Well I've come down firmly in the camp that says high immigration is both necessary and wonderful - Compared to the alternative. Whilst bearing in mind that we need to minimise those getting in who have any sort of terrorist tendencies.
Hmmm - Now that wasn't hard. Ta to all what contributed to making it easy ...
I really don't understand why the cafe kicked off this debate. You don't judge a people by the actions of one of their peoples who could quite possibly be mentally ill.
But for what it's worth, I'm not a fan of open borders. There are advantages to immigration, but they need to be weighted against the costs. The whole thing needs to be managed. This is something oz does much better than other countries such as the UK. There have been calls for the UK to adapt a system similar to Australia's. I don't see this as a bad thing.
Whenever you have an argument with someone, there comes a moment where you must ask yourself, whatever your political persuasion, 'am I the Nazi?'
I really don't understand why the cafe kicked off this debate. You don't judge a people by the actions of one of their peoples who could quite possibly be mentally ill.
But for what it's worth, I'm not a fan of open borders. There are advantages to immigration, but they need to be weighted against the costs. The whole thing needs to be managed. This is something oz does much better than other countries such as the UK. There have been calls for the UK to adapt a system similar to Australia's. I don't see this as a bad thing.
I don't believe that anyone is in favour of an open border. What this is about is a choice between zero immigration and others who are OK with some degree of immigration, and then there is Leo who has a real problem with a certain group who are from many races but he just lumps them all together under their religious beliefs.
Same thing happened years ago when Pauline Hansen stirred up debate over Vietnamese boat people. Now we accept them fully into our society.
It just takes time.
Any expressed market opinion is my own and is not to be taken as financial advice
I don't believe that anyone is in favour of an open border. What this is about is a choice between zero immigration and others who are OK with some degree of immigration, and then there is Leo who has a real problem with a certain group who are from many races but he just lumps them all together under their religious beliefs.
Same thing happened years ago when Pauline Hansen stirred up debate over Vietnamese boat people. Now we accept them fully into our society.
It just takes time.
Zero immigration, while ignoring our historical high emigration would be quite odd indeed. We have permanent caps on the num bers of people and so we should.
The issue is not zero or some, the reall issue is will AU double or treble its NOM to compensate for a dramatic fall in our natural growth, which is unstoppable?
Zero immigration, while ignoring our historical high emigration would be quite odd indeed. We have permanent caps on the num bers of people and so we should.
The issue is not zero or some, the reall issue is will AU double or treble its NOM to compensate for a dramatic fall in our natural growth, which is unstoppable?
I don't know - no one does, but we all know that they can.
Any expressed market opinion is my own and is not to be taken as financial advice
I don't know - no one does, but we all know that they can.
I agree, we could, however that level is clearly at the will of the politics of the day. My feeling is that as AU ages, more will want lower immigration, while of course ignoring our historical high emmigtaion currently.
The understand of population growth is not well undertstood by the average punter who thinks it is just natural growth plus NOM, while ignoring increased lonjevity, or the 'demographic momentum' which is 1/3 of our actual growth in real numbers.
This chart probably shows it best... Graph: Population Change, Age group—1994 to 2014
"AGEING POPULATION
Over the next several decades, population ageing is projected to have implications for Australia, including; health, size of the working-age population, housing and demand for skilled labour.
Like most developed countries, Australia's population is ageing as a result of sustained low fertility and increasing life expectancy. This has resulted in proportionally fewer children (under 15 years of age) in the population and a proportionally larger increase in those aged 65 and over.
Between 1994 and 2014, the proportion of Australia's population aged 15-64 years remained fairly stable, decreasing from 66.6% to 66.5% of the total population. During the same period, the proportion of people aged 65 years and over increased from 11.8% to 14.7% and the proportion of people aged 85 years and over almost doubled from 1.0% of the total population in 1994 to 1.9% in 2014. Conversely, the proportion aged under 15 years decreased from 21.6% to 18.8%.
CHILDREN (AGED 0-14 YEARS)
In the 20 years between 1994 and 2014, the proportion of children (aged 0-14 years) decreased from 21.6% to 18.8% of the total population.
In the 12 months to 30 June 2014, the total number of children aged 0-14 years in the population increased by 1.2% (52,000 people) compared to an increase of 1.6% (70,400 people) in the previous year ending 30 June 2013. Over this period, the number of 0-4 year olds increased by 10,300 (0.7%), 5-9 year olds increased by 33,100 (2.3%), and those aged between 10-14 increased by 8,600 (0.6%).
In the year ended 30 June 2014, the Australian Capital Territory recorded the largest percentage increase in the number of children aged 0-14 years (2.3%), followed by Western Australia (1.9%). In contrast, Tasmania recorded a decrease of 0.6%.
WORKING-AGE POPULATION (AGED 15-64 YEARS)
At 30 June 1994, the proportion of the population aged between 15 and 64 years (traditionally referred to as the 'working-age population') was 66.6%. This proportion increased to a high of 67.5% in 2009, before declining to 66.5% by 30 June 2014.
In the 12 months to 30 June 2014, the number of people in the working ages increased by 1.3% (or 194,200 persons). At the state and territory level, Western Australia and Victoria experienced growth rates for this group that were higher than the 1.3% national average at 1.9% and 1.6% respectively. In contrast, Tasmania recorded a decrease in the number of 15-64 year olds of 0.2%.
There were 285,000 young people aged 15 who entered the working-age population while 235,000 people turned 65 years and left the working-age population in the year ended 30 June 2014. WORKING-AGE AND NON WORKING-AGE POPULATION ANNUAL GROWTH RATE COMPARISON, Australia - At 30 June Graph: WORKING-AGE AND NON WORKING-AGE POPULATION ANNUAL GROWTH RATE COMPARISON, Australia—At 30 June
Comparing the working-age population (aged 15-64 years) with the remainder of the population (aged 0-14 and 65 and greater) over the 20 years to 30 June 2014, the non working-age population is growing faster at 2.2% compared with 1.3% for the working-age population. This faster growth in the non-working ages has been evident since 2010. The main contributor to the increased growth of the non working-age population is growth in the population aged 65 and over.
PEOPLE AGED 65 YEARS AND OVER
Over the 20 years between 1994 and 2014, the proportion of the population aged 65 years and over increased from 11.8% to 14.7%. This group is projected to increase more rapidly over the next decade, as further cohorts of baby boomers turn 65 (there are currently only three years of baby boomers aged 65 years and over).
In the 12 months to 30 June 2014, the number of people aged 65 years and over increased by 118,700 people, representing a 3.6% increase. Proportion of population aged 65 years and over Graph: Proportion of population aged 65 years and over
All states and territories experienced growth in people aged 65 years and over in the year ended 30 June 2014. The largest increase in this group was in the Northern Territory (7.0%), followed by the Australian Capital Territory (4.6%), Western Australia (4.2%) and Queensland (4.1%).
PEOPLE AGED 85 YEARS AND OVER
Over the past two decades, the number of persons aged 85 years and over increased by 153%, compared with a total population growth of 32% over the same period.
In the year ending 30 June 2014, the number of people aged 85 years and over increased by 19,200 people (4.4%) to reach 456,500. There were almost twice as many females (291,600) as males (164,900) in this age group which reflects the higher life expectancy for females.
Over the same period, the largest percentage increases of people aged 85 years and over occurred in the Northern Territory (13.5%), followed by the Australian Capital Territory (5.3%), Western Australia (5.0%), Queensland (4.8%), New South Wales and Victoria (both 4.4%), South Australia (3.4%) and Tasmania (2.4%).
PEOPLE AGED 100 YEARS AND OVER
Over the past two decades, the number of centenarians increased by 263%, reflecting an increase in life expectancy for both males and females during the period.
In the 12 months to 30 June 2014, the number of centenarians increased by 490 people (13.8%) to reach 4,000. There were almost four times as many females (3,200) as males (880) in this age group which reflects the higher life expectancy for females."
My feeling is that as AU ages, more will want lower immigration, while of course ignoring our historical high emmigtaion currently.
But that's just your guess, which is no better than anyone else's guess.
It seems to me that the immigration numbers are set independently of parliament - at least I hear politicians telling people we will reduce our intake and the next year it rises again. It seems to have a mind of its own.
Any expressed market opinion is my own and is not to be taken as financial advice
But that's just your guess, which is no better than anyone else's guess.
It seems to me that the immigration numbers are set independently of parliament - at least I hear politicians telling people we will reduce our intake and the next year it rises again. It seems to have a mind of its own.
No, Our NOM is set by the govt of the day and is generally very accurate. They are NOT set "independently of parliament" at all.
No, Our NOM is set by the govt of the day and is generally very accurate. They are NOT set "independently of parliament" at all.
Quote:
The Migration Programme is set annually, following broad consultation across Australia, and taking into account community views, economic and labour force forecasts, international research, Net Overseas Migration and internal and external modelling. The Migration Programme benefits Australia both socially, through the reunification of families, and economically, through addressing immediate and future skill shortages in the workforce.
A number of factors will influence how the visa categories are distributed within the final programme, including: •the number of applications made in categories that are in high demand, such as partner, child and sponsored skilled categories •the number of applicants who take up places in state/territory and regional nominated skilled migration categories •the extent of national skill shortages and the ability to attract migrants to fill these vacancies •the flow of high standard applicants for skilled migration through SkillSelect.
The government may set targets, they probably do, but targets will be either exceeded or surpassed as the circumstances dictate.
From what I can make of it, they all say what they figure a few key marginal seats in Western Sydney want to hear leading up a federal election, then go and do what Treasury tell them will be best for 'the economy' once elected.
A Professional Demographer to an amateur demographer:"negative natural increase will never outweigh the positive net migration"
From what I can make of it, they all say what they figure a few key marginal seats in Western Sydney want to hear leading up a federal election, then go and do what Treasury tell them will be best for 'the economy' once elected.
no way - that can't be - it's just utterly ridiculous to suggest that one of our finest politicians would fudge a few figures just to keep us happy and fill his/her ballot box with votes and then sneakily change the figures and maybe blame some 18 year old public servant.
Australian Property Forum is an economics and finance forum dedicated to discussion of Australian and global real estate markets and macroeconomics, including house prices, housing affordability, and the likelihood of a property crash. Is there an Australian housing bubble? Will house prices crash, boom or stagnate? Is the Australian property market a pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme? Can house prices really rise forever? These are the questions we address on Australian Property Forum, the premier real estate site for property bears, bulls, investors, and speculators. Members may also discuss matters related to finance, modern monetary theory (MMT), debt deflation, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin Ethereum and Ripple, property investing, landlords, tenants, debt consolidation, reverse home equity loans, the housing shortage, negative gearing, capital gains tax, land tax and macro prudential regulation.
Forum Rules:
The main forum may be used to discuss property, politics, economics and finance, precious metals, crypto currency, debt management, generational divides, climate change, sustainability, alternative energy, environmental topics, human rights or social justice issues, and other topics on a case by case basis. Topics unsuitable for the main forum may be discussed in the lounge. You agree you won't use this forum to post material that is illegal, private, defamatory, pornographic, excessively abusive or profane, threatening, or invasive of another forum member's privacy. Don't post NSFW content. Racist or ethnic slurs and homophobic comments aren't tolerated. Accusing forum members of serious crimes is not permitted. Accusations, attacks, abuse or threats, litigious or otherwise, directed against the forum or forum administrators aren't tolerated and will result in immediate suspension of your account for a number of days depending on the severity of the attack. No spamming or advertising in the main forum. Spamming includes repeating the same message over and over again within a short period of time. Don't post ALL CAPS thread titles. The Advertising and Promotion Subforum may be used to promote your Australian property related business or service. Active members of the forum who contribute regularly to main forum discussions may also include a link to their product or service in their signature block. Members are limited to one actively posting account each. A secondary account may be used solely for the purpose of maintaining a blog as long as that account no longer posts in threads. Any member who believes another member has violated these rules may report the offending post using the report button.
Australian Property Forum complies with ASIC Regulatory Guide 162 regarding Internet Discussion Sites. Australian Property Forum is not a provider of financial advice. Australian Property Forum does not in any way endorse the views and opinions of its members, nor does it vouch for for the accuracy or authenticity of their posts. It is not permitted for any Australian Property Forum member to post in the role of a licensed financial advisor or to post as the representative of a financial advisor. It is not permitted for Australian Property Forum members to ask for or offer specific buy, sell or hold recommendations on particular stocks, as a response to a request of this nature may be considered the provision of financial advice.
Views expressed on this forum are not representative of the forum owners. The forum owners are not liable or responsible for comments posted. Information posted does not constitute financial or legal advice. The forum owners accept no liability for information posted, nor for consequences of actions taken on the basis of that information. By visiting or using this forum, members and guests agree to be bound by the Zetaboards Terms of Use.
This site may contain copyright material (i.e. attributed snippets from online news reports), the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such content is posted to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues. This constitutes 'fair use' of such copyright material as provided for in section 107 of US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed for research and educational purposes only. If you wish to use this material for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Such material is credited to the true owner or licensee. We will remove from the forum any such material upon the request of the owners of the copyright of said material, as we claim no credit for such material.
Privacy Policy: Australian Property Forum uses third party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our site. These third party advertising companies may collect and use information about your visits to Australian Property Forum as well as other web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here: Google Advertising Privacy FAQ
Australian Property Forum is hosted by Zetaboards. Please refer also to the Zetaboards Privacy Policy