Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]


Reply
The great and ongoing immigration debate; I'm a 55 yo Aussie with all 4 grandparents and both parents born here
Topic Started: 8 Dec 2013, 07:45 PM (5,066 Views)
Dr Watson
Member Avatar


herbie
8 Dec 2013, 07:45 PM
If bringing in more migrants with strong family values and work ethics (like those of my immediate forebears) helps Oz society return to being just a bit more fundamentally similar to the society of my forebears in those respects (as opposed to the heavily handout dependant/reliant one we have since become), I can see that, handled well, it potentially has quite a lot going for it.
I'm confused. What you're arguing for already exists in practice. We are bringing in migrants. Hundreds of thousands of them every year. You don't need to make a new case for this because it's already government policy. Is it the composition of migrants you want changed? Or do you want the number increased?

Strong "family values"? What type of society are you imagining here? One with less promiscuity? Personally, I'm not troubled by how much sex other people are having.

Finally, you didn't address the cost of additional infrastructure (assuming you're arguing for an increase in immigration). We already have a structural budget deficit of $40 billion and ballooning national debt. Surely Hockey needs to cut spending, not increase it.

Edited by Dr Watson, 9 Dec 2013, 03:07 PM.
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt — Bertrand Russell
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Count du Monet
Member Avatar


Dr Watson
9 Dec 2013, 03:04 PM


Finally, you didn't address the cost of additional infrastructure (assuming you're arguing for an increase in immigration). We already have a structural budget deficit of $40 billion and ballooning national debt. Surely Hockey needs to cut spending, not increase it.
Yes, but the speculators can make a mint, it's Joe Stupid who foots the general tax bill. :D

We need more programs to transfer wealth to speculators, there's Specufestors dying out there! If they figured they could make money by destroying the world, they'd do it. :lol
The next trick of our glorious banks will be to charge us a fee for using net bank!!!
You are no longer customer, you are property!!!

Don't be SAUCY with me Bernaisse
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Pig Iron
Member Avatar
Bogan scum

Elastic
8 Dec 2013, 10:55 PM
And still nobody is prepared to offer a figure that they think is appropriate for immigration.
Would 1 million a year suit your needs Piggy.
Just think how much opportunity that would bring.
Just open the floodgates.
sometimes you post insightful stuff, but this isn't one of those posts.

i would only allow skilled immigration on a case by case basis, with a cap set by our current birth rate.
I am the love child of Tony Abbott and Pauline Hanson
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Count du Monet
Member Avatar


Pig Iron
9 Dec 2013, 03:52 PM
sometimes you post insightful stuff, but this isn't one of those posts.

i would only allow skilled immigration on a case by case basis, with a cap set by our current birth rate.
You'd cut current migration levels with that. :D They come here with dogey papers, freely available in certain 2nd world countries. The good stuff with real qualifications goes for the US or Western Europe.
The next trick of our glorious banks will be to charge us a fee for using net bank!!!
You are no longer customer, you are property!!!

Don't be SAUCY with me Bernaisse
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Admin
Member Avatar
Administrator

Quote:
 
How I got it wrong on migration

Rob Burgess
6 Dec, 5:13 PM

Can Australia continue to prosper, and keep improving our cultural, democratic and judicial institutions, if we keep letting in so many migrants?

I raised this question again last week (Big Australia? Big deal, November 27) and elicited some strong opinions on the issue.

There are three commonly argued reasons to keep migration high. First, because we have an ageing population, and therefore need more young families to slow or rebalance this demographic trend; Second, our pretensions of being a ‘middle power’ in the foreign affairs sense demand we become at least ‘middle sized’; And finally because in the case of refugees, we have at least the same moral obligation as our near neighbours to help people displaced by war and poverty.

Against these arguments, there are three common objections. First, that we have no moral obligation at all – it’s dog eat dog, and as long as we can protect the borders, ‘We’re alright Jack’; Second, there is the Hanson-esque argument that certain ethnicities tear at Australia’s social cohesion and, therefore, threaten those cultural, democratic and judicial institutions; And finally there is the argument that we simply cannot continue to afford to house and provide for around 250,000 new arrivals a year.

It’s only a small minority who make the first objection. Australians have shown strong support for humanitarian interventions such as the Australian-led peacekeeping and rebuilding of East Timor from 1999 onwards (a country now ruffling feathers by following Indonesia’s example and accusing Australia of spying on it for economic gain).

While I was reporting on the progress of refugee families in the early 2000s, one school principal pointed to a class of Horn of Africa students and said: “Some of these kids have seen their parents beheaded.” There are good reasons not to tell them “We’re alright Jack.”

The second issue, namely the problem of migrants failing to live harmoniously within ‘muliticultural’ Australia is less easily dismissed. The fears that Pauline Hanson's One Nation party fanned are still there.

However, though violence and inter-racial conflicts flare up from time to time – the 2005 Cronulla riots being the most extreme recent example – there is no suggestion of a breakdown in the rule of law, the formation of underclass ghettos or similar problems.

I should disclose that I spend around half my time in Melbourne’s ethnically diverse western suburbs. We have ethnic drug gangs, language problems, poverty-driven petty crime ... and, nonetheless, a strong rule of law, thriving democracy and an enriched cultural life. Nobody's perfect, but we're all Australian.

The Australian experiment with multiculturalism, backed by the Australian Migrant English Program and a raft of other support services, has made Australia a global exemplar of how to handle these difficult issues.

But what of the last objection listed above? Can we ‘afford’ continued high migration?

Economist Leith van Onselen sent me an intriguing article last week in which he argues that migration won’t help with the ageing population problem.

By studying dependency ratios, van Onselen finds that the ageing of the migrants themselves (assuming fairly constant fertility rates) means continuing high migration wouldn't help things much.

He quotes the Productivity Commission which stated recently: “... an increase in annual net migration from 150 000 to 300 000 would lower the proportion of those aged 65 or over by less than 3 percentage points by 2044-45. As an illustration of the challenge, the Commission showed that delaying an increase in the dependency ratio by 40 years would require a net migration-to-population ratio of 3 per cent per year, leading to a population of around 85 million by 2044-45.”

Dr Bob Birrell, a Monash University demographer well known for his work with the Commonwealth government’s National Population Council from 1987–1993 and as a member of the independent Review of the General Skilled Migration Program which reported in May 2006, broadly backs this view.

Birrell argues we’re in a “sweet spot” in terms of the numbers of working age Australians available to work, and things will go downhill from here.

And while new migrants ease the pressure of a proportionally declining workforce in the short term, they won’t change things much 20 years hence when the “retiring baby-boomer reach their frail years”.

Migrant fertility rates are not, says Birrell, significantly different to the established Aussies’ propensity to breed. And so we can’t expect them to produce an army of workers to provide for those frail boomers in 20 years’ time.

Moreover, with 90 per cent of migrants settling in our major metro areas, Birrell’s main concern is the housing and infrastructure demands they place upon public and private investment resources.

In essence Birrell sees the high migration rates of the past decade as being due to both Coalition and Labor governments worrying that there would not be enough labour to feed the mining boom. Beyond that, he doesn’t see it as having much effect on the ageing population.

Peter McDonald, ANU professor of demography and deputy director of an ARC Centre of Excellence for Population Ageing Research, still sees a role for migration. He said in a recent talk: “The big impact on population age structure is births. And Australia's birth rate is relatively high at the moment compared to, say, Japan's.

“But immigration does have some impact on age structure and immigrants to Australia at the present time are very young, early 20s is the average age – this includes the people who come in as international students and stay on, and backpackers. So the impact on the age structure is small but meaningful in economic terms.”

Birrell points out that the “can we afford it?” question relates to the social and economic costs of pouring more people into the metro areas.

There are a lot of voters crammed into Western Sydney, and Melbourne’s west and south east, which can work against either party arguing for a ‘Big Australia’.

But things are changing. As the mining construction boom comes off the boil, both major parties are talking about the ‘dining boom’ – agriculture plus more value-added food processing to help capture the exploding demand for good food across Asia.

And that is where the ‘can we afford it’ question is answered. We have already seen a number of northern Queensland cities grow to cater to the mining boom. Government policy now needs to work to grow regional cities well-situated to capitalise on the dining boom.

Many journalists – this one included – have assumed migration will sort out the ageing population problem.

On that, we have been wrong.

However, in order to become a true middle-power; in order to not appear virtually deserted by our populous neighbours to the north; and in order to play a moral role in settling the displaced people of our region, the migration that built Australia should continue.

That position is occasionally attacked as a cynical ploy by vested interests to boost house prices and deliver strong profits to the giant finance industry that milks that sector of the economy. Well, yes, high migration does have that effect.

But there are other forces at work; other reasons to keep migration levels high. And if we fail to ‘afford’ it, it’s a failure of public policy, not because Australia’s full.

Read more: http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/12/6/national-affairs/how-i-got-it-wrong-migration
Follow OzPropertyForum on Twitter | Like APF on Facebook | Circle APF on Google+
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Count du Monet
Member Avatar


Quote:
 
But there are other forces at work; other reasons to keep migration levels high. And if we fail to ‘afford’ it, it’s a failure of public policy, not because Australia’s full.


Keep levels high and higher at all costs.....why? :bl:
The next trick of our glorious banks will be to charge us a fee for using net bank!!!
You are no longer customer, you are property!!!

Don't be SAUCY with me Bernaisse
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
themoops
Member Avatar
Ruby Member
Count du Monet
9 Dec 2013, 04:36 PM


Keep levels high and higher at all costs.....why? :bl:
So you can buy chicken curries everywhere and smile sweetly at them and think to yourself how fucking worldy you are for buying a fucking chicken curry in a fucking food court.

Quote:
 
it’s a failure of public policy


We've done nothing but fail in this area. The spiteful old dislikeable persons couldn't even give us an NBN! They'd have a nervous breakdown if we were to build good train networks, think of all that money they could have spent on OS holidays to europe, because they wouldn't be able to take ownership of it and ream it via Macquarie Bank.

You can get away with $16 each way from the city to the airport, not so much on every day routes.
stinkbug omosessuale


Frank Castle is a liar and a criminal. He will often deliberately take people out of context and use straw man arguments.
Frank finally and unintentionally gives it up and admits he got where he is, primarily via dumb luck!
See here
Property will be 50-70% off by 2016.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
newjez
Member Avatar


I find the situation in Bradford very interesting. You have an immigrant Pakistani population with strong family values getting very irate about Romany gypsies invading the area and causing havoc.

I also find the (Chardonnay socialist my arse) comments of note

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10503821/Stuart-Rose-Bulgarians-taking-our-jobs-immigrants-low-pay-wages-Romanians-EU-benefits.html
Whenever you have an argument with someone, there comes a moment where you must ask yourself, whatever your political persuasion, 'am I the Nazi?'
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
herbie
Member Avatar


Dr Watson
9 Dec 2013, 03:04 PM
I'm confused. What you're arguing for already exists in practice. We are bringing in migrants. Hundreds of thousands of them every year. You don't need to make a new case for this because it's already government policy. Is it the composition of migrants you want changed? Or do you want the number increased?
What I'm arguing for doesn't exist in practice Doc - Not like it DID anyway. With that being my most fundamental point here I think?
With what I'm arguing for being strong family values/structures and work ethics - Nebulous as those concepts could sound to some?

Think I pretty much accept that the loss of same/reversal of the loss of same once people have moved away from it (or more truthfully even, BEEN moved away from them by no hoping useless pollies and their ill thought out and very poorly implemented policies) is just SO difficult (I lived and worked amongst and with ATSI people for a decade and married an ATSI woman so I have some general practical exposure to/experience in such stuff) that I look and say "No, we aren't going to reverse this in any significant way now that it's entrenched - So what alternative ways of potentially compensating for it (now that the damage has been done) might we have as a society?"

And I'm chucking one 'out there' for discussion - Given that the recent discussions on higher immigration made me think of it as being a possible work around/way of helping to compensate - Maybe?

Without having any specifics as such in my mind at all.
Edited by herbie, 9 Dec 2013, 06:34 PM.
A Professional Demographer to an amateur demographer: "negative natural increase will never outweigh the positive net migration"
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Pig Iron
Member Avatar
Bogan scum

Count du Monet
9 Dec 2013, 04:11 PM
You'd cut current migration levels with that. :D They come here with dogey papers, freely available in certain 2nd world countries. The good stuff with real qualifications goes for the US or Western Europe.
if that's what it is, then thats what it is.

the point is i have no need for increasing immigration and i'm only in favour of it to fill skills shortages.
I am the love child of Tony Abbott and Pauline Hanson
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Australian Property Forum · Next Topic »
Reply



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.

For more information go to Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair Use

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