Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What do you mean by third world people? Immigration actually contributed billions and billions in GDP throughout the last ten years. And why make it easier for Aussies to stay????
Immigration is a good thing if it is managed properly. Innovative or educated people should always be welcome. The iPod and the Internet was created by a British immigrant to the US for example, and 3 of the richest people in the UK as from Asia.
The government will increase the retirement age due to higher costs of pension funding but this also leads to less jobs for the younger population. I think the retirement age should be lowered to be elible for a state pension to get the younger generation into work. Of course, that argument won't fly with a conservaclown.
Transport was totally screwed up by Maggie Thatcher. Privatizing an industry without competition or effective regulation has given us one of the most over priced unreliable transport systems in the world.
Arguments about space in the UK have nothing to do with the population it can support. Of course you could fit more people there, but London and the Thanes Valley (which produce nearly half of Britain's GDP) are severely overcrowded. House prices are crazy and haven't decreased much since the crash. Roads are busy. It's hard to get away from other people anywhere in this area. Infrastructure cannot support further growth without substantial investment which will have to come from a boost in GDP. That's not going to happen anytime soon.
Infrastructure can easily grow without a boost in GDP. Actually that's one of the things the government is doing, infrastructure investment, which will create more jobs in the construction industry and should help GDP growth, since, you know, you can't just cut everything.. lol
And by third world people, I mean, people from third world countries with little to no skills. Sure enough many of them do have skills and do many jobs we don't, but a lot of them don't, but I don't think that would be the case with Australians.
So yeah... I don't think I'd wanna be cooped up on an island of that size with 60 million other people...
More than half the population of the state of Illinois lives in the Chicago metropolitan area. The population density of the city itself is 4,923 people per square kilometre, making it one of the nation's most densely populated cities in the USA.
The population density of London is 4761 people per square kilometre
Out where I live (an hour outside of London) it's like 3 people and 10 sheep per square kilometre - or something like that.
Infrastructure can easily grow without a boost in GDP. Actually that's one of the things the government is doing, infrastructure investment, which will create more jobs in the construction industry and should help GDP growth, since, you know, you can't just cut everything.. lol
And by third world people, I mean, people from third world countries with little to no skills. Sure enough many of them do have skills and do many jobs we don't, but a lot of them don't, but I don't think that would be the case with Australians.
What investment???? Where??? The CBI has advised the government that at least £200bn is needed over the next five years. You'll have to point it out within Osborne's budget - I can't see it.
More than half the population of the state of Illinois lives in the Chicago metropolitan area. The population density of the city itself is 4,923 people per square kilometre, making it one of the nation's most densely populated cities in the USA.
The population density of London is 4761 people per square kilometre
Out where I live (an hour outside of London) it's like 3 people and 10 sheep per square kilometre - or something like that.
Most countries have some densely populated urban areas. I have lived in London and I have lived in the New York Metro area. Not too different in terms of being 'crowded'. But, in both cases, in didn't take too log to get out of the city and into countryside whether that be Sussex or Dutchess County. Los Angeles was probably the worst in terms of sprawl and time to get out.
The idea that the UK, or even just England, is crowded is simply nonsense as anyone who has ever lived there will know. Perhaps the cities are crowded but you would expect that. That is why they are 'cities'. Equally, the idea that south east England 'is' London is also ridiculous. There is a lot more to the southeast than just London.
The infrastructure discussion is a different one altogether and in many respects is a moving target as it has to continually adapt to changes in population, changes in transportation habits, etc.. But, again, the issue is not a British one but rather one that all major urban regions have to deal with.
So yeah... I don't think I'd wanna be cooped up on an island of that size with 60 million other people...
Drover, have you actually been to the UK? I'll tell you honestly that much of it doesn't feel at all crowded, any more so than much of the US. The beauty of British towns and cities is that within a short space of time, you can find yourself in the middle of idyllic countryside. I can't even do that here in MA as aside from the urban areas, most of it is covered in thick native woodland that isn't walkable, like many of the forests and public footpaths you find in the UK. Also, there is plenty of wilderness in the UK. The Scottish Highlands, the Lake District, the Yorkshire moors, the Peak District, Snowdonia to name but a few areas of outstanding natural beauty, where you'll feel about as far away from the throngs of rat-race civilisation as you can get.
I believe that you are in Texas, a state bigger than France and England combined with a population of around half that of England.
It can be galling to hear others telling us how that we are not overcrowded when they do not have to live with the day to day implications of what this means.
What's your point? People chose to move to London. Nobody forced them. There are plenty of other areas that are rural and where you could move. So saying it's "overcrowded" and then using London or England as an example dosen't make any sense. You are free to move to any rural parts of the U.K. if you like. You act like somebody forced them to move to certain areas and that's all that's left in the U.K.
Quote:
Originally Posted by theunbrainwashed
Glucorious the structures of houses here are brick and mortar for the most part, and cities in the US, like St. Louis, have used brick buildings to build. I don't think the costs are that much greater, considering that brick was widely used in older days. Also, house prices in the Midlands do not differ much from prices, say in Pennsylvania. So I don't think brick vs. wood is going to make a difference of £100,000.
Not in Texas and many other states. It's a wooden frame and drywall. Those homes you are talking about are older buildings. Those are older cities. I doubt the new homes are the same way. And yes, it does make it more expensive. We built one. One would have to analyze the exact data and compare actual, real homes that are currently on the market in order to be able to compare it.
Addressing population decline, this is exactly what I have said in my previous post. The problem is the social security system itself, not the population numbers. The baby boom after WWII is like the housing boom of the late 90s until 2008. It wasn't sustainable, it was a bubble waiting to pop, and now it'll flow back down to more proportional levels in line with life expectancy. The population boom in the West, coupled with the welfare state, is exactly like the housing bubble. Really scale back the government pension scheme after the baby boomers pass on so that the bubble doesn't inflate again.
lol. Good luck with that. That's gonna start WW3.
Again, how does importing hundreds of thousands of poor, unskilled immigrants from 3rd world countries is exactly going to help the West, at the same time we are being de-industrialized?
The U.K. does not "import" them. It's not like one can move just like this to the U.K. I'm sure you know this yourself ( unless you married a U.K. citizen), and you've seen the threads on here. You do have to bring something to the table to even be considered for a work visa. So I don't really know what you're referring to.
The glaringly obvious point is that people who were born and bred here are finding certain areas changing beyond compare.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
