Our population is increasing by “another Canberra every year”

That’s a scarily effective metric in Judith Sloan’s repudiation of “Big Australia” and its urgers.

This entry was posted in Cultural Issues, Economics and economy. Bookmark the permalink.

100 Responses to Our population is increasing by “another Canberra every year”

  1. C.L. says:

    Pandemic proves ‘Big Australia’ is a mistake.

    Telling everyone that I told you so can be a tad churlish, but I’m sure many readers will forgive me if I say I told you so. Among a very short list of other commentators, I have been pointing out the downsides of our rapid population growth based on very high rates of immigration for years.

    When net overseas migration (the difference between long-term arrivals and long-term departures) makes up two-thirds of our population growth and our population is expanding at the rate of another Canberra every year, most sensible people think we have a problem.

    At a minimum, it is surely obvious that the benefits of immigration at this scale are offset by costs, and that these costs are not borne evenly across people or place. These costs are wide-­ranging in kind: lower wage growth, particularly for unskilled and semi-skilled workers; urban congestion; loss of urban amenity and social cohesion; and ­pressure on services, including health and schooling.

    But the Big Australia urgers are a pushy lot, not keen to truck opposition to the policy settings that often underpin their commercial interests. The property industry is an obvious member of this club, with the companies ­reliant on more and more clients to purchase or rent their often shoddy constructions.

    More recently, the universities and other educational institutions have joined the club. They have become increasingly reliant on international students to fund outsized managerial salaries, vast building programs and selected research activities, even if this has come at the expense of the quality of the education, particularly for local students.

    Less forgivable is the unrelenting academic and bureaucratic support for high rates of immigration, even in the face of the obvious challenges these high rates create. The demographers at the Australian National University — note they are not economists — are a standout example here, but there are others.

    The Treasury is well known for its support of Big Australia, something that has been reinforced by the creation of a separate propaganda unit called the Centre for Population. Its recently released Population Statement is not only extremely sloppy, it is also lopsided.

    Take the following quote: “Migration is important in ameliorating some of the economic impacts of our ageing population, as migrants tend to arrive at a younger age than the average Australian. This means they are generally in a position to ­contribute to our workforce, and have a higher participation rate than the rest of the population. Because migrants tend to arrive at a relatively young age, they are also more likely to be in a position to have children. This means their arrival not only ­contributes to immediate population growth, but also future population growth through their children.

    “If there were no future migration … we would miss out on the demographic and economic benefits migrants bring by increasing the proportion of people working and paying income tax, and decreasing the proportion of people drawing on government services.”

    Where do you start? Obviously, the authors are unaware of the careful work done by the Productivity Commission to demonstrate that immigration has no noticeable impact on the demographic composition of population, in part because ­migrants themselves age.

    As for the notion that migrants come to Australia merely to pay taxes so we can all benefit, this is naive beyond belief. Recently, most migrants have not been paying taxes at all given the slant towards working holiday makers and international students working part-time. And then we have the parent visa entrants sponsored by their children; they won’t be paying taxes.

    It’s not clear that just having more people really does anything to our fiscal position, either federally or at the state level.

    Let’s also not forget that it’s GDP per capita, not GDP, which drives living standards. Of course, having more people will expand GDP. But over the past decade or so, we have had large-scale immigration associated with stalling per capita GDP growth (and associated sluggish productivity growth).

    We now have the Reserve Bank’s wavering position on immigration. At one stage, the governor, Philip Lowe, flagged his support for Big Australia by telling the assembled audience: “Our immigration program I see as a source of national strength. To give that advantage up just so that we can take some pressure off housing prices, I find kind of problematic.”

    At another venue he talked favourably about the impact of immigration on innovation, although he provided no evidence of the link.

    But the RBA has now gone 180 degrees on immigration, acknowledging that all along immigration was suppressing wage growth by bringing in more workers and that lower population is likely to be associated with higher per capita GDP.

    The point is we have a good experiment here: large scale immigration followed by no immigration, and we can trace the effects in the labour market. Unemployment has fallen much more rapidly than expected and wage pressures are emerging. (Hey, the labour market is a ­market after all.)

    In its recent quarterly statement on monetary policy, the RBA remarked that “a sustained period of economic recovery could lead to wages pressures emerging more quickly if new ­labour supply remains constrained, particularly and foremost in areas of domestic skills shortages and where substantial time is involved in upskilling domestic workers”.

    It goes on: “The level of GDP is still expected to remain a little below that forecast before the pandemic, mostly due to lower population growth; in per capita terms, GDP is expected to be on a higher trajectory.”

    It’s not just the RBA making these points. A number of the big-bank economists have come around to this point of view, including Gareth Aird of Commonwealth Bank. Professor Ross Garnaut has observed that recent migrant intakes have not been mainly made up of skilled workers — even among the permanent intake — and have been a drag on Australia’s economic performance.

    Saul Eslake has done the arithmetic to show the much lower growth in employment that is now required to soak up the growth in the labour force, meaning bigger falls in unemployment can come sooner.

    The key question is: will the government fall for the Big Australia trap when the international borders are finally opened up?

    According to Treasury’s Population Statement, there is an expectation that net overseas migration will return to its pre-pandemic levels (around 250,000 extra persons per year), which doubtless will form the basis of its advice.

    Recent comments made by the Treasurer indicate that he will be more than willing to accept this shoddy advice.

    It’s critical that other voices are heard. Thankfully, the number of these alternative voices is increasing, as well as the noise they are making.

  2. Lee says:

    Could not agree more.
    But no doubt large scale immigration will continue due to vested interests.

  3. Roger says:

    We didn’t need a pandemic to prove that, but it’s been handy.

    Labor will continue with a Big Australia because they want to destroy the old Australia which they despise.

    The Liberals will do the same because they are beholden to big business who want lower wages and a more compliant workforce.

    Alternatives for Australia, please.

  4. H B Bear says:

    So long as it is not another actual Canberra should be no big deal. Plenty of lower skilled jerbs going begging by all accounts. Australia has always relied on foreign capital – and foreign workers so it seems.

  5. H B Bear says:

    If you are living in Sydney or Melbourne your experience may not be typical of the rest of Australia. Sorry to break that to you.

  6. H B Bear says:

    Won’t hurt to bust the Treasury sponsored population Ponzi though.

  7. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    Wouldn’t hurt to correct Dr Sloan’s name btw CL. Sorry to be picky.

    I think migration is excellent, and a large migration intake would be very good for Australia. But it has to be selective for competence and industriousness.

    We’ve had the points system for migration for a long time, but it seems to me this has been white-anted in the last decade or so, such that suddenly hairdressers are critically important professionals we need to import. And even students intending to study to become hairdressers. How crazy is that?

    In that it becomes a double craziness, as Dr Sloan points out. Bringing in hairdressers to fill a gap in the economy is just saying that we can’t get Australians to become hairdressers. Why is this the case? Is it such a bad job that no one is willing to do it, or is the bureaucratic yoke around their necks too much to want to bother with? I think the latter.

    So, although I very much like the idea of actually skilled migrant intake, especially of industrious people willing to work, I’d rather the door be shut than to bring in masses of “hairdressers” who weirdly never seem to actually cut anyone’s hair.

  8. Texas Jack says:

    Roger says:
    May 11, 2021 at 2:22 pm

    Alternatives for Australia, please…

    I suggest if you’re serious about fighting back on the migration intake you should lobby Mark Latham to exit the NSW LC and go federal. Then convince him to campaign like blazes to get back to holding the balance of power in the Senate with his flare for the necessary horse-trading on the topic. I can’t see anything like this happening or being remotely viable while Ms Hanson remains leader.

  9. Simple Simon says:

    immigration has no noticeable impact on the demographic composition of population, in part because ­migrants themselves age.

    Immigrants themselves age? Who woulda thunk it?

    Nevertheless, now that we have this astounding new information and in order to address the crisis that it entails we clearly need taxpayer-funded research projects to determine whether immigrants age at the same rate as native-born Australians.

  10. Simple Simon says:

    the notion that migrants come to Australia merely to pay taxes so we can all benefit … is naive beyond belief. Recently, most migrants have not been paying taxes at all given the slant towards working holiday makers and international students working part-time. And then we have the parent visa entrants

    Why, it’s almost as if the immigration program has not been properly thought out, or the justifications for it have been dodgy, or it has been hijacked by special interests. ‘Say it ain’t so, Joe!’

  11. MACK says:

    Same principle applies to the capital cities getting bigger – builders build more houses, governments get more stamp duty, urban infrastructure is cheaper than rural. But everyone gets to live in little Hong Kong in apartments, kids get short-sighted and overweight, and sports become difficult. Where are the sensible politicians?

  12. Leo G says:

    “Migration is important in ameliorating some of the economic impacts of our ageing population, as migrants tend to arrive at a younger age than the average Australian.”

    At what age does the average Australian arrive?
    How can migrants arrive earlier than conception?

  13. Infidel Tiger King says:

    Covid 19 has been a God send in stopping the immigration ponzi.

    Long may it continue.

  14. mareeS says:

    Bigger Australia is affecting our regional cities as well. We paid $33k for our beachside house at a stretch for young newlyweds as we were in 1975, our neighbours’ children have just sold the adjoining property for $3.2m to a developer. It is excruciating seeing good houses in our beachside knocked down in a day as elderly people die off and duplexes arise as the kids sell out.

    Ours are a bit different, they work away in WA mining and defence, and love their surf, so we have deal with them to keep our 100yo home as a going concern into the future.

  15. Diogenes says:

    Plenty of lower skilled jerbs going begging by all accounts. Australia

    What would you call it when somebody with 10 years call centre work, that applies for call centre work, and the agency wont pass on the application, because you have been unemployed for a year after their employer closed down.

    ­migrants themselves age.

    How many return home with an aussie pension, and then come back again to take advantage of medicare when they start becoming really decrepit?

  16. jupes says:

    Not mentioned here is the question of who we allow to immigrate.

    Now that we have allowed over 400,000 from the RoP and over 1,000,000 Chicoms, perhaps we could pause and consider the national security implications of our non-discriminatory immigration policy.

  17. JC says:

    Let’s also not forget that it’s GDP per capita, not GDP, which drives living standards. Of course, having more people will expand GDP. But over the past decade or so, we have had large-scale immigration associated with stalling per capita GDP growth (and associated sluggish productivity growth).

    Well yes and no because it all depends how it’s used and if used carefully and thoughtfully. Here’s why.

    Several years ago a township or more like a outside burb of NYC was counted as the poorest in the country. If not the poorest, it was certainly up there. The assessment was made by the quantitative deduction of per capita GDP. Looking closer into the innards of the township it was found to be populated mostly by Hasidic j: ews. One unique feature of the group is that they have 10,000 per couple…. I’m exaggerating the number, but not by much -:) Spreading GGP around this group to figure out poverty rates is senseless and they certainly aren’t poor.

  18. Boambee John says:

    Now that we have allowed over 400,000 from the RoP and over 1,000,000 Chicoms, perhaps we could pause and consider the national security implications of our non-discriminatory immigration policy.

    A genuine skills based program (excluding hairdressers and fingernail “technicians”) would exclude most of those, including the university students, who come to acquire skills (and residency), not with skills.

  19. jupes says:

    A genuine skills based program (excluding hairdressers and fingernail “technicians”) would exclude most of those, including the university students, who come to acquire skills (and residency), not with skills.

    Maybe, but a discriminatory immigration policy would exclude 100% of them.

  20. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    Covid 19 has been a God send in stopping the immigration ponzi.

    It certainly had an amazing effect on the Left, which went from wide open to every ratbag on the planet to totally shut because cooties. If we had Olympic gymnasts with that sort of ability we’d be rolling in medals.

  21. eb says:

    Hey JC. I presume you meant to say 10,000 kids per couple.

  22. Damon says:

    Malthus was right. Just a century or two ahead of his time.

  23. Infidel Tiger King says:

    There is precisely zero need for immigration.

    If business cant find labour they can either pay more or train people.

    A million people on unemployment benefits, another million on the disability and we plan to import 300,000 third worlders per annum tells me we don’t have a labour shortage, we have something much worse.

  24. thefrollickingmole says:

    They lie about a shrinking population.

    https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BriefingBook43p/populationgrowth
    Older study.

    In 2009, Australia’s population grew by two per cent with Net Overseas Migration (NOM) accounting for 64 per cent of this growth and natural increase (births minus deaths) contributing 36 per cent. Migration flows are therefore a key factor contributing to population growth.

    How many times have you seen it said ‘we need migration for population growth”.

    What they mean is we need migration to help run the ponzi scheme.

  25. miltonf says:

    There is precisely zero need for immigration.

    If business cant find labour they can either pay more or train people.

    A million people on unemployment benefits, another million on the disability and we plan to import 300,000 third worlders per annum tells me we don’t have a labour shortage, we have something much worse.
    Agree 100%

  26. thefrollickingmole says:

    A bit more from that link that demonstrates why unis are just migration markets.

    Temporary migrants
    Overseas students and business long stay (a) visa grants
    Year Overseas students

    Source: J Philips and M Klapdor, op cit.
    2000–01 146 577
    2001–02 151 894
    2002–03 162 575
    2003–04 171 616
    2004–05 174 786
    2005–06 190 674
    2006–07 228 592
    2007–08 278 180
    2008–09 320 368

  27. miltonf says:

    Mark Latham’s Outsiders
    31 December 2017 at 16:40 ·
    THE TOP FIVE POLICIES AUSTRALIA NEEDS IN 2018:
    1. Reduce our immigration intake from 200,000 pa to the 20th century average of 70,000, to take the pressure off housing prices, jobs, wages and city congestion.
    2. Big personal income tax cuts, reducing the top marginal rate from 49% to 35%, with other rates coming down to 25 and 15%. This would reboot the economy by giving businesses and workers extra incentive. They should work for themselves, not the taxman!
    3. End Australia’s energy crisis and reduce prices by lifting all restrictions on energy production. We should be a global energy superpower, with abundant fossil, renewable and nuclear power.
    4. Fight back against political correctness by abolishing Leftist sinkholes like the ABC, SBS and Human Rights Commission, and cleaning cultural Marxism out of our universities and schools.
    5. Win the war on terror by introducing a Trump-style travel ban and locking up mentally-ill radicals who threaten public safety.

    Mark really needs to be in national politics.

  28. Roger says:

    Mark really needs to be in national politics.

    I agree.

    Can someone in NSW persuade him of that?

    His concerns are national issues, not state level matters.

  29. C.L. says:

    Thanks, Bruce. Done.
    ———————
    Agree, Roger.
    He’s in a small arena fighting the big battles.
    Go big, Mark.

  30. feelthebern says:

    Mark Latham is part way through an 8 year term.
    Post that, odds on for another 8 years.
    Outside of peak, he’s an hour from Macquarie street.
    He marches to the beat of his own drum.

    Why would he want to join the PHON circus in Canberra?

  31. gardez bien says:

    I remember watching a Panorama programme with my dad many moons ago. It was about crime and imprisonment. The egg-head Expert from the Howard Penal Reform League argued, passionately, that ‘putting people in prison doesn’t work ‘. My dad, equally passionate said ‘ because you keep letting the fuckers OOT!’.

    It’s similar with immigration. Stop letting them in, or more sensibly have a smaller intake.

  32. Ƶĩppʯ (ȊꞪꞨV) says:

    marxism uber ales!

    Take the following quote: “Migration is important in ameliorating some of the economic impacts of our ageing populationherding women into the workforce

    finxgly!!

  33. Sinclair Davidson says:

    Hmmmmmmmmm – if we banned farm equipment we’d have zero unemployment.

  34. Judge Dredd says:

    Immigration = Invasion.
    Demographics is destiny and culture don’t like mixing as bloodshed eventually abound.

  35. JC says:

    eb yes, 10,000 kids per couple. 🙂

  36. feelthebern says:

    The student migration channel is by far the most productive for Australia.
    It could/should be managed better.
    But it shits over every other migration channel.

  37. Roger says:

    Hmmmmmmmmm – if we banned farm equipment we’d have zero unemployment.

    Now that is a topic that deserves its own thread.

    Along with trucks vs, trains.

  38. Infidel Tiger says:

    The student migration channel is by far the most productive for Australia.
    It could/should be managed better.
    But it shits over every other migration channel.

    It’s probably the worst thing that has ever happened to this country.

    Has destroyed our tertiary education system, inner duties and filled our country with unwholesome grifters and spies.

  39. Infidel Tiger says:

    Inner cities.

  40. feelthebern says:

    It has brought in the biggest cohort of pro family, property owning, capitalists that Australia has ever seen.

  41. Infidel Tiger says:

    Chicoms are nothing of the sort. Don’t talk rubbish.

    The post WWII Southern Europeans and poms added value. Nothing since has come close.

  42. Squirrel says:

    This problem would so easily be solved if we had a Labor Party which actually represented all working Australians (not just unionists, increasingly of the public sector variety) and a Greens Party which cared about the carrying capacity of the Australian environment (rather than spruiking for renewables rent-seekers and the victim industry).

    In such a world, the Coalition would be under far more pressure to justify their Big Australia policies, and would have to scale immigration back to what is truly necessary for a sustainable economy (as opposed to the current Ponzi scheme) which does not rely on ever-increasing debt.

    The waste of human capital – because immigration is so much easier – in Australia is a disgrace on moral and economic grounds. An education industry which can spend so much money, and still so badly fail to meet the nation’s skills needs, deserves special mention.

    The federal Treasury, which seems to be the bureaucratic epicentre of the Big Australia bullshit, should be relocated from the salubrious climes of Canberra to western Sydney – then they’ll discover the true benefits of all the vibrancy and diversity which their policy crusading has produced. Likewise for the luvvies at the RBA, who clearly seem to be oblivious to the impact of insane housing prices on family formation and thus the birth rate which the pointy heads fret about so much.

  43. feelthebern says:

    The post WWII Southern Europeans and poms added value. Nothing since has come close.

    The numbers of students who progressive to permanent residency are multiples of the post war migration.
    In percentage terms of population at the time, I don’t know.
    Not all post war migrants were as productive as the propaganda would have you believe.

  44. PeterW says:

    Sinclair Davidson says:
    May 11, 2021 at 5:15 pm
    Hmmmmmmmmm – if we banned farm equipment we’d have zero unemployment.

    Would that be because the unemployed were all working on farms….. or because they had all starved to death because the was not enough food ?

    Just curious….

  45. Infidel Tiger says:

    The numbers of students who progressive to permanent residency are multiples of the post war migration.

    Yep. Complete scam. They are only at uni to grift citizenship and undermine our society.

    A complete and total disaster for our country.

  46. feelthebern says:

    The question is do we take migrants, and the answer is yes.
    The question becomes how do we do it.
    My view is that the vast majority should come via student migration.

  47. Infidel Tiger says:

    We have need for maybe 5 immigrants a year. All of them should be nuclear technicians.

  48. feelthebern says:

    You are adding people in their early twenties, mostly in professional roles, to the tax base.
    And they pay our uni’s 50k per year, up front for the privilege.
    It’s a virtuous circle.

  49. Ƶĩppʯ (ȊꞪꞨV) says:

    Hmmmmmmmmm – if we banned farm equipment we’d have zero unemployment.

    Not sure if this was aimed at my comment, but the economic impact of herding wynemsis into the workforce is a below replacement birth rate. Short term gain for long term pain.

  50. jupes says:

    My view is that the vast majority should come via student migration.

    Yes. What could possibly go wrong with inviting another million Chicoms to live here?

  51. Lee says:

    Hmmmmmmmmm – if we banned farm equipment we’d have zero unemployment.

    If we brought back the old British workhouse for the able-bodied unemployed, there would be no unemployment, because absolutely no one would want to go there!
    Instead they wouldn’t be so pick and choosy about getting a job, any job.

  52. Zyconoclast says:

    I think migration is excellent, and a large migration intake would be very good for Australia. But it has to be selective for competence and industriousness.

    The two biggest sources for a long time have been India and China.

    It will get to the point there will be a demarcation line where they fight using medieval weapons.

  53. Infidel Tiger says:

    You are adding people in their early twenties, mostly in professional roles, to the tax base.
    And they pay our uni’s 50k per year, up front for the privilege.
    It’s a virtuous circle.

    This sounds like the sort of total and complete wank a libertarian think tank would put in their pamphlet.

    University is a waste of time for 97% of graduates. If foreigners were smart they wouldn’t be coming to Australia for uni to start with. A complete scam to con your way into this dump.

  54. Sinclair Davidson says:

    Would that be because the unemployed were all working on farms….. or because they had all starved to death because the was not enough food ?

    Probably some combination of those two factors.

    Not sure if this was aimed at my comment …

    No – that would be a partial solution. Why go back to the 1950s to solve unemployment when we can go to the 1750s and achieve the same outcome?

  55. feelthebern says:

    University is a waste of time for 97% of graduates.

    Yes & international students subsidise the Aussie students.

    If foreigners were smart they wouldn’t be coming to Australia for uni to start with

    If they want to pay $50k per year up front, good on them.

    A complete scam to con your way into this dump.

    Yes, but there are many scams & at least this one is cash flow positive for tax payers.
    Who do you want?
    Another 100k welfare seekers?

  56. Boambee John says:

    Zycon

    It will get to the point there will be a demarcation line where they fight using medieval weapons.

    Not all that medieval. Take a look at the collection of WW I trench clubs in the AWM.

  57. Squirrel says:

    By way of a PS to my earlier rant, Judith’s point about GDP per capita vs. total GDP is highly relevant, but just as important is the fact that for all the years of talk about our “skilled” immigration intake, we still rely very heavily on mining and agriculture exports to pay our way in the world.

    Those two sectors of the economy do depend (more so than they should have to) on immigration, but they are both relatively small employers and could operate perfectly well with a population far less than the 25m.+ that we now have. The same could be said for the other sectors which earn serious export dollars.

    If our immigration intakes over many years had been as highly skilled as we have been told, we should have a far more sophisticated economy producing exports to match.

  58. m0nty says:

    Hmmmmmmmmm – if we banned farm equipment we’d have zero unemployment.

    Ban mining equipment instead. If the world wants our lithium they will have to dig it out with their bare hands like in the good old days.

  59. JC says:

    Well you would be any help, Fatboy. You’d be puffed out after the first handful of dirt.

  60. jupes says:

    Who do you want?
    Another 100k welfare seekers?

    Or another 100 Confuscious centres?

  61. Sinclair Davidson says:

    GDP per capita, not GDP, which drives living standards.

    GDP per capita does not drive living standards – it is an ex post measure and in a services economy not a particularly accurate one either.

  62. Sinclair Davidson says:

    Ban mining equipment instead.

    Once you ban farming equipment, we’d be too busy trying to grow our own food to be worrying about international trade.

  63. JC says:

    Call me old fashioned, but I always understood that productivity gains raised living standards. At least that’s what I was taught.

  64. Roger says:

    Yes, but there are many scams & at least this one is cash flow positive for tax payers.

    Not by the time you factor in their welfare draw over a lifetime.

    I remember having this argument with dot, who thought a $50K bond was sufficient.

  65. feelthebern says:

    What welfare draw from a student migrant?
    They are working, paying taxes, consuming.

  66. sfw says:

    If mass migration of lowskilled, uber drivers, car washers and all the other jobs that they compete against the lowest skilled Australians ceases, it will be good for allof us except those who think we don’t have enough different cuisines, anyone keen on millet? Anyway without the migrants driving down unskilled wages, two things will happen, one – wages will rise for the less skilled, 2 – there will be pressure to increase productivity in those areas, both things are better for us than just bringing in someone who will work for less. Can’t see it happening, both Libs and Labor love cheap unskilled labour.

  67. Roger says:

    What welfare draw from a student migrant?
    They are working, paying taxes, consuming.

    over a lifetime

  68. feelthebern says:

    Roger are you saying a student migrant costs taxpayers more than a welfare shopper?

  69. gardez bien says:

    GDP per capita does not drive living standards, not prosperity
    And neither does GDP. The question is whether any wealth is being created, and of so from what.

    .

  70. Roger says:

    For their sponsored relatives as well.

    Two + decades ago my immigrant wife tried to sponsor her widower father who had a British government backed colonial pension. He was refused a visa because he was diabetic and likely to be an ongoing burden upon the Australian tax payer. Died with only a house girl to give him comfort. More recently her sister sponsored her mil. Also diabetic. No pension. Straight in, straight onto the aged pension and Medicare without ever having contributed to the common wealth of this country. She now spends her time between Australia and the home country (covid permitting) courtesy the tax payer. Unbelievable, you say. And yet, there it is.

  71. Roger says:

    And my wife was a student migrant, as was her sister, some years apart.

    Immigrant communities are very aggressive in pursuing their interests, bern, and politicans eager for votes are eager to listen and oblige.

  72. feelthebern says:

    Comparing the current day student immigrant to migrant students from decades ago is not being genuine.
    The visa classes that exist today didn’t even exist back then.
    And the family reunion loop holes for permanent residents via the student visa pathway have been long closed.

  73. feelthebern says:

    Immigrant communities are very aggressive in pursuing their interests, bern, and politicans eager for votes are eager to listen and oblige.

    So what’s to stop other communities pursuing their interests & lobbying politicians?

  74. Sinclair Davidson says:

    I always understood that productivity gains raised living standards.

    Indeed – yet the challenge is that politicians shouldn’t target productivity itself because it is measured so inaccurately and improving productivity is something entrepreneurs do, not bureaucrats and politicians.

  75. Infidel Tiger says:

    Thank God for Covid. Long May it continue so we can at least temporarily halt the coming craziness.

  76. feelthebern says:

    Doesn’t impact you IT.

  77. C.L. says:

    Squirrel says:
    May 11, 2021 at 5:41 pm

    +This

    We have need for maybe 5 immigrants a year. All of them should be nuclear technicians.

    Don’t we need to import some quality ladies as well?

  78. Infidel Tiger says:

    Don’t we need to import some quality ladies as well?

    Our immigration system would probably bring in ladyboys.

  79. Boxcar says:

    There’s a well-worn truism ” If it’s not growing, it’s dying.”
    In Australia, the bureaucracy is growing, the unions are growing, and they have built themselves a wall around the working economy, so that it is dying from stifled entrepreneurship, lost manufacturing, and working mothers driven into jobs to fund the banksters.
    If anyone believes that anything can flourish beyond tomorrow without growth and nutrition, they really, really need to think their economic theories.
    The reality is that we need to become an autonomous nation.
    To get there we need manufacturing, to get manufacturing back we need low wages, and there are literally trillions of people around the planet looking for the opportunity to get any wages, and to build a life.
    During the 50’s & 60’s, low wage immigration did just this. Everyone benefitted. Haven’t heard too many claims for “Reparations” from working on the Snowy. Regulated population growth is for the bureaucrats and their spreadsheets.
    Subsidise manufacturing startups, enable supported low wage immigration, and let’s start growing not dying.

  80. Leo G says:

    In 2009, Australia’s population grew by two per cent with Net Overseas Migration (NOM) accounting for 64 per cent of this growth and natural increase (births minus deaths) contributing 36 per cent. Migration flows are therefore a key factor contributing to population growth.

    Looking at the 2019 ABS data- adjusting the net migration to include the effect of annual deaths of migrants, and adjusting the natural increase to exclude the annual deaths of migrants- the natural increase accounted for 51 per cent of Australia’s population growth.

  81. Anonandon says:

    From personal experience Melbourne is a shithole and far worse than it was in the mid/late 1990’s before it began it’s decline.

  82. m0nty says:

    Call me old fashioned, but I always understood that productivity gains raised living standards. At least that’s what I was taught.

    In a macro sense, yes. But in certain countries in recent times the benefits of productivity gains have mostly been captured by the 1%. You haven’t seen any of it if you’re a poor or middle class American, for instance.

  83. egg_ says:

    A team of mUnters pulling a plough would be a sight to see.

  84. Sinclair Davidson says:

    … the benefits of productivity gains have mostly been captured by the 1%.

    You say that like it is a bad thing.

  85. sfw says:

    It seems that Sinc is in the top 1% or hopes to get there.

  86. Boambee John says:

    m0nty says:
    May 11, 2021 at 8:54 pm
    Call me old fashioned, but I always understood that productivity gains raised living standards. At least that’s what I was taught.

    In a macro sense, yes.

    What productivity gains have been made in the fantasy football business lately? How much was shared with the poorer members of society?

  87. feelthebern says:

    A team of mUnters pulling a plough would be a sight to see.

    Enough sugar cubes, you’d be surprised how productive they are.

  88. Simple Simon says:

    Sinclair Davidson says:
    May 11, 2021 at 5:15 pm
    Hmmmmmmmmm – if we banned farm equipment we’d have zero unemployment.

    Squirrel says:
    May 11, 2021 at 6:22 pm
    … for all the years of talk about our “skilled” immigration intake, we still rely very heavily on mining and agriculture exports to pay our way in the world.

    Your move, professor.

  89. Louis Litt says:

    Growth from the internal population. We have spent the pasttv50 yrs on socialcapital. What DrcSloan does not mention is that the cost of establishing refugees is 70k. As Mack mentioned, high rise in a box no green space unskilled jobs.
    The population will be as dumb as the people’s of North London who rioted.
    We need adventure to green the inland of Australia. Then you will have productive jobs, higher wages,more living space skinny people.
    Classism in architecture.

  90. Crossie says:

    migrants themselves age.

    How many return home with an aussie pension, and then come back again to take advantage of medicare when they start becoming really decrepit?

    That’s probably what a lot of the recent COVID closed borders induced kicking and screaming is about. Nobody allowed back into Oz.

  91. Crossie says:

    jupes says:
    May 11, 2021 at 3:31 pm
    Not mentioned here is the question of who we allow to immigrate.

    Now that we have allowed over 400,000 from the RoP and over 1,000,000 Chicoms, perhaps we could pause and consider the national security implications of our non-discriminatory immigration policy.

    And no by-your-leave from the citizenry. Last election was the first time most of us knew that’s how many Chinese were suddenly citizens and voters when ScoMo defended them from dual loyalty accusations.

  92. Crossie says:

    University is a waste of time for 97% of graduates. If foreigners were smart they wouldn’t be coming to Australia for uni to start with. A complete scam to con your way into this dump.

    Universities are nothing more than permanent residency visa factories. The standards have been so eroded that every foreign student with no English proficiency can pass as long as they pay their tuition. This has eroded the skills of local students as well. Nobody is getting an education.

  93. Crossie says:

    If foreigners were smart they wouldn’t be coming to Australia for uni to start with

    If they want to pay $50k per year up front, good on them.

    They don’t, the tuition fee is simply the entree fee and well worth the money considering their entitlements once they’re in.

  94. Crossie says:

    sfw says:
    May 11, 2021 at 6:50 pm
    If mass migration of lowskilled, uber drivers, car washers and all the other jobs that they compete against the lowest skilled Australians ceases, it will be good for allof us except those who think we don’t have enough different cuisines, anyone keen on millet? Anyway without the migrants driving down unskilled wages, two things will happen, one – wages will rise for the less skilled, 2 – there will be pressure to increase productivity in those areas, both things are better for us than just bringing in someone who will work for less. Can’t see it happening, both Libs and Labor love cheap unskilled labour.

    But who cares about the future of our children and grandchildren when there are millions to be made by building more Opal towers.

  95. Crossie says:

    And the family reunion loop holes for permanent residents via the student visa pathway have been long closed.

    Ha, ha, ha.

  96. PB says:

    “How many return home with an aussie pension, and then come back again to take advantage of medicare when they start becoming really decrepit?”

    Or use it as a bolt-hole when the home country goes tits-up (like India).

  97. Texas Jack says:

    We gotta get rid of preferential voting…

  98. Pete of Perth says:

    Ali G’s solution… fit women

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbaGry1F_VU

  99. rickw says:

    The purpose of immigration and multiculturalism is to create a society which is so finely divided that it is incapable of resisting any agenda.

  100. rickw says:

    A team of mUnters pulling a plough would be a sight to see.

    Enough sugar cubes, you’d be surprised how productive they are.

    Krispy Kreme donuts have a hole in them so they’re easy to put on a stick and dangle out in front of a team of mUnters.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.