Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sancho Panza

Assessing The Impact Of 'hidden' Population Growth In The Uk

Recommended Posts

I was talking to a chap who owns a garage and he made a comment about the sheer amount of families who were downsizing not only their cars but also the number of cars per household.I've been fascinated for a while by the evident demand destruction I see around me,particularly in terms of leisure spend eg pubs(BBC 27/2/13 18 pubs shutting per week),emptier roads and the apparent lack of such in the official figures.

I checked registrations/Vehicle Miles and they're up/flat.DVLA

Slow as I am,it dawned on me that population growth may have something to do with it.

The Guardian has a nice table detailing GDP (inflation adjusted),GDP,GDP per capita and GDP per capita inflation adjusted.

Year Q QoQ growth GDP infl adj GDP GDP GDP pc

per infl

capita adj

2001 Q3 0.5 309,227 256,609 4,337 5,227

2001 Q4 0.4 310,365 257,794 4,353 5,241

2002 Q1 0.4 311,665 261,508 4,412 5,259

2002 Q2 0.8 314,248 265,841 4,482 5,298

2002 Q3 0.8 316,907 268,919 4,529 5,337

2002 Q4 0.9 319,888 272,331 4,582 5,382

2003 Q1 0.6 321,812 277,392 4,663 5,409

2003 Q2 1.2 325,717 282,375 4,742 5,469

2003 Q3 1.2 329,697 286,038 4,797 5,530

2003 Q4 1.2 333,653 290,791 4,871 5,589

2004 Q1 0.7 336,115 294,775 4,932 5,623

2004 Q2 0.2 336,916 298,495 4,988 5,630

2004 Q3 0.0 336,927 300,643 5,016 5,621

2004 Q4 0.6 339,043 305,968 5,096 5,647

2005 Q1 0.6 341,116 308,779 5,135 5,672

2005 Q2 1.2 345,345 314,077 5,214 5,733

2005 Q3 0.8 348,118 317,492 5,263 5,771

2005 Q4 1.1 351,847 322,362 5,336 5,824

2006 Q1 0.5 353,601 328,894 5,437 5,845

2006 Q2 0.3 354,684 330,244 5,451 5,854

2006 Q3 0.2 355,417 333,436 5,495 5,857

2006 Q4 0.9 358,777 340,583 5,603 5,902

2007 Q1 1.1 362,842 343,922 5,649 5,959

2007 Q2 1.2 367,319 351,234 5,759 6,023

2007 Q3 1.2 371,652 356,513 5,836 6,084

2007 Q4 0.2 372,340 360,450 5,890 6,085

2008 Q1 0.1 372,659 364,010 5,939 6,080

2008 Q2 -0.9 369,278 362,867 5,910 6,014

2008 Q3 -1.8 362,755 357,689 5,816 5,899

2008 Q4 -2.1 355,193 356,365 5,786 5,767

2009 Q1 -1.5 349,868 347,897 5,639 5,671

2009 Q2 -0.2 349,261 346,147 5,602 5,652

2009 Q3 0.4 350,643 351,363 5,675 5,664

2009 Q4 0.4 352,091 356,456 5,747 5,676

2010 Q1 0.6 354,177 361,171 5,812 5,699

2010 Q2 0.7 356,701 365,206 5,866 5,729

2010 Q3 0.6 358,885 368,908 5,914 5,753

2010 Q4 -0.4 357,324 371,284 5,941 5,717

2011 Q1 0.5 359,114 374,876 5,987 5,735

2011 Q2 0.1 359,405 375,348 5,983 5,729

2011 Q3 0.6 361,599 382,875 6,091 5,752

2011 Q4 -0.1 361,130 382,729 6,076 5,733

2012 Q1 -0.1 360,880 381,462 6,044 5,718

2012 Q2 -0.4 359,538 381,971 6,040 5,685

2012 Q3 0.9 362,914 389,682 6,149 5,727

2012 Q4 -0.3 361,846 388,350 6,116 5,698

ONS July report here

Wiki has UK population as follows

2000 58,785

2001 58,999

2002 59,217

2003 59,437

2004 59,699

2005 60,059

2006 60,409

2007 60,781

2008 61,191

2009 61,595

2010 62,027

2011 63,300

2012 63,700

Tesco estimate UK population at 77 million

'Based on what we eat, one big supermarket chain reckons there are 80 million people living in the UK. The demand for food is a reliable indicator; as Sir Richard Branson says, you can have all the money in the world but you can only eat onelunch and one dinner.

If the true numbers were revealed, the Little Englanders and xenophobes would come out in force about the evils of immigration. But that's what made America great in the 19th century, and it's a driving force of our economy right now. It's also anti-inflationary.

And when I say "anti-inflationary", I mean they are getting rotten wages. '

I was looking for a more recent Tesco estimate but have to shoot out.The reality is that if Tesco are vaguely right then the GDP per capita figures are way out of kilter and would show a marked decrease in wealth across the board,supporting the decline in more marginal areas of spending as outlined at the start.

On surprising aspect of this population growth is that it hasn't transformed residential rental prices.According to the ONS they're up 8.4% in nominal terms 2005-2013.

So from what it appears,demand for cars is being held up by popuatlion growth and yet demand for rentals isn't.This would represent a clear change in consumptive behaviour if my 'garage' friend correct.

I am confused and would welcome any light or more accurate data.

Edit to add,table is a mess but not a techie guru I'm afraid and have to nip out.

Edited by Sancho Panza

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People are buying 25% too much food?

This is the answer, supermarkets profits based on people buying stuff not eating it before it goes off and throwing it away - a surprisingly large amount of food is wasted.

(also some people may be eating more than they should to stay healthy and are getting larger as a result)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People are buying 25% too much food?

More people are growing their own food....and rearing their own animals.....there are places where they sell goat to eat.....not seen that on sale in a supermarket. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People are buying 25% too much food?

And being issued with multiple national insurance numbers?

Hansard

Asked by Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many National Insurance numbers were active on 31 December 2012.[HL1968]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud): On 31 December 2012 there were approximately 65 million active National Insurance Numbers (NINos) held on the DWP Customer Information System (CIS).

to that 65 million you'd have to add kids under 16 who haven't been issued one, which would be a lot (12 millionish?), and take off pensions still being paid to the dependants of dead people, which wouldn't be anywhere near so much

I'd imagine the supermarkets have a pretty good handle on how much their customers chuck in the bin. Supermarkets do take an inordinate and closely studied interest in their customers' habits.

I've read somewhere that the water companies also estimate a 70 million plus population based on water consumption and sewage stats but I can't remember where.

Edited by Nuggets Mahoney

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was talking to a chap who owns a garage and he made a comment about the sheer amount of families who were downsizing not only their cars but also the number of cars per household.I've been fascinated for a while by the evident demand destruction I see around me,particularly in terms of leisure spend eg pubs(BBC 27/2/13 18 pubs shutting per week),emptier roads and the apparent lack of such in the official figures.

I checked registrations/Vehicle Miles and they're up/flat.DVLA

Slow as I am,it dawned on me that population growth may have something to do with it.

The Guardian has a nice table detailing GDP (inflation adjusted),GDP,GDP per capita and GDP per capita inflation adjusted.

Year Q QoQ growth GDP infl adj GDP GDP GDP pc

per infl

capita adj

2001 Q3 0.5 309,227 256,609 4,337 5,227

2001 Q4 0.4 310,365 257,794 4,353 5,241

2002 Q1 0.4 311,665 261,508 4,412 5,259

2002 Q2 0.8 314,248 265,841 4,482 5,298

2002 Q3 0.8 316,907 268,919 4,529 5,337

2002 Q4 0.9 319,888 272,331 4,582 5,382

2003 Q1 0.6 321,812 277,392 4,663 5,409

2003 Q2 1.2 325,717 282,375 4,742 5,469

2003 Q3 1.2 329,697 286,038 4,797 5,530

2003 Q4 1.2 333,653 290,791 4,871 5,589

2004 Q1 0.7 336,115 294,775 4,932 5,623

2004 Q2 0.2 336,916 298,495 4,988 5,630

2004 Q3 0.0 336,927 300,643 5,016 5,621

2004 Q4 0.6 339,043 305,968 5,096 5,647

2005 Q1 0.6 341,116 308,779 5,135 5,672

2005 Q2 1.2 345,345 314,077 5,214 5,733

2005 Q3 0.8 348,118 317,492 5,263 5,771

2005 Q4 1.1 351,847 322,362 5,336 5,824

2006 Q1 0.5 353,601 328,894 5,437 5,845

2006 Q2 0.3 354,684 330,244 5,451 5,854

2006 Q3 0.2 355,417 333,436 5,495 5,857

2006 Q4 0.9 358,777 340,583 5,603 5,902

2007 Q1 1.1 362,842 343,922 5,649 5,959

2007 Q2 1.2 367,319 351,234 5,759 6,023

2007 Q3 1.2 371,652 356,513 5,836 6,084

2007 Q4 0.2 372,340 360,450 5,890 6,085

2008 Q1 0.1 372,659 364,010 5,939 6,080

2008 Q2 -0.9 369,278 362,867 5,910 6,014

2008 Q3 -1.8 362,755 357,689 5,816 5,899

2008 Q4 -2.1 355,193 356,365 5,786 5,767

2009 Q1 -1.5 349,868 347,897 5,639 5,671

2009 Q2 -0.2 349,261 346,147 5,602 5,652

2009 Q3 0.4 350,643 351,363 5,675 5,664

2009 Q4 0.4 352,091 356,456 5,747 5,676

2010 Q1 0.6 354,177 361,171 5,812 5,699

2010 Q2 0.7 356,701 365,206 5,866 5,729

2010 Q3 0.6 358,885 368,908 5,914 5,753

2010 Q4 -0.4 357,324 371,284 5,941 5,717

2011 Q1 0.5 359,114 374,876 5,987 5,735

2011 Q2 0.1 359,405 375,348 5,983 5,729

2011 Q3 0.6 361,599 382,875 6,091 5,752

2011 Q4 -0.1 361,130 382,729 6,076 5,733

2012 Q1 -0.1 360,880 381,462 6,044 5,718

2012 Q2 -0.4 359,538 381,971 6,040 5,685

2012 Q3 0.9 362,914 389,682 6,149 5,727

2012 Q4 -0.3 361,846 388,350 6,116 5,698

ONS July report here

Wiki has UK population as follows

2000 58,785

2001 58,999

2002 59,217

2003 59,437

2004 59,699

2005 60,059

2006 60,409

2007 60,781

2008 61,191

2009 61,595

2010 62,027

2011 63,300

2012 63,700

Tesco estimate UK population at 77 million

'Based on what we eat, one big supermarket chain reckons there are 80 million people living in the UK. The demand for food is a reliable indicator; as Sir Richard Branson says, you can have all the money in the world but you can only eat onelunch and one dinner.

If the true numbers were revealed, the Little Englanders and xenophobes would come out in force about the evils of immigration. But that's what made America great in the 19th century, and it's a driving force of our economy right now. It's also anti-inflationary.

And when I say "anti-inflationary", I mean they are getting rotten wages. '

Well, i guess im a xenophobe then. 21st century England is the complete opposite to boom era america. America had a vast amount of untapped natural resources and few people to tap them. Natives had no knowledge of how to tap them, europeans bought expertise and knowledge on how to do so. What unknown knowledge do our immigrants bring? Nothing. They act simply to drive down wages. We have exhausted resources and too many people trying to access them, couldnt be more different to 1900s US. Already well over a third of our food has to be imported, worsening the trade balance. North Sea oil is running out. More people again worsen the trade balance.

Sure, its a driving force of our economy...in a ponzi scheme way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re the 65 million NI numbers: how many ex-pats are included in this? But certainly this is a very interesting statistic.

The last census gave a population for Manchester of about 320,000 (lower than Wakefield). People were incredulous about this, and the response was that many young men were out working in holiday hotspots abroad.

In USA, they do population estimates by counting people in the streets. Maybe we should start this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re the 65 million NI numbers: how many ex-pats are included in this? But certainly this is a very interesting statistic.

The last census gave a population for Manchester of about 320,000 (lower than Wakefield). People were incredulous about this, and the response was that many young men were out working in holiday hotspots abroad.

In USA, they do population estimates by counting people in the streets. Maybe we should start this.

'Manchester' doesnt include all the surrouding areas like Oldham, Rochdale, Salford etc though does it. Its like expressing the population of London as the 'city of london'

In fact its very labourious to get census data of urban areas up to their 'city limits'. You have to literally add up dozen of 'lower area' zones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re the 65 million NI numbers: how many ex-pats are included in this? But certainly this is a very interesting statistic.

If you fancy a giggle, crank back to 2007 and...

Lord Marlesford (Conservative)

asked Her Majesty's Government:

What investigation is under way in the Department for Work and Pensions to establish how many of the 76,719,264 :lol: national insurance numbers currently held by the Department for Work and Pensions customer information system are in active use; what results the investigation has yielded so far; and whether a report will be made to Parliament.

Much jiggery pokery and no reconciliation of the number of people drawing benefits and services to the numbers supposedly living here.

Personally, based on anecdotals, I lean towards the Tesco's figure and believe it's a major factor in driving up London property prices. People are being packed in like rats.

edit: now imagine all the implications of the government admitting that population was understated by millions - for the NHS, education, building policy...

Edited by Nuggets Mahoney

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest eight

If you fancy a giggle, crank back to 2007 and...

Much jiggery pokery and no reconciliation of the number of people drawing benefits and services to the numbers supposedly living here.

Personally, based on anecdotals, I lean towards the Tesco's figure and believe it's a major factor in driving up London property prices. People are being packed in like rats.

I'm off to London for the first time in nearly twenty years on Saturday. Will I notice any changes? :lol::lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With regard to the OP, I commute into Bath from the South and there really was a noticeable drop post-2008. It went from a case of being forced to use the back lanes every morning to being able to use the main roads pretty easily. No new roads, buses now prohibitively expensive..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes - re emigration...people don't give up their NI numbers when they leave. That does not just include expats, but also people who come here to work for a couple of years like Poles etc.

That'd (maybe) account for the 77 million total NI numbers quoted in 2007 and 65 million 'active' NI numbers quoted in 2012.

Once you add c.12 million minors back in to the 65 million and take off pensions paid to dependants of deceased folk and a chunk of benefit fraud, you're possibly still looking at north of 70 million.

edit: Back of fag packet stuff, probably missing all sorts out and no substitute for an official breakdown which ... eludes my meagre search engine skills, if it exists at all.

Edited by Nuggets Mahoney

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That'd account for the 77 million total NI numbers quoted in 2007 and 65 million 'active' NI numbers quoted in 2012.

Once you add c.12 million minors back in to the 65 million and take off pensions paid to dependants of deceased folk and a chunk of benefit fraud, you're possibly still looking at north of 70 million.

Classic example would be Mr Carney until a few months ago who had an NI number from his time working here in the '90s but wasn't working in the UK...

(His wife is british and has an NI number.)

The NI numbers would need to be kept live unless there is a death certificate as the individuals might be able to claim for some stuff if they returned to the UK 30-40 years after they were last here as they had made the necessary NI contributions.

Probably 1 million + Australians living in Australia would fit that criteria alone.

Edited by koala_bear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Much jiggery pokery and no reconciliation of the number of people drawing benefits and services to the numbers supposedly living here.

There are two angles that stike me as relevant.One is the effect of excess population on GDP and demand for government services.One wonders to what extent population increases have driven GDP expansion and also the corresponding rise in the fiscal deficit.One also wonders about rthe true level of GDP per capita.

The second pertains to the effect on our economy of major changes in consumptive behaviour.My friend was absolutely certain that what was occurring was a generational shift back to one car families.Obviously,his sample is biased towards his own customer base.Referencing the DVLA statistics,one can't make a reasonable assumption as to whether this shift is a local,regional or national phenomenon.

So there seems a significant possibility that,even though retail sales have shown considerable resilience,there could be an underlying mismeasurement of the population that is responsible for it.

I'd be interested to see a chart that correlated M4 growth with population growth and also population growth with the debt to GDP ratio over the last ten to fifteen years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Population of Wakefield in 2001 was 76,886.

Yes - re emigration...people don't give up their NI numbers when they leave. That does not just include expats, but also people who come here to work for a couple of years like Poles etc.

Indeed,although one wonders whether the definition of 'active' would mean having paid NI in the last year or two?

Also,is there any data available on the size of the 'black' economy in the UK?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With regard to the OP, I commute into Bath from the South and there really was a noticeable drop post-2008. It went from a case of being forced to use the back lanes every morning to being able to use the main roads pretty easily. No new roads, buses now prohibitively expensive..

That's very much the timeframe that I was referring to.However,RAC states number of vehicles hits new high.

Clearly,the drop off in traffic is a figment of my imagination

RAC

'In 2012, the estimated annual average mileage per car was 8,200 miles. This figure has decreased as the number of cars per household has risen, falling from 9,200 miles in 2002.

The estimated average annual mileage was higher for diesel cars than petrol cars, at 11,200 miles and 6,900 miles respectively in 2012.

The average company-owned car travelled more than twice as far as the average privately owned car (19,400 miles and 7,800 respectively) in 2012.'

Classic example would be Mr Carney until a few months ago who had an NI number from his time working here in the '90s but wasn't working in the UK...

(His wife is british and has an NI number.)

The NI numbers would need to be kept live unless there is a death certificate as the individuals might be able to claim for some stuff if they returned to the UK 30-40 years after they were last here as they had made the necessary NI contributions.

Probably 1 million + Australians living in Australia would fit that criteria alone.

Excellent point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's very much the timeframe that I was referring to.However,RAC states number of vehicles hits new high.

Clearly,the drop off in traffic is a figment of my imagination

RAC

'In 2012, the estimated annual average mileage per car was 8,200 miles. This figure has decreased as the number of cars per household has risen, falling from 9,200 miles in 2002.

The estimated average annual mileage was higher for diesel cars than petrol cars, at 11,200 miles and 6,900 miles respectively in 2012.

The average company-owned car travelled more than twice as far as the average privately owned car (19,400 miles and 7,800 respectively) in 2012.'

Excellent point.

Another 2 personal examples:

- a friend of mine was born in OZ to then recently emigrated UK born parents (still working in Oz currently). She has moved to the UK and when her parents visit her they could claim for NHS care if needed as their NI numbers are still valid.

- A (late) great aunt of mine worked in Canada for 25 years before returning when she retired... Had ~20 years of NI contributions here.

Cars on the road:

The average of cars at scrappage (just under 16 years) has been increasing and the annual mileage and fuel use has been going down. i.e. people being more careful when chosing to make a journey or not by car.

Edited by koala_bear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another 2 personal examples:

- a friend of mine was born in OZ to then recently emigrated UK born parents (still working in Oz currently). She has moved to the UK and when her parents visit her they could claim for NHS care if needed as their NI numbers are still valid.

- A (late) great aunt of mine worked in Canada for 25 years before returning when she retired... Had ~20 years of NI contributions here.

Per Parliamentary questions in Hansard, 77 million active NI numbers reported in 2007, 65 million in 2012, for an adult population of c.50 million. That's a heck of a lot of churn impo.

If you do a search on Google you'll find, amongst other meagre pickings, a short thread on this very forum linking to a DT article which is no longer available and a powerpoint presentation floating around with an HMRC watermark which quotes the 77 million figure and an 'active' figure adjusted for the kind of stuff you're talking about of 55 million, which would 'only' be 4 or 5 million over the odds. Where the 65 million reported in 2012 fits in would be anyone's guess.

My take is that we shouldn't have to be guessing what sounds reasonable. There's no way any of us can judge what would be reasonable. Besides, this is information that should be readily accessible and the fact that it appears not to be arouses my curiosity.

Edited by Nuggets Mahoney

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Per Parliamentary questions in Hansard, 77 million active NI numbers reported in 2007, 65 million in 2012, for an adult population of c.50 million. That's a heck of a lot of churn impo.

If you do a search on Google you'll find, amongst other meagre pickings, a short thread on this very forum linking to a DT article which is no longer available and a powerpoint presentation floating around with an HMRC watermark which quotes the 77 million figure and an 'active' figure adjusted for the kind of stuff you're talking about of 55 million, which would 'only' be 4 or 5 million over the odds. Where the 65 million reported in 2012 fits in would be anyone's guess.

My take is that we shouldn't have to be guessing what sounds reasonable. There's no way any of us can judge what would be reasonable. Besides, this is information that should be readily accessible and the fact that it appears not to be arouses my curiosity.

Asbolutely,it seems strange that there are so many unquantifiable variables.

I wrote the OP in a bit of a hurry not really knowing where it was going,just musing on things that didn't seem to add up.It really is about how little we seem to know of our population and of the potentially massive liabilities we are building up for future generations through our negligence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Supermarkets know pretty well how much food the average person eats buys. A substantial proportion of their customers have a loyalty card.

Modern supermarket pricing policies (BOGOF, etc) encourage people to buy more than they can eat. With fresh food, it can sometimes work out cheaper to buy a large pack and waste some of it, rather than buying more expensive smaller packs. This could certainly account for some of the increase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Population of Wakefield (the borough not the town) was 326,400 in 2011 (see wiki link below). The 320,000 census result for Manchester was just for the old core city of Manchester, not including its surroundings. However you are still comparing like with like. The local authority boundary in both cases.

The 320,000 census figure for Manchester was adjusted upwards later on. The population of Manchester does indeed exceed that of Wakefield by the later estimates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_districts_by_population

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   220 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.