The UK's Housing Stock - Is There A Demand For New Homes?

[funduffer]

There was a study from Denmark which has often been quoted. From Google:
The main conclusion is that immigrants from richer countries have a positive fiscal impact, while immigrants from poorer countries have a large negative one. The negative effect is caused by both a weak labour market performance and early retirement in combination with the universal Danish welfare schemes.
The Impact of Immigrants on Public Finances: A Forecast Analysis for Denmark
IZA DP No. 8844
February 2015
Marianne Frank Hansen
Marie Louise Schultz-Nielsen

Rather obvious really.

Richer immigrants are also the ones that can afford houses......so, yes, they contribute to the demand for new homes.

FD

[Nimrod103]

Richer immigrants are also the ones that can afford houses......so, yes, they contribute to the demand for new homes.

FD

Unless I am mistaken, the poorer ones are still being housed, and contribute to demand for new homes, built for the rental market.
They are not generally living on the streets despite what Suella Braverman might say.

[vand]

Net or gross?
Don't forget people leave these shores, and some even die here.

https://www.worldometers.info/world-pop ... opulation/

NET increases:
2020 +0.42% 281k
2021 +0.34% 228k
2022 +0.34% 228k

I would say we NEED the immigration, wouldn't you?

Seeing as most immigrants will never earn enough to reach the threshold for being a net contributor to the finances of the UK, immigration makes us collectively poorer. No wonder the GDP per capita has stagnated for years, productivity has stagnated, yet taxes inexorably rise and and people don't feel better off.

The claim was that we needed to build half of Birmingham every year due to immigration, which as I have shown - given 245k average population increase pa, 1.1m population in Birmingham, and slightly higher than average density of 2.56 persons per household, is somewhere between a 4 or 5 fold gross exaggeration, and we could even meeting that need with the current rate of housebuilding.

[Nimrod103]

Seeing as most immigrants will never earn enough to reach the threshold for being a net contributor to the finances of the UK, immigration makes us collectively poorer. No wonder the GDP per capita has stagnated for years, productivity has stagnated, yet taxes inexorably rise and and people don't feel better off.

The claim was that we needed to build half of Birmingham every year due to immigration, which as I have shown - given 245k average population increase pa, 1.1m population in Birmingham, and slightly higher than average density of 2.56 persons per household, is somewhere between a 4 or 5 fold gross exaggeration, and we could even meeting that need with the current rate of housebuilding.

Why is there such a clamour to increase the rate of house building then?
But you haven’t answered the question, in what way does immigration improve the economic well-being of UK citizens? Or to put it in a way relevant to housing, if immigrants are a net economic drain, how can they afford the new houses which will have to be built for them?

[vand]

The claim was that we needed to build half of Birmingham every year due to immigration, which as I have shown - given 245k average population increase pa, 1.1m population in Birmingham, and slightly higher than average density of 2.56 persons per household, is somewhere between a 4 or 5 fold gross exaggeration, and we could even meeting that need with the current rate of housebuilding.

Why is there such a clamour to increase the rate of house building then?
But you haven’t answered the question, in what way does immigration improve the economic well-being of UK citizens? Or to put it in a way relevant to housing, if immigrants are a net economic drain, how can they afford the new houses which will have to be built for them?

Immigrants increase the factors of production available. Who builds the houses on this country? The Polish and the Romanians - certainly far more than the indigenous.

[Nimrod103]

Why is there such a clamour to increase the rate of house building then?
But you haven’t answered the question, in what way does immigration improve the economic well-being of UK citizens? Or to put it in a way relevant to housing, if immigrants are a net economic drain, how can they afford the new houses which will have to be built for them?

Immigrants increase the factors of production available. Who builds the houses on this country? The Polish and the Romanians - certainly far more than the indigenous.

You ignore my point. If on average they are a net drain on the wealth of the UK, how can they pay for the houses which are built to home them?

[CliffEdge]

Why is there such a clamour to increase the rate of house building then?
But you haven’t answered the question, in what way does immigration improve the economic well-being of UK citizens? Or to put it in a way relevant to housing, if immigrants are a net economic drain, how can they afford the new houses which will have to be built for them?

Immigrants increase the factors of production available. Who builds the houses on this country? The Polish and the Romanians - certainly far more than the indigenous.

Shame none of our factories have been automated really. "What factories?", I hear you say.

Aye, well there's the rub and more to come.

The reason we need immigrants is that not enough of the native population seem capable of doing the kind of work essential to keeping life bearable in this woebegone place.

[vand]

Immigrants increase the factors of production available. Who builds the houses on this country? The Polish and the Romanians - certainly far more than the indigenous.

You ignore my point. If on average they are a net drain on the wealth of the UK, how can they pay for the houses which are built to home them?

You lead with the conclusion of them being a net drain, rather than putting together constructive argument for them being so. What authority makes you so sure? The UK has historically benefited immensely from having high immigration, both economically and culturally.

[Nimrod103]

You ignore my point. If on average they are a net drain on the wealth of the UK, how can they pay for the houses which are built to home them?

You lead with the conclusion of them being a net drain, rather than putting together constructive argument for them being so. What authority makes you so sure? The UK has historically benefited immensely from having high immigration, both economically and culturally.

https://www.economist.com/europe/2021/1 ... mmigration

[vand]

You lead with the conclusion of them being a net drain, rather than putting together constructive argument for them being so. What authority makes you so sure? The UK has historically benefited immensely from having high immigration, both economically and culturally.

https://www.economist.com/europe/2021/1 ... mmigration

Apart from the fact that it's paywalled, I hardly consider the Economist to know anything about real economics, and yes I am not joking. Article seems like an opinion or news piece designed to stir the hornet's nest.

Before you nail your colours to the anti immigration deck you'd do well to consider the debt that Britain owes the world from its, ah, let's say more "globally expansive" era.

[Nimrod103]

https://www.economist.com/europe/2021/1 ... mmigration

Apart from the fact that it's paywalled, I hardly consider the Economist to know anything about real economics, and yes I am not joking. Article seems like an opinion or news piece designed to stir the hornet's nest.

Before you nail your colours to the anti immigration deck you'd do well to consider the debt that Britain owes the world from its, ah, let's say more "globally expansive" era.

I'm afraid if you only ever want your news and information for free, you are only going to get partial and potentially biased reports.

It would be interesting to see a full profit and loss account for Britain's Empire, which debt I assume you are referring to. As a student of industrial history, I know that Britain's dominating position in trade around the World, mainly in the 18th and 19th Centuries, was based heavily on successful businesses in the UK. Biggest producer of coal, iron & steel, non ferrous metals, biggest engineering innovator and cotton and wool manufacturer, and with healthy agriculture and fisheries, much of those profits were invested in developing the Empire and other foreign business ventures. Britain led the campaign against slavery and the spreading of civilization, democracy and human rights. Of course many of those ventures were subsequently nationalised without proper compensation, and we had to spend much of that wealth protecting the World in two devastating wars. Against that wealth of treasure and innovation which we donated to the World, the trials of West Indian slaves in the 18th Century, in my opinion, are trivial.

[ursaminortaur]

You lead with the conclusion of them being a net drain, rather than putting together constructive argument for them being so. What authority makes you so sure? The UK has historically benefited immensely from having high immigration, both economically and culturally.

https://www.economist.com/europe/2021/1 ... mmigration

Here is an accessible link to the article. It should be noted that the claim isn't that all immigrants are a fiscal drain but that immigrants from non-western countries are a drain. This chimes with reports on immigration into the UK from before Brexit which showed that immigrants from the EU substantially contributed fiscally to the UK whereas those from elsewhere were a slight drain in terms of welfare state usage.

https://archive.is/2023.07.31-045551/https://www.economist.com/europe/2021/12/18/why-have-danes-turned-against-immigration

Denmark’s defence of its welfare state is ruthless and, say critics, racist. In October the finance ministry, in its annual report on the issue, estimated that in 2018 immigrants from non-Western countries and their descendants drained from public finances a net 31bn kroner ($4.9bn), some 1.4% of gdp. Immigrants from Western countries, by contrast, contributed a net 7bn kroner (see chart).

[Bubblesofearth]

You lead with the conclusion of them being a net drain, rather than putting together constructive argument for them being so. What authority makes you so sure? The UK has historically benefited immensely from having high immigration, both economically and culturally.

Do you think there has been good integration of immigrants into our country and culture?

BoE

[vand]

You lead with the conclusion of them being a net drain, rather than putting together constructive argument for them being so. What authority makes you so sure? The UK has historically benefited immensely from having high immigration, both economically and culturally.

Do you think there has been good integration of immigrants into our country and culture?

BoE

Given that we've had immigration since Saxon times and before yeah, sure, I reckon we're onto something

[Bubblesofearth]

Given that we've had immigration since Saxon times and before yeah, sure, I reckon we're onto something

Well, I can't really comment at a personal level on what went on hundreds or thousands of years before I was born. However, having lived in a number of different locations within the UK I can at least give an account of my own experiences of multiculturalism. Rather than any true integration I've found that society has evolved more in the manner of oil droplets in water. People from different religions, cultures or geographies have tended to stick together. In London I've lived near what I would describe as Jewish, muslim and West Indian enclaves and seen only token efforts at integration. Recently I've witnessed much the same for East European people near me.

These are only my personal experiences and are therefore only a snapshot of life in Britain as seen through one persons eyes. I'm sure I have my own prejudices and pass what I see through those filters. But I would qualify that as true for all of us to a lesser or greater extent.

What I see reported in in the news or shown in tv series usually bears little resemblance to my experiences. Maybe you have different experiences or have been convinced by the media to believe differently?

BoE

[Nimrod103]

whereas those from elsewhere were a slight drain in terms of welfare state usage.

It would be good if you could provide some backup references to prove this claim. However, that is welfare. This thread is mainly about paying for new houses.
Are the immigrants, which we have been accepting in huge numbers, able to afford to pay for the housing they need. Some bring skills we need, most don't. But none of them bring their own houses.

[ursaminortaur]

whereas those from elsewhere were a slight drain in terms of welfare state usage.

It would be good if you could provide some backup references to prove this claim. However, that is welfare. This thread is mainly about paying for new houses.
Are the immigrants, which we have been accepting in huge numbers, able to afford to pay for the housing they need. Some bring skills we need, most don't. But none of them bring their own houses.

https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-fiscal-impact-of-immigration-in-the-uk/

A study by Oxford Economics (2018), commissioned by the Migration Advisory Committee, estimated the net fiscal contribution of EEA migrants in the financial year (FY) 2016/17 at £4.7bn, compared to a net cost of £9bn for non-EEA migrants. During this period, the UK was running a budget deficit, so the UK-born were also estimated to have made a negative net fiscal contribution (of -£41.4bn). By contrast, using a similar methodology but slightly different assumptions, Migration Watch UK (2016) found that in FY2014/15 both EEA and non-EEA migrants represented a net fiscal cost (of £1.2bn and £15.6bn respectively). A large part of the difference between these studies arises from the choice of how much of the taxes paid by businesses to attribute to migrants.

Oxford Economics (2018) found that the negative net fiscal contribution of non-EEA migrants was primarily due to higher spending on the education of children, since non-EEA migrants are currently more likely to have dependent children than the UK-born. They were also estimated to receive more in family benefits and tax credits. Separate calculations in the same study that looked at the whole life cycle of non-EEA migrants and excluded the cost of children did not find a negative impact for this group (see below).

[Nimrod103]

It would be good if you could provide some backup references to prove this claim. However, that is welfare. This thread is mainly about paying for new houses.
Are the immigrants, which we have been accepting in huge numbers, able to afford to pay for the housing they need. Some bring skills we need, most don't. But none of them bring their own houses.

https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-fiscal-impact-of-immigration-in-the-uk/

A study by Oxford Economics (2018), commissioned by the Migration Advisory Committee, estimated the net fiscal contribution of EEA migrants in the financial year (FY) 2016/17 at £4.7bn, compared to a net cost of £9bn for non-EEA migrants. During this period, the UK was running a budget deficit, so the UK-born were also estimated to have made a negative net fiscal contribution (of -£41.4bn). By contrast, using a similar methodology but slightly different assumptions, Migration Watch UK (2016) found that in FY2014/15 both EEA and non-EEA migrants represented a net fiscal cost (of £1.2bn and £15.6bn respectively). A large part of the difference between these studies arises from the choice of how much of the taxes paid by businesses to attribute to migrants.

Oxford Economics (2018) found that the negative net fiscal contribution of non-EEA migrants was primarily due to higher spending on the education of children, since non-EEA migrants are currently more likely to have dependent children than the UK-born. They were also estimated to receive more in family benefits and tax credits. Separate calculations in the same study that looked at the whole life cycle of non-EEA migrants and excluded the cost of children did not find a negative impact for this group (see below).

Comparing EEA and non-EEA immigrants is an anachronism in this post-Brexit World. It removes the spotlight from what really matters, that is economic value versus cost in welfare payments and social disintegration. Especially now there are many hard working Hong Kongers arriving. What we need to focus on is not letting in those who are a drain on the country's limited resources.

[vand]

Maybe you have different experiences or have been convinced by the media to believe differently?

BoE

Well given that I am an immigrant myself, speak and write english as well as a native, grew up on council housing, have worked continuously for the last 24 years, never claimed a day on the dole, delivered (imo) excellent value for my employers and paid more than my fair share of taxes, and would consider myself far more "British" than my country of origin, yeah, I would say my experience has been quite different.

[CliffEdge]

Well given that I am an immigrant myself, speak and write english as well as a native, grew up on council housing, have worked continuously for the last 24 years, never claimed a day on the dole, delivered (imo) excellent value for my employers and paid more than my fair share of taxes, and would consider myself far more "British" than my country of origin, yeah, I would say my experience has been quite different.

You lived in a council house?