Next lesson will be how 1.2m people moving into Germany are not causing a housing bubble.
Poll: The EU Referendum: How Will You Vote? (May Poll)
- Thread starter Burnsy2023
- Start date
- Status
Next lesson will be how 1.2m people moving into Germany are not causing a housing bubble.
At the current rate, we're building ~140,000 new homes every year. If we could cut net migration to the 'tens of thousands' i.e. historical norms, this rate would be more than enough. The problem is that net migration is running at more than double that, approximately ~330k extra people came to live in the UK in 2015 (that's just the official immigration figures as well - the real figure is much higher). Our own children need to live somewhere as well.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
-Huge number of homes have been bought over the last 20 years since the introduction of buy-to-let mortgages with very low requirements for application (this has recently seen more restrictions)
-development of new housing does not meet the increase demand from buyers looking to purchase their own home or looking to rent out to others, despite labour from the industry being abundantly available according to many of the 'took arr jaabs' articles
There is much more to choose from, immigration is just an easy target to shift blame to
He's starting to sound absolutely bloody desperate, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if all he is doing is making people want to vote out just to shut him up.
And they contribute more through tax per house they take up, receive less from the government compared to what they pay in than a British citizen and bring skill-sets that contribute to construction.
Give me 100 of them over one of you any day
If there is not enough houses being made, then the fault lies elsewhere
The fault is that you can't just build unlimited houses on a small island without it just becoming a concrete jungle. It doesn't surprise me that you prefer immigrants over British people though, seeing as the Left just oppose anything white and working class by default, irrespective of the actual arguments. You lot would defend Stalin if you thought the working class were against him.
Just FYI I own a house and I'm not working class, though I'm from that background
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Jul 2014
- Posts
- 3,907
- Location
- Oxon
That's misleading, and you know it.
On average, based on migration between 2001 and 2011, yes they contribute more and receive less. Post-2011 migration has been increasingly from a different set of countries though (A2 increasingly whilst A8 and EU-14 have remained fairly static) with a very different economic make up than before.
Have any studies been done on the economic impact of those cohorts of immigrants? Genuinely asking, because I'm not sure, and I'm unsure if you're basing your argument on newer analysis rather than the popular one based on 2001-2011 immigration.
The UK isn't in any danger of becoming a "concrete jungle", in fact it's less urbanised than France. The truth is that only a small proportion of our land is built on.
Wow. That jumped the shark quickly.
Really? Did you have to go there?
This is true of every single person of that persuasion that I've spoke to. The arguments for and against leaving the EU are almost secondary, they just consider Brexit to be a cover up for a right wing Nationalist movement so oppose it by default. They're not interested in the actual arguments even if they were told the country would be in ruins if we didn't leave (it wouldn't).
The population density of Bangladesh is 2886 people per square mile, whereas the UK's is 679, under a quarter of that of Bangladesh. In other words, the population of the UK would need to reach somewhere around 280 million in order to reach the population density of Bangladesh. Who is talking about another 210 million people coming to the UK?
Only good if mortgage stay the same price and same accessibility.
Which won't happen, if houses prices fall it'll be due to mortgage being harder to maintain. Wiping out the benefit of lower prices.
So many people just don't think these things through, so many poor arguments in these threads.
We need slow sustained changes.
Slowly raise tax for second homes, slowly remove help schemes, slowly control mortgage, build shed load more houses, bring in right to have a roof over your head. So you slowly stop the house price raise and let inflation work.
Last edited:
What arguments? UKIP slogans? Daily Mail style articles? The arguments are weak, they are not backed by reputable sources and they appeal to the uninformed, prejudiced or Nationalists.
Good for them in some ways, bad in others.
And forget buying a house for a second, and consider that a large portion of our economy is tied up in property. How happy would you be for the pension market to drop in value for example?
Go watch the debates on Youtube or something, if you're unaware of the arguments for both sides you're not very well informed
Considering we only produce a little over half the food we consume, at what point do you consider the country fall? Keep in mind
"
The carrying capacity of a biological species in an environment is the maximum population size of the species that the environment can sustain indefinitely, given the food, habitat, water, and other necessities available in the environment.
"
The are other problems with high population density, such as air quality.
The UK's level of food production relative to consumption has much more to do with various commercial factors than it does to do with the theoretical limits of food production in the UK.
I don't see that quoting biological definitions has much to do with immigration. As you point out yourself, the environment that supports the UK population is not limited to the UK. We should be concerned about the global population and the planet's ability to support it but immigration is not an issue of total population but rather population distribution.
There are but the solutions to these problems are needed anyway and I have always advocated investing much more on dealing with these issues.
I know what the arguments are. I also know they are weak and they don't stand under scrutiny, which is why their sources often are Youtube.. or something.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 10,695
- Location
- Shropshire
You love your statistics, and I am sure you knew I was speaking figuratively. I and many I speak to do not want to see spiralling house building and roadways being built, either to accommodate new immigrants or burgeoning birth rates of those people, indigenous or not, already in the country. I would like to see Draconian measures taken to deter people from having large families, especially those that breed with scant regard as to how the progeny will be financed.
Luckily people vote on gut instinct, a personal view of where the UK may be heading, and on experience with previous promises and declarations form governments, not just on statistics. We are not mathematical calculators. The voters will quite rightly have some prejudices, that is human nature, and that will not change in the foreseeable future. In fact some aspects of prejudice are likely to become more entrenched due to blatant attempts at forced integration which patently does not work.
- Status