Toto deVeer

Uk Population Growth: Why?

47 posts in this topic

From the Guardian:

[img]http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/maps_and_graphs/2009/10/21/Population.gif[/img]

I've seen other estimates showing the population topping out at 115 million.

Now we all understand the demographics at play, ageing population, etc. But can someone please explain to me why the UK managed to quite successfully maintain a steady population in the 60's, 70's and 80's, and why it is necessary to let it explode now?

I mean those demographics are going to be there eventually. To me, we face them with 50 million people, or we face them with 115 million people, Personally, I'd rather face them with 50 million. Surely the standard of living would be much higher with fewer people?

Why is no one screaming out about this one. Not only will it create misery of life, but it will completely destroy British culture.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Toto deVeer' date='18 September 2010 - 02:03 PM' timestamp='1284815006' post='2714964']
From the Guardian:

[img]http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/maps_and_graphs/2009/10/21/Population.gif[/img]

I've seen other estimates showing the population topping out at 115 million.

Now we all understand the demographics at play, ageing population, etc. But can someone please explain to me why the UK managed to quite successfully maintain a steady population in the 60's, 70's and 80's, and why it is necessary to let it explode now?

I mean those demographics are going to be there eventually. To me, we face them with 50 million people, or we face them with 115 million people, Personally, I'd rather face them with 50 million. Surely the standard of living would be much higher with fewer people?

Why is no one screaming out about this one. Not only will it create misery of life, but it will completely destroy British culture.....
[/quote]

Who do you think is going to feed the monstrous parasite that is the City and its pensions/finance industry if the population remains flat?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Toto deVeer' date='18 September 2010 - 02:03 PM' timestamp='1284815006' post='2714964']
From the Guardian:

[img]http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/maps_and_graphs/2009/10/21/Population.gif[/img]

I've seen other estimates showing the population topping out at 115 million.

Now we all understand the demographics at play, ageing population, etc. But can someone please explain to me why the UK managed to quite successfully maintain a steady population in the 60's, 70's and 80's, and why it is necessary to let it explode now?

I mean those demographics are going to be there eventually. To me, we face them with 50 million people, or we face them with 115 million people, Personally, I'd rather face them with 50 million. Surely the standard of living would be much higher with fewer people?

Why is no one screaming out about this one. Not only will it create misery of life, but it will completely destroy British culture.....
[/quote]

Good question.

When people claim that uncontrolled immigration benefits the economy no one factors in the cost of

More resevoirs due to water shortages
More power stations
More housing
More schools
More hospitals

etc, etc, etc

The costs probably outweigh any short term economic advantage 10-1

:blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Another 10...........million (and the rest) to keep warm, clothe, feed, water, housing, supply benefits and pensions for, find jobs, print newspapers, find Christmas and Birthday presents for, build roads and schools etc and so on.

Not enough time for sufficient nuclear energy to compensate for peak oil crises and they aren't going to wait and see.

It's clear they've decided oil is abiotic and virtually endless but they aren't letting on. Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Game_Over' date='18 September 2010 - 02:36 PM' timestamp='1284816997' post='2714986']
Good question.

When people claim that uncontrolled immigration benefits the economy no one factors in the cost of

More resevoirs due to water shortages
More power stations
More housing
More schools
More hospitals

etc, etc, etc

The costs probably outweigh any short term economic advantage 10-1

:blink:
[/quote]

But creating these obviously implies jobs / growth.

Taking out the sustainability issues, does the act of letting the population rise implicitly have some correlation with GDP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Kyoto' date='18 September 2010 - 03:15 PM' timestamp='1284819324' post='2715017']
But creating these obviously implies jobs / growth.

Taking out the sustainability issues, does the act of letting the population rise implicitly have some correlation with GDP.
[/quote]

Yes if your GDP goes up 50% but your population doubles everyone is actually much worse off

And that doesn't even take into account the effect on quality of life of overcrowding and congestion.

We had a stable population - now it is growing rapidly.

How exactly are we supposed to cut our CO2 emissions in these circumstances unless economic activity per head plunges.

The politics of the madhouse

:blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Game_Over' date='18 September 2010 - 02:36 PM' timestamp='1284816997' post='2714986']
Good question.

[b]When people claim that uncontrolled immigration benefits the economy [/b]no one factors in the cost of

More resevoirs due to water shortages
More power stations
More housing
More schools
More hospitals

etc, etc, etc

The costs probably outweigh any short term economic advantage 10-1

:blink:
[/quote]

Thats why politicians always say it 'benefits the economy' not 'it benefits you'

We could annexe ethiopia, and our economy would be 'bigger'. We as individuals, on average, would be poorer though.


As for why population growth wasnt an issue in the 70s it was probably because more people were entering the workforce (ie turning 18) than were leaving it (ie retiring)

What i dont get is how it seems OK to suggest we need more immigrants now when millions are on the scrapheap. It might have been plausible in the 50s when millions of young men were killed or incapacitated in the war effort, and women were still shut out from many professions, but i dont get how anyone can say we need more immigrants at this stage with a straight face. Its absurd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Kyoto' date='18 September 2010 - 03:15 PM' timestamp='1284819324' post='2715017']
But creating these obviously implies jobs / growth.

Taking out the sustainability issues, does the act of letting the population rise implicitly have some correlation with GDP.
[/quote]

If the population figures were correct and it was rising at 1% or so a year, and yet debt is rising at 10-15% a year, immigration would surely be pretty pointless anyway. To ensure peoples debt load didnt grow per capita, wouldnt we have to increase the population by 10 million or so each and every year?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Game_Over' date='18 September 2010 - 02:36 PM' timestamp='1284816997' post='2714986']
Good question.

When people claim that uncontrolled immigration benefits the economy no one factors in the cost of

More resevoirs due to water shortages
More power stations
More housing
More schools
More hospitals

etc, etc, etc

The costs probably outweigh any short term economic advantage 10-1

:blink:
[/quote]


Nope this is pure british thinking.... i.e. lets have more people but not build any more infrastructure for them. If you build up the infrastrucure building upwards to save arable space as well as downwards then you can cram an incredible number of people into a small amount of space.

Guanzhao for example is an incredible sprawl of 200 million people. It works so far because the subsistance farming inland has been changed to mechanical farming which puts more output per km2 of land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Game_Over' date='18 September 2010 - 02:36 AM' timestamp='1284816997' post='2714986']
Good question.

When people claim that uncontrolled immigration benefits the economy no one factors in the cost of

More resevoirs due to water shortages
More power stations
More housing
More schools
More hospitals

etc, etc, etc

The costs probably outweigh any short term economic advantage 10-1

:blink:
[/quote]


The extra labour will build it, the extra taxes will pay for it.......like if you owned a house you rented out, better to split it up into rooms and rented out each room to many than rented out the whole house to one.....more skills to call on more rent to collect. Edited by winkie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Toto deVeer' date='18 September 2010 - 02:03 PM' timestamp='1284815006' post='2714964']
I've seen other estimates showing the population (...)
[/quote]

You can stop worrying. The projection in this chart you've posted is absurd. It assumes that the pop. increase between 2004 and 2008 due to immigration from the new EU countries would keep going, and on a straight line (!), for decades on end! :rolleyes:

The reality is that it has fallen already, to a very low level, like the chart below shows, or even to a negative NET level, like some other data suggest. Relax.

[img]http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/7476/neteasterneumiggration.png[/img]


[img]http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/3479/picture1oqi.jpg[/img] Edited by Tired of Waiting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The UK economy and political system is set up to benefit big business and the banksters.

Don't give 2 figs about the indigenous population.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='ken_ichikawa' date='18 September 2010 - 04:14 PM' timestamp='1284822854' post='2715056']
Nope this is pure british thinking.... i.e. lets have more people but not build any more infrastructure for them. If you build up the infrastrucure building upwards to save arable space as well as downwards then you can cram an incredible number of people into a small amount of space.

Guanzhao for example is an incredible sprawl of 200 million people. It works so far because the subsistance farming inland has been changed to mechanical farming which puts more output per km2 of land.
[/quote]

But we already practice very intensive agriculture in the UK so this option is not open to us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='winkie' date='18 September 2010 - 04:36 PM' timestamp='1284824218' post='2715073']
The extra labour will build it, the extra taxes will pay for it.......like if you owned a house you rented out, better to split it up into rooms and rented out each room to many than rented out the whole house to one.....more skills to call on more rent to collect.
[/quote]

This would be nice if we weren't already one of the mostly densely populated countries in the World

and we hadn't run out of space for new power stations, landfill sites, reservoirs, roads, airports etc,etc,etc

:blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Toto deVeer' date='18 September 2010 - 02:03 PM' timestamp='1284815006' post='2714964']
From the Guardian:

[img]http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/maps_and_graphs/2009/10/21/Population.gif[/img]

But can someone please explain to me why the UK managed to quite successfully maintain a steady population in the 60's, 70's and 80's, and why it is necessary to let it explode now?

[/quote]

It's the function of exponential growth. All exponential growth hits a vertical climb at some point. If we base the X Axis (population) with a maximum carry capacity of 100 million, then you can see the vertical climb very clearly.

It's exactly because people don't understand exponential growth that we are in such as mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Glowballisation.

The surplus countries require deficit countries to keep importing capital. i.e. debt growth.

How else will they get rich?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the percentage number of people of working age actually employed is dropping you need to keep the total population up to keep some tax receipts rolling in. We can't have just a few people working to pay for everybody or else they might realise those not working are mugging them. This is partly why we now have joint income mortgages to get the women working as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Game_Over' date='18 September 2010 - 04:47 AM' timestamp='1284824869' post='2715087']
This would be nice if we weren't already one of the mostly densely populated countries in the World

and we hadn't run out of space for new power stations, landfill sites, reservoirs, roads, airports etc,etc,etc

:blink:
[/quote]


....the future financial plan did not go to plan and is now having to be delayed for a further few years.....had to bail-out a few too big to fail types, money that unexpectedly had to be spent.....

We have the people we now desperately require the infrastructure :rolleyes: to support them or we will cease to be the country of choice that we had been in the past. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='winkie' date='18 September 2010 - 05:03 PM' timestamp='1284825819' post='2715111']
....the future financial plan did not go to plan and is now having to be delayed for a further few years.....had to bail-out a few too big to fail types, money that unexpectedly had to be spent.....

We have the people we now desperately require the infrastructure :rolleyes: to support them or we will cease to be the country of choice that we had been in the past. ;)
[/quote]

The vast majority of the indigenous population would leave tommorrow if they could.

:blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Toto deVeer' date='18 September 2010 - 03:03 PM' timestamp='1284815006' post='2714964']
......
I've seen other estimates showing the population topping out at 115 million.
.....
[/quote]

Like the graph the figures are total cr@p and an extrapolation of underlying factors that cannot continue. The press are full of sh1t and like to publish this kind of made-up drivel to get people wound up. A good old fashioned racist argument that leads people to vote for the party or parties that pretend they care about it (or like the BNP scumbags care of nothing else). The OBR confirms the current morons cap on non EU immigration will cost £9Bn. This is backed by Tory mayor BJ and the CBI to name but two left wing socialist nutters :D

I think Toff and Toffer will probably ditch the (temporary) cap as we cannot afford it.

In the longer term life expectancy will fall again as medical treatment becomes unaffordable and the McDonalds generation of lard saturated useless porkers start to die off in their 40s with heart disease. The economic immigrants from other EU countries like Poland will leave when the pound collapses and the UK population figures will begin to fall. Add to this the young people leaving to work in countries with decent job prospects and the main problem facing the UK in a decade or so is a falling population. Two things may arrest this catastrophe, one is keeping the burger stuffed fatties alive and the other is all the old farts coming back to the UK when their sterling pension is worthless outside the UK. Both of these will make the tax in - welfare out problem worse not better.

If you like extrapolating a line forward without any analysis of causality then look at the HP graph on the home page - its telling you that [b]without doubt[/b] house prices will double by 2040. [u]Go buy one[/u].

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Game_Over' date='18 September 2010 - 05:29 AM' timestamp='1284827344' post='2715134']
The vast majority of the indigenous population would leave tommorrow if they could.

:blink:
[/quote]


I disagree....not yet anyway....this country is a great place to live if you have a job, a home you can afford, a car you can afford to keep running and/or public transport that won't break the bank, enough to fill your stomach with healthy good food and enough to pay your taxes, water and fuel bills to keep warm.


Looking around....other places are catching up fast and the cost of living is not nearly as much...fixed costs are lower so that makes the quality of life greater or getting greater. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='winkie' date='18 September 2010 - 05:40 PM' timestamp='1284828036' post='2715143']
I disagree....not yet anyway....this country is a great place to live if you have a job, a home you can afford, a car you can afford to keep running and/or public transport that won't break the bank, enough to fill your stomach with healthy good food and enough to pay your taxes, water and fuel bills to keep warm.


Looking around....other places are catching up fast and the cost of living is not nearly as much...fixed costs are lower so that makes the quality of life greater or getting greater. ;)
[/quote]

Millions have already left and if Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the US opened their doors the vast majority of ordinary working people would leave IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Isn't the answer mass immigration - all the powers that be want it - it increases economic growth (or that's the theory...), increases consumption, supports house prices, reduces wages, etc. Corporate Britain wants it. The banks want it - that's what we will continue to see. Edited by gruffydd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='non frog' date='18 September 2010 - 05:36 PM' timestamp='1284827779' post='2715140']

I think Toff and Toffer will probably ditch the (temporary) cap as we cannot afford it.


[/quote]

So the country will be worse off financially if it stop unlimted immigration from the third world?

The one thing Cameron ISN'T going to do is support increased immigration.

Whatever his thoughts on the issue he knows what that would do to the Conservative vote at the next election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now