BAYGON – I accept that GDP is an imperfect measure of economic welfare, but I suggest other measures (consumption, earnings etc) would tell a similar story.

I still hold that much infrastructure is a public good, and therefore the average cost declines as more people use it. That’s why, here in Western Australia, the government has to heavily subsidise the cost of electricity supply in smaller towns outside the metropolitan area to keep prices on a par with city prices. Over time a growing population tends to reduce the average infrastructure cost per household, not increase it.

Borrowing to finance infrastructure to support an expanding population is also a perfectly reasonable thing for governments to do. It means that the cost of providing that infrastructure is met by the people who use it.

My partner and I arrived in Australia 20+ years ago with enough money to buy a tatty weatherboard cottage outright. Since then we’ve moved on to a bigger home which we paid off from our income. We have university-level education and have been in full-time employment during almost all the subsequent period. We have never claimed unemployment or other benefits, and have contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes – far more that we have consumed in general government infrastructure and services. We have paid for the utilities we use. We’ll have enough savings to support ourselves in retirement.

How are you worse off financially by us being here?

@Rhian
Elsewhere in this thread I have described my experiences in working with overseas qualified professionals. Like yourself I am a migrant and have spent much of my working live in migrant advocacy.
However, I am also aware of the research that demonstrates that the first generation of migrants represent a greater cost than benefit to the community. This does not mean that this is true for every single migrant - however as an indifferentiated cohort it is true.
One reason for the government favouring overseas qualified professionals is that those who are most likely to make an immediate return are the overseas qualified. (we need to take into account the savings generated by not having to pay for their training.)
The problem here is that in my experience (I was involved in placing overseas qualified professionals) people from overseas with outstanding qualifications are by no means guaranteed a job - even if their qualifications are in an area of severe skill shortage - Australian employers are still reluctant to employ people from overseas. (most common excuses - they cannot check references; they cannot understand the quality of the degree a candidate with a PhD from the university of Cairo was knocked back on the grounds that one cannot trust these Arab universities!)
I have already commented elsewhere that with regard to migration the objection is to those aspects of the migration programme that are designed to grow our population; we are still required to admit refugees and have a moral obligation to sustain the family reunion programme.

Rhian

you say about your tax contributions etc:

"...far more that we have consumed in general government infrastructure and services. We have paid for the utilities we use."

But surely the point is: you do not know what the value of the infrastructure is. In fact no one does, as it has not been identified or costed.

So your claim, and the claims of others about supposed ecomomic benefits of immigration, cannot be tested or evaluated in any way.

I happen to think that it is essential that we get this information as a priority; which is why I think Jane's article was a good start in this process.

Jane's article is nonsense

Runner, I am still awaiting your answer. It can't be that hard.

jjplug, that is a profound statement, perhaps a bit of explanation as to why you think it is so.

David