The Consequences Of Large-Scale Immigration ‘Are Mostly Negative For The Existing Population Of The Uk And Their Descendants’.

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2712677/How-mass-migration-hurts-No-s-not-Mail-saying-verdict-Left-wing-economist-Cambridge.html

/// Professor Rowthorn, a former consultant to the International Monetary Fund and the UN Trade and Development Commission, said in his report that there may be no economic gains from immigration at all. ///

/// If there are, they will be outweighed by extra costs imposed by the strain on housing, land, schools, hospitals, water supplies and transport. ///

At last someone is prepared to speak the truth, and this is not some UKIP supporter or far-right activist who is saying this, these are the findings of a Left-wing Professor of Economics at Cambridge University.

[Orderlimit]

I thought this was obvious.

[maggiebee]

Oh woe is me - doom and gloom!

[anotheoldgit]

maggiebee

/// Oh woe is me - doom and gloom! ///

Don't worry about it, you just keep being a busy flitting from flower to flower, but be very careful one of them may be a Venus Flytrap. :0)

[youngmafbog]

No *** Sherlock.

It is obvious to all except the right-on brigade, particularly those that frequent these pages.

[Svejk]

^where are they all?

[youngmafbog]

conspicuous by their absence. Perhaps they are stuck in a coffee shop in Islington or still spluttering their Muesli everywhere after reading AOG's post?

[Svejk]

;o)

[mushroom25]

the economy needs large scale immigration to support the ever growing ageing population, because the UK pension system is nothing more than a massive "Ponzie". it will fail, either because it becomes impossible to get enough new incomers to support it, or because the country's infrastructure buckles under sheer volume of numbers.

[Old_Geezer]

It needs nothing of the sort, and that pseudo solution only builds up a larger problem for the future. What it needs is enough jobs creating sufficient wealth to cover the existing costs. And preferably a bit more to allow a buffer for future problems.

[anotheoldgit]

mushroom25

/// the economy needs large scale immigration to support the ever growing ageing population, ///

Most of whom have come to this country in their old age, and have never paid into the system.

[New Judge]

"...the economy needs large scale immigration to support the ever growing ageing population,"

Sorry mushroom, but as has been touched upon, this strategy is ludicrous. The main reason for this (apart from the reasons you have mentioned) is that, incredible as it may seem, those being shipped in to support the pensions scheme eventually get old and need pensions themselves. And guess what? They also need pensions. So in comes another lot who er.. eventually get old. I'm sure you get the idea.

The country needs to develop an economic model which does not rely on an ever increasing population (which, in fact, will have to be an exponential increase and is clearly not sustainable. It also needs to set to work those who will not do so. It is utter madness to have to rely on ever increasing numbers, many of whom have to be brought in from abroad, to sustain the country's economy.

[naomi24]

Hurrah!

[Hypognosis]

"The dependency ratio – the proportion of pensioners compared to those of working age – will be 50½ per cent by 2087 with net migration of 225,000 a year. It is currently put at around 54 per cent. The higher the ratio, the more that working people must pay to support the old."

I get what they meant to say but I find the mix of ratios and percentages makes this paragraph appear to contradict itself.

if the ratio of pensioners/workers is high, the number of workers must be smaller than the number of pensioners. The percentage is above 50. The cost per worker is high.

54% pensioners to workers says to me that the situation now is already more pensioners than workers.

50.5% in 2087 says to me the workforce has increased its proportion so the cost per worker is slightly lower.

A typo by the Mail (percentages the wrong way around) or is the whole report 'arris backwards?

[sp1814]

youngmafbog

You wrote:

"conspicuous by their absence. Perhaps they are stuck in a coffee shop in Islington or still spluttering their Muesli everywhere after reading AOG's post"

There's an alternative conclusion.

Perhaps we are picking and choosing which AOG threads to post on, and leaving the less interesting ones to fester. We cannot rely on AOG to post interesting threads *all* the time. The small number of responses to this thread, even from those who support the position, is telling.

[jno]

he was a Marxist in the 60s and 70s, but isn't now. He also denies being left-wing. But of course some newspapers need him to be, so they ignore his self-definition.

[sp1814]

jno

I see you're one of those weirdos who checks information online, instead of believing everything the Daily Mail tells you.

Be off with you Sir.

There is no place for you here.

[Svejk]

ho ho ho! You're like those Japs they used to find on islands 30 years after the end of the war. Its over. Even your beloved Labour Party have admitted they made an awful mistake and apologised. Now give up.