Rethinking decline: why blaming migrants might miss the point

Sure there is lots of it. As I have an early start I won't spent much time but this is a good start. migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-fiscal-impact-of-immigration-in-the-uk/

Until the government brings housing under control, people will keep having fewer and fewer children (especially in the cities/SE).

Can you show me evidence for all the assertions you made?

Can you show me the evidence for this?

Honestly, stop. You are embarrassing yourself trying to argue about something you have no clue about.

I agree with all this - and pointed it out on other threads.

Immigrants need housing and other services making already scare resouce rarer and more expensive- and it then impacts on the working population again making it harder to have kids.

I felt last 12 months BBC have started to understand this at local and national level and moved on from it's just racists in coverage to it's nuanced and resourced based or in least some of it's coverage.

Though I think MN is just anti any child let alone 2 to 3. I've been on threads when a poster was asking when to have a child - not if - and been induated with never posts.

I've also seen stat that say for every 2 kids born in UK another was wanted and not had usually down to economics.

Though over time what tends to happen is the smaller families tends to become normalized and there is decreased desire and social pressure to not have more.

Large language learning models can't have children. So why are you so invested?
Besides, all the chat these days is that AI will replace human jobs- which is a huge discouragement from having children. That being he case by using AI are you not a huge part of the problem?

Newer research is showing that too much migration (enough to impact housing demand) also lessens the birth rate.

So using immigration to quell the effects of low birth rates is counterproductive.

There have always been c 20% of women who have no DC.

What’s happened from the 1970s to now is fewer families have 2/3 DCs compared to 1/2 DC.

You see it on threads here- there are hundreds of should we go from 2 to 3. Most will say no. Look at the reasons given and there you will find the solutions.

But what happens when the new young workers get old? That is why calls it a ponzi scheme. You need ever more people coming in at the bottom to cope with those getting old at the top.

Ideally you want a slump - so slightly less people in next generation but not too small so working population can support older dependents as well as younger ones.

You want to avoid a cliff edge - where there are too few tax payer to dependents - so if birth rates fall too soon - paying for dependent care get's too expenisve in taxes - so countries also end up borrowing I've seen it suggested it why Japan's debt level have increased - and it makes it harder for workers to have kids under the tax burden so next generation again is much smaller and as they grow up they have a big older dependent population to support so have fewer kids.

We're plugging gaps with migrant labour -but world wide fertlity rates are dropping so at some point that's going to get harder.

Some people think at some point it will reach a natural level - but who knows but socities round the world will just have to adapt because everywhere but sub saharan africa is already on below or will soon be at below replacments fertlity levels.

@belladeli you get alot wrong. You ignore the fact that one person is usually sent as an anchor and once given asylum the rest of the family are entitled to come (and usually not go getters or dynamic but a drain on the taxpayer). The Tories even let students bring their whole family. There is no prior contribution requirement for much of the British state like in many other countries.
You also seem to assume older people are a drain. Firstly people are working alot longer especially highly paid workers. Second you seek to think contribution in taxes is only via jobs. There are many other taxes - VAT, stamp duty, CGT, corporation tax which as older people are richer they are now likely to pay per capita.

Isn’t Rachel Reeves sorting it all out anyhow so none of us need worry.

They're opening new schools here - and one they have are all are full.

The immediate center is dire and one of worst affected in country - local economy pretty poor but there cheaper than surround area housing and communtable nearby cities with lots of well paid jobs - so people commute.

It's increasingly an area with lots of kids and has a higher - though still below replacement level becuase housing still just about okay. I think the cheaper housing areas are rapildy disappearing.

There was a housing crisis in victroian times - with no access to contrception they crammed more people into smaller spaces with down turn in living standards. Now we have option to have fewer people.

In 2023, 37.3% of live births in England and Wales were to parents where either one or both were born outside the UK

The UK born fertility rates are actually much lower I think than realised - as over a thrid of babies born have one or two foregin born parents.

Or fewer people with higher earning and therefore tax paying ability

Being able to afford a 2nd dc would have allowed us to try for a second dc - and we were not low earners- my employer when ds was 4 only paid statutory maternity and coupled with the childcare costs it was all too much.

But what happens when the new young workers get old? That is why @Jennps calls it a ponzi scheme. You need ever more people coming in at the bottom to cope with those getting old at the top.

Scary that these economically illiterate people get to vote.

The absolute irony 😆

Yeah, hence the Ponzi scheme

Glad you’re getting it now

You're the one who isn't getting it.
A ponzi scheme is a pyramid. We don't have pyramid demographics. Immigration doesn't offset aging populations otherwise why would our population still be ageing? It's largely used to address the gaps in labour.

We never recovered from 08 and the government and companies didn't invest in their staff, companies or the country. Labour should have been honest about tax rises as they were always going to be inevitable.

"* *In 2023, the Centre for Policy Studies essay collection Justice for the Young showed keeping spending on an ageing population constant would require growth of 2.9% per year, for the next 50 years"

The above quote is mind blowing. The only real solution is cutting services and increasing taxes but no one wants to hear that let alone vote for that.

Yeah, hence the Ponzi scheme.

Glad you’re getting it now.

This thread shows why this country cannot come out of the doom loop now. Majority of the population is dumbed down to the level where they don’t understand basic economic and fiscal principles. They think that soundbites are enough to pay your way as a country.

They have completely sleep walked into a situation where low skilled migration over 28 years has had a huge part to play in lowering the country’s productivity leading to a sky high debt to GDP ratio and printing of £1 trillion to pay for free stuff.

The economic hole that this country is so deep that it’s scary.

Scary that these economically illiterate people get to vote.

Birth rates have declined amongst immigrants too, they tend to adopt the same societal norms.

How naive. As well as misinformed.

Immigration is lowering GDP per capita. Which equals a poorer country.

And being a go getter does not automatically make you an engineer, an SDE, a nuclear physicist, etc. That’s not the profile of the average person coming here. Thats not the immigrants fault. Why wouldn’t they come here with their larger families, non working spouses, elderly parents, if they can get all of those children in school for free and use every other ready made service, while earning £26k a year.

Japan made the decision to not go for immigration and instead bought in policies to limit the impact. However now they have started to turn towards immigration. The ageing population issue is uncharted territory & the powers that be will not likely consider my needs & wants in their decisions 😆

Weird to tie pro-natalism in with anti-immigrant sentiments.

Not for the far right. 'Fighting aged men', 'illegals', the changing demographic because foreigners/Muslims breed like rabbits. Low birth rate for white people - they're all saying the same thing. It's the Great Replacement theory and guess who's the answer.

Are you wanting a higher level of immigration,

Why do you think I am advocating for more immigration? I'm pretty ok with the levels of skilled migrants. If the numbers are drastically cut I would like to know the impact to the taxes I have to pay & impact to public services as that would likely influence my opinion. It's difficult to make a decision when you don't have facts surely?

@EasternStandard what level of immigration do you want? Do you have a line of how much tax you are prepared to pay or what services you don't mind being cut?