Australia, Canada, UK in 2100

[dc_denizen]

interesting, south korea has no immigration and is one of the fastest growing and diversifying economies. how did that happen?

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

interesting, south korea has no immigration and is one of the fastest growing and diversifying economies. how did that happen?

Are you talking population growth or economic growth?

South Korea might have the worst demographic crisis of any developed nation. It's facing catastrophic population decline; worse even than Japan or Eastern Europe.

The country had an incredible postwar boom, but that was concurrent with very high birthrates (and starting from a near-starvation base, so growth rates look extremely impressive). Recent economic growth hasn't been impressive.

[dc_denizen]

^ really? basically they are a high tech powerhouse that grows without having to import labor.

how would you rather grow - investing in people and high tech, moving up the value chain, building world beating companies vs importing a bunch of surplus population from third world countries to juice economic growth with consumption??

SK makes the worlds ships, TVS and phones. 30 years ago they made toys. their economic achievement DEFINES impressive.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

^ really? basically they are a high tech powerhouse that grows without having to import labor.

Right, but they had extremely high birthrates, which helped power their economic miracle.

As late as 1970, nearly half the population was under 15 years of age. They had much higher birthrates than in the U.S. during the postwar decades. Now they have some of the lowest birthrates on earth. That's unsustainable, obviously. They doubled their population in a few decades; now they're hemorrhaging population.

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

how would you rather grow - investing in people and high tech, moving up the value chain, building world beating companies vs importing a bunch of surplus population from third world countries to juice economic growth with consumption??

But this is a false choice. Again, S. Korea had postwar birthrates that resemble modern-day birthrates in countries like Lesotho and Chad. They had enormous domestic labor supply.

You need people, so if you aren't birthing labor, you need to import labor.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Except most immigration to the UK is from Europe. Poland is the largest immigrant group in the UK; Germany, Ireland and France also have huge numbers. This immigration is largely done. It would be like Australia blocking Asian immigration or the U.S. blocking Latin American immigration. Hell, it's almost like NY or LA blocking non-tristate or non-CA migration. This will be a looming demographic time-bomb.

Obviously non-European immigration will be forced to increase, but overall immigration to UK will plummet, meaning population growth will plummet. Roughly 75% of population growth in the UK post-2000 is due to immigration.

And the only way to recover is to draw more people from Pakistan instead of Germany, which is madness. UK will likely be one of the slowest growing major world economies in the next few decades.

According to the article, it's a 270,000 immigration surplus in 2019, even though net European immigration fell to 1/4 of the number of 2015.

Those are massive numbers, close to the all-time high which proves the UK keeps attracting immigrants at decent numbers regardless Brexit. Needless to say they can at any time to make easier immigration from EU to UK if they decide to fit them so.

And Britain, unlike Germany, still has a positive natural growth, making immigrants a less urgent matter there.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

^ really? basically they are a high tech powerhouse that grows without having to import labor.

how would you rather grow - investing in people and high tech, moving up the value chain, building world beating companies vs importing a bunch of surplus population from third world countries to juice economic growth with consumption??

SK makes the worlds ships, TVS and phones. 30 years ago they made toys. their economic achievement DEFINES impressive.

South Korea population had been growing fast up to the 1990's. It's only now they will start to face population decline. 2020 will be their first year of population shrinking.

Their growth in this century has not been that impressive, pretty much in line with the US and Europe. Their problems lie ahead.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

interesting, south korea has no immigration and is one of the fastest growing and diversifying economies. how did that happen?

A couple years ago I saw billboards in English on the highway going to Seoul's airport that were encouraging people to migrate to Korea.

[fern]

The UK is roughly the size of Michigan with a population of 67 million people we don't need millions more

[dc_denizen]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Right, but they had extremely high birthrates, which helped power their economic miracle.

As late as 1970, nearly half the population was under 15 years of age. They had much higher birthrates than in the U.S. during the postwar decades. Now they have some of the lowest birthrates on earth. That's unsustainable, obviously. They doubled their population in a few decades; now they're hemorrhaging population.

But this is a false choice. Again, S. Korea had postwar birthrates that resemble modern-day birthrates in countries like Lesotho and Chad. They had enormous domestic labor supply.

You need people, so if you aren't birthing labor, you need to import labor.

Not talking about 1960s Korea here. as should be obvious!

I'm talking about 2000s.

S Korea did not grow in this period because of its labor supply. It grew because of amazing technological achievements that dwarf what most western countries managed during the same period.

Westerners only like to look at numbers. eg, WOW! Australia is growing so fast, no recession, hows this possible? (but let's not forget that all the growth is immigration and resource extraction related). S Korea has slightly lower growth, but their companies have expanded worldwide , creating massive demand for Korean exports. again, which would you prefer?

As far as clout goes, you could import half the population of Manila and Dhaka to Toronto or Melbourne, and these cities would have less clout than Seoul or Taipei. Numbers are not as important as the human capital of a city, and how its applied to pursue cultural and economic goals of a society.

[dc_denizen]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

South Korea population had been growing fast up to the 1990's. It's only now they will start to face population decline. 2020 will be their first year of population shrinking.

Their growth in this century has not been that impressive, pretty much in line with the US and Europe. Their problems lie ahead.

S Korean growth has been incredibly impressive, qualitatively and quantitatively. but you have to look beyond mere growth numbers to see this, which a surprising amount of economists and, it turns out, laypeople, are unwilling to do. Not all growth is created equal.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by fern

The UK is roughly the size of Michigan with a population of 67 million people we don't need millions more

I'd agree with this. England, at least, hardly needs more people. And same goes for most of former West Germany, Belgium and Netherlands.

But regardless of whether the UK "needs" immigration or not, it's very tough to argue that Brexit won't lead to a significant decrease in immigration, at least from the countries that have comprised the bulk of immigrants in recent decades.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

Not talking about 1960s Korea here. as should be obvious!
I'm talking about 2000s.

South Korean growth rates, in recent years, have trailed the U.S. and most other developed nations. The Korean miracle was a postwar phenomenon, not a recent one. And, again, South Korea is on the cusp of dramatic population decline. It's a prospective crisis, not a historical one.

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

As far as clout goes, you could import half the population of Manila and Dhaka to Toronto or Melbourne, and these cities would have less clout than Seoul or Taipei. Numbers are not as important as the human capital of a city, and how its applied to pursue cultural and economic goals of a society.

Well, yeah. Seoul Metro has over 25 million people. It has more than half the nation's population, and well over the 60% of the nation's economic output. Toronto has 7-8 million and Melboune has 5 million, so they aren't gonna compete.

[nito]

Originally Posted by The North One

If you believe secession from a union that made movement on an entire continent basically seamless and an increasingly anti-immigrant right wing government will have no impact on immigration trends then I don't know what to tell you.

I never said that it wouldn’t have an impact; as I clearly outlined in my previous post, after the referendum EU net migration fell, but it still remains positive. As previously stated, the fundamentals behind the UK as a destination (to work and live) still remain which is why irrelevant of the referendum, non-EU net migration continued to rise.

Originally Posted by Crawford

Except most immigration to the UK is from Europe.

Incorrect. 62% of the UK’s foreign-born population is from outside the EU; this figure rises to 68% for London.

Originally Posted by Crawford

Poland is the largest immigrant group in the UK

Incorrect. It is India (Poland is second).

Originally Posted by Crawford

Germany, Ireland and France also have huge numbers.

They do post large numbers, but in terms of foreign-born population ranking, Ireland comes 5th, Germany 6th and France 12th.

Originally Posted by Crawford

This immigration is largely done. It would be like Australia blocking Asian immigration or the U.S. blocking Latin American immigration. Hell, it's almost like NY or LA blocking non-tristate or non-CA migration. This will be a looming demographic time-bomb. Obviously non-European immigration will be forced to increase, but overall immigration to UK will plummet, meaning population growth will plummet.

Except EU immigration isn’t being blocked, nor is it going to stop. The level of EU net migration fell, but it is still positive. Non-EU net migration is up nearly 3x in the past five years and never had to be forced to grow. In the last reporting period, immigration registered the second highest figure over the past decade.

Originally Posted by Crawford

Roughly 75% of population growth in the UK post-2000 is due to immigration. And the only way to recover is to draw more people from Pakistan instead of Germany, which is madness. UK will likely be one of the slowest growing major world economies in the next few decades.

Whilst your may have a personal preference for people from one country over another, in my opinion the country of birth, ethnicity, religion, etc… for migrants to the UK is irrelevant, as long as they seek to be productive and positive members of society.

[mrnyc]

^ did you just whilst the forum?

[Wigs]

One only has to look at the Manhattan-ization of Toronto to see that it's importance will rise on the world stage.

London will always be the king of the commonwealth. But Canada will probably overtake UK in population.

I think Toronto will be a more important city than Melbourne, plus Canada will probably fare better with climate change than Australia which, from my understanding, is like 1/3 desert climate.

I understand my opinions are biased being Canadian.

• Video Link

[dc_denizen]

still chuckling at the claim of underperformance of the South Korean economy.

btw Seoul looks like New York, if the entire city looked like Co-Op City, the Bronx.



Toronto, Melbourne, not to mention Dallas, Miami, Atlanta should be sending junkets to seoul to see how they did it.

[dc_denizen]

in general, I think immigration-heavy metros like Melbourne and Toronto will underperform their size, versus those (like Seoul) that grow their economy from enrichment of their own human capital stock and wise corporate investment and government policy decisions.

In the US, you see this as Los Angeles and the heavy hispanic immigrant metros like Houston and Miami are not the major economic players their population size would indicate. Places like Boston and SF far outclass Dallas, for example in the more intangible metrics like R&D spending, laboratory space, % of workforce with advanced degrees, etc.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

in general, I think immigration-heavy metros like Melbourne and Toronto will underperform their size, versus those (like Seoul) that grow their economy from enrichment of their own human capital stock and wise corporate investment and government policy decisions.

In the US, you see this as Los Angeles and the heavy hispanic immigrant metros like Houston and Miami are not the major economic players their population size would indicate. Places like Boston and SF far outclass Dallas, for example in the more intangible metrics like R&D spending, laboratory space, % of workforce with advanced degrees, etc.

I didn't understand the reasoning. White people or Koreans are inherently superior than the immigrants going to Toronto or Melbourne or Hispanic people in Los Angeles?

BTW, the GDP per capita of those three are higher than of Seoul's.

[dc_denizen]

GDP per capita, hahaha

strip out natural resources and real estate and then we'll talk

Australia = top in coal per capita
Canada= top in gas and oil per capita
Seoul = top in training, expertise, hard work per capita

[dc_denizen]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

I didn't understand the reasoning. White people or Koreans are inherently superior than the immigrants going to Toronto or Melbourne or Hispanic people in Los Angeles?

BTW, the GDP per capita of those three are higher than of Seoul's.

I would expect South Koreans in Seoul would have higher educational attainment and productivity in the high tech economy vs recently arrived Central American immigrants in Houston or Phillipinos in Toronto, yes, isn't this obvious