".

Potto was the first person to introduce the idea of a ban on economic immigration on this thread. Presumably for discussion as this is a forum.

Yes my point was tenuous but it was a play on Potto having inferred that the discussion was focused on some wild out of kilkter idea to ban all economic immigration. When really it was on the proposal to manage immigration sensibly.

Hopefully you understand now.

[cnapan]

Originally Posted by jamiefearon

Exactly my point. People always go-on "Oh... You can't talk about immigration without being called a racist..."

But nearly every time people do complain about immigration it is almost always based on Xenophobic thoughts.

You didn't have a point. Someone (me) was suggesting balancing emigration and immigration - which would of course result in a policy which allowed for a city's worth of immigrants to enter the country each year, and you decided to call me a xenophobe for it, despite a shred of an argument or justification. You then started throwing sexist insults when you should have been apologising.

Apologise.