Population of 5 million soon

sebdavis

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Absolutely this.

As you have so ably pointed out, we have more than enough problems and issues as it is that we are already failing to address with our current population levels and resources, without adding more of the former and increasing pressure of the latter.

This is doubly true when we consider that the "strategy" being pursued at the moment is to encourage mass immigration of primarily people with minimal skills with the promise of welfare goodies for life on arrival.

We are in the EU, we cannot stop people coming if they want. It was pointed out on another forum about a lady from Poland was XX years on the housing waiting list and was given a new house. More or less this woman arrived the day Poland joined the EU and sat on waiting list since. We cannot stop this.

Also with the UK out of the EU now Ireland is becoming a more & more attractive option to Eastern Europeans who just need to pay to get here and then we will look after them.

Mimon

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Absolutely this.

As you have so ably pointed out, we have more than enough problems and issues as it is that we are already failing to address with our current population levels and resources, without adding more of the former and increasing pressure of the latter.

This is doubly true when we consider that the "strategy" being pursued at the moment is to encourage mass immigration of primarily people with minimal skills with the promise of welfare goodies for life on arrival.

Immigrants on average contribute more economically than Irish people so your reasoning makes no senses whatsoever.

ThunbergsAreGo

Mimon wrote: »

Immigrants on average contribute more economically than Irish people so your reasoning makes no senses whatsoever.

EU immigrants do

Mimon

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

EU immigrants do

A lot of the moaning and bellyaching on this thread was about EU immigrants.

Where do you have the figure about non EU citizens anyway? Where I work all non EU citizens are highly paid engineers etc contributing huge amounts to revenue.

Even the Pakistani lads who work in garages etc work hard.

A lot of moaning based on little data to back it up on here.

dxhound2005

Without migration the projections make the population of the EU 219 million in 2100 down from 447 million now. Even with migration the projection is a fall to 416 million . Italy will see one of the biggest reductions.

https://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/submitViewTableAction.do

biko

Hungary have incentives to boost their population.
Is this something Ireland should do too?

dxhound2005

biko wrote: »

Hungary have incentives to boost their population.
Is this some Ireland should do too?

We did that in 1944 with the introduction of Children's Allowance. From memory it was paid only when a claimant had three children, nothing for the first two.

ThunbergsAreGo

Mimon wrote: »

A lot of the moaning and bellyaching on this thread was about EU immigrants.

Where do you have the figure about non EU citizens anyway? Where I work all non EU citizens are highly paid engineers etc contributing huge amounts to revenue.

Even the Pakistani lads who work in garages etc work hard.

A lot of moaning based on little data to back it up on here.

Well we could deport EU citizens that have been on welfare for a large amount of time and could be seen as welfare tourists, as we are allowed to by law. But that might not play internationally.

As for non EU, we could make it skills based, so the highly skilled engineers you work with (and so do I) are encouraged to come here and fill needs.

But those that do not qualify are deported or not allowed in in an efficient manner.

Granting amnesty to 17k illegal immigrants, and proposing own door accommodation after 4 months, isn't going to see a rise in engineers coming here.

And I am not anti immigrant at all, I work with many and they are for the most part good hard working people (same as Ireland). My issues are with the cack handed, push problems down the road approach our country takes to it, whereby they seem to do anything they can to not make hard decisions to be seen as "bad" by the media/Twitter mob

Strumms

If I go to Albertini's Italian restaurant for example...

I’m paying money, I want prompt and friendly service, excellent food and an all round positive experience, ie. value and bang for my buck.

As Irish citizens we pay, PRSI PAYE and VAT...in the main. I want we get bang for our buck from what we pay... here too... I want to see hospital waiting lists reasonable, I want to see our transport infrastructure fit for purpose, I want rehabilitative hospital places funded, i want housing waiting lists cut and priority given to Irish tax payers who are funding those builds...I want Irish citizens who pay for all the above to be the primary benefactors..

If I hand over 200 euros for groceries in Tesco, I expect the right change and to leave with everything I put in my basket...I dont want my change to be given away or a percentage of my purchases to be handed to others.

ShatterAlan

whisky_galore wrote: »

Does a country really have to be populated according to EU norms?
How are all these people supposed to support themselves? More one off housing and urban sprawl isn't that great as far as the environment is concerned.

One could argue that the whole COVID thing will help tackle urban sprawl. For over a year now practivally everyone has been working remotely and the planet hasn't been plunged into the dark ages.


If millions of people can work remotely then the populations of urban centres would fall dramatically. Why live in, and work from, an overpriced shoe-box in the city centre when you can live in, and work from, a nice house with some trees and stuff up in the mountains somewhere for a fraction of the cost.

murpho999

Some crazy stuff being mentioned here.

More people = more on social welfare.

2 millon too many etc.

Do people not realise that economies are improved by economic activity and economic activity is driven by people?

Ireland's economy practically stagnated for over 100 years due to the famine and colonisation and it took a long time to recover.

If that had not happened then and we had a higher population then the country's economy would have been more vibrant over a longer period and taxes would have been raised earlier for better infrastructure like transport, hospitals etc.

It's not a co-incidence that out motorways have improved in the last 20 years and more people would raise more taxes to fund better quality infrastructure that our previous lower population could not fund.
That's why the likes of Holland which is smaller than Ireland in size has better transport than us as there's more people to fund it.

So going over 5 million would be good and I'd even go as far to say that if Ireland does eventually unite that this will be good as well, as contrary to popular opinion Ireland is very wealthy and could afford it no problem and secondly an all ireland economy with more people would be more vibrant and active than what is happening in Northern Ireland now.

murpho999

whisky_galore wrote: »

Does a country really have to be populated according to EU norms?
How are all these people supposed to support themselves? More one off housing and urban sprawl isn't that great as far as the environment is concerned.

They would support themselves by working just like we do now.
More people would generate more demand, more activity and more jobs.

They don't have to be a drain.

As for Urban Sprawl, we must change our planning laws, stop objectors and nimbys and build upwards, not out.
Also decentralise and get more people in other towns and cities other than Dublin.

PeggyShippen

It's said you need 10 million for a proper functioning country with an internal market that is self sustaining. We are still a ways off that mark.

murpho999

PeggyShippen wrote: »

It's said you need 10 million for a proper functioning country with an internal market that is self sustaining. We are still a ways off that mark.

So Denmark, Norway, Finland, Baltic countries etc are not coping?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Cal4567 wrote: »

And it's expected to hit another million or so over the course of the next decade and a half. I think that was more or less what that 2040 plan that the government produced a couple of years back, said. No one has a crystal ball and now throwing the aftermath of Covid in, and any economic fallout, who knows?

I'm not sure if it's an unpopular opinion, but I think we are still under populated for our land size. Always felt that was the EU view of us. Up to the start of Covid, there certainly feels that we've had more arriving than leaving.

Me too. Growing up in a rural area, sparsely populated but not unusually so for the Irish countryside, there were many amenities we couldn't have because the numbers of people weren't there to support them. Sporting facilities for example. Unless it was a commonplace team sport, forget about it. I was interested in individual sports. Not a hope of any of them being anywhere near me.

whisky_galore wrote: »

Does a country really have to be populated according to EU norms?
How are all these people supposed to support themselves? More one off housing and urban sprawl isn't that great as far as the environment is concerned.

How do other small countries with much larger populations cope? It's hardly outlandish. Had the famine not happened, do you really think we'd be in a bad way? I don't.

Mr. teddywinkles

murpho999 wrote: »

Some crazy stuff being mentioned here.

More people = more on social welfare.

2 millon too many etc.

Do people not realise that economies are improved by economic activity and economic activity is driven by people?

Ireland's economy practically stagnated for over 100 years due to the famine and colonisation and it took a long time to recover.

If that had not happened then and we had a higher population then the country's economy would have been more vibrant over a longer period and taxes would have been raised earlier for better infrastructure like transport, hospitals etc.

It's not a co-incidence that out motorways have improved in the last 20 years and more people would raise more taxes to fund better quality infrastructure that our previous lower population could not fund.
That's why the likes of Holland which is smaller than Ireland in size has better transport than us as there's more people to fund it.

So going over 5 million would be good and I'd even go as far to say that if Ireland does eventually unite that this will be good as well, as contrary to popular opinion Ireland is very wealthy and could afford it no problem and secondly an all ireland economy with more people would be more vibrant and active than what is happening in Northern Ireland now.

Ya mean the struggling middle class will pay for it.

Bobblehats

Mimon wrote: »

Do you have to bring in dressed up xenophobic ****e into this thread?

Wibbs

murpho999 wrote: »

Do people not realise that economies are improved by economic activity and economic activity is driven by people?

This doesn't automatically mean more people. There are plenty of examples of high population nations with crap economies and small population nations with very good ones.

Ireland's economy practically stagnated for over 100 years due to the famine and colonisation and it took a long time to recover.

If that had not happened then and we had a higher population then the country's economy would have been more vibrant over a longer period and taxes would have been raised earlier for better infrastructure like transport, hospitals etc.

Well that's completely hypothetical for a start. If the famine hadn't happened we would still have seen people leaving for the New World or into the cities. The place was dirt poor before the famine, the famine just accelerated the change. In England which was more wealthy there was a large shift of population to the cities during the industrial revolution. Quite a bit of migration around her empire too. If they hadn't had a local industrial revolution(like we didn't) and the jobs it provided you can be sure the emigration level would have been much higher. Too many people, not enough to go around.

It's not a co-incidence that out motorways have improved in the last 20 years and more people would raise more taxes to fund better quality infrastructure that our previous lower population could not fund.

Eh they've improved because of a large chunk of EU support too and plans for those motorways go way back beyond 20 years with it.

That's why the likes of Holland which is smaller than Ireland in size has better transport than us as there's more people to fund it.

Holland has better infrastructure because Holland was and remains one of the wealthiest nations(and empires) in European history and has been a stable society and country for many centuries. It had feck all to do with its population size. It was very rich in the 18th century with a fraction of the population it has today.

So going over 5 million would be good and I'd even go as far to say that if Ireland does eventually unite that this will be good as well, as contrary to popular opinion Ireland is very wealthy and could afford it no problem and secondly an all ireland economy with more people would be more vibrant and active than what is happening in Northern Ireland now.

Vibrant and active are just buzzwords, usually applied after the fact and rarely before it. The north would cost us dearly in economic terms. Look how many billions the UK plough into it on a yearly basis. It is not self supporting, or close to it. Their percentage that work in the public service is very high. The province is a propped up public employment scheme held onto for historical/political reasons. If London could get shot of it they would. That's before we get to the slight problem of a large chunk of the population that want nothing to do with Dublin rule. You can't wish that away.

murpho999 wrote: »

They would support themselves by working just like we do now.
More people would generate more demand, more activity and more jobs.

and more waste, more resources, more damage to the environment and the more you decentralise them the worse that will be. As it is Ireland has few enough wild spaces, few enough areas where there isn't housing in the sightline. And that's with a low population density. Decentralise more and that goes up. And that's if the grand plan of constant growth is reached. Which it won't because it's unsustainable. Look at every recession that hits this country. What happens? Emigration goes up and more people leave rural areas and head for cities(which happens anyway recession or no).

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Me too. Growing up in a rural area, sparsely populated but not unusually so for the Irish countryside, there were many amenities we couldn't have because the numbers of people weren't there to support them. Sporting facilities for example. Unless it was a commonplace team sport, forget about it. I was interested in individual sports. Not a hope of any of them being anywhere near me.

That's everywhere in the industrialised west. People leave the country and head to the cities and cities get bigger and rural areas become more and more depleted. Drive around Spain, or France, or Italy and you see picturesque little villages that are half empty. It's a trend that's been in play since the industrial revolution and unless you do a Pol Pot style cultural reset that's not reversing any time soon. Hell, it didn't work for him for long.

How do other small countries with much larger populations cope? It's hardly outlandish. Had the famine not happened, do you really think we'd be in a bad way? I don't.

Well the famine happened and the population was essentially halved and Ireland still had a consistent drain of people from then until the 60's with another uptick in the 80's.

murpho999

Wibbs wrote: »

This doesn't automatically mean more people. There are plenty of examples of high population nations with crap economies and small population nations with very good ones.

Yes, but Ireland has a very successful economy and it would benefit more by more people being here.

Well that's completely hypothetical for a start. If the famine hadn't happened we would still have seen people leaving for the New World or into the cities. The place was dirt poor before the famine, the famine just accelerated the change. In England which was more wealthy there was a large shift of population to the cities during the industrial revolution. Quite a bit of migration around her empire too. If they hadn't had a local industrial revolution(like we didn't) and the jobs it provided you can be sure the emigration level would have been much higher. Too many people, not enough to go around.

It's not really hypothetical. The famine led to a detrimental impact on the country and its population that is still being felt today.
The famine led to a rapid decline in population which shrank by about 20% in approximately 15 years and that is devastating.
This only led to economic decline and in turn more population decline.

Before the famine the population was growing rapidly. We're the only country in Europe that is smaller now than it was in 1840. That is not a co-incidence.

If the famine had not happened immigration to the new world, which was not so new at that time, would have been in line with other countries in Europe many of whom where also poor at the time.
This decline continued for decades and was extremely damaging.
Your comparison to England is not really great as, despite being wealthy it also had a large amount of the population in poverty and emigration to empire countries did not have a detrimental effect on its population numbers.

Eh they've improved because of a large chunk of EU support too and plans for those motorways go way back beyond 20 years with it.

This is not true at all and it's a myth that many people persist with.
Most of Ireland's motorways were built in the 90s and 00s so I don't know how you go way back beyond 20 years.
This article from 2002 shows how Ireland received €1bn between 94-99 for motorways but this dropped to €800m from 2000-2006 whilst the state itself raised €5.6 billion for motorways.
I really don't know why people really think that the EU funded all our roads.

Holland has better infrastructure because Holland was and remains one of the wealthiest nations(and empires) in European history and has been a stable society and country for many centuries. It had feck all to do with its population size. It was very rich in the 18th century with a fraction of the population it has today.

Really? It's all relative. Every country in the world's population was smaller in the 18th century than now. Holland's wealth from Empire and trade attracted more people and led to more wealth. If the population was not increasing then demand for infrastructure and more land they needed to reclaim would not be there and their economy would have stagnated.

Vibrant and active are just buzzwords, usually applied after the fact and rarely before it. The north would cost us dearly in economic terms. Look how many billions the UK plough into it on a yearly basis. It is not self supporting, or close to it. Their percentage that work in the public service is very high. The province is a propped up public employment scheme held onto for historical/political reasons. If London could get shot of it they would. That's before we get to the slight problem of a large chunk of the population that want nothing to do with Dublin rule. You can't wish that away.

There's too much of Britain's subvention into the North that I would argue is stifling their economy.
Either way the subvention of €12bn could easily be afforded by Ireland as despite what people say, Ireland is wealthy. Look at what's being spent now on Covid. Look how the country has paid back money from the financial crisis.
I would argue that Ireland uniting would lead to economic reform in Northern Ireland (like Ireland has had in the last 30 years) and the economy in Northern Ireland would grow instead of simply being neglected and propped up like it is by the UK.

and more waste, more resources, more damage to the environment and the more you decentralise them the worse that will be. As it is Ireland has few enough wild spaces, few enough areas where there isn't housing in the sightline. And that's with a low population density. Decentralise more and that goes up. And that's if the grand plan of constant growth is reached. Which it won't because it's unsustainable. Look at every recession that hits this country. What happens? Emigration goes up and more people leave rural areas and head for cities(which happens anyway recession or no).

I'm not really sure what your point here is but what I mean by decentralisation is to move activity away from Dublin and let other cities grow. Let places like Cork,Limerick and Galway grow and employ more people and take away from the need to go to Dublin.
I think the Covid impact might change that is people are telecommuting and can now live where they're from.

So more activity in other cities and towns will make them more resilient to the recessions that will always happen in cycles, so stop the cycle of people emigrating when it happens.

That's everywhere in the industrialised west. People leave the country and head to the cities and cities get bigger and rural areas become more and more depleted. Drive around Spain, or France, or Italy and you see picturesque little villages that are half empty. It's a trend that's been in play since the industrial revolution and unless you do a Pol Pot style cultural reset that's not reversing any time soon. Hell, it didn't work for him for long.

Nobody is talking about getting rid of country villages. But al the countries you mention have more than one large city with large populations and also have plenty of large towns.
The point is that Ireland's cities are pretty small and have room for more growth.
Cork which is our second city is tiny compared to other second cities around the world.
It needs to be managed properly and land needs to be taken off landlords and given back to people. That's why property is so expensive here and that's a problem.

[quote[Well the famine happened and the population was essentially halved and Ireland still had a consistent drain of people from then until the 60's with another uptick in the 80's.[/QUOTE]

Yes, so how can you say the famine did not have major impact and people would have emigrated anyway?

My final point on this is that Ireland is now a strong economy that is attractive to immigrants. Not for social welfare as many kranks say but to contribute to the economy and that promotes growth and that would be good for the country.
It is different to countries that are poor and have a growing population of poor people who are caught in a poverty trap.

The biggest problem here is land and property prices as too much is owned by developers and landlords. Government is afraid to challenge them and as a result land prices stay unaffordable and that's what could really drain our economy in the future not immigration or growing population.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Wibbs wrote: »

Holland has better infrastructure because Holland was and remains one of the wealthiest nations(and empires) in European history and has been a stable society and country for many centuries. It had feck all to do with its population size. It was very rich in the 18th century with a fraction of the population it has today.

Isn't it also logical to assume that population density would play a role here though? So many people living in a small place means that such infrastructure is more sustainable than in a country with a similar population spread out across a greater area.

murpho999

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

Isn't it also logical to assume that population density would play a role here though? So many people living in a small place means that such infrastructure is more sustainable than in a country with a similar population spread out across a greater area.

Yes, and the wealth attracted more people, who met the skill shortage created by a wealthy economy and therefore created more demand for housing, infrastructure and services and thereby improving the economy.

No population growth leads to economic stagnation.

murpho999

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

Ya mean the struggling middle class will pay for it.

No the country will be self efficient and really, the middle class is not strugglng.

Thelonious Monk

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

Isn't it also logical to assume that population density would play a role here though? So many people living in a small place means that such infrastructure is more sustainable than in a country with a similar population spread out across a greater area.

Yes and we have a very dispersed population, driving through the countryside sometimes it feels like one vast stretched out housing estate, it's impossible to build proper infrastructure for that kind of spread, we're unique in Europe that way

D3V!L

Can we get Thanos in to do some "adjustments" ? :pac:

Greyfox

murpho999 wrote: »

Yes, but Ireland has a very successful economy and it would benefit more by more people being here.

No it wouldn't, it would lead to more expensive rents, worse traffic jams and worse waiting times in hospitals which is whats going to happen in Ireland anyway.

Ubbquittious

Hamsterchops wrote: »

You mean too many ticking the Catholic box of convenience, as they're about as Roman Catholic as the man in the Moon. Nobody gives a damn what the Pope says anymore.

Hang on a second. There is a man inside in the moon?

Sharpyshoot

We need more council houses or for the posh on here social houses.

whisky_galore

If we are in a state of learned helplessness with planning, health and housing with the population at its current level, how is the prospect of more people in the country supposed to improve that? How is it going to magically change?

Strumms

murpho999 wrote: »

Some crazy stuff being mentioned here.

More people = more on social welfare.

2 millon too many etc.

Do people not realise that economies are improved by economic activity and economic activity is driven by people?

Ireland's economy practically stagnated for over 100 years due to the famine and colonisation and it took a long time to recover.

If that had not happened then and we had a higher population then the country's economy would have been more vibrant over a longer period and taxes would have been raised earlier for better infrastructure like transport, hospitals etc.

It's not a co-incidence that out motorways have improved in the last 20 years and more people would raise more taxes to fund better quality infrastructure that our previous lower population could not fund.
That's why the likes of Holland which is smaller than Ireland in size has better transport than us as there's more people to fund it.

So going over 5 million would be good and I'd even go as far to say that if Ireland does eventually unite that this will be good as well, as contrary to popular opinion Ireland is very wealthy and could afford it no problem and secondly an all ireland economy with more people would be more vibrant and active than what is happening in Northern Ireland now.

It doesn’t work like that

More people to help fund existing services great. They need to be working.

But the extra population need more services themselves, more buses, trains, roads, post offices, hospitals etc... where does the billions for that come from ?

Wibbs

murpho999 wrote: »

Yes, but Ireland has a very successful economy and it would benefit more by more people being here.

You are utterly and completely wedded to the never ending growth mo' people, mo money mantra.

It's not really hypothetical. The famine led to a detrimental impact on the country and its population that is still being felt today.
The famine led to a rapid decline in population which shrank by about 20% in approximately 15 years and that is devastating.
This only led to economic decline and in turn more population decline.

Before the famine the population was growing rapidly. We're the only country in Europe that is smaller now than it was in 1840. That is not a co-incidence.

If the famine had not happened immigration to the new world, which was not so new at that time, would have been in line with other countries in Europe many of whom where also poor at the time.

It's completely hypothetical.
Why do you think the population declined? When disasters like famine and epidemics kick off and lower a population the trend is for wealth to go up among the survivors. The aftermath of the Black Death is a very good example of that. The average man's wages went up and they had more choices because there were fewer working people and work still needed to be done. It essentially in large part ended feudalism. The Irish population outside of cities were dirt poor for the most part. Adding extra bodies wouldn't have improved matters. Losing extra bodies didn't.

Your comparison to England is not really great as, despite being wealthy it also had a large amount of the population in poverty and emigration to empire countries did not have a detrimental effect on its population numbers.

As did everywhere else in Europe, but you're missing the point. There was large scale internal "emigration" to the English cities and industrial centres for work and in many cases better lives and options than staying rural. Outside of Belfast and small scatterings that simply wasn't present here before or after the famine. Ireland was one of the most economically backward regions in Europe and kept that way for political reasons. If the famine hadn't happened mass Irish emigration almost certainly would have.

This is not true at all and it's a myth that many people persist with.
Most of Ireland's motorways were built in the 90s and 00s so I don't know how you go way back beyond 20 years.
This article from 2002 shows how Ireland received €1bn between 94-99 for motorways but this dropped to €800m from 2000-2006 whilst the state itself raised €5.6 billion for motorways.
I really don't know why people really think that the EU funded all our roads.

I wrote "they've improved because of a large chunk of EU support too". That doesn't translate into "funded all our roads".

There's too much of Britain's subvention into the North that I would argue is stifling their economy.
Either way the subvention of €12bn could easily be afforded by Ireland as despite what people say, Ireland is wealthy. Look at what's being spent now on Covid. Look how the country has paid back money from the financial crisis.

Christ, you do understand how much we still owe on that crisis? And yeah, look at covid. We're still in it, spending borrowed money, whole industries at a standstill, some may never come back, a large percentage of the population on the dole, which will need to be paid back. And we have no clue what is at the other end of this stagnated period of covid.

So more activity in other cities and towns will make them more resilient to the recessions that will always happen in cycles, so stop the cycle of people emigrating when it happens.

We don't live in ancient Greek independent city states. If Cork gets screwed by a downturn, Dublin and Galway will also be screwed.

Nobody is talking about getting rid of country villages. But al the countries you mention have more than one large city with large populations and also have plenty of large towns.
The point is that Ireland's cities are pretty small and have room for more growth.
Cork which is our second city is tiny compared to other second cities around the world.

You are obsessed with growth for its own sake.

It needs to be managed properly and land needs to be taken off landlords and given back to people. That's why property is so expensive here and that's a problem.

Which I hate to break it to you, in the real world that won't happen. Too many vested and invested interests with money to burn will resist that. Oh and lots of that stuff came out of the financial crisis you reckon we're flying as far as paying back goes.

My final point on this is that Ireland is now a strong economy that is attractive to immigrants. Not for social welfare as many kranks say but to contribute to the economy and that promotes growth and that would be good for the country.

Legal immigration is fine. 20,000 "undocumented" illegal migrants that the government want make all legal isn't. They haven't by definition paid taxes and have lived here illegally. If I who live here legally don't pay tax it's not long before I get demands. Non EU residents showing up and getting on the housing list within months of arrival certainly isn't fine. In the middle of a housing crisis. You couldn't make it up. But I'll defer to your embedded mantra of Growth and other buzzwords.

Wibbs

whisky_galore wrote: »

If we are in a state of learned helplessness with planning, health and housing with the population at its current level, how is the prospect of more people in the country supposed to improve that? How is it going to magically change?

Strumms wrote: »

where does the billions for that come from ?

Growth apparently. Always be wary of any position or politic that relies on one buzzword. It is by definition monumentally simplistic.

Strumms

Wibbs wrote: »

Growth apparently. Always be wary of any position or politic that relies on one buzzword. It is by definition monumentally simplistic.

A growth in cost, but no way of covering said costs.

Larbre34

Greyfox wrote: »

No it wouldn't, it would lead to more expensive rents, worse traffic jams and worse waiting times in hospitals which is whats going to happen in Ireland anyway.

Thats not how that works at all.

Not even slightly.

Ubbquittious

We miht have this year and next year after covid without too much austerity but then the fools in the Dail will be trying to tax their way out of a recession again. There will be some amount of sweeping to be done

Lots of people will be fecking off on holidays/for good after covid. It is hard to say which direction things will go with the population

dxhound2005

Ubbquittious wrote: »

We miht have this year and next year after covid without too much austerity but then the fools in the Dail will be trying to tax their way out of a recession again. There will be some amount of sweeping to be done

Lots of people will be fecking off on holidays/for good after covid. It is hard to say which direction things will go with the population

I think it's very easy to predict it will keep going up. An extra one million people since the year 2000.

McGinniesta

go on the population of 5 million

orangerhyme

I think the more people the better.
I'd like us to be a normal prosperous European country like Austria or Denmark, without boom and bust.

We've had 25 years of free 3rd level education so our professional class is growing every year.
The kids entering university now are the kids who's parents availed of free fees.

We're a much more open, liberal multicultural society.

With a bigger tax base it's easier to pay and plan for big projects like Dublin Metro and so forth.

I think our economy will bounce back quickly after Covid. We've attracted most Brexit jobs apparently of any European country.

We've got 10,000s of quality apartments being built in Dublin.
Maybe in 10 years we'll be a normal, stable European country.

It's difficult to know what AI will do as regards job creation in 10 years, could destroy many jobs.

I'd like our Regional cities especially Cork to be planned for Major growth.
Dublin's will run out of space soon enough.

orangerhyme

McGinniesta wrote: »

go on the population of 5 million

Exactly. The more, the better. More music, creativity, sports stars, innovation, ingenuity

orangerhyme

As regards a United Ireland, it might be short term pain ( maybe 20 to 30 years) for long term gain

Tony EH

pauly58 wrote: »

When we moved here in 1986 the population was supposed to be 3.5 million with around 1 million of those in Dublin. The health system wasn't all that but better than it is now, housing wasn't the problem it is now.
Sure we have underpopulated areas, like Cavan, Mayo etc. but most people are in the towns & suburbs , the traffic in Cork city is getting worse, with jams at the Kinsale Road roundabout backing up to ring road, & as for Dublin less said.
Most of our problems are down to just too many people, we seem to be making the same mistakes as the UK.

When I was a kid growing up our population hover around that number for years. We were always a population of 3.5 mil. But with 5 mil I think we are hitting a limit realistically, especially when our social structures are taken into account. Our housing is a joke, getting a job can be stupidly difficult and once Covid goes and we springboard back to the usual shite, our health service will be in disarray again.

I cannot see any real worth in compounding that with yet more people.

Yurt2

sebdavis wrote: »

Hard to know, all estimates. Lets just agree if the famine didn't happen the population would be a lot higher

I read somewhere before that Ireland is the only country in the world where the population is smaller now than it was in the mid-19th century. Apart from the human aspect, the famine was a demographic disaster and nearly a knockout blow for the island. If the famine had not have happened and Ireland grew at the same rate other European countries did, we'd have a population somewhere around 25 or so million people easily.

Tony EH

Yurt! wrote: »

I read somewhere before that Ireland is the only country in the world where the population is smaller now than it was in the mid-19th century. Apart from the human aspect, the famine was a demographic disaster and nearly a knockout blow for the island. If the famine had not have happened and Ireland grew at the same rate other European countries did, we'd have a population somewhere around 25 or so million people easily.

That's ok if you're happy with people living like shit and at danger of being wiped out in a famine. I don't think such a thing would go down too well these days with a lot of folk though.

Simple fact is we have to sort out how we live in this country before things are in an ok state for more people to come live here.

Wibbs

orangerhyme wrote: »

I think the more people the better.
I'd like us to be a normal prosperous European country like Austria or Denmark, without boom and bust.

Eh... Austria and Denmark aren't immune to the boom/bust cycle. Nowhere is. It is a given in the western economic model.

Maybe in 10 years we'll be a normal, stable European country.

In 10 years time? The hell? We already are and ahead of many in a few ways and as far as the 20th century goes a helluva lot more stable and "normal" than many too. I'd love to hear what you consider normal and stable. Christ almighty, going with some people's perceptions you'd swear we were on the side of a Trocaire box 20 years ago, farming mud for food.

orangerhyme wrote: »

Exactly. The more, the better. More music, creativity, sports stars, innovation, ingenuity

The level of scarily simplistic thinking in evidence is quite impressive. You do realise "the more, the better" also inevitably means the "the more, the worse" too. It's Ireland and human nature and history and reality and not some wishful thinking Shangri La. Things are never that simple. But hey, whatever gets you through the night. Simple seems to work.

To my mind a lot of this stuff is that odd mix of the gargantuan levels of insecurity in the Irish psyche, with a large side order of deferring to with a tug of the forelock wanting to emulate the idea of "our betters" in societies than we perceive ours to be. And by god, though a charmingly naive one, it is most certainly a perception.

Tony EH

Wibbs wrote: »

The level of scarily simplistic thinking in evidence is quite impressive. You do realise "the more, the better" also inevitably means the "the more, the worse" too.

Exactly and I would posit that at present we simply don't have the infrastructure, nor the political will to tackle our major social issues, to support the "more the better" approach. And I say that as someone who generally wouldn't have a problem with inward migration.

But as we are at present, all I think we're doing is creating more competition for the limited resources and conditions that currently prevail...which, even at a cursory glance, cannot be considered a good thing.

orangerhyme

Wibbs wrote: »

Eh... Austria and Denmark aren't immune to the boom/bust cycle. Nowhere is. It is a given in the western economic model.
In 10 years time? The hell? We already are and ahead of many in a few ways and as far as the 20th century goes a helluva lot more stable and "normal" than many too. I'd love to hear what you consider normal and stable. Christ almighty, going with some people's perceptions you'd swear we were on the side of a Trocaire box 20 years ago, farming mud for food.

The level of scarily simplistic thinking in evidence is quite impressive. You do realise "the more, the better" also inevitably means the "the more, the worse" too. It's Ireland and human nature and history and reality and not some wishful thinking Shangri La. Things are never that simple. But hey, whatever gets you through the night. Simple seems to work.

To my mind a lot of this stuff is that odd mix of the gargantuan levels of insecurity in the Irish psyche, with a large side order of deferring to with a tug of the forelock wanting to emulate the idea of "our betters" in societies than we perceive ours to be. And by god, though a charmingly naive one, it is most certainly a perception.

We had 10 years of prosperity from 98 to 08 then a brutal recession caused by one of the worst economic crashes in history. Then strong growth from maybe 2012.
Prior to that we had very high unemployment, immigration, a 30 year civil war over the border, paramilitaries operating openly, a heroin epidemic in our capital city with extreme deprivation.
By "normal and stable" I mean the consistent growth most western European countries have had since WW2.
I think we have demographic advantages and being the only English speaking country in the EU means we should strive for better.
By 10 years we should be well out of post Covid economic effects, Dublin Metro is built, other infrastructure projects etc.

And yes more people means more talent

murpho999

Strumms wrote: »

It doesn’t work like that

More people to help fund existing services great. They need to be working.

But the extra population need more services themselves, more buses, trains, roads, post offices, hospitals etc... where does the billions for that come from ?

Why won't they be working?

You do realise that more people contribute to the state's revenues than take from it?

People will be working and contributing through taxation.

Economies of scale will bring benefits. More people do not need more trains tracks etc.
Post offices are almost a thing of the past like banks.
Technology is going to solve a lot of issues too as people will work from home more or in hubs.

Too many people are thinking with old mindsets.

orangerhyme

Tony EH wrote: »

Exactly and I would posit that at present we simply don't have the infrastructure, nor the political will to tackle our major social issues, to support the "more the better" approach. And I say that as someone who generally wouldn't have a problem with inward migration.

But as we are at present, all I think we're doing is creating more competition for the limited resources and conditions that currently prevail...which, even at a cursory glance, cannot be considered a good thing.

Our major limited resource is housing and healthcare. We had a labour shortage pre Covid, budget surplus, we export food, in time we'll export energy.

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

orangerhyme wrote: »

I'd like our Regional cities especially Cork to be planned for Major growth.
Dublin's will run out of space soon enough.

We desperately need a proper economic counterbalance for Dublin. Dublin is almost the only show in town within the Republic, with a few regional cities (Cork, Limerick, Galway, Waterford) and then what we refer to as regional towns (Athlone, Sligo, Carlow, Dundalk, Tralee, Letterkenny) would have populations similiar to towns that no one has ever heard of on the continent.

Every urban area outside Dublin could double in size and still have a long way to go. It's about investing to attract investment and people to places outside of Dublin. Will it ever happen? Probably not. They've had National Spatial Strategies and Development Gateways to beat the band, pure pub talk.

orangerhyme

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote: »

We desperately need a proper economic counterbalance for Dublin. Dublin is almost the only show in town within the Republic, with a few regional cities (Cork, Limerick, Galway, Waterford) and then what we refer to as regional towns (Athlone, Sligo, Carlow, Dundalk, Tralee, Letterkenny) would have populations similiar to towns that no one has ever heard of on the continent.

Every urban area outside Dublin could double in size and still have a long way to go.

Cork seems the best candidate for critical mass.
Population of Munster is 1.3 million.
It has airport, port, roads, rail.
Lots of room to expand in docks etc.
Good university and can attract graduates from Limerick, particularly if motorway is built.

BalcombeSt4

By modern standards that's still fairly low, London's population alone is almost double the number of the 26 county state.