Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Immigration To Take Up The Slack


laurejon

Recommended Posts

0
HOLA441

You want it in simple english?

Here are some facts.

Houseprices have been rising by 20%+ for many years.

Ordinary commodity prices like steel, coke etc.. have been rising by the same margin since dramatic drop in IRs.

Anything of limited or inelastic supply has been rising 20%+ per year.

From a deflationary enviroment, and probable unemployment we now have full employment and inflation expectations.

Normally skills which take years to aqquire are also of inelastic supply.

The price of skilled labour goes up when the amount of money circulating in the economy goes up. Normally this is just after houseprices have risen strongly.

This raises costs for firms, and thus they raise wages to compete.

As 75% of the economy is service sector based, the prices of services rise and inflation rises. The key is the labour pool.

We now have the biggest immigration in history, with no limits. When you have lots more workers with hard won skills chasing jobs through expanding the labour pool (i.e SUPPLY) it keeps wages down.

Wages stay down while property climbs ever higher. Inflation reaches 1%.

However, All those extra workers have demands on resources - for Housing (a city the size of Birmingham every few years on current flows!) Hospitals, Schools, Petrol, Energy, Wood, Coal, Steel, food, social security etc...etc... which have been built up with taxes and investment over generations.

I heard recently that Milton Friedman (Nobel prize winning economist) was saying that you cannot have large scale migration and have a welfare state.

Its economically unviable.

(The security blanket and infrastructure that is built up over years through the taxbase, oil receipts etc is suddenly sliced up into many more pieces without the corresponding real income streams.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 182
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1
HOLA442

How much is a 100k mortgage around per month roughly with both capital and interest? You used to get a nice 3 bed detached for that a few years ago, now you get some crabby 'new development 2 bad flat'. In North America you'd get the same 2 bed, but it would be a condo (better build) with probably a gym and a pool to use in the complex, with 24 hr security etc. Here its some crap shoebox, take it as it comes thing. :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2
HOLA443
3
HOLA444
Wuluf, who says quality of life is higher in the Netherlands? Is this all based on some statistic about wealth?

Like I said.. I am not going to hunt down links tables for you (well I might :) ).. Read a bit.. (I mean this in the nicest possible way).. Subscribe to the economist, time, business week(a bit crap!), newsweek (ok-ish).. Read the FT/WSJ.. Look at the work/studies done by the UN, OECD, EU, the UK government.. Or even better go live in the Netherlands for a while..

Standard of living is a combination of

1. wealth (not money - which is arbitrary - but access to "things" and "services")

2. health (live expectancy, mortality, mental) etc etc

3. environment

4. education

etc etc

Environmental and social issues such as traffic congestion and quality housing etc etc have a large bearing on quality of life too.

The chaps who do these studies are aware of this too..

What would you expect the quality of life to be like in the UK when most of it is as densely populated as London? Will happen one day if our rapid population growth contiinues.

If we start to fix the other (more important) things which are wrong with the UK - it may well rise..

As a start

1. Instill in the population the need to do YOUR job properly.. Not for money (alone) but rather as you owe it to society at large to do your work correctly and to the best of your ability. A simple rule, you might think, but the slothenly hap-hazard approach to work in this country means that almost every (public) service is substandard.. The roads, public transport, police etc etc. Having lived abroad for many years the most striking thing about the UK is both the lack of standards and the fact that the population at large consider this dereliction of duty to be acceptable.

Did you know that in Germany they have no speed limit on many autobahns... Drive as fast as you can/like.. No problem.. The same thing could not happen here.. Not because UK drivers are worse (ahem :) ) but because the raods are so crap.. I have driven in alomost every country in western europe and the only country with roads that you can compare to UK ones is belgium. Uneven sufaces with low grip surfaces, puddles, inverse camber (i.e. the opposite direction to that which it should be to aid cornering)..

Many on this board think that the UK is a 3rd world country.. I agree to some extent and that is not the fault of the immigrants..

The phrases "it will be alright on the night" and "it will come out in the wash" are alien to cultures who do things properly.. We in the UK complain, fuss, blame and then muddle our way through.. Nothing really changes.. We will keep doing that until the country collapses around us... (or more accurately - until the middle class pay/standards differential is no longer large enough to avoid the day-to-day problems created by having a stratified society. those at the top avoid all the crap. but the "waterline" is rising)

2. Start valuing substance above presentation. I wont even go into this one..

3. Stop educating a small proportion of the population.. Apparently the UK has the largest percentage of unskilled workers in europe (about 40% if I remember correctly).

4. Plan. - for the mid/long term. Not just immediate profit.

5. Improve productivity.. As this will lead to everyone being wealthier.. We are 40% less productive than the US and about 15-25% less productive than the germans/french.. Not to mention the fact that what we produce is, in any case, of a lower standard.

6. Instill through a stakeholder culture a desire in the population to protect their environs - rather than destroy.. What does that mean? Reduce social exclusion.. (thereby reducing 2nd level GDP inflation which creates no real wealth. e.g. vandalism).

If we do all of that plus start shifting the population out to the provinces.. (scotland/wales) etc etc the standard of living will improve..

But you know what..? Its not going to happen..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4
HOLA445
Nonsense. Here is what £100k would buy in North America:

22691.jpg

http://www.mls.ca/PropertyDetails.aspx?vd=...pertyID=2460999

lol cool, I just meant in City Centers, like in Montreal u get a condo in the old town, with gym and pool for 96k And thats the upper end, you can get condos like that for 75k

pop-const-07-10.jpg

I hate this country right now, i just checked some prices and you get this crap in Darwen for 250k: I wouldn't give 80k for that. :blink:

p1235254.jpg

You're right tho if you move out the city in NA you get a big house!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5
HOLA446

p1235254.jpg

I wouldn't give you £250,000 for that if it was in Eaton Square, never mind bloody Darwen! That really is insane, I can't believe they are asking A QUARTER OF A MILLION POUNDS for that poxy little bungalow in the ar5e end of nowhere (no offence to anyone who lives in Darwen).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6
HOLA447
7
HOLA448
8
HOLA449
9
HOLA4410
Like I said.. I am not going to hunt down links tables for you (well I might  :) ).. Read a bit.. (I mean this in the nicest possible way).. Subscribe to the economist, time, business week(a bit crap!), newsweek (ok-ish).. Read the FT/WSJ.. Look at the work/studies done by the UN, OECD, EU, the UK government.. Or even better go live in the Netherlands for a while..

Standard of living is a combination of

1. wealth (not money - which is arbitrary - but access to "things" and "services")

2. health (live expectancy, mortality, mental) etc etc

3. environment

4. education

etc etc

The chaps who do these studies are aware of this too..

If we start to fix the other (more important) things which are wrong with the UK - it may well rise..

As a start

1. Instill in the population the need to do YOUR job properly.. Not for money (alone) but rather as you owe it to society at large to do your work correctly and to the best of your ability. A simple rule, you might think, but the slothenly hap-hazard approach to work in this country means that almost every (public) service is substandard.. The roads, public transport, police etc etc. Having lived abroad for many years the most striking thing about the UK is both the lack of standards and the fact that the population at large consider this dereliction of duty to be acceptable.

Did you know that in Germany they have no speed limit on many autobahns... Drive as fast as you can/like.. No problem.. The same thing could not happen here.. Not because UK drivers are worse (ahem :) ) but because the raods are so crap.. I have driven in alomost every country in western europe and the only country with roads that you can compare to UK ones is belgium. Uneven sufaces with low grip surfaces, puddles, inverse camber (i.e. the opposite direction to that which it should be to aid cornering)..

Many on this board think that the UK is a 3rd world country.. I  agree to some extent and that is not the fault of the immigrants..

The phrases "it will be alright on the night" and "it will come out in the wash" are alien to cultures who do things properly.. We in the UK complain, fuss, blame and then muddle our way through.. Nothing really changes.. We will keep doing that until the country collapses around us... (or more accurately - until the middle class pay/standards differential is no longer large enough to avoid the day-to-day problems created by having a stratified society. those at the top avoid all the crap. but the "waterline" is rising)

2. Start valuing substance above presentation. I wont even go into this one..

3. Stop educating a small proportion of the population.. Apparently the UK has the largest percentage of unskilled workers in europe (about 40% if I remember correctly).

4. Plan. - for the mid/long term. Not just immediate profit.

5. Improve productivity.. As this will lead to everyone being wealthier.. We are 40% less productive than the US and about 15-25% less productive than the germans/french.. Not to mention the fact that what we produce is, in any case, of a lower standard.

6. Instill through a stakeholder culture a desire in the population to protect their environs - rather than destroy.. What does that mean? Reduce social exclusion.. (thereby reducing 2nd level GDP inflation which creates no real wealth. e.g. vandalism).

If we do all of that plus start shifting the population out to the provinces.. (scotland/wales) etc etc the standard of living will improve..

But you know what..? Its not going to happen..

What you are talkng about is a kind of European 'civic pride' society. Sadly, thatcher killed off the last vestiges of that in the UK and introduced the f'-you' model that sees ar*eholes in mercs tailgating you, BTLers hoovering up would-be FTBs homes and chavs smashing up bus shelters.

In line with waht you say, the Thatcherite 'f-you' attitute extends to how employers view people and how people do their jobs.

Employer: 'We're trying to keep wages down, and there's always someone willing to work for less'

Employeee: 'Well f-you too, then, mate. Whether I do the bare minimum or go the extra mile, you're going to pay me so little I'm going to struggle, so stuff it.

I've worked in two workplaces where people were paid low, and below the going rate for the type of work. Staff turnover was incredibly high, and the f-you attitute permeated everything that was done - crap work, crap product, crap spirit. F-you all the way.

The housing boom has made matters worse, as it's effectively re-written what is considered a reasonable or living wage. A couple on 15k and 17k in 2000 could have maintained a good lifestyle, in 2004 they are gettng on for proper poor in the South of England. A workfoce of morose, stressed-out strugglers isn't going to deliver productivity.

One thing you neglected to mention is the attitude of investors in the UK to invest in British products that do not involve shuffling money around with a computer. This combined with the failure of the UK government to give the same support to British manufacturing as the Germans and French means the best of British has to remain a niche taste. Proper hi-fi is still British dominated, and Triumph motorcycles have a couple of class-leading models and edge a little closer to the best of the Japanese with each revision, yet both will struggle to become truly mass-market unless snapped up by a multi-national as a vanity brand.

It's not a matter of flag-waving - the balance of trade as we move to an economy of McRetail and Chinese imported tat can only get worse and worse and worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10
HOLA4411
Guest Charlie The Tramp
Sadly, thatcher killed off the last vestiges of that in the UK and introduced the f'-you' model

Spot on COAB.

By early 1982 less than 3 years in power she was so unpopular that people thought the rubbish piled up in the streets under Labour was preferable to what she had done. Thatcher had a saviour lurking in the background who was about to make her a hero, his name Galtieri he invaded the bl***y Falklands, and after the victory, she was guaranteed re-election in 1983.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11
HOLA4412
12
HOLA4413
13
HOLA4414
14
HOLA4415

That's where we disagree. Increased consumption and waste and other environmental issues are a huge problem.

So let's imagine population triples in 50 years, I'd say we'd have a problem, regardless of infrastructure. What happens when we physically run out of space, the inevitable result of ongoing population growth, or if the earths resources start to dwindle and there's not enough to go round, or if climate change makes large parts of our planet uninhabitable? Might be a long way off but we'll get there one day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15
HOLA4416
Increased consumption and waste and other environmental issues are a huge problem.

Err, they are a problem whether the population increases or not, and are a result of the Western high-consumption society.

let's our population triples in 50 years

First of all, there is no prospect of this happening whatsoever.

Second of all,

what happens when we physically run out of space,

Space/land IS infrastructure.

if the earths resources start to dwindle and there's not enough to go round, or if climate change makes large parts of our planet uninhabitable? Might be a long way off but we'll get there one day.

It's not a long way off, it's happening NOW. It only requires the sea level to rise by 1 meter for whole swathes of Bangladesh (a country of 142 million people) to be submerged and the land uninhabitable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16
HOLA4417

You said population growth isn't a problem with infrastructure. I was talking hypothetically about a tripling of world population.

" they are a problem whether the population increases or not, and are a result of the Western high-consumption society"

So you don't think another 6m+ people in the UK will add to this mass consumption/waste? Or are you saying this is all OK because we already have 60 million people consuming large amounts? I don't see your point - we have a huge problem so let's make it even worse. Bonkers politics, unfortunately your view is shared by those who matter.

"It's not a long way off, it's happening NOW. It only requires the sea level to rise by 1 meter for whole swathes of Bangladesh (a country of 142 million people) to be submerged and the land uninhabitable."

So if Bangladesh population grows to 250m in the meantime that's another 100 million people displaced or suffering. Still as long as the infrastructure was there before this ever happens it's ok.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17
HOLA4418
population growth isn't a problem with infrastructure

Population growth isn't a problem if there are the resources to accomodate them, ie housing, jobs, road network, public transport, healthcare, etc. This is clearly not the case in the UK.

I was talking hypothetically about a tripling of world population.

The "carrying capacity" of the Earth is a hotly-debated subject and as yet there is no consensus about the maximum number of human beings it can sustain.

So you don't think another 6m+ people in the UK will add to this mass consumption/waste?

60m or 66m, it makes no odds when you have 300million consuming at even higher levels in the United States.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18
HOLA4419
So if Bangladesh population grows to 250m in the meantime that's another 100 million people displaced or suffering. Still as long as the infrastructure was there before this ever happens it's ok.

So what's your point? So the world is overpopulated. What are you going to do about it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19
HOLA4420

"60m or 66m, it makes no odds when you have 300million consuming at even higher levels in the United States"

Marvellous idea, we have a problem so let's make it worse. You should be a politician.

"What are you going to do about it?"

There is nothing I can do about it other than not have any kids. What I wouldn't do is have policies to boost population growth if I were in power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20
HOLA4421

Blair and the other thugs keep telling us we need to let more immigrants in to do the jobs we brits don’t want to do ourselves. So what’s the excuse for London where it can be seen that 50% are darker then the average white honkey and many of the remainder who look white, speak little or no English. Looks like Blair is saying that we brits won’t do any jobs and for that my friends he should be hung drawn and quartered. :ph34r:

Now who do you think these new arrivals vote for ? yes you guest it but is that not money for votes by any other name :angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21
HOLA4422
Blair and the other thugs keep telling us we need to let more immigrants in to do the jobs we brits don’t want to do ourselves. So what’s the excuse for London where it can be seen that 50% are darker then the average white honkey and many of the remainder who look white, speak little or no English. Looks like Blair is saying that we brits won’t do any jobs and for that my friends he should be hung drawn and quartered.  :ph34r:

Now who do you think these new arrivals vote for ? yes you guest it but is that not money for votes by any other name  :angry:

One of the main factors in the government allowing/requiring large scale immigration to fill the lowest paid jobs is that it creates an "elastic" labour pool. Inelsticity in the the pool of workers is one of the main elements required for inflation to work correctly. Let me explain...

If you reduced borrowing costs, increase lending, and pump more and more "free" money in to the economy (as has been happening in recent years) then this should be inflationary. Creating more money does not create more wealth, it should simply mean that each unit of currency buys less (has less value). If it didn't then we could simply print as much money as we wanted and all be rich.

This inflation should come about through more money chasing the same supply of goods and services, increasing demand and increasing prices. This will be facilitated by the earnings of the workforce being insufficient to buy anything (including essential goods and services) and the workers demanding higher nominal pay, in order to be able to afford the cost of living. I.e. , you put twice as much money into circulation, the value of the currency halvesm and everything costs nominally twice as much to buy, so the workforce demand double the nominal salary in order to be able to afford to live. They now have twice as much money, but everything costs twice as much, so they are no better/worse off than before, the value of a unit of currency has simply fallen. This is called inflation.

However, the above assumes that the workers at the bottom end of the labour pool have the ability and resolve to demand increased nominal earnings. In a relatively "inelastic" workforce, the workers have this power, because the leaders of commerce and industry require a workforce to be working in order for them to make money, so have to agree to nominal wage increases to keep up with the cost of living. If they don't then you gets strikes, union action, etc, etc.

However, if you allow an immigration policy whereby people are encouraged come in from other countries to work in the unskilled/low-skilled jobs then there is sufficient elasticity in the labour market that the workers at the bottom of the scale have no bargaining power to demand wage increases to keep up with the inflating costs of living...

"If you won't work for £4 an hour, then there are people queuing at the border to do your job for £4 an hour, as for them it's better than living in a ditch in Bulgariastan."

This allows you to put (lend) ever more money into the economy, increasing the real costs of everything (especially assets such as housing), without seeing the negative inflationary pressures filtering through in figures such as the CPI figures. This allows these debt-fuelled economic booms to be sustained much longer than would otherwise be the case, and theoretically, I guess, could be sustained to the point at which the country's economy and infrastructure collapses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22
HOLA4423

RJG you are a star. This is what I have thought for ages, but didn't have the eloquence to put it into words!

In effect, GB and TB are importing poverty. I am hardly surprised that the poor are getting poorer and the rich richer, as 1) poor people born in the UK are now having to compete with recent immigrants for the same menial jobs, with no possibility of wages moving up, while 2) property becomes unaffordable and people who have not yet bought have to rent.

And this is from a left leaning government! The saddest thing for this government is that they already failed their main test - by allowing such a large asset bubble to develop, they will inevitably create a economic stumbling block.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23
HOLA4424
Wuluf, you haven't changed my view that as population increases, waste, consumption, traffic congestion, urban sprawl, pollution etc all increase too lowering everyones quality of life, as well as being unsustainable in the long term.

I think we agree that the degree of the problem in the SE is not just the fault of the new arrivals..

wrt Immigration in general I think there are three options..

1. No immigration - shrinking population leads to a fall in living standards

2. Controlled immigration (i.e. limits) - hard due to asylum conventions

3. The current system - too many low skilled immigrants (in the opinion of some on this thread)..

I personally would opt for 2. Controlled immigration. Plus (as a social leveller and to help the immigrants integrate) I would also demand effective equal opportunities legislation.

The problem of immigration is not that bad as people make out.. Most people actually prefer to stay with others who are the same than to move elsewhere.. In Europe look at the low level of migration accross the EU - despite the Treaty of Amsterdam (right to free movement).

It is true that excessive growth in a population further strains infrastructure, systems and services. These problems are normally offset by economic growth created by the newcomers.

I do accept that there is a point where human endeavour to mitigate negative effects of new arrivals will hit the buffers of the current boundary of scientific knowledge. At such a point "friction" created by high population density could no longer be worked around effectively. I just dont think that the density in the UK has reached that point yet - as ably demonstrated by the fact that other countries with similar densities/populations/economies which do not suffer in the same way.

Consider that 1000 years ago the current population of the UK would lead to mass famine (even without the addition of foreigners :) ). Similarily our backward culture is creating the CURRENT Standard of Living deficit vis-a-vis our neighbours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24
HOLA4425
One of the main factors in the government allowing/requiring large scale immigration to fill the lowest paid jobs is that it creates an "elastic" labour pool. Inelsticity in the the pool of workers is one of the main elements required for inflation to work correctly. Let me explain...

If you reduced borrowing costs, increase lending, and pump more and more "free" money in to the economy (as has been happening in recent years) then this should be inflationary. Creating more money does not create more wealth, it should simply mean that each unit of currency buys less (has less value). If it didn't then we could simply print as much money as we wanted and all be rich.

This inflation should come about through more money chasing the same supply of goods and services, increasing demand and increasing prices. This will be facilitated by the earnings of the workforce being insufficient to buy anything (including essential goods and services) and the workers demanding higher nominal pay, in order to be able to afford the cost of living. I.e. , you put twice as much money into circulation, the value of the currency halvesm and everything costs nominally twice as much to buy, so the workforce demand double the nominal salary in order to be able to afford to live. They now have twice as much money, but everything costs twice as much, so they are no better/worse off than before, the value of a unit of currency has simply fallen. This is called inflation.

However, the above assumes that the workers at the bottom end of the labour pool have the ability and resolve to demand increased nominal earnings. In a relatively "inelastic" workforce, the workers have this power, because the leaders of commerce and industry require a workforce to be working in order for them to make money, so have to agree to nominal wage increases to keep up with the cost of living. If they don't then you gets strikes, union action, etc, etc.

However, if you allow an immigration policy whereby people are encouraged come in from other countries to work in the unskilled/low-skilled jobs then there is sufficient elasticity in the labour market that the workers at the bottom of the scale have no bargaining power to demand wage increases to keep up with the inflating costs of living...

"If you won't work for £4 an hour, then there are people queuing at the border to do your job for £4 an hour, as for them it's better than living in a ditch in Bulgariastan."

This allows you to put (lend) ever more money into the economy, increasing the real costs of everything (especially assets such as housing), without seeing the negative inflationary pressures filtering through in figures such as the CPI figures. This allows these debt-fuelled economic booms to be sustained much longer than would otherwise be the case, and theoretically, I guess, could be sustained to the point at which the country's economy and infrastructure collapses.

The upshot of all of which is that large-scale immigration kills wage inflation (the only REAL form of inflation) while allowing a credit and asset price bubble to form. The UK economy is afloat on a sea of cheap debt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information