As someone personally not inclined towards the Tories, I still very much enjoyed the article and thought there were are lot of valid points made, well proven with underlying data. However, I think there was one major effect missed, and that's probably the biggest of all: The effect of migration on age distribution and the way it alleviates fiscal pressure. Migrants to the UK, especially those coming down the graduate route, are mostly young adults. That means they spent a much higher proportion of their time in the UK in the workforce compared to the average native (who also spends his childhood here). Obviously, if one would cut off migration at some point, that would mean earlier migrants get old and at some point become net recipients, nullifying the effect. This is probably what the studies on the net fiscal effect of migration find. But as long as there is continued migration, it boosts the share of people in the workforce and that means it gets a lot easier to pay for state services and caring for pensioners and kids. Overall still a very good analysis, though!
I wouldn't call it a Ponzi scheme, because that implies that it would be unsustainable and fraudulent, but you can mantain high immigration/high population growth for very long time (the US have done it for 300 years). More generally, it is just demographics. For example, if you want to mantain a constant population, you also need every woman to have 2 children on average, so more and more children to pay for the ones before. In general, constant immigration just stops the population from shrinking and aging on average, which would come with a host of problems (higher health care costs per capita, less tax revenue because of more pensioners etc.).
As someone personally not inclined towards the Tories, I still very much enjoyed the article and thought there were are lot of valid points made, well proven with underlying data. However, I think there was one major effect missed, and that's probably the biggest of all: The effect of migration on age distribution and the way it alleviates fiscal pressure. Migrants to the UK, especially those coming down the graduate route, are mostly young adults. That means they spent a much higher proportion of their time in the UK in the workforce compared to the average native (who also spends his childhood here). Obviously, if one would cut off migration at some point, that would mean earlier migrants get old and at some point become net recipients, nullifying the effect. This is probably what the studies on the net fiscal effect of migration find. But as long as there is continued migration, it boosts the share of people in the workforce and that means it gets a lot easier to pay for state services and caring for pensioners and kids. Overall still a very good analysis, though!
Doesn't that make a ponzi scheme? You have to keep importing more and more people in order to pay for the ones before?
I wouldn't call it a Ponzi scheme, because that implies that it would be unsustainable and fraudulent, but you can mantain high immigration/high population growth for very long time (the US have done it for 300 years). More generally, it is just demographics. For example, if you want to mantain a constant population, you also need every woman to have 2 children on average, so more and more children to pay for the ones before. In general, constant immigration just stops the population from shrinking and aging on average, which would come with a host of problems (higher health care costs per capita, less tax revenue because of more pensioners etc.).