CharonY

Not sure I follow, the values provided are from the UK housing report. But perhaps there is a misunderstanding along the thread somewhere. The general consensus seems to be that UK is not reaching its targets in home outputs. As you mentioned, many builders went bust. Some articles suggest that material and labor costs (inflation) and regulatory changes are some of the leading causes. I have not seen actual data on immigration in that regard beyond similar arguments made in sethoflagos' post that tighter immigration rules could increase labor cost, further impacting budgets. There was an old pre-Brexit CIOB (Chartered Institute of Building) report which, among other things, predicted what could happen as a consequence of immigration restriction https://www.ciob.org/media/64/download These include among others: reduced labour mobility across EU leading to higher wage volatility restricted access to skilled staff (focus on EU) reduced housing deliver A big issue is specifically loss of the EU worker pool, as they are highly mobile and provided a flexible pool of talent that were lost post-Brexit. Some of the immigration rules also made it harder to recruit builders, as they did not fall under the skilled labor segment. Whether the situation constitutes a building crisis or not remains debatable, but I think it is complicated, made worse post-Brexit.

And my point is that we need to quantify that. I mentioned the 4-6% from the housing report. My question then is (given the topic of the thread) does it warrant the seemingly outsized focus on immigration over other housing-related policies, for example?

It is astonishing how weird and controlling some MDs can be when it comes to reproductive bits. Also the difference when the woman in question is white or not... The saddest thing about that is that in Germany classes when to Auschwitz (Osvienčim) and other concentration camps to learn and reflect about the past. Now the racist AfD (also heavily supported by Musk, Vance and their ilk) are the strongest party according to polls. And I think the paths to radicalization are easier now, you do not even need Gleichschaltung (i.e. taking over media and means of information). Social media does the job for you. We can see that in this thread, where OP is happily playing to that tune. Moreover, this is seen as a virtue, even if it costs the US economy (especially in farming). The thread I was thinking of was this one here https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/140534-taking-care-of-people/ There are some discussions regarding altruism and capitalism there. But bottom line is that fundamentally it is not necessarily a resource constraint issue by itself. And with regard to food banks, there are many answer to that, but I doubt that migration is one of them. Or at least I have not seen compelling evidence to that effect. In many countries cost of living has been rising, regardless of level of immigration, for example. Housing is one area where sudden shocks can increase prices to some degree, but on the macroscale the effects appear to be small. A report in the UK suggests that immigration accounts for roughly 4-6% of house price increases over the last three decades https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/migration-and-housing-costs-what-does-international-evidence-imply-for-the-uk/migration-and-housing-costs-what-does-international-evidence-imply-for-the-uk-accessible IOW, it is not a major driver, even as some rhetoric suggests otherwise. The other side that needs to be explored are the benefits for the economy as @sethoflagos pointed out. The UK unemployment rate seems to fairly low as a whole, with UK-born individuals having an unemployment rate of around 4.6%, which is comparable to 2005 numbers and down from the high of 8% in 2011. Among non-UK born, the rate is higher, at 7%, which is still lower than about 20 years ago with 8 and 9 % in 2004 and 2005. So at least with increasing immigration over the last two decades, in those terms the needle has not moved a lot. To me the real question is less about potential extrapolations or finding segments where there are issues. I would rather see a deeper analyses regarding the net cost (or benefit) of immigration to ground the discussion in tangibles, rather than perception. In housing, for example there are pro and cons, pressure on housing was mentioned, though data shows only a modest effect on the high level. And there are discussions regarding whether immigration can actually help with supply by providing builders (though that discussion is also very simplistic). I think it overall goes back to my earlier argument that this discussion is heavily rooted in assumptions with usually very little comprehensive and holistic analyses. And I would argue that political movements trying to exploit those feelings really don't want these analyses to be done in the first place, as it is easier to just play narratives, rather than root them on facts and analyses.

Well add to that fracturing of society due to social media. This is rage-inducing. Did they say that there is simply no option or did they try to push hysterectomy over possible options (both are bad, of course. I would assume that this was way before MRgFUS was available?

IIRC the most negative attitude among white folks was towards East Europeans (e.g. Polish and Czech). This goes towards my earlier comment that folks will create sub-divisions to further their respective narratives. I agree that it should be, but often it isn't. I will note that while things are getting weird in North America, in Europe that traditionally has been a problem for visible minorities in many areas. Attitudes have improved somewhat around 2010s but then has seen a huge backlash again. I think the population is very segmented in that regard. As is the society as a whole, one should add. The idea of a consensus in society has crumbled and apparently we all live in some hyper-specific bubbles now (some refer to it as the atomization of society). Two things here. We have another thread about feeding folks and the limits to that. But on a different note, this suggest that immigrants are draining resources, mirroring the idea in OP. Is that really the case though? One of my points is that in most countries that is the standard assumption, but I rarely see evidence of it. The picture is somewhat complex, but I would like to see that before accepting this as as true, I would like to see what kind of data folks have looked at before coming to this conclusion. Quite a different matter and quite tame in comparison, but I find it rather funny that I have been yelled at in three different countries for not speaking the local language with my wife or parents (and each time in a grocery store). But in a broader sense I do often hear the criticism that folks do not want to hear a foreign language in their spaces. That in my mind does not bode well for a two-way assimilation idea. Of course, broader society might have a different attitude, and there is a difference between NA and Europe in that regard. But at the same time, grievances of the majority with anything related to status challenges is politically incredibly powerful as it is often dumb. In that regard I can understand exchemist's comment on the desire to address immigration to not cede to the far right. Rather unfortunately, I also think it will not work on many levels. First, if mainstream parties think that putting on prohibitive restrictions will assuage voters, it often doesn't. The extremists can always claim that a) they would have done it sooner and better and b) it just proves that they are right in the first place. In addition, most folks do not understand the impact of immigration on the economy. For example, Trump's policies appear to have a net negative impact despite claims that it will somehow benefit (white) Americans. Thus, eve if reducing immigration or expelling immigrants tanks the economy, far right can just claim that they haven't expelled enough immigrants. A bad situation is good for them and they have no qualms do dig the hole ever deeper. I.e. while we likely can all see the reasoning, the solutions are elusive and annoyingly, grievances and emotions tend to win out in the end.

I would agree that addressing that sentiment is politically important if you want to have success. As a matter of fact, in contrast to the fantasies OP has, controlling and restricting immigration has been a key point across the political spectrum by now. In Europe it is a center issue for decades now, and Brexit is in part driven by that. Trudeau’s and Biden’s overcorrection of immigration after COViD-19 to kickstart the economy cost them politically quite dearly. But there is another dimension I would like to address. A big issue I have with that argument is, as I mentioned before, it is almost entirely emotional and thereby not really objectively addressable. It is not, for example an economic argument, where one could pull economic data and simply align immigration goals with it. And what is even worse, the exclusion is eventually treated as an virtue all by itself, from which there is only a little step to demonize the others to further that virtue. The most neutral way I can express the issue is that folks are upset that parts of the country are not pandering to their sensibilities and needs. But this has two issues. First, it kind of ignores the other forms of exclusion, which could be way more consequential. For example, even if the vendor is advertising in Turkish, I likely can walk in and buy things. In contrast, I cannot simply walk into a country club, which is likely going to be far more exclusionary, even if they speak a language I am more familiar with. There is also the corollary- if all spaces have to pander to the sensibilities of the majority, it suggests that minorities are not allowed to create similar spaces if they are different. I think much of these issues can be resolved simply by engaging with each other, rather than by wielding political power. Unfortunately most are more content to just argue in inflammatory fantasies, such as OP in this case. There is also a whole issue in terms of the implications of the term assimilation. I.e. the implied suggestion that one is only accepting of otherness, if it remains invisible. That of course is a goalpost that has been used consistently to penalize minorities and is ultimately an unattainable goal for many, especially with features that are not easily erasable. I.e. it is often not enough to speak the language (even accent free) and engage in local activities. The best one often can hope for is to be one of the good ones as the endpoint of assimilation.

I will add two things. Things change, this is just how it works. As a kid there was a small forest and a wonderful creek where I just to play. Now it has become a suburbian hell. Do you think folks should be upset regarding the young families living there now? Do you think folks would be more or less upset if said families spoke German, English, Polish, or Arabic? Consider a different scenario. There was a rough area in the city I lived in. There used to be shops on the ground floor, but they had been empty for a long time. At some point a Turkish shop came in selling vegetables. And then next door a Turkish tea house opened. Should that shock folks? My overarching question is basically why do cultural changes have such an outsized emotional impact compared to other things which potentially affect your life more directly (positively or negatively)?

Sadly, it is a powerful political message that many current (reform, AFD, rassemblement national,Reps etc.) and past parties have used successfully to find useful scapegoats, drive resentment, and ultimately avoid any form of responsibility for their actions. The baseline is, of course, the assumption that anything not exactly like them is detrimental. And make no mistake, if they can't find someone with a darker skin color, they will blame someone with the "wrong" religion, political outlook, or some other form of otherism. Considering how prevalent this is, one would expect that by this point folks would have found a way to actually document and quantify why the "others" are causing the death for their beloved identity (as opposed to, say economic and political decisions). Yet instead, they just assume. And even after self-inflicted wounds to "safeguard" their identity, such as Brexit, no lessons will ever be learned. This, of course is because the whole argument is entirely emotional, devoid of any reason. Which is why asking for reasons is usually a waste of breath.

Also, what about the implication that a kid with a foreing born-parent is a detriment? What is the reasoning there? Why is the skin color relevant?

Also, even those spaces seem to have declined. Much of reddit is dominated by engagement bait, often bot-driven. Likewise, I found that most of these subs have declined markedly in quality (at least those that were decent to begin with). Some are outright cesspools of misinformation. Also, even without shouting, quite frequently there is poor reasoning and I have seen how misconceptions at some point become consensus. Yepp, searches in TikTok are quite common, apparently. Rather depressingly, that is what students confirm they are doing nowadays. The argument was that google is for old folks. Though google is getting worse, anyway. Also wikipedia is too long to read, according to many.

I would like to emphasize a point exchemist made, science is fundamentally a process and methodology and as such it does not have an inherent end point. Even if the natural world could be somehow be fully understood (an extremely unlikely assumption) science methodologies can continued to be deployed to interact with the world based on that knowledge.

Fair, I think the context was more that the carbon footprint as a whole might be a bigger issue all thins considered. Especially the increase in LNG use has set off some alarm bells, though despite all the wildfires, climate change seems to be taking a backseat over AI. Fair, though I think we are still in a stage figuring out what works and how sustainable it is. I suspect that I am biased as in my industry ideas amount to fairly little and while I have tried to think about ways to improve research, beyond fairly mundane uses. I am wondering, are those operations tech-type startups?

I think deception is a big part of it. There is a sense that data centers are foisted on communities without their consent and there is apparently a lack of transparency (or at least the perception thereof). It doesn't really help that in many white collar jobs (other than within tech itself) AI use is enforced, disrupting established workflows without adding much immediate benefit. For example, engineers are forced to document all their work with AI tools, so that the AI can learn to solve problems. Rather obviously, only management really likes this. Edit: also it doesn't really help that if we are in a cold war, all the players are the worst possible people to lead it. Instead of Oppenheimer we have human-shaped caricatures.

Over the weekend I talked to an engineer who knows way more about things like data centers than I do and his perspective if that that the issue with water use is likely overblown as most newer centers are using closed-loop system of some sort (it could be regionally different), but also that other types of industries are using more water without the associated backlash. There are certainly concerns, but from a pure engineering perspective, it does not seem to be that different than any other industry as such. The issue is likely more related to the technology itself, and there are issues with it, that look very different, depending on in which industry you are in. Given the economic scale, I think the industrial revolution might be justified, though fire is a different matter. Unless they actually realize some of the use cases they envision. But over the years I got quite disillusioned at the gap between what the tech elite tells us to what they really deliver. Maybe this time it really is different, but I honestly cannot see the scale yet.

Not according to the president.