immigration question 2 UK does not have large scale immigration from the 1940s

I tend to think that my nation would be poorer financially and culturally if that had happened. However I kind of wonder whether the labour shortage might have caused an earlier liberation of women.

Any thoughts?
 

Stephen

Banned
Without the influx of cheap labor wages and living standards will be higher, and with less increase in population the price of housing will lower. Although corporate profits would be lower so there would be a much smaller gap between rich and poor. There would also be much less crime and civil strife. Although these factors could also lead to higher reproduction rates in the native population than OTL leading to more native population growth lessening some of the population differences the POD first appears to make.
 
I agree with everything above however Australia and New Zealand will have lower populations due to less migration from the UK.
 

Stephen

Banned
I agree with everything above however Australia and New Zealand will have lower populations due to less migration from the UK.

The OPs POD is imigration into Britain he says nothing about emigration from Britain.
 
One of the major push factors is immigration and the negative affects it has on everyone apart from the very rich.
 

Stephen

Banned
One of the major push factors is immigration and the negative affects it has on everyone apart from the very rich.

Another major push factor in the post war period was the urban destruction, and rationing reaped from participation in WW2.
 
One of the major push factors is immigration and the negative affects it has on everyone apart from the very rich.

No it wasn't. The British emmigration was pretty constant from WW2 to the 1970s despite varying levels of immigiration. People left becuase they wanted the lower middle class things that were hard to get in troubled Britain, they weren't the groups directly competing with the incoming workers.

Immigration was encouraged to replace the workers being lost to emmigration, not the other way around.
 
Economically Britain would have been poorer as there would have been acute labour shortages. However some immigration would have had to take place anyway. There was the issue of the Polish servicemen who had fought along our side and didn't want to be handed over to a Communist regime and there were immigrants from what were then colonies who would have had access as British subjects in the case of the West Indies up to the early 1960's. EU entry has opened the doors to Eastern Europeans and globalisation has probably ensured that migration will continue irrespective of any immigration controls.

Cultural we would have been less diverse yet one of the biggest upsets to British institutions has come not from the new Commonwealth where cultures have to some extent been assimilated but a white Australian media magnate.
 

Stephen

Banned
EU emigration could simply be avoided by not joining the EU. Without legal imigration there would not be a foreign population for illeagal imigrants to hide in.

Labour shortages lead to higher wages, and are good for all but the very rich.
 
Top