Why don’t they just let anyone in they? Why have rules on which people are allowed to immigrate and which aren’t?

Yea. You hope that the more centrist parties look at what the population are desperate for and will do anything for. And then you hope democracy works and people get to vote for that they believe is right. Hopefully that happens in conjunction with sane and stable leaders listen to the demands of the people.

Currently large amount of the people feel ignored or certain issues and feel only the fair right is listening to them. If they had anyone else to vote for I’m sure they would.

Well lots of countries have immigration requirements or points based systems. So it is obvious that countries already use means to choose which immigrants it wants.

This just needs expansion. You look at immigrants or children of immigrants that commit more crime than locals or contribute less than locals and you don’t bring them in. Because bringing them in makes the country worse.

It’s obviously an average but that is all immigration requirements are.

According to the BBC

Alongside policies for giving French citizens “national preference” for jobs and housing, they want to cut VAT on energy and allow under-30s to escape income tax.

existing promises on immigration, crime and insecurity as well as tax cuts to tackle the cost-of-living crisis.

plans to abolish droit du sol, the right to automatic French citizenship for children born to foreign parents

Sounds like some good policies no wonder they are getting loads of votes. The reduction in taxes always comes back to bite you and that’s probably a mistake but the lower tax for the youth allowing them to get started in life instead of being in debt is a great idea. I haven’t heard anyone have such a progressive idea.

You mean bringing in people like that.

A country could you know. Not bring them in. Issue is solved then.

You never really answered the question though. What would have to happen for immigration to be a problem in your eyes? I’m just trying to get you to open you mind rather than sitting on your team. Look at the situation objectively first.

No its basic supply and demand for both wages and for housing. If you have a limited supply and demand increases prices can only increase. Is supply increases and demand the same wages go down.

Denmark has run the numbers for crime by country of origin which is direct proof. But then places like Sweden also have indirect proof like now having to keep a record of grenade attacks when they didn’t 20+ years ago.

Or the everyone is just ignoring the issue.

Rhetorically because this conversation is going to go nowhere. What would need to happen for immigration to actually be an issue?

Because people that tell us low wages (not GDP increase but working class wages for locals), high house prices, and other things people mention like losing culture and crime increasing isn’t an issue. So what would it take for it to be an issue.

A lot of people, usually the rich that own businesses and land and can make money off immigration, say it’s not a problem. I think rather than choosing a side and ignoring the issues people should wonder what would be a bad outcome then looking at things after.

Communism is great. You can spaff as much money up the wall as you want. Doesn’t matter, anything you want can be done.

Then you wonder why there is no food in the supermarkets.

I’m getting a little more optimistic about liquid air storage.

Fundamentally energy storage doesn’t have to be great if energy is so cheap. If you would lose x amount of energy otherwise only saving 80% or 50% or even 10% isn’t really a problem if the cost is so low.

Right now energy is getting so cheap that these systems are now making more financial sense.

Dignity is great and all but it doesn’t make houses when there aren’t enough. That’s two different problems.

We are on about new ones.

If you won’t accept the most basic, basic, basic ideas about economics. Then yes congratulations you can’t be taught something. I wouldn’t be proud of that.

You really need to look into why those things are bad ideas because they seen like good ideas until you actually more than superficially look at them.

Especially rent control it is an awful, awful idea and leads to bad outcomes for everyone. But people refuse to learn about it and think it’s a good idea. Go look up some YouTube videos on what’s wrong with rent control. That will have comparisons to a lot of other things.

The problem is there isn’t enough housing. Stop housing from being rented doesn’t make more housing, it will actually make less.

The only actual good idea on that list is government building. But the issue governments have is the exact same issues as what companies have. Laws and NIMBY stop people from redeveloping areas that people live in or near. There just isn’t any more land to build on that’s available and with governments forcing population to increase and how everyone wants to live in big cities the issues gets worse and worst.

The solution lies in building more housing, nothing else. If there isn’t enough housing literally nothing makes more housing than building more housing or converting no other solution works.

What are you proposing then. Shoulder to shoulder includes everything that isn’t detached.

How would less dense housing be cheaper when you need to buy more land and land is the thing that is expensive? Never mind things like utilities, public transport, police etc.

You’re talking about keeping density low as a means to keep house prices low. It’s stupid.

I think you will find some of the most high density housing in the world is very expensive. What are you even on about. Land is expensive. You think detached housing is the cheapest way to build houses? You’re out if your mind. Supply and demand. Locals could live in the houses if other people weren’t coming in and buying them. How many immigrants are living in these countries? Why dont you compare that to vacant housing? The vacant housing is only a big issue in undesirable locations and you need some anyway. Like I said LVT is the way forward. Solves this problem.

The market will built it normally, the government doesn’t allow them to.

If you really want to incentive building then you need a land value tax.

Need a Land value tax and the ability to build medium/high density housing.

There isnt a ton sitting empty. Dome need to be empty obviously for people to move in and out and for renovation. But even that isn’t enough to satisfy demand.

Your plan is more housing restriction and let me guess the awful idea that is tent control? Neither of these prevent the issue of lack of supply. Thats where the solution lies.

Of course governments need to enforce building standards. Things like public transport and density.

But at the moment the government is the one stopping more housing, especially higher density. If you allowed business to build more houses they would.

Government spending do to what exactly?

I have no issue with government spending. If fact I think the government should buy all the land. That’s my proposal. But housing will be built more efficiently by the market. Governments are inefficient.

You’re an idiot. You’re not going to build that much in 1 year.

If you did have that much work being done in Barcelona money would flood in from elsewhere also. Especially the EU.