No they don't. They have not for 40 years. We have a massive historical housing build deficit.
The UK does not build nearly enough houses - This is partially planning restrictions (green belt etc) but also massive inefficiency in house building costs - from what I can tell costs (having seen the inside of some accommodation projects) have increased in real terms by quite a margin, and we build low spec small houses in the UK. I think large chunks of the UK could not build their existing housing stock again, even if given the land free, as the houses would not be worth that.
There is also (or historically was, not seen much evidence lately) a boom bust cycle meaning companies are unlikely to stretch themselves as they might get caught by the bust and go bankrupt, so they cannot borrow to build fast, so need to sell before building the next batch.
There are those who argue it is in their interests to keep supply restricted so as not to damage the value of their existing stock, but I cannot see how that maintains in a competitive environment. Maybe the planning restrictions and lack of land remove too much competitive pressure?
My native South Florida should constitute a serviceable laboratory for sustained high levels of immigration. I've lived here 70 years, from back when all our immigrants came from Georgia and New York (except for my parents, from Indiana and Austria). And I still don't speak Spanish, though I often try. Nor Portuguese. Nor Russian. Nor ...
Canada's has as much immigration as anyone historically, and always has been a diverse country between Anglo protestants, French Catholics, natives, and other immigrants. In 2023 we had a huge spike in immigration from Indian students taking advantage of a school visa loophole. People still responded with backlash. If Canada's level of immigration wasn't enough to destroy nativism, I don't think any would be.
"In the very short-run, of course [London would be much more crowded]. Before long, however, firms build more housing. Outskirts become more like central London – what’s so terrible about that?"
*cries in British* In actuality, we clearly just have supply not meeting demand, soaring prices, many people priced out of London and large numbers of immigrants and their children subsidised to live in London via social housing.
Germany here. (Not expertise on London/Uk.), Version 1 existed (lots of "guestworkers" came; when jobs became scarce, there was quite some pull-back). Version 2 is now: during the 2015 refugee-crisis a small new party - AfD - was taken over by xenophobes. Now it is the party with most votes in several areas - even among the young (14-29!) - said a new study this week - see below. Because the numbers of "illegal" immigration stayed high /went up again - and mostly not people with skills to fit in smoothly. While Switzerland, Singapore, Canada, Australia have a much higher % of foreign-born - but those mostly come legally, with needed skills. Smart immigration rules must wait, "humane" immigration rules are under threat, as 'version 2 is lashing back', indeed. https://europeanconservative.com/articles/news/germany-afd-most-popular-party-among-under-30s/ quote: (51% of the young) believe “the state cares more about refugees than about Germans in need of help” and reject the notion that “taking in many refugees is good for Germany” while53% agreed with the statement: “In Germany, you can’t say anything bad about foreigners without being called a racist.”
Notably, and perhaps counterintuitively, the respondents’ personal migration background had minimal impact on their views about asylum seekers. The study shows similar levels of concern over too many refugees between Germans with and without migration backgrounds.
Simon Schnetzer, one of the study’s authors, says the government “must definitely address this fear.”
- end of quote, backlash version 2 - I'd say; and I am very much 'more open' borders, admittedly the Singapore version, just easier.
Half baked analogy: unlimited adoption. We have babies who are available for adoption and we have families who are willing to adopt. Restrictions on adoption are suboptimal.
Two: we have a lot of babies who are available and the government decides to place them in families without regard for those families’ willingness or ability to support those babies.
Restrictions on the government’s ability to force babies on poorly equipped families seems closer to optimal.
>Before long, however, firms build more housing
No they don't. They have not for 40 years. We have a massive historical housing build deficit.
The UK does not build nearly enough houses - This is partially planning restrictions (green belt etc) but also massive inefficiency in house building costs - from what I can tell costs (having seen the inside of some accommodation projects) have increased in real terms by quite a margin, and we build low spec small houses in the UK. I think large chunks of the UK could not build their existing housing stock again, even if given the land free, as the houses would not be worth that.
There is also (or historically was, not seen much evidence lately) a boom bust cycle meaning companies are unlikely to stretch themselves as they might get caught by the bust and go bankrupt, so they cannot borrow to build fast, so need to sell before building the next batch.
There are those who argue it is in their interests to keep supply restricted so as not to damage the value of their existing stock, but I cannot see how that maintains in a competitive environment. Maybe the planning restrictions and lack of land remove too much competitive pressure?
My native South Florida should constitute a serviceable laboratory for sustained high levels of immigration. I've lived here 70 years, from back when all our immigrants came from Georgia and New York (except for my parents, from Indiana and Austria). And I still don't speak Spanish, though I often try. Nor Portuguese. Nor Russian. Nor ...
Canada's has as much immigration as anyone historically, and always has been a diverse country between Anglo protestants, French Catholics, natives, and other immigrants. In 2023 we had a huge spike in immigration from Indian students taking advantage of a school visa loophole. People still responded with backlash. If Canada's level of immigration wasn't enough to destroy nativism, I don't think any would be.
"In the very short-run, of course [London would be much more crowded]. Before long, however, firms build more housing. Outskirts become more like central London – what’s so terrible about that?"
*cries in British* In actuality, we clearly just have supply not meeting demand, soaring prices, many people priced out of London and large numbers of immigrants and their children subsidised to live in London via social housing.
Germany here. (Not expertise on London/Uk.), Version 1 existed (lots of "guestworkers" came; when jobs became scarce, there was quite some pull-back). Version 2 is now: during the 2015 refugee-crisis a small new party - AfD - was taken over by xenophobes. Now it is the party with most votes in several areas - even among the young (14-29!) - said a new study this week - see below. Because the numbers of "illegal" immigration stayed high /went up again - and mostly not people with skills to fit in smoothly. While Switzerland, Singapore, Canada, Australia have a much higher % of foreign-born - but those mostly come legally, with needed skills. Smart immigration rules must wait, "humane" immigration rules are under threat, as 'version 2 is lashing back', indeed. https://europeanconservative.com/articles/news/germany-afd-most-popular-party-among-under-30s/ quote: (51% of the young) believe “the state cares more about refugees than about Germans in need of help” and reject the notion that “taking in many refugees is good for Germany” while53% agreed with the statement: “In Germany, you can’t say anything bad about foreigners without being called a racist.”
Notably, and perhaps counterintuitively, the respondents’ personal migration background had minimal impact on their views about asylum seekers. The study shows similar levels of concern over too many refugees between Germans with and without migration backgrounds.
Simon Schnetzer, one of the study’s authors, says the government “must definitely address this fear.”
- end of quote, backlash version 2 - I'd say; and I am very much 'more open' borders, admittedly the Singapore version, just easier.
If backlash just means less immigration, that is not a big worry. What if it means violence?
Half baked analogy: unlimited adoption. We have babies who are available for adoption and we have families who are willing to adopt. Restrictions on adoption are suboptimal.
Two: we have a lot of babies who are available and the government decides to place them in families without regard for those families’ willingness or ability to support those babies.
Restrictions on the government’s ability to force babies on poorly equipped families seems closer to optimal.