Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The population of the Republic of Ireland reached 5.33 million in 2022

Options
2

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,181 ✭✭✭sonofenoch


    And we still wouldn't be watching us at the Euros right now 🤣

    in all seriousness crazy to think we could be a population of 40m given our size but probably not far off the mark considering the Netherlands little over a 3rd the size is 17m + right now



  • Registered Users Posts: 662 ✭✭✭creeper1


    I think a lot of the population are highly mobile.

    Come a recession they can get out and set up shop somewhere else.

    During the great recession Ireland's population didn't grow as fast.



  • Registered Users Posts: 534 ✭✭✭Hungry Burger


    We have the benefit of having a moderately good economy the last few years. If we were hit with a major recession, a lot of these people could leave including the native Irish.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,420 ✭✭✭Quantum Erasure




  • Registered Users Posts: 729 ✭✭✭Norrie Rugger Head


    We were hit with the mother of all recessions in 2008, yet here we are.

    It's government inaction which will cause an exodus, if anything.

    Abject dereliction of duty to look beyond the next election. We've had piss all hospitals, schools, (yes) prisons, public transport rail/tram, scrapped council social housing departments or anything needed for a massively growing population. We were under-serviced before the growth and it's only getting worse.

    ⛥ ̸̱̼̞͛̀̓̈́͘#C̶̼̭͕̎̿͝R̶̦̮̜̃̓͌O̶̬͙̓͝W̸̜̥͈̐̾͐Ṋ̵̲͔̫̽̎̚͠ͅT̸͓͒͐H̵͔͠È̶̖̳̘͍͓̂W̴̢̋̈͒͛̋I̶͕͑͠T̵̻͈̜͂̇Č̵̤̟̑̾̂̽H̸̰̺̏̓ ̴̜̗̝̱̹͛́̊̒͝⛥



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 7,198 Mod ✭✭✭✭cdeb


    You think we should keep ramping up our population, keep increasing our carbon emissions, keep building houses instead of rewilding, keep increasing that subset of people who - by one visit to close relatives - will generate more carbon than a person should generate in an entire year if we're to hold temperature increase to 1.5 degrees?

    You realise that makes no sense, right?



  • Registered Users Posts: 998 ✭✭✭JVince


    A primary reason for population growth is the huge drop off in net emigration.

    You have a natural increase of 20,000 a year (35k deaths, 55k births)

    Returning Irish immigrant is circa 30,000 whilst Irish people emigrating is running at similar number. Mostly these are emigrating for short periods of up to 5 years. In the 80's there was net emigration of over 500,000 and a similar figure for 2008-2015.

    But once the economic growth started to take hold from 2016 emigration from Ireland dropped dramatically and immigration both of returning Irish people and non Irish people brought over / attracted by the plentiful jobs and good salaries and massive growth in tech and pharma saw the start of a sustained growth in population.

    And that in itself created further economic growth in every sector of the economy so that anyone who has the ability to work can get a job.

    Imagine telling that to someone leaving school in the mid 80's - you'd be called a total dreamer

    In saying this, there are still over 1m Irish born people living outside Ireland - add their children and you have a figure approach 2m+ 1st gen Irish people outside Ireland



  • Registered Users Posts: 729 ✭✭✭Norrie Rugger Head


    So you think that we should bring all our recent emigrants home, permanently? because they are doing the exact same thing when they come home from abroad, once a year.

    That's only, what, 1.5-2 million people?

    ⛥ ̸̱̼̞͛̀̓̈́͘#C̶̼̭͕̎̿͝R̶̦̮̜̃̓͌O̶̬͙̓͝W̸̜̥͈̐̾͐Ṋ̵̲͔̫̽̎̚͠ͅT̸͓͒͐H̵͔͠È̶̖̳̘͍͓̂W̴̢̋̈͒͛̋I̶͕͑͠T̵̻͈̜͂̇Č̵̤̟̑̾̂̽H̸̰̺̏̓ ̴̜̗̝̱̹͛́̊̒͝⛥



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,885 ✭✭✭enricoh


    Not a bit of it- 500k adults still living at home and tent cities popping up anywhere unfenced in Dublin. Keep em coming! ---

    Over 500,000 adults in Ireland are living with their parents, according to census data released by the Central Statistics Office today.

    This is a 14% increase over previous census data gathered in 2016.



  • Registered Users Posts: 29,226 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    …if we dont do anything about our aging population soon, we ll clearly end up in serious trouble, we simply wont be able to maintaining some sort of economic and social functioning, we wont be able to provide critical services such as adequate health care to all, particularly the fact as we age, we tend to need more and more access to health care. we just havent kept a level of birth rates to maintain all of this, so immigration really is the only show in town, but dont worry, we ve decided to move towards more stricter immigration rules, so bring on all the problems that have been mentioned! oh and its very unlikely pension funds also wont be able to be maintained for these reasons also, so watch out….



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,762 ✭✭✭ArthurDayne


    One thing I do wonder however here is whether having a larger population also provides greater incentive and "critical mass" to have more extensive Seems to me that part of the infrastructural problem in Ireland transport-wise has been that population sizes don't seem to offer the financial return to have a really high quality all-island public transport system (with acknowledgement that partition hasn't exactly helped either for Donegal and better links to Belfast, Derry etc.).

    What we have seen instead is investment in the motorways and better options for road users. Not a bad thing at all, but if a bigger population also meant helping to sustain better rail networks etc there might be an environmental benefit there too.



  • Registered Users Posts: 29,226 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    ..theres many reasons for the lack of rail here, the fact that its ferociously expensive to build and that economists tend to really not like them, causing policy to move towards the cheaper option of roads, it means the state plays a more minimal role in providing transport, effectively outsourcing it to the private domain, i.e. win win for the state, less debt on the public books, a larger population might swing that, but i wouldnt hold my breath….

    …rail would clearly be a far better option environmentally, but best of luck with trying to convince the political system in doing so, including our more greener parties…..



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,229 ✭✭✭Widdensushi




  • Registered Users Posts: 29,226 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    …oh keep an eye on that aging demographic, the only solution other than population growth is to keep pushing up retirement age and working hours, im sure workers will easily accept that one!



  • Registered Users Posts: 729 ✭✭✭Norrie Rugger Head


    Why is why it is a failure of government. If market forces do not exist, where social forces do, then the government needs to step in and provide the service.

    It's the same with housing.

    ⛥ ̸̱̼̞͛̀̓̈́͘#C̶̼̭͕̎̿͝R̶̦̮̜̃̓͌O̶̬͙̓͝W̸̜̥͈̐̾͐Ṋ̵̲͔̫̽̎̚͠ͅT̸͓͒͐H̵͔͠È̶̖̳̘͍͓̂W̴̢̋̈͒͛̋I̶͕͑͠T̵̻͈̜͂̇Č̵̤̟̑̾̂̽H̸̰̺̏̓ ̴̜̗̝̱̹͛́̊̒͝⛥



  • Registered Users Posts: 729 ✭✭✭Norrie Rugger Head


    ⛥ ̸̱̼̞͛̀̓̈́͘#C̶̼̭͕̎̿͝R̶̦̮̜̃̓͌O̶̬͙̓͝W̸̜̥͈̐̾͐Ṋ̵̲͔̫̽̎̚͠ͅT̸͓͒͐H̵͔͠È̶̖̳̘͍͓̂W̴̢̋̈͒͛̋I̶͕͑͠T̵̻͈̜͂̇Č̵̤̟̑̾̂̽H̸̰̺̏̓ ̴̜̗̝̱̹͛́̊̒͝⛥



  • Registered Users Posts: 29,226 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    ah to be fair, its a bit more complicated than just capitalism, but it is playing a part….



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,885 ✭✭✭enricoh


    My uncle has 100 acres + wheat to be combined in a couple of months, I'm sure 20k people could fit in there in tents after harvest. Might be a few niggles to iron out but it'll be grand.

    Is feidir linn!



  • Registered Users Posts: 729 ✭✭✭Norrie Rugger Head


    It's a big part of the requirement of constant growth

    ⛥ ̸̱̼̞͛̀̓̈́͘#C̶̼̭͕̎̿͝R̶̦̮̜̃̓͌O̶̬͙̓͝W̸̜̥͈̐̾͐Ṋ̵̲͔̫̽̎̚͠ͅT̸͓͒͐H̵͔͠È̶̖̳̘͍͓̂W̴̢̋̈͒͛̋I̶͕͑͠T̵̻͈̜͂̇Č̵̤̟̑̾̂̽H̸̰̺̏̓ ̴̜̗̝̱̹͛́̊̒͝⛥



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,828 ✭✭✭Clo-Clo


    Why would you want to put 20k people in a field?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 27 baxterooneydoody


    It means it's full if we've no where to put them, what's your definition of full



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,028 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    If a hospital doesn't have beds available for more patients, it is full. Even if it could fit some people on the floor or in the canteen - the patient designed infrastructure has a capacity. Once it's full it's full.

    Same thing applies to a country - once your healthcare, transport, education, housing infrastructure is all at breaking point, then yes the country is full.

    You do realise in pre-famine times Irish people lived 5-10 people in a single room cottage? Do you think we are not full until we regress to that deplorable standard of overcrowding?



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,537 ✭✭✭suvigirl


    Not having enough accommodation, does not mean we are full. It means we need more accommodation



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,072 ✭✭✭threeball


    Hopefully it stays like that. England is massively overpopulated. A life spent in traffic and queues isn't anything to aspire to. Not to mention all the social issues that has gone along with that overpopulation.



  • Registered Users Posts: 29,226 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    yea i get that, this was pointed out in works such as the limits to growth back in the 70's, but this is where we re at, we currently dont have a true alternative to this thinking, again, we re all ending up with aging populations, which is causing us all serious problems, we clearly need to find ways of redistributing wealth, but we re currently also stuck here to….



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 7,198 Mod ✭✭✭✭cdeb


    I've mentioned our emigrants in the same breadth as our immigrants.

    We can't build a sustainable society while people move around to such an extent that to visit relatives involves generating more carbon than a person should emit in an entire year, and indeed while this cohort of people continues to increase quite quickly.

    Would you not agree?



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 7,198 Mod ✭✭✭✭cdeb


    If you don't do anything about carbon emissions soon, we'll clearly end up in far more serious trouble, don't you think?

    After all, if we keep growing population to meet a hundred-year-old ideal of retirement by 65 (which, when it was brought in, was based on you having at most five years left at that stage, if you even got to it at all), we'll have to keep on growing our population to keep on meeting pensions, etc - because we haven't actually solved the problem.

    So yeah, a sustainable society involves a longer working life. 70, even 75. That mightn't be popular, but I can guarantee you burning the planet up ain't going to be popular either.

    Which do you think is more important - getting a pension at 65 or having a planet to live on?



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,028 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    It means we are full, until such a time as we have more accommodation.

    This is not a difficult concept to get a your head around. Primary school children could understand that when you do not have space for something, you are full



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,537 ✭✭✭suvigirl


    I would suggest that's even primary school children would understand the concept of building more of what we need.



Advertisement