daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > European Forums > UK & Ireland Architecture Forums > Projects and Construction > London Metro Area

London Metro Area London Calling...



Reply

 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 1 votes, 5.00 average.
Old December 8th, 2012, 03:41 PM   #101
Bezben
Registered User
 
Bezben's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Norwich
Posts: 212
Likes (Received): 10

I've been reading these comments and you guys are assuming that immigration is the only cause for population growth. In 2011 there were 807,778 births registered, as well as 552,232 deaths. That means 255,546 EXTRA BIRTHS. So even if immigration and emigration were equal we would still need to (eventually) house and provide for another quarter million people! Overall, between 2010-2011 the country grew by 470,000. So, in fact, the surplus of births is actually the biggest cause of the population growth. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_UK) - But aside from that, this thread is stupid. We have a growing population (which I believe is a good thing) so get over it and try and work around it. If it means we need to build more houses, then we need to be cleverer with the homes we create and be more space efficient. I hope I speak for everyone in that we ALL know plenty of land in our hometowns which is derelict or "brown sites" which could house a few hundred families.

As an immigrant myself, I find some of these comment actually disgusting, even the idea of "exporting idiots" to South Africa (my country of birth) is just stupidity and ignorance at its finest. The UK's population will be one of the yougest in Europe by 2050. We are also predicted to have a lower dependency ratio. The high number of births mean we have more people replacing the retired elderly, which Germany, Italy or Japan will have a major issue with in the future. I'd much rather be in our position than theirs (regardless of how great Germany is doing financially now).
Bezben no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
 
Old December 8th, 2012, 07:12 PM   #102
cnapan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 870
Likes (Received): 124

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bezben View Post
I've been reading these comments and you guys are assuming that immigration is the only cause for population growth.

Quote:
In 2011 there were 807,778 births registered, as well as 552,232 deaths. That means 255,546 EXTRA BIRTHS.
This took me by surprise. So I checked:

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_270569.pdf

And it's true. In the last year, average life expectancy rose by 4 months (which is huge). I'd previously thought that the extension of life expectency was slowing down, but it seems not.

Quote:
So even if immigration and emigration were equal we would still need to (eventually) house and provide for another quarter million people!
I wasn't arguing that they should be equal, but that varying the rate of immigration would allow us to adjust for emigration and fertility rate fluctuations. And now you've rightly pointed out a third variable - life expectancy.

[QUOTE[ We have a growing population (which I believe is a good thing) so get over it and try and work around it.
[/QUOTE]
Incidentally, growing pains aside, why is a larger population a good thing to you? The other reason I'd rather the population were smaller is simply to do with sustainability. For decades we've been unable to resource our needs locally. High population concentrations lock in a greater reliance on long-distance transport. (I realise that the current global economy makes a complete nonsense of the idea of sustainability, but perhaps one day in the future we'll take things more seriously).


Quote:
If it means we need to build more houses, then we need to be cleverer with the homes we create and be more space efficient.
Well at least you're honest about us all having to make do with less space.

Quote:
I hope I speak for everyone in that we ALL know plenty of land in our hometowns which is derelict or "brown sites" which could house a few hundred families.
Well I'm with you there. I'd rather these sites were all developed first.

Quote:
As an immigrant myself, I find some of these comment actually disgusting, even the idea of "exporting idiots" to South Africa (my country of birth) is just stupidity and ignorance at its finest.
I missed that one!

Quote:
The UK's population will be one of the yougest in Europe by 2050. We are also predicted to have a lower dependency ratio. The high number of births mean we have more people replacing the retired elderly, which Germany, Italy or Japan will have a major issue with in the future. I'd much rather be in our position than theirs (regardless of how great Germany is doing financially now).
People often overplay the ageing population 'problem', but I don't see the issue. Everyone knows that the retirement age is going to go up. And sure, the care sector will enlarge to cope with the greater number of old people, but if the population ages, other sectors of the economy will shrink anyway. Only a small percentage of the economy is devoted to geriatric care, and if this goes up a bit, it's not really a big deal.

Anyway, thanks for the post - It's good finally to be countered by someone who isn't trying to dismiss me as a crypto-fascist
cnapan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 8th, 2012, 07:28 PM   #103
geogregor
Registered User
 
geogregor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Jastrzebie(PL)Wroclaw(PL)London(UK)
Posts: 8,065
Likes (Received): 1834

Quote:
I wasn't arguing that they should be equal, but that varying the rate of immigration would allow us to adjust for emigration and fertility rate fluctuations. And now you've rightly pointed out a third variable - life expectancy.
Are seriously proposing some set immigration targets which would have to change every year according to changing fertility and emigration rate? Just to reach the holy grail of flat population? Not too much effort?
What happens if birth rate fall. Will you be shouting for increased immigration?

Quote:
Anyway, thanks for the post - It's good finally to be countered by someone who isn't trying to dismiss me as a crypto-fascist
Come on, don't be such a diva. How many people actually called you that?
geogregor no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 8th, 2012, 07:42 PM   #104
jamiefearon
Registered User
 
jamiefearon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: London
Posts: 802
Likes (Received): 125

Quote:
Originally Posted by cnapan View Post
You called me xenophobic despite me supporting the immigration of around 350,000 people a year.

Apologise.
I'm sorry.
jamiefearon no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 8th, 2012, 09:33 PM   #105
mouldss@hotmail.co.u
moulds
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 460
Likes (Received): 20

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bezben View Post
even the idea of "exporting idiots" to South Africa (my country of birth) is just stupidity and ignorance at its finest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jamiefearon View Post
We live in a Global economy, .
it's only fair that a larger country like South Africa has its fair share of idiots and pay for the privilege too.
mouldss@hotmail.co.u no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 9th, 2012, 01:16 AM   #106
Bezben
Registered User
 
Bezben's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Norwich
Posts: 212
Likes (Received): 10

Quote:
Originally Posted by mouldss@hotmail.co.u View Post
it's only fair that a larger country like South Africa has its fair share of idiots and pay for the privilege too.
Trust me, we have plenty enough idiots there as it is. If anything you need to take some of ours. And yes, we are a larger country, but a country where a third is effectively arid "desert" land. In terms of vegetation the UK is a perfect place to house a population due to the high crop yield and water. In South African entire towns are cutting down on water supply because of the population. Here in the UK it isn't so severe. Just because we're twice as big in area, doesn't mean our 2 bags of dirt in land is equal to your nugget of gold.
Bezben no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 9th, 2012, 01:24 AM   #107
Bezben
Registered User
 
Bezben's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Norwich
Posts: 212
Likes (Received): 10

cnapan, the problem that is happening in Germany is their old age dependency ratio is growing, which means more working adults supporting pensioners. And yes, the retirement age should be increased, but in some nations *cough*France, they are backtracking and LOWERING it, despite their ageing population. And let's be realistic, the retirement age can't keep on rising, nor will people be too happy with an increase. Realistically we can't follow the life expectancy along retirement age as there will always be people arguing against. From what I know in Germany they have either two options: increase immigration (which is currently unwanted at the moment) or increase incentives for more births, which obviously costs £££. We all want a society where the vast majority are in the working age, but I would rather one with slightly more children than elderly as that's more sustainable. A growing population puts constraint on these tiny islands, but a falling population can be even more damaging.
Bezben no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 9th, 2012, 05:00 PM   #108
mouldss@hotmail.co.u
moulds
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 460
Likes (Received): 20

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bezben View Post
Trust me, we have plenty enough idiots there as it is. If anything you need to take some of ours. And yes, we are a larger country, but a country where a third is effectively arid "desert" land. In terms of vegetation the UK is a perfect place to house a population due to the high crop yield and water. In South African entire towns are cutting down on water supply because of the population. Here in the UK it isn't so severe. Just because we're twice as big in area, doesn't mean our 2 bags of dirt in land is equal to your nugget of gold.

high chemicals yields leads to soil depletion.


It does not matter if you can grow plants or not. South African can build houses on all land and import food, run a deficit and not worry about the mid/long term future just like the good old uk.

Last edited by mouldss@hotmail.co.u; December 9th, 2012 at 07:15 PM.
mouldss@hotmail.co.u no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 9th, 2012, 06:23 PM   #109
cnapan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 870
Likes (Received): 124

Quote:
Originally Posted by geogregor View Post
how to solve the problem of illegal immigrants. Here I'm with you as the rule of law should be enforced.
I suggested illegal immigrants shouldn't be able to draw benefits or work (asylum seekers excepted)

Quote:
I do understand idea of managing immigration but what do you understand by that? Only pure numbers? If yes I won't agree. There are many more important factors in managing immigration than just math. Culture, attitudes, education, economy etc.
As far as I'm concerned, people are just people. Don't ask me to start supporting a law which only lets people in if they're from the 'right culture' because I'm not interested. There have been countless mass migrations of people in and out of what is now the UK, and in the main, the result isn't anything to be afraid of. If there is to be a limit, and we're using immigration to help address skills shortages, then sure, prioritise people who hold those skills, but in other times we will look to immigration just to keep the numbers steady, in which case there's no need to vet people on job type.


Quote:
You still didn't state what your policy should be apart from some general statements.
Of course not. I'm not here to state how enforcement is implemented. I think a police force is a good idea too but I'm not going to start explaining how it should be funded or organised.


Quote:
Come on, don't dramatize. There are some idiots on both side of the argument.
Not this argument. There have only been insults from one side. Don't start dragging in the behaviour of racists or fools outside of this argument because they're not 'on my side'.

Quote:
But if you want to have sensible discussion you have to propose something sensible apart from the simply statement: "we have to manage immigration"
No really, there are lots of people who don't even think managing migration is sensible. Let's discuss that first, because it's pointless discussing methods when someone doesn't even agree with the principle.

Quote:
99% of people would agree with such general statement but everyone would see this "management" in different way.
I disagree. I think the numbers are far lower than that. I think lots of people refuse to even consider the idea because they put it firmly in the 'racist nutjob' bag.

Sure... racist nutjobs don't want *any* immigration from places they don't think the people are the correct culture or colour or religion. I suspect it is this which makes people not want to even consider the idea. In a way it's understandable.

Quote:
So as long as you won't specify what do you exactly mean the whole discussion is pointless and will lead occasionally to silly arguments of "racist xenophobe" against "lefty hippy".
A xenophobe wouldn't be arguing to allow 300,000 people into the country each year. There isn't any need to give further details.
cnapan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 9th, 2012, 06:33 PM   #110
cnapan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 870
Likes (Received): 124

Quote:
Originally Posted by geogregor View Post
Are seriously proposing some set immigration targets which would have to change every year according to changing fertility and emigration rate?
I think you made that bit up. Did I really write that? I'm sure if you put your mind to it you could think of a more reasonable suggestion.


Quote:
Just to reach the holy grail of flat population? Not too much effort?
What happens if birth rate fall. Will you be shouting for increased immigration?
If the population started dropping rapidly, then increased immigration would be a very good help. And frequently in our history we have explicitly encouraged people to settle here from abroad.

And you describe this as nuts. What's nuts about that?

Quote:
Come on, don't be such a diva. How many people actually called you that?
None till now, but it doesn't add anything to the debate.
cnapan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 9th, 2012, 06:34 PM   #111
cnapan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 870
Likes (Received): 124

Quote:
Originally Posted by jamiefearon View Post
I'm sorry.
I genuinely didn't expect that. Thanks!
cnapan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 9th, 2012, 07:57 PM   #112
Bezben
Registered User
 
Bezben's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Norwich
Posts: 212
Likes (Received): 10

Quote:
Originally Posted by mouldss@hotmail.co.u View Post
high chemicals yields leads to soil depletion.


It does not matter if you can grow plants or not. South African can build houses on all land and import food, run a deficit and not worry about the mid/long term future just like the good old uk.
Regardless, it's unpractical. No one wants to live in the desert unless there's oil, which there isn't. And we can't "just import food", that's expensive and unreliable. This discussion has got so out of hand that we aren't thinking practically enough. South Africa doesn't NEED to house 100 million odd people just because the "poor UK" is cramped. The UK is a paradise compared to SA, hence why my family immigrated...
Bezben no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 9th, 2012, 09:16 PM   #113
mouldss@hotmail.co.u
moulds
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 460
Likes (Received): 20

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bezben View Post
Regardless, it's unpractical. No one wants to live in the desert unless there's oil, which there isn't. And we can't "just import food", that's expensive and unreliable. This discussion has got so out of hand that we aren't thinking practically enough. South Africa doesn't NEED to house 100 million odd people just because the "poor UK" is cramped. The UK is a paradise compared to SA, hence why my family immigrated...
Uk imports a lot of food I do see produce from SA.

SA needs to build more houses there's plenty of good land to build on. SA can make the Rand stronger, send more idiots to Zimbabwe the future breadbasket of Africa, it's only fair.
mouldss@hotmail.co.u no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 9th, 2012, 09:37 PM   #114
Bezben
Registered User
 
Bezben's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Norwich
Posts: 212
Likes (Received): 10

Quote:
Originally Posted by mouldss@hotmail.co.u View Post
Uk imports a lot of food I do see produce from SA.

SA needs to build more houses there's plenty of good land to build on. SA can make the Rand stronger, send more idiots to Zimbabwe the future breadbasket of Africa, it's only fair.
Hahahaha I hope you're joking, we want to build more houses but there's no money + corruption. And we want to send Zimbabweans back but that would be xenophobic. Making the Rand stronger is easier said than done haha why can't we all just move to mars? Plenty of space there..
Bezben no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 9th, 2012, 10:38 PM   #115
mouldss@hotmail.co.u
moulds
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 460
Likes (Received): 20

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bezben View Post
Hahahaha I hope you're joking, we want to build more houses but there's no money + corruption.
Sounds familiar, SA can just borrow like the uk does.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bezben View Post
And we want to send Zimbabweans back but that would be xenophobic.
I thought you meant idiots from the uk, oh dear.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bezben View Post
Making the Rand stronger is easier said than done haha why can't we all just move to mars? Plenty of space there..

Good idea, certainly definitely less stable.
mouldss@hotmail.co.u no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2012, 02:23 AM   #116
DANE81
Registered User
 
DANE81's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Northampton
Posts: 55
Likes (Received): 40

what i find odd in this discussion is that nobody has mentioned the fact that the UK is a member of the EU, and therefore is signed up to the principal of 'the free movement of goods and people' from any EU member state - therefore we are just accepting a free labour market, which is a British or 'anglo-saxon' trait - we have always believed this to be beneficial. Also, I seem to recall recently reading a news article saying that the UK was tightening the ease at which non-EU citizens can move to this country.

I don't really think anything will change to be fair, immigration in my opinion does improve a country - for example THE USA and Australia, where these countries were founded by immigration. yes they have tighter entry targets now, but people still emmigrate to them, and also they are in control of their immigration policies because they do not have an agreement with 28 other countries for free movement of goods and people.

Take Ireland for example - it has a long tradition of net emmigration, but this results ina brain drain where any people with aspirations move abroad, compounding the problem, as with a lack of young, intelligent, driven people, there is not so great a market for knowledge-based innovation, which then causes people to look outside Ireland for prospects.

I think Immigration/Emmigration is a very complex issue and taht a lot of the detail has been overshadowed by the xenophobia/nobn-xenophobic discussion.

My personal opinion is i'd rather see a growing population, than a falling one, as a falling population suggests a country has a problem. I agree though that the main question was can we have a situation where we dont need to build infrastructure to cope with increasing population. however I dont really see anywhere on earth where countries stop building new infrastucture. The problem is the world does not have infinite resources, but sadly, i think rather than this problem being addressed we will see over-population reaching unsustainability. the only hope is that developments in science will one day offset the waste and damage done by humans (for example fusion for near-on free unlimited energy, and genetically modified crops to provide food)
DANE81 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2012, 01:55 PM   #117
Ebeneezer_Goode
Registered User
 
Ebeneezer_Goode's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 839
Likes (Received): 224

The difference between the early US and modern Britain is that the US never had a robust social safety net to maintain the way we do. Waves of immigration boosted tax revenue, it didn't strain it. If we taxed the mega rich the way the US used to, then perhaps unrestrained immigration would be welcome again, but until the politicians are out of the pockets of big business it needs to be closely controlled.
Ebeneezer_Goode no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2012, 02:14 PM   #118
potto
Registered User
 
potto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London
Posts: 14,807
Likes (Received): 1745

It is to do with the modern US! The modern US and the EU have similar population levels... but the advantage has been to the US economy as the population there has always been free to more to where the jobs are. The flaw in the US is that a poor social safety net and poor investment in accessible mass transit has left swathes of population unable to achieve this basic premise of demand and supply economy.

Ability to move to where jobs are is a fundamental and people on here just don't seem to get it.

It is clear the population of the EU take less advantage of the legal ability to migrate all over the EU than in the US due to perception of national identity and cultural barriers such as language. But things like a common currency and using English as a common language are tools to improve the situation.

The other important concepts are skills and diversification in which advanced economies must have access to.

London is a global city in that it is connected at a global rather than national level and it must have access to the global skill set. People in power know this and which is why they only provide token gestures to popular misconceptions of migration numbers and recently cynically cut international student visas, harming an industry we were doing well in just to provide headlines to people who can't grasp the basics.

The trouble for London is that it is too ingrained in the wider UK and is susceptible to a little England mindset which will only push London to greater independence.

Last edited by potto; December 10th, 2012 at 02:25 PM.
potto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2012, 02:34 PM   #119
cnapan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 870
Likes (Received): 124

Potto I can never work out if you actively intend to misrepresent people's opinions (which is malicous) or just can't understand them (which is mere stupidity).

Quote:
Originally Posted by potto View Post
We have someone on here starting a bizarre thread to moan about investment in building new hospitals and schools...
At no point did I 'moan about investment in building new hospitals and schools'.

Did I?

No.

So why make this up? Malicious or stupid?

On the assumption it's the latter, the point I'm making is that if each year you have more people to deal with, then any investment in schools, hospitals, roads, homes etc has no positive effect... we're back to square one, only with fewer fields and therefore even *more* dependence on other people's fields to feed us for the rest of history than before.


Quote:
It is all a little england xenophobic cover like the UKIP.
Surprised you didn't say 'BNP'. If you're lying about other people's point of view, you may as well make up their membership of a fascist organisation too!
cnapan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2012, 02:36 PM   #120
potto
Registered User
 
potto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London
Posts: 14,807
Likes (Received): 1745

yes I removed that section because I thought it was a thread by Bowater and he definitely has a spamming agenda!
potto no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 08:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like v3.2.5 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu