Quality of life or untold riches due to mass immigration?
The BBC wants you to believe that we can have a thriving economy only if we keep importing millions upon millions of cheap workers. They tell us that the benefits are enormous. Are they? Are there in fact any benefits? The best figure they can come up with is the economy may increase by 50p per immigrant…so great value….never mind the massive housing problem created, the NHS in crisis, schools overflowing, the roads chocablock, infrastructure such as water under huge pressure, the prisons in meltdown and the police and legal system unable to cope with the extra demands….add to that terrorism and attempts to undermine British society by immigrant communities and it all adds up to a potent mix that tells us mass immigration is an extremist ideology with very dangerous consequences for us all the only ones who benefit are the fat-cat bosses who leech off the cheap imported labour and the liberal/left extremist ideologues who want to destory the West and to ethnically cleanse Europe of white people.
Here is an article that suggests the wonderful picture that the BBC et al paint of mass immigration is not true…
While it may come in many guises, Ponzi demography is essentially a pyramid scheme that attempts to make more money for some by adding on more and more people through population growth.
While more visible in industrialized economies, particularly in Australia, Canada and the United States, Ponzi demography also operates in developing countries. The underlying strategy of Ponzi demography is to privatize the profits and socialize the costs incurred from increased population growth.
As has been noted by Nobel laureate economists Joseph Stiglitz and Amartya Sen as well as many others, current economic yardsticks such as gross domestic product (GDP) focus on material consumption and do not include quality-of-life factors.
Standard measures of GDP do not reflect, for example, the degradation of the environment, the depreciation of natural resources or declines in individuals’ quality of life.
According to Ponzi demography, population growth — through natural increase and immigration — means more people leading to increased demands for goods and services, more material consumption, more borrowing, more on credit and of course more profits. Everything seems fantastic for a while — but like all Ponzi schemes, Ponzi demography is unsustainable.
When the bubble eventually bursts and the economy sours, the scheme spirals downward with higher unemployment, depressed wages, falling incomes, more people sinking into debt, more homeless families — and more men, women and children on public assistance.
That is the stage when the advocates of Ponzi demography — notably enterprises in construction, manufacturing, finance, agriculture and food processing — consolidate their excess profits and gains. That leaves the general public to pick up the tab for the mounting costs from increased population growth (e.g., education, health, housing and basic public services).
Among its primary tactics, Ponzi demography exploits the fear of population decline and aging. Without a young and growing population, we are forewarned of becoming a nation facing financial ruin and a loss of national power.
Due to population aging, government-run pensions and healthcare systems will become increasingly insolvent, according to advocates of Ponzi demography, thereby crippling the economy, undermining societal well-being and threatening national security.
Low birth rates, especially those below replacement levels, are considered a matter of national concern. Without higher fertility rates and the resulting population growth, the nation, it is claimed, faces a bleak and dreary future.
“Economic growth requires population growth” is the basic message that Ponzi demography wants the public to swallow. No mention is made of the additional profits they reap and the extra costs the public bears.
Despite its snake-oil allure of “more is better,” Ponzi demography’s advocacy for ever-increasing population growth is ultimately unsustainable. Such persistent growth hampers efforts to improve the quality of life for today’s world population of nearly seven billion people as well as for future generations.
Moving gradually towards population stabilization, while not a panacea for the world’s problems, will make it far easier to address problems such as climate change, environmental degradation, poverty and development, human rights abuses and shortages of water, food and critical natural resources.
The sooner nations reject Ponzi demography and make the needed gradual transition from ever-increasing population growth to population stabilization, the better the prospects for all of humanity and other life on this planet.
I think someone reasonably objective tried to do an analysis of the cost benefit of legal arrivals and came out with a break even. That was a couple of years ago and only looked at state services .
Since we have open borders and uncontrolled immigration the real number is going to be far higher into the negative . We do not know the true population size – particularly of the south east .
In any event the “cultural” impact of such “enrichment “ can in no way justify the impact – we are long past the Curry house / run the nhs excuses that were used in the 60s 70 s and 80s
The” net” migration figures are a lie and we know that
The vast majority of illegal migrants from Africa are uneducated. No skills what ever apart from the ability to use a mobile phone. They also carry some serious diseases that we dont have an immunity .
Many of the women are pregnant and placing further huge strain on the NHS.
What we have is 300,000 arrivals every year, all eligible for the dole, free NHS, free housing, and free spending money.
It can only be sustained with systematic transfer of funds from people who have worked hard and saved to the government.
NC
I was musing recently as to whether identification cards would have helped but since it was reported last week that industrial levels of false e111 cards are in circulation I suppose these foreign gangs would have got people inside to undermine it .,
Similar to housing departments full of Asians and Nigerians on major housing and benefits frauds .
“The vast majority of illegal migrants from Africa are uneducated. No skills what ever apart from the ability to use a mobile phone. They also carry some serious diseases that we dont have an immunity .
Many of the women are pregnant and placing further huge strain on the NHS.
What we have is 300,000 arrivals every year, all eligible for the dole, free NHS, free housing, and free spending money.
It can only be sustained with systematic transfer of funds from people who have worked hard and saved to the government.”
Good job Gordon Brown got rid of our gold!
I think the source I was looking for was the “migration watch uk” website which claims ( and I believe is) an independent research outfit on this issue. Normally a lot of sense so doesn’t get much exposure on al Beeb.
In 1951 (Before large scale immigration) the population of Britain was 50.2 million. According to the 2011 Census the population of Britain was 62.6 million with only 51.7 being white British.
In 2017, after only six years, the population stood at 64.7 million with no reason to believe the indigenous white British population had done anything other than continuing growing at the same sustainable rate as during the previous sixty years.
The population of Britain has increased as much in the last twenty years, and at an ever rapidly increasing rate, than it had during the previous sixty years whilst it’s indigenous population has hardly increased at all.
It is indeed a Ponzi scheme and is already bringing about the collapse of our health, education, housing and social services by placing ever increasing strain on them.
But that, of course, according to the bBBC, has nothing to do with Labour and Blair’s Open the Doors and Drag in the World policies and it’s massive and unsustainable immigration growth, it’s all the fault of them Tories, innit Comrade!
“As has been noted by Nobel laureate economists Joseph Stiglitz and Amartya Sen as well as many others, current economic yardsticks such as gross domestic product (GDP) focus on material consumption and do not include quality-of-life factors.”
I always fine it useful to destroy the GDP argument before moving on the quality of life case. I switch it from GDP to GDP per head.
I use a simple analogy. Five friends meet down the pub and decide to run a kitty. They each put in £20, givng them £100 to spend. Before they start someone they know turns up and they ask him to join them. He’s out of work and can only contribute £8. They now have a kitty of £108. They have more money to spend (increased GDP) but the amount per person has fallen from £20 to £18 (reduced GDP per head). I then ask whether the original 5 are now better or worse off? Most people immediately take the point, so I end with another question: you’d do this for a friend who’d falle on hard times, but would you do it for someone who’s just arrived in the UK?
A final point on Quality of Life. Many years ago I did a course at Cambridge on measuring quality of life for NHS patients – QOLies. We covered a European survey on quality of life. In Belgium being dead scored 3 on their Quality of LIfe Index.
RJ
Just to be facetious, if the sixth man is out of work how does he afford to go to the pub? Either His state benefits are too high or his family are going short of something.
Has the BBC ever mentioned this article? No, I thought not.
Whenever they mention the NHS, road congestion or lack of housing etc, no mention is ever made of the population increase. Maybe it has an impact? Of course it does! But, no, no, never mentioned.
It is fine saying that immigrants pay taxes (if working) and are therefore entitled to NHS care, benefits etc from day one. But surely you have to pay into the ‘pot’ over a much longer period of time to accrue enough contributions for those contributions to make a difference? It’s like saying you need to put a £10,000 deposit on house purchase, but is £250 OK?
As an example, I watched a video on the BBC news website two years ago (not sure how it got through the ‘diversity’ filter, can’t find it now), about Wandsworth prison (I think it was Wandsworth), anyway, at that point in time 50% of the inmates were Romanian by origin. If that is representative, then extrapolate to the NHS, housing, congestion etc etc. And that is only one nationality. Not saying that it is purely representative by any means, but it can’t help, can it?
The population keeps increasing at an exponential rate, but the UK is still only 242,495 km² (according to Wikipedia), no matter how many times you measure it!
There was a UCL report of a few years ago which worked out what immigration cost the country .https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwib6MPq59_YAhVGIMAKHXBqADwQFggnMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuknews%2Fimmigration%2F11209234%2FImmigration-from-outside-Europe-cost-120-billion.html&usg=AOvVaw2zCUzcPWBIORQILnRDDI-z
Of course , the BBC only quoted the part which said that immigrants contributed £25 billion to the economy , & totally forgot the part which said that the overall cost was £120 billion more than they contributed .
‘cheap imported labour’?
Surely that is only true if they are willing and able to work? The Social Mobility Commission reports that just one in five Muslims are in work as report finds they are held back by racism.
That is considerably less than the 34.9% of the UK overall.
Whether this is the consequence of Islamophobia and racism; few Muslim women in the workforce or lack of skills for the jobs that require workers that the general community doesn’t supply, what is going to change?
The Black Death arrived in Europe in the 14 th century and one third were killed .
A by product of this was that the labourers were scarce and there was an increase in wages to them .
ie ; a transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor .