Population of 5 million soon

Strumms

murpho999 wrote: »

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.

Because the law for a time prohibits it..

“You are not allowed to work until you have been waiting for 6 months for the IPO to issue its first decision (called the ‘first instance recommendation’) on your application. This applies to applications received on or after 18 January 2021. Before this, you had to have been waiting for 9 months.”


More people contribute, yes, simple mathematics would tell us... just as well.

More people need more trains, station/platform upgrades. Buses, everything.

Technology while making life easier isn’t going to enable or cushion the aftermath or effects of an open border practically.

Country is only so big, is Dublin to end up like London, Paris, Kolkata in terms of people living on top of each other and an ever growing need for high rise, high density living ? And a public transport system even less fit for purpose...?

All under the disingenuous guise of helping disadvantaged people when for the most part it’s a situation driven by big businesses and others to make the employment market more competitive, driving down wages, driving UP costs as far as the middle class go...

Nah. Not for me. All for giving a dig out but when it can’t be limited and restricted to suit the needs of the citizens and country, forget it.

Wibbs

orangerhyme wrote: »

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.

Again with the scarily simplistic view of economies, societies and history of same. The Marshall plan was a major factor in driving growth in the post war years and yet the 50's weren't so great for most of Europe, the 60's was a high point and then the 70's recession hit hard throughout with the UK having to look to the IMF during power cuts and currency woes. Among the nations that weathered that the best were the Scandinavians who had lower population densities. The 80's were an upswing in many places, though not equally across society(the UK had both "loadsamoney" and UB40 dolers) and not here, that upswing hit us in the 90's and then we went insane on easy credit. That came to a crashing end with a worldwide recession, one that we're still living with and one that hit everybody.

Terrorist groups were in play across Europe in Spain, Germany and Italy. Spain was a fascist state until the mid 70's with a failed military coup in the 80's while ETA were havin' the craic blowing up stuff. France had all sorts of social and political unrest in the 60's and 70's and it's hardly more politically stable than Ireland even today. And if you want "extreme deprivation" the slums of Naples, Paris, Barcelona and others were as bad or worse than anything we had here in period and are currently worse than we have here at present, with the added bonus of more ethnic divisions and strife because of "multiculturalism". For all our issues we didn't have anything like the Brixton riots or the reasons behind them.

I think we have demographic advantages and being the only English speaking country in the EU means we should strive for better.

Nebulous "demographic advantages". What are they then? Plus you're calling for changing our demographics. How does that work then?

And yes more people means more talent

You are avoiding the point of the negatives, social, economic and environmental like the very plague.

I get the strong impression that you look at Europe with rose tinted glasses and a few weekend jaunts have told you oh it's sooo much better and more diverse and interesting than poor oul Ireland. Like those councillors who saw bendy buses on taxpayer jaunts to the EU and thought wouldn't the be only woooonderful in Dublin. Only they weren't. God forbid we as a nation stop naively aping our "betters" and rather forge independent thinking about how to make the country better, more sustainable and less crowded for resources.

murpho999 wrote: »

Too many people are thinking with old mindsets.

And you're thinking with the same old mindset of unsustainable growth.

murpho999

Strumms wrote: »

Because the law for a time prohibits it..

“You are not allowed to work until you have been waiting for 6 months for the IPO to issue its first decision (called the ‘first instance recommendation’) on your application. This applies to applications received on or after 18 January 2021. Before this, you had to have been waiting for 9 months.”


More people contribute, yes, simple mathematics would tell us... just as well.

More people need more trains, station/platform upgrades. Buses, everything.

Technology while making life easier isn’t going to enable or cushion the aftermath or effects of an open border practically.

Country is only so big, is Dublin to end up like London, Paris, Kolkata in terms of people living on top of each other and an ever growing need for high rise, high density living ? And a public transport system even less fit for purpose...?

All under the disingenuous guise of helping disadvantaged people when for the most part it’s a situation driven by big businesses and others to make the employment market more competitive, driving down wages, driving UP costs as far as the middle class go...

Nah. Not for me. All for giving a dig out but when it can’t be limited and restricted to suit the needs of the citizens and country, forget it.

Why are you quoting rules that apply to asylum seekers from the International Protection Office?

They are a tiny amount of immigrants to the country and the vast majority of immigrants here come from EU, UK and other Western countries and they normally come because of their work, with the large tech presence here, so they will not be a burden on society but a contributor.

Also, I don't see what would be wrong if we did grow and had to build more infrastructure.
Better trains and buses will be a good thing.

As for high rise, if done right it can be nice and Ireland needs to build up to stop urban sprawl which is causing more problems and the issue of ownership of land needs to be tackled as that is what is causing the housing crises.

If that's not resolved then we will have problems

TomSweeney

beerguts wrote: »

If we are serious about climate change why would we be happy with population increase. Anh gains in national carbon emissions we make by adjusting our lifestyle will be lost by adding more people.
Also how many of that increase is worthless travellers and general wasters.

Thanked for the 1st part of the post, it is annoying that govt want huge pop increase yet on the other hand harp on about climate change.

The world is way overpopulated as it is, the solution to climate change, energy crisis, overfishing, meat industry etc is the same:

Population decreasing, this will take time, future generations need to have less children.

MyLove4Satan

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.

The people are mostly in the wrong places. Our cities (including Dublin) are all too under-populated, while our countryside is one vast suburb. When you see places like rural Clare from the air, it is amazing that any kind of services - even postal - is provided to these O'Southforks.

Personally I think people who live in one-off housing - living beyond 5kms of a town with less than 1000 population - should have the tits taxed off them - if they are not actual working farmers and so on.

murpho999

Wibbs wrote: »

And you're thinking with the same old mindset of unsustainable growth.

No, I think Ireland is underpopulated at present for a country of its size and that lack of population over a century stifled our economy for a long time to a lack of demand and poor economies of scale.

I think if we had a couple more million people it would generate more.

I'm not promoting or suggesting wild population growths at levels seen in countries like India that only causes problems as impoverished people produce more impoverished people.

So for argument sake, if Donegal had had more people and there was more economic activity that generates demand then it would have made sense years ago to have a train service there, more housing and trains there.
The lack of population (and some poor management by local and national governments) meant that did not happen.

If the island had a population of 10-12 million over the last 100 years then it would be vastly different to what it is now and better for it.

Wibbs

murpho999 wrote: »

If the island had a population of 10-12 million over the last 100 years then it would be vastly different to what it is now and better for it.

Again wildly hypothetical and there are good reasons for saying that. For a start Ireland beyond a tiny pocket in the north east(which even if it continued would be dead in the water from the 70's on like similar areas in the UK and elsewhere)unlike other European nations didn't have an on the ground industrial revolution. It was and remained an agrarian rural society and what moves to the cities that did occur resulted in the largest slums in Europe at the time. There wasn't the work or resources to go around and that was for the population that had been halved by the famine and emigration.

But apparently as if by magic a population double the size would have been fine? It wouldn't. As I pointed out when social changes like famine and disease take out a large chunk of the population the survivors always make hay. This can be seen in the various great plagues of history. Fewer people than before, more resources and more work for them. Put it another way; imagine covid was as deadly as smallpox and killed a third of our population across all age groups last year. Beyond the cultural shock of that(which we'd get over as societies have before) would we still have nearly the same housing crisis? Would jobs be easier to get? Yet Ireland's position in the 19th and for most of the 20th century was such that this survivor bonus didn't happen. People still left and kept leaving well into the 1950's with another exodus in the 80's.

I'm not promoting or suggesting wild population growths at levels seen in countries like India that only causes problems as impoverished people produce more impoverished people.

More people here will mean more impoverished people too, who will also "produce" more impoverished people. A smaller population is easier to manage and sustain. This is doubly so in the modern world where so much business and finance is generated remotely. We don't require a homegrown population to sustain a homegrown economy to nearly the degree nations would have even 50, 100 years ago. By having a smaller population we require fewer resources and impact our environment a lot less. As I also pointed out the best thing someone can do for the environment is have one less kid. No amount of green bins and half arsed "recycling" can offset that and this is something that will become more and more important as time goes on. Ireland is ahead of the curve by already having a low population density, we should not be seeking to rush to destroy that lead.

orangerhyme

Wibbs wrote: »

Again with the scarily simplistic view of economies, societies and history of same. The Marshall plan was a major factor in driving growth in the post war years and yet the 50's weren't so great for most of Europe, the 60's was a high point and then the 70's recession hit hard throughout with the UK having to look to the IMF during power cuts and currency woes. Among the nations that weathered that the best were the Scandinavians who had lower population densities. The 80's were an upswing in many places, though not equally across society(the UK had both "loadsamoney" and UB40 dolers) and not here, that upswing hit us in the 90's and then we went insane on easy credit. That came to a crashing end with a worldwide recession, one that we're still living with and one that hit everybody.

Terrorist groups were in play across Europe in Spain, Germany and Italy. Spain was a fascist state until the mid 70's with a failed military coup in the 80's while ETA were havin' the craic blowing up stuff. France had all sorts of social and political unrest in the 60's and 70's and it's hardly more politically stable than Ireland even today. And if you want "extreme deprivation" the slums of Naples, Paris, Barcelona and others were as bad or worse than anything we had here in period and are currently worse than we have here at present, with the added bonus of more ethnic divisions and strife because of "multiculturalism". For all our issues we didn't have anything like the Brixton riots or the reasons behind them.

Nebulous "demographic advantages". What are they then? Plus you're calling for changing our demographics. How does that work then?

You are avoiding the point of the negatives, social, economic and environmental like the very plague.

I get the strong impression that you look at Europe with rose tinted glasses and a few weekend jaunts have told you oh it's sooo much better and more diverse and interesting than poor oul Ireland. Like those councillors who saw bendy buses on taxpayer jaunts to the EU and thought wouldn't the be only woooonderful in Dublin. Only they weren't. God forbid we as a nation stop naively aping our "betters" and rather forge independent thinking about how to make the country better, more sustainable and less crowded for resources.

And you're thinking with the same old mindset of unsustainable growth.

demographic advantages = youngest population in Europe, 3rd highest birhrate. Nothing "nebulous" about that. Wider tax base compensating for dependents. Look at population pyramids of Spain and Italy for an example of a demographic timebomb.

Terrorist activity in Spain, Italy and Germany was tiny compared to us. The only comparison would be the Balkan countries which I'd hardly describe as normal and prosperous.
By "normal and prosperous and stable" I mean countries like Austria, Scandanavia, BeNeLux, West Germany, Switzerland as opposed to dictatorships or economic basketcases, that should be self-explanatory.

I think as long as we reasonable economic growth and are attracting multinationals, our population will continue to grow at a higher rate than the rest of Europe.
Brexit will possibly accelerate this.
The mulitnationals here hire from across Europe which makes us attractive in the first place and gives us an advantage over other countries with low corporate tax.

Housing is a huge issue we need to solve though.

Wibbs

orangerhyme wrote: »

Terrorist activity in Spain, Italy and Germany was tiny compared to us. The only comparison would be the Balkan countries which I'd hardly describe as normal and prosperous.

The Balkans were significantly more violent flashpoints than the North with tens of thousands more dead and over a much shorter period of time.

By "normal and prosperous and stable" I mean countries like Austria, Scandanavia, BeNeLux, West Germany, Switzerland as opposed to dictatorships or economic basketcases, that should be self-explanatory.

Switzerland is so different to the rest of Europe as to be almost a law unto themselves. Looking at places like Germany and Austria on the stability fronts over the 20th century Ireland was way ahead. We kinda missed the whole WW2 and its aftermath for a start. And an actual right wing politic supported right down to today in Austria. Someone born in say 1920 would have had a more stable and "normal" life in Ireland than in much of Europe. Plus in every single case of recession all those nations with the possible exception of the Swiss were hit hard. Their "normal and prosperous and stable" larger populations didn't stop that. Oh and the "normal and prosperous and stable" Scandinavian nations of Sweden, Finland, Norway and Iceland all have lower population densities than Ireland, the Danes being the odd man out there. There's little link between population density and economy, or stability, or whatever passes for normality.

Housing is a huge issue we need to solve though.

Fewer people makes that a whole lot simpler and carries fewer costs economically and environmentally. But again you are just on the one track of more people = better and avoid like the plague the negatives that come with that.

murpho999

Wibbs wrote: »

Again wildly hypothetical and there are good reasons for saying that. For a start Ireland beyond a tiny pocket in the north east(which even if it continued would be dead in the water from the 70's on like similar areas in the UK and elsewhere)unlike other European nations didn't have an on the ground industrial revolution. It was and remained an agrarian rural society and what moves to the cities that did occur resulted in the largest slums in Europe at the time. There wasn't the work or resources to go around and that was for the population that had been halved by the famine and emigration.

But apparently as if by magic a population double the size would have been fine? It wouldn't. As I pointed out when social changes like famine and disease take out a large chunk of the population the survivors always make hay. This can be seen in the various great plagues of history. Fewer people than before, more resources and more work for them. Put it another way; imagine covid was as deadly as smallpox and killed a third of our population across all age groups last year. Beyond the cultural shock of that(which we'd get over as societies have before) would we still have nearly the same housing crisis? Would jobs be easier to get? Yet Ireland's position in the 19th and for most of the 20th century was such that this survivor bonus didn't happen. People still left and kept leaving well into the 1950's with another exodus in the 80's.

You don’t have to keep going on about “hypothetical” situations.
I’ve been talking about what Ireland would be like today if the famine hadnot happened so of course it’s hypothetical as I’m trying to show that the country would have been vastly different to what it is today but then again it seems ok for you to argue with hypothetical situations yourself.

The point in that if the famine had not happened then this country would be vastly different to what it is today. Looking at trends in Europe at the time where most countries at least double I think it’s being conservative to say that that Ireland’s population would have been 12-15 million today if the famine and all that followed did not happen. I have even read some estimates of a population of 20-40 million.
Do you really think that Ireland would be worse off today if that happened?
Who knows how Ireland’s history would have been different too. I think the way things turned out that the low population of Ireland in the 20th century did not help the economy and the country suffered through lack of demand and investment, being too agricultural, emigration. Eventually it was Europe and embracing that market instead of relying on UK that led to real economic growth and the complete turnaround that has turned Ireland into a very successful economy today.

More people here will mean more impoverished people too, who will also "produce" more impoverished people. A smaller population is easier to manage and sustain. This is doubly so in the modern world where so much business and finance is generated remotely. We don't require a homegrown population to sustain a homegrown economy to nearly the degree nations would have even 50, 100 years ago. By having a smaller population we require fewer resources and impact our environment a lot less. As I also pointed out the best thing someone can do for the environment is have one less kid. No amount of green bins and half arsed "recycling" can offset that and this is something that will become more and more important as time goes on. Ireland is ahead of the curve by already having a low population density, we should not be seeking to rush to destroy that lead.

I really just think you’re wrong on all of this.
Ireland’s economy has changed over the last 30 years and is now attracting lots of large tech corporations that in turn generate employment. This in turn attracts quality people to come to Ireland to work and live here. This is generating more demand for infrastructure and services and that has increased over the last 20 years and as a result the country is better.
Roads are better, transport (albeit coming from a low base) has improved but still not there yet. Housing is a problem and as I said on other posts the government needs to change the approach to land and its ownership. People who hoard land need to be taxed in order for them to free up land, lower prices and allow more supply.
I think Ireland could easily cope with an increased population over the next 20 years and would benefit from it as it has been underpopulated for so long.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

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.

And if the famine genocide hadn’t happened, we’d have a much better distributed population than we do now. Not the alpha city set up there is now. It’s always fascinating to wonder what that might look like for Ireland. I’m not one of the doom and gloom merchants (of which there are many on this thread), I have to say. I think it’d be a good thing.

biko

murpho999 wrote: »

No, I think Ireland is underpopulated at present for a country of its size and that lack of population over a century stifled our economy for a long time to a lack of demand and poor economies of scale.

Can you give an example on a country with a good population density that you think Ireland should aspire to?

Yellow_Fern

murpho999 wrote: »

I think Ireland could easily cope with an increased population over the next 20 years and would benefit from it as it has been underpopulated for so long.

I dont agree. It will make our carbon emissions reductions much harder to achieve, which I might add are designed as total targets not per capita targets. I really struggle with the idea that Ireland is underpopulated. There is extremely little wild places in Ireland. People live nearly everywhere. We have an overall modest density per km2 but that is due to dispersed settlement patterns that are not allowed in many countries like Germany, Slovakia etc. We just need smarter planning, not millions more people.

dxhound2005

In the year 2000 the population was 3.783 million. In the Census year of 2016 it had increased to 4.726 million. Even with that increase, the Census recorded vast numbers of vacant properties.

In the Property Tax stats something like 574,000 properties are in the hands of people who are paying the tax on two or more properties. If there is nowhere for people to live, people will leave for abroad, and people from abroad will not come to Ireland.


https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-cp1hii/cp1hii/vac/#:~:text=There%20were%20183%2C312%20other%20vacant,per%20cent%20of%20vacant%20dwellings.

Yellow_Fern

dxhound2005 wrote: »

In the year 2000 the population was 3.783 million. In the Census year of 2016 it had increased to 4.726 million. Even with that increase, the Census recorded vast numbers of vacant properties.

In the Property Tax stats something like 574,000 properties are in the hands of people who are paying the tax on two or more properties. If there is nowhere for people to live, people will leave for abroad, and people from abroad will not come to Ireland.


https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-cp1hii/cp1hii/vac/#:~:text=There%20were%20183%2C312%20other%20vacant,per%20cent%20of%20vacant%20dwellings.

This is true. The housing crisis will also discourage people moving here. If the housing crisis was solved overnight more people would just move here and it would be return. It is as simple as that. Remember the number of children born to women here dropped below replacement level of 2.1 in the early 1990s. Inward migration is extremely elastic.

Fighting Irish

Aslong as GDP is high, I'm happy

murpho999

biko wrote: »

Can you give an example on a country with a good population density that you think Ireland should aspire to?

I think the likes of Germany (232 per Sq KM), Switzerland (207 per Sq KM) & Luxemboug's (237per Sq KM) levels are about right.

According to Wikipedia Ireland is at 70.

Link


A good balance and not as densely packed as Netherlands or even the UK.

dxhound2005

Even in the UK not much of the land is covered by buildings and roads. About 1% is houses and their gardens.

More than half of the UK land area is farmland (fields, orchards etc), just over a third might be termed natural or semi-natural (moors, heathland, natural grassland etc), a little under 6% is built on (roads, buildings, airports, quarries etc) and 2.5% is green urban (parks, gardens, golf courses, sports pitches etc).9 Nov 2017

Strumms

murpho999 wrote: »

No, I think Ireland is underpopulated at present for a country of its size and that lack of population over a century stifled our economy for a long time to a lack of demand and poor economies of scale.

I think if we had a couple more million people it would generate more.

I'm not promoting or suggesting wild population growths at levels seen in countries like India that only causes problems as impoverished people produce more impoverished people.

So for argument sake, if Donegal had had more people and there was more economic activity that generates demand then it would have made sense years ago to have a train service there, more housing and trains there.
The lack of population (and some poor management by local and national governments) meant that did not happen.

If the island had a population of 10-12 million over the last 100 years then it would be vastly different to what it is now and better for it.

10-12 million ?

Errr right, the better for it ? If you say so !

The last census showed our population having quite rapidly grown from ..


1986 - 5.1 million.

2016 - 6.66 million.

In 30 years, the country population has risen roughly by 1.56 million people. a 23.42% increase in 30 years..

That’s population growth at dangerous levels....

dxhound2005

In the same period the population of Hong Kong increased by 2 million to over 7 million.

The land area is less than half that of Co Louth.

Strumms

dxhound2005 wrote: »

In the same period the population of Hong Kong increased by 2 million to over 7 million.

The land area is less than half that of Co Louth.

It’s citizens are in the main very well off, affluent or plain rich. It has a huge reliance on massive high rise buildings.

They don’t rely on services, handouts..as so many of our citizens do, people are self sufficient or contributing.

Crime is very low, it’s a seriously safe place.

Do we want to be at the stage where we are building huge high rise buildings for accommodation on the burren or in the Phoenix Park ?

dxhound2005

Strumms wrote: »

It’s citizens are in the main very well off, affluent or plain rich. It has a huge reliance on massive high rise buildings.

They don’t rely on services, handouts..as so many of our citizens do, people are self sufficient or contributing.

Crime is very low, it’s a seriously safe place.

Do we want to be at the stage where we are building huge high rise buildings for accommodation on the burren or in the Phoenix Park ?

I had to look up the information about Hong Kong. You seem to have a great deal of knowledge about it. Are you sure of your facts?

riclad

i think we have a few 1000 real catholics living here,
most people go to church for weddings or funerals once they are over the age of 18.
And of course you have to claim to be a catholic to get kids into school.
eg real catholics go to church every week and follow church teachings about contraception etc
i think we have been in a growing economy since at least 2011 .
i think hong kong became a center of finance and it was the financial gateway between the west and china and a good place to go for tourists .
china boomed as its economy became the workshop of the world and hong kong boomed too.

the american government wants all western countrys to adopt a basic minimum tax rate of 20 per cent so irelands low tax rate could be gone in a few years.
we are part of the eu,
we may have no choice but to go along with this plan.
right now amazon pays close to zero tax on profits in europe.
will google or facebook stay here if they have to pay 20 per cent tax ?
As opposed to 5 per cent.

murpho999

Strumms wrote: »

10-12 million ?

Errr right, the better for it ? If you say so !

The last census showed our population having quite rapidly grown from ..


1986 - 5.1 million.

2016 - 6.66 million.

In 30 years, the country population has risen roughly by 1.56 million people. a 23.42% increase in 30 years..

That’s population growth at dangerous levels....

If we had historically been at those levels over the last 150 years, yes I beliebe it would have been good for the country.

Also, Ireland's population growth over the last 30 years is not that much diffrent to the rest of europe. How is it dangerous?

According to the European Environment Agency Ireland's population is to grow between 25-50% between now and 2100.
https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/total-population-outlook-from-unstat-3/assessment-1

orangerhyme

Wibbs wrote: »

The Balkans were significantly more violent flashpoints than the North with tens of thousands more dead and over a much shorter period of time.

Switzerland is so different to the rest of Europe as to be almost a law unto themselves. Looking at places like Germany and Austria on the stability fronts over the 20th century Ireland was way ahead. We kinda missed the whole WW2 and its aftermath for a start. And an actual right wing politic supported right down to today in Austria. Someone born in say 1920 would have had a more stable and "normal" life in Ireland than in much of Europe. Plus in every single case of recession all those nations with the possible exception of the Swiss were hit hard. Their "normal and prosperous and stable" larger populations didn't stop that. Oh and the "normal and prosperous and stable" Scandinavian nations of Sweden, Finland, Norway and Iceland all have lower population densities than Ireland, the Danes being the odd man out there. There's little link between population density and economy, or stability, or whatever passes for normality.

Fewer people makes that a whole lot simpler and carries fewer costs economically and environmentally. But again you are just on the one track of more people = better and avoid like the plague the negatives that come with that.

I said "since WW2". Switzerland is part of Europe.
It was us, Spain and Greece were hit worst. Our debt per capita is highest in Europe. The IMF, bailout and all that was just a decade ago.

We have one of the fastest growing populations in Europe. Where does this growth from?
Higher birthrate, less emigration, Irish returning home, attracting immigrants from across Europe and further afield, better life expectancy due to better healthcare and social policies.

These are all positives surely.
The number 1 factor attracting multinationals and FDI is workforce. More population = more investment.

Never said population density correlates with a strong economy. Good demographics such as higher proportion of working age population does correlate with a strong economy though.

Wibbs

murpho999 wrote: »

I think the likes of Germany (232 per Sq KM), Switzerland (207 per Sq KM) & Luxemboug's (237per Sq KM) levels are about right.

According to Wikipedia Ireland is at 70.

Link


A good balance and not as densely packed as Netherlands or even the UK.

Why not the Scandi countries with lower population densities than Ireland and better infrastructure and economies and lifestyle and higher on the happiness scale? Funny how they didn't need so many people. Why you're so invested in more people is beyond me. It's beyond simplistic a position.

murpho999 wrote: »

You don’t have to keep going on about “hypothetical” situations.
I’ve been talking about what Ireland would be like today if the famine hadnot happened so of course it’s hypothetical as I’m trying to show that the country would have been vastly different to what it is today but then again it seems ok for you to argue with hypothetical situations yourself.

The point in that if the famine had not happened then this country would be vastly different to what it is today. Looking at trends in Europe at the time where most countries at least double I think it’s being conservative to say that that Ireland’s population would have been 12-15 million today if the famine and all that followed did not happen. I have even read some estimates of a population of 20-40 million.

My hypotheticals are more based on actual facts. Yours are not. Yours are just plucked out of the sky with very little understanding of the differences between Ireland and the nations you elevate, never mind a tender grasp of wider history and population dynamics.

Historical facts time. You do understand that emigration was already in play before the famine? Between 1800 and 1845 over one and a half million Irish emigrated. They accounted for a third of all Atlantic traffic to the New World. Before the famine. The famine accelerated a very strong existing trend.

Why does the really basic fact elude you that Ireland didn't have the industrial base to support the larger population the way the other nations you hold up as exemplars did? That even after the famine and the millions who had already left, or died, emigration continued after and up to the 1960's with some smaller trends continuing into the 70's and 80's. What Irish people who stayed and moved to the cities in the 19th century gave rise to the largest slums in Europe. If there wasn't enough to go around for a population base depleted by millions where in god's name do you and the "oh we might have had 40 million people here" dream merchants think that resource shortfall would have been found? Magic? Those estimates are a complete nonsense.

dxhound2005 wrote: »

In the same period the population of Hong Kong increased by 2 million to over 7 million.

The land area is less than half that of Co Louth.

Who the hell would want to live a lifetime in that overcrowded hamster cage if they had the choice? Precious few.

dxhound2005

For all it's charms it seems not many Swedes want to live in the middle of nowhere, with long dark winters. Instead they concentrate themselves into the cities of the south. And it is in these conurbations that immigrants also want to live.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Sweden

Tony EH

Wibbs wrote: »

Historical facts time. You do understand that emigration was already in play before the famine? Between 1800 and 1845 over one and a half million Irish emigrated. They accounted for a third of all Atlantic traffic to the New World. Before the famine. The famine accelerated a very strong existing trend.

We don't even have to go back that far in history. All I can remember growing up is people having to leave Ireland because we couldn't supply consistent employment to the paltry 3.5 million people that inhabited the isle during the 70's and 80's and while that may be before a lot of posters time on here, it isn't that long ago in real terms.

I shudder to think just how much worse things would have been if our population had stayed at pre-famine levels.

The simple fact is that we actually just cannot support millions more people in this country from even a job perspective because we regularly go through deep recessions. Ireland has always had problems in that regard and relied on the safety valve (as John Bowman called it once) of emigration...

...and that was with a population that's 1.5 million less than it is currently.

Some posters on here seem to think that Ireland has always been the mid 90's version and have no idea what it was like before the Celtic Tiger. We may have a lot of FDI propping up our employment figures, but all that could disappear real fast and we'd find ourselves back in the 80's quicker than you could say leg warmers.

As a nation, we have always been terrible at providing work for our citizens, so much so, that we've had to spread out to the four corners of the world just to seek work.

dxhound2005

We are now attracting large numbers of immigrants. Because the native population has reached the level of prosperity which means they will not do the "menial" jobs. This is the reverse of our past history, where we went to do the menial jobs in more affluent countries.

Tony EH

dxhound2005 wrote: »

We are now attracting large numbers of immigrants. Because the native population has reached the level of prosperity which means they will not do the "menial" jobs. This is the reverse of our past history, where we went to do the menial jobs in more affluent countries.

That can all come crashing down in an instant as soon as big multi nationals see an even better opportunity elsewhere.

Employment wise, we live on a tightrope and it's one that could snap very easily. The import of cheap labour won't be that appreciated when Mick and Mary have to go work in the local 4 Star Pizza.

Strumms

murpho999 wrote: »

If we had historically been at those levels over the last 150 years, yes I beliebe it would have been good for the country.

Also, Ireland's population growth over the last 30 years is not that much diffrent to the rest of europe. How is it dangerous?

According to the European Environment Agency Ireland's population is to grow between 25-50% between now and 2100.
https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/total-population-outlook-from-unstat-3/assessment-1

Dangerous because it limits the ability of the country to look after its citizens. Taxpayers. It will need to look after xxxxx number of new arrivals costing us millions a year.

Look at covid... imagine the cost of pup with about another million people.

dxhound2005

Tony EH wrote: »

That can all come crashing down in an instant as soon as big multi nationals see an even better opportunity elsewhere.

Employment wise, we live on a tightrope and it's one that could snap very easily. The import of cheap labour won't be that appreciated when Mick and Mary have to go work in the local 4 Star Pizza.

You are correct, migrant labour is very mobile. After the Brexit vote many East Europeans from EU countries saw the light and began clearing out of the UK. This led to the ludicrous situation where the UK gave special deals to immigrants from Ukraine, Belarus and Russia.

But wherever there are people there is going to be economic activity. More people, more economic activity. And this country could easily host a population of 10 million. There is much nonsense being posted here about there being no room. How many of those people even noticed the two million extra people here in their own lifetime.

Tony EH

dxhound2005 wrote: »

You are correct, migrant labour is very mobile. After the Brexit vote many East Europeans from EU countries saw the light and began clearing out of the UK. This led to the ludicrous situation where the UK gave special deals to immigrants from Ukraine, Belarus and Russia.

But wherever there are people there is going to be economic activity. More people, more economic activity. And this country could easily host a population of 10 million. There is much nonsense being posted here about there being no room. How many of those people even noticed the two million extra people here in their own lifetime.

Not without significant and major changes in infrastructure and many other social aspects too.

Technically and from a landmass POV we could support millions more people. REALISTICALLY, with how things are run in this country, we cannot.

As I said before, in order for more people to live in this country comfortably, we first need to change how we live.

dxhound2005

Tony EH wrote: »

Not without significant and major changes in infrastructure and many other social aspects too.

Technically and from a landmass POV we could support millions more people. REALISTICALLY, with how things are run in this country, we cannot.

As I said before, in order for more people to live in this country comfortably, we first need to change how we live.

The very same things would have been said when the population was two million less than now. But we managed to accommodate that increase, and still have 200,000 vacant dwellings in the country.

And there was a doomsday cult when the world population was one billion, three billion and so on. That a continual increase would lead to all sorts of catastrophes. Instead of which seven billion now include the biggest ever proportion of "middle class" people in history.

Probably the human species will burn brightly for a couple of million years, and then disappear. But in the short term we are more than well equipped to continue our success at the top.

Mimon

Tony EH wrote: »

That can all come crashing down in an instant as soon as big multi nationals see an even better opportunity elsewhere.

Employment wise, we live on a tightrope and it's one that could snap very easily. The import of cheap labour won't be that appreciated when Mick and Mary have to go work in the local 4 Star Pizza.

Total scaremongering.

Strumms

dxhound2005 wrote: »

The very same things would have been said when the population was two million less than now. But we managed to accommodate that increase, and still have 200,000 vacant dwellings in the country.

And there was a doomsday cult when the world population was one billion, three billion and so on. That a continual increase would lead to all sorts of catastrophes. Instead of which seven billion now include the biggest ever proportion of "middle class" people in history.

Probably the human species will burn brightly for a couple of million years, and then disappear. But in the short term we are more than well equipped to continue our success at the top.

The approximate 200,000 vacant dwelling stat is a 2016 one from what I’m seeing .

Who has ownership of the vacant dwellings ?

If I own a two bedroom apartment, I can leave it vacant, let it, live in it or.... I can just leave it empty... it’s a democracy and that would be my right.

In a democracy you can’t say, sorry, live in it, let it, or we’ll make you sell it to the government to accommodate people seeking asylum / a new start.

If I own a Mercedes Maybach, I’m not driving it, nobody can say.. use it or sell it...

This is still a democracy with laws... people can do what they like with their possessions and property.

Wibbs

dxhound2005 wrote: »

How many of those people even noticed the two million extra people here in their own lifetime.

I certainly did and only the young or the truly unobservant could fail to notice it. Certainly in Dublin the spread of suburbia was massive between 90 and 2000. I remember when all this was fields was something for only 80 years olds to say, but in Ireland 40 year olds could say it. And even though we've more and better roads the traffic volumes have also grown massively since the 80's and 90's.

Wibbs

dxhound2005 wrote: »

And there was a doomsday cult when the world population was one billion, three billion and so on. That a continual increase would lead to all sorts of catastrophes. Instead of which seven billion now include the biggest ever proportion of "middle class" people in history.

And an environmental impact like never before in ours or the planet's history. Half of all plastics ever have been produced since 1998. To wrap all the shiny things we need for that regular "middle class" dopamine hit. Bugger all of which can be recycled by the way and what can be is nearly all for single and degraded use plastics. But sure, let's add more people and more middle class consumers to the mix gobbling up crap and finite resources like rabid pacmen.

Strumms wrote: »

Who has ownership of the vacant dwellings ?

If I own a two bedroom apartment, I can leave it vacant, let it, live in it or.... I can just leave it empty... it’s a democracy and that would be my right.

In a democracy you can’t say, sorry, live in it, let it, or we’ll make you sell it to the government to accommodate people seeking asylum / a new start.

If I own a Mercedes Maybach, I’m not driving it, nobody can say.. use it or sell it...

This is still a democracy with laws... people can do what they like with their possessions and property.

I agree where it comes to individuals. I would however draw the line at companies and vulture funds holding onto property.

Tony EH

dxhound2005 wrote: »

The very same things would have been said when the population was two million less than now. But we managed to accommodate that increase, and still have 200,000 vacant dwellings in the country.

I don't think that's the case any more.

Plus WHERE were these vacant dwellings? More than likely on some half finished ghost estate in the middle of nowhere, where nobody in their right mind would want to live.

You cannot just build a load of crap gaffs where there are no facilities and, more importantly, no job opportunities and conclude that everything in in place for a population growth, either imported or home grown.

In addition, even if there really were 200,000 vacant dwellings knocking around, it wouldn't make a dent in the needs of a significant increase in people.

You'd need MILLIONS more dwellings in areas with decent facilities and places of real long term employment prospects.

Which we don't have in this country and we don't have a political class who's interested in it either.

dxhound2005 wrote: »

And there was a doomsday cult...

I'm not interested in cults. I'm talking about very real world obstacles here.

Strumms

Wibbs wrote: »

And an environmental impact like never before in ours or the planet's history. Half of all plastics ever have been produced since 1998. To wrap all the shiny things we need for that regular "middle class" dopamine hit. Bugger all of which can be recycled by the way and what can be is nearly all for single and degraded use plastics. But sure, let's add more people and more middle class consumers to the mix gobbling up crap and finite resources like rabid pacmen.

I agree where it comes to individuals. I would however draw the line at companies and vulture funds holding onto property.

True, I would too, be very difficult to police though.

murpho999

Wibbs wrote: »

Why not the Scandi countries with lower population densities than Ireland and better infrastructure and economies and lifestyle and higher on the happiness scale? Funny how they didn't need so many people. Why you're so invested in more people is beyond me. It's beyond simplistic a position.

Climate and landscape is a huge reason for lower population in Norway and Sweden and I would put our infrastructure on many levels similar to here.

Denmark is something we could look at, higher density and better transport and infrastructure.

I am not vested in people and you seem to be missing my point.
I'm saying if the events of the 19th century had not happened that Ireland's population had not happened then the country would be completely different to what it is now. I don't know why you won't accept it.

My hypotheticals are more based on actual facts. Yours are not. Yours are just plucked out of the sky with very little understanding of the differences between Ireland and the nations you elevate, never mind a tender grasp of wider history and population dynamics.

Historical facts time. You do understand that emigration was already in play before the famine? Between 1800 and 1845 over one and a half million Irish emigrated. They accounted for a third of all Atlantic traffic to the New World. Before the famine. The famine accelerated a very strong existing trend.

I do have a very good grasp of history thank you.
Of course there was emigration before the famine but any graph you look at shows Ireland's population was increasing up to the 1840s and then declined rapidly so the immigration before was not having as severe an impact.
Germany was also a major group as well but that country did not suffer from it.

[quote[Why does the really basic fact elude you that Ireland didn't have the industrial base to support the larger population the way the other nations you hold up as exemplars did? That even after the famine and the millions who had already left, or died, emigration continued after and up to the 1960's with some smaller trends continuing into the 70's and 80's. What Irish people who stayed and moved to the cities in the 19th century gave rise to the largest slums in Europe. If there wasn't enough to go around for a population base depleted by millions where in god's name do you and the "oh we might have had 40 million people here" dream merchants think that resource shortfall would have been found? Magic? Those estimates are a complete nonsense.

Who the hell would want to live a lifetime in that overcrowded hamster cage if they had the choice? Precious few.[/QUOTE]


No matter what I say you'll just dismiss as hypothetical and non-factual so what can I do.
If the famine had not happened and Ireland's population had not declined as rapidly as it did then which only fuelled more emigration , then who knows what would have happend.
Events in history would have been very different and I'd guess that the land question would have been resolved quicker.

Anyhow, I never said there would be 40 million here, that would be crazy but I do think that Ireland could easily do well with a 10-12 million population and that it is also very likely to happen.

murpho999

Tony EH wrote: »

That can all come crashing down in an instant as soon as big multi nationals see an even better opportunity elsewhere.

Employment wise, we live on a tightrope and it's one that could snap very easily. The import of cheap labour won't be that appreciated when Mick and Mary have to go work in the local 4 Star Pizza.

You're just saying predictable stuff . Multinationals are well vested here and Ireland deserves credit for getting them.

Every country lives on a tightrope as all modern economies now are mostly service driven,

No need to be so negative about Ireland.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Even in the UK not much of the land is covered by buildings and roads. About 1% is houses and their gardens.

More than half of the UK land area is farmland (fields, orchards etc), just over a third might be termed natural or semi-natural (moors, heathland, natural grassland etc), a little under 6% is built on (roads, buildings, airports, quarries etc) and 2.5% is green urban (parks, gardens, golf courses, sports pitches etc).9 Nov 2017

The UK is much better for consolidating its rural housing into villages and hamlets than Ireland. Much less ribbon development. But I don’t think Ireland has to resign itself to always having bad planning. It can be improved.

murpho999

Tony EH wrote: »

We don't even have to go back that far in history. All I can remember growing up is people having to leave Ireland because we couldn't supply consistent employment to the paltry 3.5 million people that inhabited the isle during the 70's and 80's and while that may be before a lot of posters time on here, it isn't that long ago in real terms.

I shudder to think just how much worse things would have been if our population had stayed at pre-famine levels.

The simple fact is that we actually just cannot support millions more people in this country from even a job perspective because we regularly go through deep recessions. Ireland has always had problems in that regard and relied on the safety valve (as John Bowman called it once) of emigration...

...and that was with a population that's 1.5 million less than it is currently.

Some posters on here seem to think that Ireland has always been the mid 90's version and have no idea what it was like before the Celtic Tiger. We may have a lot of FDI propping up our employment figures, but all that could disappear real fast and we'd find ourselves back in the 80's quicker than you could say leg warmers.

As a nation, we have always been terrible at providing work for our citizens, so much so, that we've had to spread out to the four corners of the world just to seek work.

You do realise that more people stayed in the country in the 80s than left ?

Ireland's population continued to grow throughout the 80s.

People coming here will be supporting themselves as they will be coming to work at jobs created here.

You and other people like you just like to criticise Ireland and make out that we're constantly on a tightrope, that the success of the last 30 years is false, the multinationals will pull out, the EU paid for everytihng and that we're the only country that is susceptible to recessions?

The crisis in 2008 is the only one since the 1980s as I'm not counting Covid as a recession as it was not caused by economics and the whole world is affected and it will bounce back very quickly.

Tony EH

murpho999 wrote: »

You're just saying predictable stuff . Multinationals are well vested here and Ireland deserves credit for getting them.

Every country lives on a tightrope as all modern economies now are mostly service driven,

No need to be so negative about Ireland.

We're in a particularly precarious position however, as without the bump in employment figures that the multinationals provide, we'd be absolutely screwed.

As a nation we really need to start looking into homegrown enterprises and stop relying entirely on outside investment which could be withdrawn in a heartbeat when some other opportunity for bigger profit opens up elsewhere for those companies.

But as I've said, we have never been a country that's been good at engineering employment for our people. We've been a nation of emigration for years because of it. All it takes is a downturn and our people leave in droves. The 60's saw it, the 70's saw it, the 80's saw it and then again in the 2010's after the last economic crash.

Increases in population without facilities, comfort and opportunities for that population is a recipe for disaster.

Yellow_Fern

dxhound2005 wrote: »

The very same things would have been said when the population was two million less than now. But we managed to accommodate that increase, and still have 200,000 vacant dwellings in the country.

And there was a doomsday cult when the world population was one billion, three billion and so on. That a continual increase would lead to all sorts of catastrophes. Instead of which seven billion now include the biggest ever proportion of "middle class" people in history.

Probably the human species will burn brightly for a couple of million years, and then disappear. But in the short term we are more than well equipped to continue our success at the top.

We are at little risk of extinction but we clearly we are not accommodating population increases very well. Rapid population increases are nearly always associated with asset inflation and resulting wealth inequality. We see this here as is massive decline in homeowner in younger cohorts in Ireland due to pace of growth and I don't want to see this situation getting worse. It has the potential to cause a lot of misery down the line and political radicalisation.

Tony EH

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

We are at little risk of extinction but we clearly we are not accommodating population increases very well. Rapid population increases are nearly always associated with asset inflation and resulting wealth inequality. We see this here as is massive decline in homeowner in younger cohorts in Ireland due to pace of growth and I don't want to see this situation getting worse. It has the potential to cause a lot of misery down the line and political radicalisation.

Exactly.

We can't even properly house the population we have at present and there's no political will there to institute a functioning state housing policy.

We have a vast swathe of young people who'll never even get onto the property market and who are at the behest of a pretty reprehensible landlord class that portions out 12 month leases on their crappy accommodation, and will be for their entire lives...assuming we don't see another devastating crash and property prices plummet to reasonable levels.

Our housing situation, alone, is an absolute farce and certainly one thing that needs looking at in a very serious way before we even engage in fantasies about population growth to the tune of millions.

murpho999

Strumms wrote: »

Dangerous because it limits the ability of the country to look after its citizens. Taxpayers. It will need to look after xxxxx number of new arrivals costing us millions a year.

Look at covid... imagine the cost of pup with about another million people.

But if they were entitled to PUP then they were working before and therefore they were paying taxes to the state so they state was earning money from them.

People are not always a burden to the state.

murpho999

Tony EH wrote: »

We're in a particularly precarious position however, as without the bump in employment figures that the multinationals provide, we'd be absolutely screwed.

As a nation we really need to start looking into homegrown enterprises and stop relying entirely on outside investment which could be withdrawn in a heartbeat when some other opportunity for bigger profit opens up elsewhere for those companies.

But as I've said, we have never been a country that's been good at engineering employment for our people. We've been a nation of emigration for years because of it. All it takes is a downturn and our people leave in droves. The 60's saw it, the 70's saw it, the 80's saw it and then again in the 2010's after the last economic crash.

Increases in population without facilities, comfort and opportunities for that population is a recipe for disaster.

Oh what rubbish, the international investment in Ireland is the envy of many countries and shows how competitive Ireland is and attractive to investors.

It's a success story and it has improved our economy no end. They're also industries that are more recession proof than what was here before.

They in turn generate business for the homegrown enterprises you are on about.

You can't try to turn a big success story into a negative.

There's always a risk that things can go wrong and that applies to every economy.

Tony EH

murpho999 wrote: »

Oh what rubbish,

Grand. Off you go so. Back to your fantasy.