Rethinking decline: why blaming migrants might miss the point

You've got it the wrong way round. As an overall people not born in the UK are net contributors more than people who are born here. Ie their net contribution to tax compared to how much they cost in public services is less than the average British born person.

This isn't much of a surprise as the people that come here tend to be coming to work or to make a better life for themselves. 2nd generation is equally on a similar footing. Immigrant's children tend to achieve better at school.

If you are the sort of person that has managed to travel thousands of miles to start up a new life you tend to be a bit of a go-getter, you also tend to have better health than the average person. Quite often immigrants will then in their older age when they cost more go back to their original country (not always but often), hence they don't cost the British taxpayer the same amount as British born pensioners.

Can you say what you’d prefer to see? Are you wanting a higher level of immigration, if so for how long?

You've literally left in the references that chatgpt used to source this information.

I was interested in engaging with this thread, but this is utterly lazy AI crap!

If the % of retired households increases then the amount of net contributors decreases

Net contributor is not a buzzword, you may have heard of it for the first time

People panicking about the amount of net contributors is a new thing...

And no, it hasn’t been normal at all. It is a recent phenomenon that over half the population cannot even sustain themselves. That’s why the social contract is breaking down.

@Jennps what % of that half of net contributors are pensioners?
When did the country have a high percentage of net contributors?

Well durr we (UK) had an aging population and a growing economy all through the 80s and the 90s.

Did we have an ageing population in the 80s & 90s? I thought the median age was 30 something then and we didn't have more over 65s vs under 15s like we do now?

on the issues with always increasing, and those people aging, can you see the problems there?

Who is saying the population should ever increase? Isn't the natural population declining in the next few years? I think the only growth forecast is due to immigration?

Well durr we (UK) had an aging population and a growing economy all through the 80s and the 90s. The main thing that changed was importing 15 million people most low skilled or not working. What @Jennps says re productivity makes perfect sense. The example everyone uses is the automated car washes we used to have which were replaced by multiple Eastern Europeans costing the taxpayer £££ (as all low and middle paid workers do - I think you have to earn something likd £45k to be a net contributor).

I think it’s flipped now and politicians can no longer sell in high immigration figures.

If you read @WrigglyDonCatpost on the issues with always increasing, and those people aging, can you see the problems there?

Housing.

Adults are less likely to reproduce if they do not have their own home (whether rented or mortgaged)

Areas have had decline in normal populations from

• huge numbers of students pushing out families - this means schools shut.
• holiday lets pushing out families - this means schools shut

As housing costs go up (for many reasons, but including students and holiday lets) then it becomes harder for young people to get their own place. HMO numbers are up.

Migration adds to this burden (job list of those occupations short of workers is a joke!) and student numbers, as well as the irregular migration (Labour's words not mine). This all pushes up housing costs.

It's almost uneconomical to work if you have children if you need childcare due to the immense cost burden already placed on you by housing costs (and energy, water, food etc) so fewer people join in the workforce.

Many young people just don't work. Perhaps they see no point in working for a society that is screwing them over.

Net contributor is not a buzzword, you may have heard of it for the first time, but it’s quite a standard phrase describing a basic economic principle.

And no, it hasn’t been normal at all. It is a recent phenomenon that over half the population cannot even sustain themselves. That’s why the social contract is breaking down.

Whike I normally don't want to engage with chatgpt posts here (if i would I would just chat to chatgpt on its app🤷)...

May I point out that 2022 was very much not a good year with shit years before so that would explain rise in abortions...

The activity in the economy. You don’t need 100 people to build widgets to generate activity. Thats what machines are for. You can have 90 people and an additional machine doing the same.

Purchasing the additional machine comes with an upfront outlay, which businesses will avoid, if they can have a supply of cheap labour. It makes their free cash flow look good but reduces GDP per capita. And puts more burden on the net contributors.

fewer net contributors.

And notice the omission of the concept of net contribution.

It's funny how net contributors is the latest buzzword. It's always been normal to have a large % of the population that aren't net contributors. Think logically about average earnings, what tax people pay and the costs of healthcare, education and potentially 20 years of a state pension. There weren't loads of higher rate tax payers in the past, there are more now partly because of fiscal drag.

An ageing population naturally means fewer net cont

Could I say as a former educator who worked in social services there are so many inadequate and frankly awful parents out there and they often are the one having more than two.

Why encourage this just to create more worker bees?

We are going to have to think of better ideas to address the ageing population than encouraging people to have more kids.

PSA: If you don’t want kids /more kids or are indifferent about it then please don’t! I am literally begging you. The only ones who should be having kids are those who realy want to be parents and would provide good emotional and mental stability for their children. I see so many of my friends with their kids and they are amazing! But not everyone is like that.

Even many of the people who did strongly want kids aren’t doing a great job - and how many adults do you see on here who spend their life trying to recover from their childhood trauma.

I’ve heard in some of the Scandi countries that have great benefits for parents the birth rate is falling too. I assume it’s a case of women just knowing it’s not for them to have more than one or two kids - or any child at all and standing firm on that rather than following societal expectations. This is a good thing as far as I’m concerned.

So all British women are white? You realise white people migrate here too? You realise black people can be British too?

I certainly can't think a country with an ageing population which has a growing economy.

Our model (eg NHS, pension/benefits not linked to how much you have paid in) puts us in a worse position.

This, ladies and gentleman, is how you spread propaganda.

Notice the word “skilled” and complete omission of the impact unskilled migrants, who are the majority coming into the country.

And notice the omission of the concept of net contribution. And misleading people by comparing to contribution of those already here. The majority of people already here are net takers, so of course it’s a low bar and if you compare everyone against that low bar, it’s easy to make them look more productive.

And notice how the impact of migrants dependent has completely been side stepped. If you don’t talk about their larger families, elderly parents and non working spouses, of course it all looks rosy.

Politicians probably won’t go into economics of it but will say they can lower immigration figures.

I agree with that, but we won't be getting lower immigration, lower taxes and better services.

@Jennps the post doesn't tell me how things work when you have fewer people but the majority of them are older. Who pays the higher taxes?

The electorate are already voting out high numbers. The last GE was an example.

Politicians probably won’t go into economics of it but will say they can lower immigration figures.

Will it hurt economically? Absolutely it will, that's why no politician will contemplate it - an utter lack of political cajones.

You think the public will buy into a politician selling that?