Thought bubbles

From Tony Abbott

Mr Abbott said net migration had never been higher, arguing the two main drivers were businesses and universities bringing in labour and students.

“Businesses want to bring in labour because they want to keep their labour costs down, and universities want to bring in students because it boosts their revenue,” he said.

“Neither of these categories, which are driving net overseas migration, are directly controlled by government, and this is a problem. We need to get the government, the Australian government, back in control, not just of illegal migration, which we’ve stopped thank God, but of legal migration, because legal migration is now increasingly out of the control of the government.

Because growing the economy and educating people is just wrong.

This entry was posted in Conservative politics. Bookmark the permalink.

151 Responses to Thought bubbles

  1. Infidel Tiger 2.0 (Premium Content Subscribers Only)

    Because growing the economy and educating people is just wrong.

    Our government is doing neither.

    End the ponzi now.

  2. C.L.

    Packing universities with foreign hillbillies is not the same thing as education.

  3. Texas Jack

    Presumably you think the fact our kids will take 30% longer than we did to pay off an average Sydney or Melbourne dwelling is some great big welfare advance Sinclair?

  4. H B Bear

    Selling citizenship with a degree thrown in isn’t education.

  5. Tim Neilson

    Because growing the economy and educating people is just wrong.

    Is “the economy” a new euphemism for the social welfare bill?

  6. Judith Sloan

    A bigger economy doesn’t mean living standards grow. You know that Sinc.

  7. Turnio

    Diploma in breaking windows?

  8. RealWorld

    You really gonna tell us bigger GDP is our saviour Sinc?

  9. Sinclair Davidson

    Judith – yes I understand. That isn’t my criticism of Abbott. He wants migration is to be run by central planners in Canberra.

  10. Sinclair Davidson

    You really gonna tell us bigger GDP is our saviour Sinc?

    Because smaller GDP is better?

  11. .

    Poor Sinclair is getting hammered as though he doesn’t know the definition of GDP per capita.

    Poor guy, someone else said his office ought to be bulldozed because of ABC collaboration.

  12. Turnip

    Diploma in breaking windows?

  13. Because growing the economy and educating people is just wrong.

    So where did Abbott suggest that? Or is this just more Abbott Derangement Syndrome?

  14. closeapproximation

    He wants migration is to be run by central planners in Canberra.

    Auction?

    Floating caps & prices?

    Floor price = discounted likely welfare cash flows.

    In all cases, it’s still Canberra central planners messing around with Excel, so …..

  15. Jock

    Sorry Sinc. Disagree with your take on this.(I know Abbott is not your favorite politician. I have the same feelings for Greens, Socialists, ALP types and the left of the LNP. )

    Growth in immigration is not growth per se. I agree with Judith. As to educating the masses from overseas, you have to admit its a grewat deal for them. A degree (or whatever you hasve done a course in), the right to work here and a go at residency and perhaps citizenship. Not bad for $70k. No wonder we are inundated with Chinese students.

    Do we actually make that much money out of the University enterprises on a net basis after including in the additional cost of housing , infrastructure, health etc. Love the way it is regarded as an export. LOL

  16. .

    Growth in immigration is not growth per se.

    No, it is not, but the economic history of Australia shows that it has increased GDP per capita consistently.

  17. Infidel Tiger 2.0 (Premium Content Subscribers Only)

    No, it is not, but the economic history of Australia shows that it has increased GDP per capita consistently.

    GDP is of course one of the stupidest metrics we have.

    For what profits a man if he gains the whole world but loses his own soul?

  18. Makka

    Sinc supports the immigration ponzi. Luckily he and the likes of dotty are in the clear minority, aligned with their Green and Socialist colleagues.

    Libertarians want weaker borders, more immigration and therefore a declining standard of living in Australia. It’s crystal clear.

  19. .

    GDP could be a good metric if the criticisms made against in the early 1940s were implemented.

  20. Currently you need ~65 points to apply for a a skilled ‘189’ visa. So, need to have a required skill. International students finishing a degree can get 25 points for being 18-24, 15 point for the Bachelor’s and 20 for having superior English. Getting that last 5 points doesn’t seem too hard, but probably involves graduates actually getting some work (I.e. market decides).

    I think that’s mostly fine. Australia imports young people who are highly motivated, willing to move country, have already been high school educated, and are willing to pay tens of thousands of dollars to be trained at an Australian University. The issue I have is that there are 43 universities here, of varying quality and you only need about 50% in each subject to get your degree. So, the quality of the degree is not taken into account. The question is, do we care if employers are happy to take them?

  21. Neither of these categories, which are driving net overseas migration, are directly controlled by government, and this is a problem.

    Yes it would be a problem. But if it is not the government that is controlling overseas migration, then who is?

  22. .

    Libertarians want weaker borders, more immigration and therefore a declining standard of living in Australia. It’s crystal clear.

    No, grow a brain you innumerate, ahistorical dropkick, I am talking about (real) GDP PER CAPITA.

  23. stackja

    NSW is slowing down, fewer houses been built. Fewer people. Less congestion. Planners didn’t plan. Gough created ‘education’ bubble.

  24. Infidel Tiger 2.0 (Premium Content Subscribers Only)

    Yes it would be a problem. But if it is not the government that is controlling overseas migration, then who is?

    Unaccountable corporatist shills, hell bent on destroying the cultural and social fabric of this nation.

  25. I think the average punter and probably, more important, the coalition base would agree exactly with what Tont Abbott has said. Elites don’t but then elites don’t vote for the conservative side of politics!

  26. eb

    He wants migration is to be run by central planners in Canberra

    But isn’t Government control of the country’s borders a legitimate function of Government even in a libertarian society? And those central planners should be under the direction of a Government acting in accordance with the will of the people.

    Yes, yes, I know that’s not how things are now. But that should be the way these things run.

  27. Libertarians want weaker borders

    Does this mean borders made of straw rather than brick? All the better to blow the borders in?

  28. Infidel Tiger 2.0 (Premium Content Subscribers Only)

    Terrible things that will happen if immigration is cut:

    Housing affordability increases.

    Wages rise.

    Social cohesion grows.

  29. Infidel Tiger 2.0 (Premium Content Subscribers Only)

    Not to mention the pressure this rampant immigration is putting on government services.

  30. I think the average punter and probably, more important, the coalition base would agree exactly with what Tont Abbott has said. Elites don’t but then elites don’t vote for the conservative side of politics!

    Yeah. Because Tony Abbott, Oxford educated, Rhodes Scholar is not an “elite”.

    To make it simpler, perhaps we differentiate elites from non-elites by referring to the “elites” as Sir this or Dame that.

  31. JC

    Housing affordability increases.

    In the outer burbs maybe.

    Wages rise.

    Real wages only rise with commensurate increase in productivity. If you’re only concerned with nominal wages growth, that’s another matter.

    Social cohesion grows.

    It would, but if we chose carefully from the places we took migrants from, cohesion wouldn’t be a yuge problem.

  32. JC

    Can we stop thinking real wage rates would increase if we stopped immigration tomorrow. That just won’t happen unless there is corresponding increase in productivity through capital investment. It’s the only way real income can rise.

  33. …educating people is just wrong…

    I’d also like to add to this in that there is education and then education. This push that everyone needs a university degree is bullshit. Not everyone needs a degree etc, especially if that degree is in some pointless subject that might get you a job at McDonalds (but even McDonald’s is likely more selective).

    Mike Rowe hits the nail on the head: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-hV25y-yQc

  34. Senile Old Guy

    So, the quality of the degree is not taken into account. The question is, do we care if employers are happy to take them?

    Some employers look at the grades, in HE.

  35. Mitchell Porter

    I struggle endlessly to understand who it is that controls immigration to Australia, and what criteria they use in deciding who gets to become Australian. Tony Abbott says that immigration is now “driven by” business wanting cheap labor, and universities wanting more students. But a business or a university cannot literally grant you citizenship, so there’s something missing in this explanation. Who is it that liaises with business and university, listens to what they want, and has the power to set immigration policy so that they get what they want?

  36. stackja

    ALP hates productivity. Too much hard work.

  37. bollux

    What a childish comment Sinclair. If you cannot see the silliness of your statement, perhaps Catallaxy is not your spot. Maybe the Guardian would suit you better.

  38. .

    The problem Bemused, is accreditation.

    You cannot get a degree in maths or data science from Khan Academy, where education is free.

    What we need is to let these places give out degrees with proctored exams.

    You should be able to self-study theory only or the theory components of a degree or trade and then attempt an exam at any level you like.

  39. Boambee John

    JC at 1633

    It would, but if we chose carefully from the places we took migrants from, cohesion wouldn’t be a yuge problem.

    But the Doomlord doesn’t want government (central planners in Canberra) in control of immigration, so who does the choosing?

  40. Makka

    dotty, I know that pointing out Libertarian designs on reducing our living standards upsets you. Hardly surprising when exposed as a know nothing textbook warrior with little or zero life experience outside academia and the law parasites you want to join. You have no family of your own I gather so therefore no skin in the future . You really don’t give a fk about Australia or our living standards, other than as a receptacle for your great immigration fantasies.

    I wasn’t talking about GDP, per capita or otherwise. I was drawing attention to frauds just like you who try to keep selling your libertarian shiny turds as real alternatives. Your stench gives you away.

  41. .

    Economic history (reality) trumps any revulsion you have towards any level of immigration greater than zero, Makka.

  42. JC

    But the Doomlord doesn’t want government (central planners in Canberra) in control of immigration, so who does the choosing?

    Poll the people.

    Put up a top x list and tell the public the result will mean we only take from the top y they chose

    The punters would have a better feel than Canberra parasites anyway.

  43. JC

    dotty, I know that pointing out Libertarian designs on reducing our living standards upsets you.

    Madness. Makkaroni is veering awfully close to the Liars Party these days.

  44. Makka

    Does this mean borders made of straw rather than brick? All the better to blow the borders in?

    Another libertarian who hates Australia enforcing her sovereignty? Thick on the ground today.

  45. candy

    I think you’ll find a lot of people are wondering why workplaces are taking more overseas labour, the public service for example, and why universities have so many international students. However, for fear of being called racist, it is one of those quiet things but it’s there.

    It’s not about “growing” economies and educating people, the issue is about a whole of people wondering if they are being replaced.

  46. JC

    Makka

    Provide your definition of sovereignty.

  47. educating people is just wrong.

    True. The way we do it at the moment.

  48. .

    Sovereignty to Makka means zero immigration, with Makka making all the decisions.

    I AM THE SENATE!

    REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

  49. Makka

    Madness. Makkaroni is veering awfully close to the Liars Party these days.

    So favouring a better quality of life is madness? You’re an open borders fan , JC. Like Soros. Best not to throw stones.

  50. JC

    I think you’ll find a lot of people are wondering why workplaces are taking more overseas labour,

    Dunno, but I really have to say that if an Aussie loses out to an immigrant, whose second language is English, you really have to fucking wonder about the Aussie, no?

    It’s not about “growing” economies and educating people, the issue is about a whole of people wondering if they are being replaced.

    School and uni is a big business for Australia. One time I read it the next largest export earner after mining.

  51. JC

    So favouring a better quality of life is madness?

    Define what you mean by a better quality of life, chum.

    Go! and don’t forget sovereignty.

  52. Makka

    Making shit up, lies and verballing just doesn’t win the argument dotty.

    You and JC are the 2 biggest open borders pro-migration loonies on this blog. Good to see your POV is getting carved up yet again here.

  53. JC

    Making shit up, lies and verballing just doesn’t win the argument dotty.

    Stop acting like a poor man’s jezabel. It’s unseemly and disgusting.

    Answer those questions put to you, lughead.

  54. Makka

    Economic history (reality) trumps any revulsion you have towards any level of immigration greater than zero, Makka.

    Sorry dotty, your opinion really just doesn’t count. No skin in the game means you’re a parasite pushing your pro-migration ponzi barrow. Turning our cities into versions of downtown Calcutta for the wonderful GDP result isn’t a vision shared by the majority of Australians.

  55. Making shit up, lies and verballing just doesn’t win the argument dotty.

    Pot. Kettle. Black.

    Ps – what does “Australia enforcing her sovereignty” mean?

  56. Senile Old Guy

    …why universities have so many international students…

    It is the money. Universities get more money from an international student than from a domestic student. It is simple.

  57. .

    Makka, you are being carved up by reality.

    Australia has had high levels of immigration for most of our history since 1788.

    We’ve also gone from the stone age in 1788 to the highest standard of living pre-WWI for the entirety of the continent, (only about 120-125 years) and still, rank in the top 20.

    You can’t flush 200 years of history (high levels of per capita GDP growth) down the sewer because you don’t like migrants and want zero immigration, at least for a while.

    We’re not arguing against the position that there is an overreliance on immigration by Treasury to balance the books or that modern migration has kept up the quality of our migrants. We acknowledge that and would like to change welfare, citizenship and residency rules to help ameliorate that problem.

  58. Senile Old Guy

    We acknowledge that and would like to change welfare, citizenship and residency rules to help ameliorate that problem.

    Note: “ameliorate”, not “eliminate”.

    And there’s no chance of achieving this but they could get open borders with the ALP.

  59. What we need is to let these places give out degrees with proctored exams.

    That’s not what I’m on about. What I’m on about is that not everyone needs a degree, not every job needs a degree, not every workplace should be seeking degree qualified people.

    Take Canberra as an example, where I discovered some disturbing facts in one of my project management jobs many years ago. The public service had positions designated as ASO1, 2 etc (now APS1, 2, etc and maybe 1s no longer exist) and these were fairly basic positions that in the past were occupied by people without university degrees, usually without even final high school qualifications.

    But what was happening in Canberra and to a lesser extent in other cities, was that these ASO1 positions were being filled by uni graduates as an entry point into the public service. However, all that these new entrants were doing was using the ASO1 position as a starting point and applying for higher positions the moment they got in.

    So what was happening was that there were no longer staff filling the ASO1, as well as 2 and 3 positions in many cases, for much more than a few months or half a year at most. That meant that people doing the sort of work at that experience level were becoming non-existent and the experience and work was actually essential. These were jobs like data entry etc that no uni graduate would put up with for any time, but many far less qualified people didn’t mind doing.

    We were attempting to train people in new systems and they were gone before they even started to learn. I’m not sure how things panned out, but it was a major problem at the time.

  60. .

    What I’m on about is that not everyone needs a degree, not every job needs a degree, not every workplace should be seeking degree qualified people.

    It actually hurts people in a job where a degree is a very good idea. “Masters preferred” becomes the new norm.

  61. .

    Note: “ameliorate”, not “eliminate”.

    How wicked of me not being utopian.

    Can’t wait until you chime in with some worthless criticism about “utopian liberts”.

  62. Makka

    Spartacus,

    “All the better to blow the borders in?”

    Does that not display your contempt for our border or immigration controls? If not then maybe best you explain your inane comment.

    Australian Sovereignty : jurisdiction, rule , control – over our borders. That’s what I meant. But better explained here in more detail;

    ” sovereignty in national decision-making, and freedom from unacceptable external constraints on a people’s ability to live as they choose under laws that they make for themselves, and amongst themselves. State sovereignty allows us to apply the rule of law, conduct
    commerce, operate markets, create the space for civil society, public discourse and cultural
    expression, promote democratic practices, and uphold liberties and rights. “

    ….

    Borders and sovereignty are very much linked. The latter of
    necessity entails the capacity and ability to determine who and what can enter and leave the
    territory of the state, and the conditions and limitations under which this can occur.

    https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/newsandmedia/Documents/sovereignty-age-interdependency-04122014.pdf

  63. JC

    Australian Sovereignty : jurisdiction, rule , control – over our borders. That’s what I meant. But better explained here in more detail;

    I didn’t realize that’s not happening now and that Australia eliminated border control and people can walk in freely without the need for visas and passports.. When did this happen?

  64. Makka

    You can’t flush 200 years of history (high levels of per capita GDP growth) down the sewer because you don’t like migrants and want zero immigration, at least for a while.

    dotty,

    These diversions you attempt don’t deflect from your very clear observable desire to ruin Australia’s quality of life for the theory of libertarian inspired free movement of people across borders.

    For the record:

    I think that in the past (up until the late 1990’s) immigration has provided very good results for Australia. That’s indisputable. Bear in mind that the majority of migrants until then had been European christians who managed and worked to fit in, to become Australians. There are immigrants, brown skin ones, in my family and it’s all good. However, we are now finding this country being overrun by migrants. To the point where in our major cities, our public amenities , spaces and Govt expenditures are choked, overcrowded, being ruined possibly beyond saving if immigration is not halted – for a time. Our cities are horrifically overcrowded. Walking through the centres of Melbourne and Sydney you feel like a foreigner. Truly, you feel out of place. It’s that bad. For two decades shutting off the immigration spigot (per IT ) seems like good place to start.

    Your lies about I hate all immigrants are just that. Ridiculous pathetic lies. Attempted diversions that don’t work.

  65. Squirrel

    Perhaps if the “central planners” were relocated from the ivory tower remoteness of Canberra to somewhere which has been blessed by the “vibrancy”, diversity and dynamism etc. etc. created by their immigration policies – western Sydney or such-like – they might get a new perspective on the pluses and minuses of the policies which they advocate.

  66. .

    I think that in the past (up until the late 1990’s) immigration has provided very good results for Australia. That’s indisputable.

    Yes.

    For two decades shutting off the immigration spigot (per IT ) seems like good place to start.

    So I haven’t mischaracterised you or what you said at all.

  67. Makka

    I didn’t realize that’s not happening now and that Australia eliminated border control and people can walk in freely without the need for visas and passports.. When did this happen?

    I was wrong JC. You really can be this dumb.

  68. .

    “I don’t hate all immigrants, but no immigration for at least 20 years”

    It is hard not to offend someone who doesn’t know their arse from their elbow.

  69. Makka

    “I don’t hate all immigrants, but no immigration for at least 20 years”

    It is hard not to offend someone who doesn’t know their arse from their elbow.

    I really don’t know how such a clueless dickhead like you manages to cross the street with so many synapses dysfunctional. A miracle everyday.

    Is it such a leap of comprehension for you to understand that while one doesn’t hate migrants , I can detest the system/policy that allows so many of them to immigrate into Australia. One is a person, another is a policy.

    Or do you view immigration policy to be a love for your fellow man therefore there is no question that foreigners have a right to enter?

  70. JC

    Stop lying, Butcher. Of course you hate foreigners.

  71. Bushkid

    I wouldn’t mind so much Sinc, if people were genuinely being educated, rather than indoctrinated; and if the economy was and could grow. Under present government-imposed legislative and regulatory circumstances, it’s barely surviving.

    Abbott is right yet again.

  72. .

    . For two decades shutting off the immigration spigot (per IT ) seems like good place to start.

    Your lies about I hate all immigrants are just that. Ridiculous pathetic lies. Attempted diversions that don’t work.

    This is nonsense Makka.

    You don’t want any immigration into Australia for at least 20 years.

    You’re never going to convince me it is because you like them or have a neutral opinion of immigrants.

  73. Confused Old Misfit

    Speaking as an immigrant, might I be allowed to comment that to get into Australia I, a Canadian, had to show proof of my ability to support myself, evidence that I was employable, travel from the east coast of Canada to Ottawa with my entire family (a two day each way trip) at my expense. We arrived the day before Australia Day 1981. As the plane came in over Sydney to land (runway 16R) I looked down and a thought lashed out: Two and a half million people down there and you don’t know one single, solitary soul!
    Since that day until 2007 I drew not one single penny from the coffers of Australia. I paid plenty in!
    Immigration is not a problem if, and only if, you keep the quality up the and the rate of intake is reasonable. Dumping, and that is what is happening, unskilled, ill educated, immigrants into Sydney & Melbourne and hoping that they will integrate is foolish. It is management by statistics and is stupid.
    The protests you hear on this blog are not, I think, so much against ALL immigration as against the way that is is being managed by the potentiality greatest Prime Minister’s government.

  74. Does that not display your contempt for our border or immigration controls? If not then maybe best you explain your inane comment

    No it doesnt. But please continue to verbal me.

  75. Makka

    I quoted you Spartacus. You are doing the verballing.

    Explain yourself then , what exactly did you mean?

  76. jupes

    I reckon what this county needs is more Muslims. Qataris would be best I think, mixed in with some terrorists members of the Free Syrian Army.

    Think of the per-capita GDP!

  77. Makka

    JC and dotty, the Cat’s 2 open borders, BIG immigration, BIG Australia, libertarian loons – reduced to verballing and lying to scavenge a point.

    Lol. Carry on boys. You’re winning lots of fans I’m sure.

  78. jupes

    It is quite obvious Perth could do with an increase in migrants.

    Our bollards are still quite small.

  79. .

    Very droll jupes, but the Syrian Democratic Forces are pretty legit. That is what the better elements of the FSA moved to. We’ve had about 600 Qataris ever move here.

    On average, they’re the only Arabs who could afford a migration fee of 50k.

  80. .

    Now Makka, I quoted you.

    That’s not verballing. You’re not making any sense.

    *I don’t hate these people, but they can F*** off for at least 20 year*

    Okay, you *strongly dislike*them.

    Have it your way. 🙂

    I have said over and over again that we would probably see a reduction in immigration if we eliminated welfare for non-citizens.

    Australia really can be developed a lot further, it depends on cheap energy and repealing stupid, pointless and counterproductive green tape.

  81. Senile Old Guy

    I have said over and over again that we would probably see a reduction in immigration if we eliminated welfare for non-citizens. Australia really can be developed a lot further, it depends on cheap energy and repealing stupid, pointless and counterproductive green tape.

    But the uni-party will not do this. We know that. This must be done first.

  82. JC

    Calm down Makka. You’re not making any sense. Spitting out random abuse and fakenews won’t work to cover it up.

  83. P

    ‘National Disgrace’ – UK Home Office Rejects Syrian Christians, Refugee Intake 100 Percent Muslim

    Despite the persecution of Christians at the hands of Islamic extremists in Syria having been declared genocide by the U.S., the European Union (EU) and even British MPs themselves in a 2016 parliamentary vote, the 1,112 Syrians that Britain resettled in the first three months of 2018 consisted only of Muslims.

  84. struth

    Can an economics professor please tell me how bringing millions of immigrants into a welfare ridden shithole is good for the economy?

    We understand your preference to grow your own “industry” through migration, but bringing people in to sit on welfare because this is an over regulated socialist , welfare and government services flooded shithole with no real industry other than serving each other coffee, helps the national economy how? Please don’t quote the socialist GDP yardstick, that includes government expenditure.

  85. Boambee John

    JC
    #2776364, posted on July 30, 2018 at 4:46 pm
    But the Doomlord doesn’t want government (central planners in Canberra) in control of immigration, so who does the choosing?

    Poll the people.

    Put up a top x list and tell the public the result will mean we only take from the top y they chose

    The punters would have a better feel than Canberra parasites anyway

    Interesting idea.

    If you seriously think the power grabbers in Canberra, APS and politicians together, would have a bar of it, you have not been watching over the last decade.

  86. Boambee John

    Dot at 1828

    I have said over and over again that we would probably see a reduction in immigration if we eliminated welfare for non-citizens.

    Indeed, but until the LDP has the Parliamentary numbers to make this change, against the combined opposition of Labor, Greens and Liberals, we are stuck with the present system.

    So, as I asked on another thread, what is your plan for the reality we face here and now?

  87. Boambee John

    And dolitto re your desire to eliminate Red, Green and Black tape.

    How do you suggest we make progress in the reality of now?

  88. Rebel with cause

    Isn’t Tasmania what happens when you leave a state to be entirely populated by ageing baby bloomers? Apparently that is the dream for some Cats

  89. Explain yourself then , what exactly did you mean.

    Explain myself. Really. Any other demands?

    Have you had your Bex yet?

  90. Crossie

    Tony Abbott disappointsnyet again, announcing on radio today that he doesn’t want to change the leader but the policies.

    Tony, have you heard the one about personnel being the policy?

  91. stackja

    In 2009, TA didn’t want MT’s policy.

  92. RealWorld

    Sinc
    GDP is a useless number – you know that
    Per capita we are worse of, despite huge “GDP ” growth
    We would struggle to keep up with infrastructure and jobs for natural population growth, let alone the massive influx we have.
    If you have reasons for supporting huge population growth, OK – state them
    But I think we are worse off in many ways, including economically.
    Those coming in, on average do not have the earning capacity, or wealth of those already here – so each one takes us a little further backwards – and that’s before we go into infrastructure

  93. DaveR

    Cynical Sinc.

    Because growing the economy and educating people is just wrong.

    No, because we are not making the capital investment in infrastructure that is necessary to maintain living standards at this immigration rate, given that it is mainly going into 2 capital cities.

  94. Crossie

    Mitchell Porter
    #2776351, posted on July 30, 2018 at 4:39 pm
    I struggle endlessly to understand who it is that controls immigration to Australia, and what criteria they use in deciding who gets to become Australian. Tony Abbott says that immigration is now “driven by” business wanting cheap labor, and universities wanting more students. But a business or a university cannot literally grant you citizenship, so there’s something missing in this explanation. Who is it that liaises with business and university, listens to what they want, and has the power to set immigration policy so that they get what they want?

    Who decides? Certainly nobody who travels to and from work on M4 or M5. These people may vote but it means nothing, just an illusion of democracy.

  95. Crossie

    Those coming in, on average do not have the earning capacity, or wealth of those already here – so each one takes us a little further backwards – and that’s before we go into infrastructure

    The social welfare budget is not ballooning because of those luxurious payments to old age pensioners so they can keep warm in winter and cool in summer.

  96. Roger

    Because growing the economy and educating people is just wrong.

    Nice trolling, Sinclair.

  97. struth

    Sinc does tend to troll his own site.
    He says something silly and then never comes back to argue it.

    The man thinks TU.rN.rball was going to be brilliant.
    God bless him for this blog, but the man’s got the political smarts of a house brick.

  98. hzhousewife

    If you have reasons for supporting huge population growth, OK – state them

    I’d like to hear the reasons also. I suspect ponzi scheme myself.
    Melbourne may not be affected, but a lot of us are suffering a green drought. The recent 10 year drought could repeat itself. Insufficient water may be a big wake-up call in the cities, layered on top of transport and employment problems.

  99. Confused Old Misfit

    Well, really “… growing the economy and educating people is just wrong.” when you do it the way the Turnbull government is doing it.

  100. .

    GDP is a useless number – you know that

    No, it is flawed though.

    Per capita we are worse of, despite huge “GDP ” growth

    No, because that would mean real per capita GDP would have fallen by a fair whack. It hasn’t.

    It has not fallen since FY 2009.

    Those coming in, on average do not have the earning capacity, or wealth of those already here – so each one takes us a little further backwards

    So we should be a little more selective.

  101. .

    Going back to RBA and ABS data from 1958:

    Years that Australia has had negative real per capita GDP growth.

    1962
    1978
    1983
    1991
    1992
    2009

    Years of low to zero growth per capita real GDP growth

    1960
    1966
    1971
    1975
    1987
    2001
    2010

    2012-2015 had low trend growth (not as bad as some brief periods elsewhere in time) and 2011 had negative labour productivity growth.

    The upshot of this is that immigration is not the bogeyman it is being portrayed as. The argument for good quality migrants is robust. Other macroeconomic factors tend to matter more: capital expenditure, government debt, spending, money supply and effects on the FX rate, interest and inflation, net effects of regulation (such as IR) and tax policies in as much as how they affect overall production, expectations and productivity.

  102. Mark A

    .
    #2776691, posted on July 30, 2018 at 10:03 pm

    The upshot of this is that immigration is not the bogeyman it is being portrayed as. The argument for good quality migrants is robust. Other macroeconomic factors tend to matter more: capital expenditure, government debt, spending, money supply and effects on the FX rate, interest and inflation, net effects of regulation (such as IR) and tax policies in as much as how they affect overall production, expectations and productivity.

    I don’t pretend to know about the more intricate insides of economics, but if we had this growth of GDP, wouldn’t it be wise, to investigate how it was achieved and by whom?

    If it turns out that the growth happened despite, not because of migration, the we would be a lot better off without the additional burden of extra welfare recipients.

    If you say that the extra consumption was needed for the growth, then why don’t we just produce more and give it away to needy countries and still be better off?

  103. .

    I don’t pretend to know about the more intricate insides of economics, but if we had this growth of GDP, wouldn’t it be wise, to investigate how it was achieved and by whom?

    Yes of course, that is a sensible suggestion. We’ve had ongoing RPC GDP growth in the light of record immigration though.

    Previous studies (Tian and Shan, 1999) show that GDP and immigration are two-way causal. Their study also said that the increase in specialisation had outstripped the increase in the ratio of population growth to resource prices.

    I think we should also look at emigration. If we’re making life too hard for talented and hardworking people, we’re screwing up as well.

    As for migration since 1984 (data limitations). Check the table and chart it yourself:

    https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/about/reports-publications/research-statistics/statistics/live-in-australia/historical-migration-statistics

    Total perm. migration is largely the skill stream. All streams and the total preceded falling prior to the 1990-1992 recession when industry felt the recession first in 1988-1990 (evidenced by PPI and cap ex as well).

    Regarding the GFC and 2009 decline in real GDP per capita; the total and skilled stream dropped in 2009 to 2010. The child stream lagged the total and skilled stream by about a year though in its pattern here.

    Falling real capita GDP sees people emigrate (from other data) and stop coming here otherwise.

  104. Confused Old Misfit

    The argument for good quality migrants is robust.

    There can be no doubt of that. Nevertheless, too many migrants, of whatever quality, in too small a geogrphical location in too short a period of time create perceptions that no amount of rational statistical analysis will overcome.

  105. Confused Old Misfit

    Perceptions driven by incidents such as this:
    https://twitter.com/i/status/1023627358438338563

  106. mh

    …because legal migration is now increasingly out of the control of the government.

    That will be a truer statement once the Liberals sign the new UN immigration treaty.

  107. .

    Read that agreement. It is really whacky. Early education (2/3-5-year-olds) as a positive human right for migrants and refugees.

    This is just jobs for maaates, on top of signing away some executive power.

    Jobs for maates with a really obscure degree with little value…remember when Judith was the target of angry P-K teachers when she noted the same? There is nothing wrong with parents wanting to educate their very young children, but after the end of compulsory/publicly provided secondary education, the net benefit – is not even measurable.

    We should be moving away from compulsory and public education, which are both really outdated concepts from the early industrial revolution.

    Education at all levels can be obtained for free or for minimal communications fees these days, on top of public libraries, which are insignificant in cost compared to public schooling.

  108. Seco

    In Sinc’s defence his missus is probably a bit pissed his thin skinned anti ABC rantings are costing her dinner invitations so he’s rolled out the tried and true Abbott bash to square things up so she can can mingle with Lucy T again.

  109. Neville

    A bigger economy doesn’t mean living standards grow. You know that Sinc.

    Judith Sloan is correct, I think.
    There’s a vast difference between policies that grown an economy, and raise living standards, and policies for the orderly and measured growth of population by immigration, of whatever sort.

  110. struth

    Dot, you could import the best and brightest into Venezuela right now and it would do diddly squat and they still wouldn’t be able to feed themselves you pompous twat.
    Importing into socialism is beyond stupid.
    End of story.
    No matter who you’re importing.

  111. John Constantine

    The capital markets tightening up for everything except luxury elite apartment penthouses and welfare dogbox vertical gulags is becoming more obvious.

    The solution for the now massive capital requirements of agriculture is for them to be supplied by union super funds that have eternal capital inflows from the tax on employment the State gives the unions the power to levy,

    Or the population property Ponzi unwinds and land prices halve.

  112. Iampeter

    But if it is not the government that is controlling overseas migration, then who is?

    No one. Just like every other aspect of human life that doesn’t violate anyone’s rights.

    You’re basically asking “how will things work without central planning”.

    They will work very well.

  113. RealWorld

    Dot
    What’s the measure of per capita productive output?
    How are we doing in that regard?
    GDP is absurd – if I put 20k on the credit card for a Chinese entertainment system – that is not a positive

  114. bollux

    If we keep exporting our energy overseas for others to benefit from, soon, the only people able to afford our housing will be immigrants from countries we made rich. That would grow GDP as well, wouldn’t it?

  115. Leo G

    You’re basically asking “how will things work without central planning”.

    Yes, decentralised planning can work quite well.
    Anarchy, not so well.

  116. .

    RealWorld
    #2776886, posted on July 31, 2018 at 7:34 am
    Dot
    What’s the measure of per capita productive output?
    How are we doing in that regard?
    GDP is absurd – if I put 20k on the credit card for a Chinese entertainment system – that is not a positive

    The government is not borrowing so we can make private purchases of Chinese made goods.

    We had welfare for example before we had a crippling amount of government debt.

    Look at the equation again. G-T is a problem, but your conundrum is non-existent. There is also X-M.

    You are very confused.

    I hope you are not confusing government debt with the CAD.

  117. .

    you could import the best and brightest into Venezuela

    This has nothing to do with anything anyone else has said on this blog post and comments.

  118. .

    What’s the measure of per capita productive output?

    Sure, take government out, I agree.

    Given that migrants stop coming as incomes fall, they’re not to blame for this.

    It is uncontrolled government spending.

    Migration and even permanent non-citizens could fall and even emigrate if we cut off welfare.

    If congestion is a problem at the same time as government spending and immigration, there is your hint – the Parliaments we have are centrally planning congestion vis a vis employment in the public sector and welfare in the major cities.

    So there ought to be a number of different policy changes, not just immigration.

  119. Iampeter

    Yes, decentralised planning can work quite well.
    Anarchy, not so well.

    The alternative to central planning is not anarchy but rights protecting government and rights protecting government doesn’t regulate immigration.

  120. RealWorld

    Dot
    Not confused at all
    And not against skilled immigration
    GDP is a totally contrived, useless measure used by governments with no idea how to run the place without huge population growth
    Your attempts to deflect this truth are wasted

  121. .

    So measuring national income is a conspiracy to get an excuse for mass immigration?

    Loopy stuff.

  122. Vicki

    Businesses want to bring in labour because they want to keep their labour costs down

    My belief has always been that the business community in Australia favours Big Migration because it increases the market for their products/services.

    The Beast is self serving, you can’t blame it for that.

    But the rest of us should be assessing the bigger picture and the huge number of other factors that relate to this issue.

  123. mh

    My belief has always been that the business community in Australia favours Big Migration because it increases the market for their products/services.

    Agreed. I expect Tony Abbott had a thought bubble.

  124. Net migration currently 240,000. That’s 1% of the population.
    (Note this is migrants, NOT student visa holders or tourists etc)
    If these 240k sat on their arse and produced not one dollar, received their needs via redistribution, then the average PER CAPITA GDP would fall by 1%. That’s recession territory for individuals. YET the overall GDP will go up because these people need to eat, cloth and house themselves and use the health care system.

    So the question is, are these people producing anything and if so how much?
    Considering much of these 240k are family reunification, and about 10% of them refugees from shitholes, and considering there are figures suggesting that over 90% of them (the reffos) don’t have jobs after 5 years, I’d say we’d be hard pushed to suggest that the addition of 240k immigrants increases the per capita GDP.

    The only way those 240k would increase per capita GDP would be if a significant number were skilled labour who produce above average GDP and who do not just replace a local who would have or could have filled the position.

    It seems clear to me that whatever numbers of immigrants we accept each year, it is imperative both from an economic point of view and a social cohesion point of view that we discern who we take in (Positive discrimination don’t you know)
    It also seems clear to me as to why there is a divide between the bureaucrats and academics on one side, and the average bloke on the other. The average bloke experiences the recession on a personal level. the academic doesn’t.

  125. .

    Relevant data has been discussed above. Per capita GDP has grown each year from 2012 to 2017.

    Net migration currently 240,000. That’s 1% of the population.

    The only way those 240k would increase per capita GDP

    Is if GDP grows by more than 1%.

    would be if a significant number were skilled labour who produce above average GDP

    No.

    You’re confusing marginal and average effects.

    and who do not just replace a local who would have or could have filled the position.

    This is an unqualified argument.

    It seems clear to me that whatever numbers of immigrants we accept each year, it is imperative both from an economic point of view and a social cohesion point of view that we discern who we take in

    Of course.

    The average bloke experiences the recession on a personal level. the academic doesn’t.

    The average wage earner earns more than A and B level academics. The idea that ivory towers insulate people from purchasing power falling or redundancies is stuck in the 1960s.

  126. Confused Old Misfit

    It also seems clear to me as to why there is a divide between the bureaucrats and academics on one side, and the average bloke on the other. The average bloke experiences the recession on a personal level. the academic doesn’t.

    Absolutely correct!
    Basing policy on evidence is good practice but our policy makers studiously ignore and neglect to gather evidence on public perceptions.

  127. Leo G

    The alternative to central planning is not anarchy but rights protecting government and rights protecting government doesn’t regulate immigration.

    The alternative to central planning is decentralised planning.

  128. RealWorld

    Dot
    GDP is not a measure of national income

  129. .

    GDP is not a measure of national income

    Yes it is. One of many.

  130. Hey dot, just because per capita GDP has increased, doesn’t mean that increase was due to those 240k immigrants. They may have detracted from an otherwise higher result. That seems obvious don’t you think?

    Look, if you wish to increase the temperature of a bucket of water, you don’t do it by adding cold water to it.
    If you add to the population a number of people who produce LESS THAN THE PER CAPITA AVERAGE, you are DILUTING. This is not controversial.

  131. .

    What you said is conditional and it is uncertain that it is correct. Your analogy overtly assumes all immigrants are below average. You do not know for certain that assumption is correct.

    You either need to look at comparing first and second order effects or disaggregate the data.

    What is happening right now is per capita GDP growth is increasing, it has done so each year from 2012 to 2017.

    However, that rate of growth is lower than from 2001 to 2006.

    The rate of per capita GDP change is positive but at a declining rate.

    It is entirely reasonable to conclude with certainty that immigration does raise living standards but the quality of migrants is declining, and with less certainty, assume that perhaps there are too many.

  132. .
    #2777170, posted on July 31, 2018 at 2:22 pm

    What you said is conditional and it is uncertain that it is correct. Your analogy overtly assumes all immigrants are below average. You do not know for certain that assumption is correct.

    FFS dot. I tossed some plausible concepts on the floor. I didn’t make definitive claims until the very end.
    ergo…

    If these 240k sat on their arse and produced not one dollar,

    See that? it says IFFFFF.

    So the question is, are these people producing anything and if so how much?

    See that? It’s a quveschun ??????? not a statement of fact.

    The only way those 240k would increase per capita GDP would be if a significant number were skilled labour who produce above average GDP

    See that again? That funny little word IFFFFFF.

    It also seems clear to me as to why there is a divide between the bureaucrats and academics on one side, and the average bloke on the other. The average bloke experiences the recession on a personal level. the academic doesn’t.

    Now there dot, right there I made a claim. Have at it, knock yourself out about this claim, but the rest is tossed in for discussion.

    Your analogy overtly assumes all immigrants are below average. You do not know for certain that assumption is correct.

    I think that is what’s called a strawman. Build it and knock it down. Well done dot.

  133. .

    So you’re making a lot of if statements then attacking someone else’s position?

    That’s called prevarication.

  134. Show me this “position” you are talking about, then show me where and how I attacked it.
    Quotes please.

  135. .

    You assumed all migrants had less than average productivity as a fact.

  136. Howard Hill

    Because growing the economy and educating people is just wrong.

    That’s why the left are winning. Libertarians.Too.Stupid.To.Survive.

  137. .

    Except it is the major conservative parties in Australia which have been taken over and destroyed by Fabian socialists, Howard.

  138. .
    #2777245, posted on July 31, 2018 at 4:08 pm

    You assumed all migrants had less than average productivity as a fact.

    I am calling you a low life lying PIECE OF SHIT.
    If you disagree, QUOTE ME WHERE I STATED AS FACT ALL MIGRANTS HAD LESS THAN AVERAGE PRODUCTIVITY.

    You keep telling me what I said WITHOUT QUOTING ME you lying little prick.

  139. .

    No, you were prevaricating all along:

    “Not controversial” whilst making a long list of homework chores for others in the form of what if statements.

    In your longer post prior to that, you ignored that GDP per capita income was rising as immigration continued to grow. I outlined all of the data above. You ignored it and asked questions about a hypothetical situation. So you’re either not talking about Australia or ignoring the data.

    Which one is it? Or is it both?

    I did make a concession that the rate of per capita GDP growth is, however, lower than an earlier period in recent history. I tried to explain your error in confusing marginal and average effects, along with different rates of change yet you ignored those facts again.

  140. fatfingers

    What a childish comment Sinclair. If you cannot see the silliness of your statement, perhaps Catallaxy is not your spot.

    How far Catallaxy has fallen, that the Doomlord himself is no longer welcome.

  141. Nerblnob

    Good business conditions attract entrepreneurial immigrants.

    There is surely a reverse benefit whereby an inflow of entrepreneurial immigrants boosts the economy with innovation and risktaking but to assume that immigration in itself is always a net positive is arsebackwardness.

    A growing economy also needs immigrant workers as well as investors/entrepreneurs but that’s as far as the correlation goes as far as I can see.

    Australia has torpedoed the positive relationship between business conditions and immigration by wrecking the business environment.

  142. .
    #2777307, posted on July 31, 2018 at 5:44 pm

    You still did not quote me.
    So all I got to say is fvck off you obstinate little prick. We’re done.

  143. egg_

    per capita GDP has increased,

    Probably as artificial a metric as ‘global mean surface air temperature’.

  144. .

    You’re frustrated that you do not understand the subject matter.

    I have explained it all in full for you.

    I did not take any of what you said out of context (what regular blog crybullies call “verballing”) and you refused to even consider the data (all laid out plainly above).

    Your hypothetical was trite and irrelevant; yet you were arrogant enough to refuse to any questions yourself.

    If you don’t understand basic differential calculus, you can learn that on Khan Academy.

  145. .

    egg

    Outline your objections to GDP as a metric and propose another measure of national income.

    I do not think most people have a radical vie like me where they believe that the government should not even collect statistics.

  146. egg_

    Per capita world’s greatest ‘carbon emitters’.

  147. .
    #2777580, posted on July 31, 2018 at 11:27 pm

    You’re frustrated that you do not understand the subject matter.

    I’m unhappy about wasting my time with an obstinate arsehole who put words in my mouth. I called you out on it and asked you to QUOTE ME three times, you didn’t quote me at all and still refuse to.
    It’s not about the merits of our positions, it’s about cnuts like you who assign words to people like me that we didn’t utter, then you argue against those fake words.
    Go fvck yourself you low life lousy piece of shit, for wasting my time.

  148. .

    It’s not about the merits of our positions

    Yes, it bloody well is.

    That is the entire point of a discussion you fool.

    Especially when you make up hypotheticals and deny the real world data presented before you.

    How dare you accuse me of “putting words in your mouth” when you refused to accept the data that gainsaid your assumptions, then you asked loaded hypothetical questions?

    Go fvck yourself you low life lousy piece of shit, for wasting my time.

    No no no no no. You can go fuck yourself until your heart’s content.

    You don’t get to be high and mighty when you prevaricated from the get-go.

Comments are closed.