The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Why Australia should be talking migration at the G20 > Comments

Why Australia should be talking migration at the G20 : Comments

By Carla Wilshire, published 1/8/2014

People movement has now become one of the most powerful tools for development and a significant player in global growth. Fueling this age of migration is the reciprocal benefit for both sending and receiving countries.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. 11
  13. All
Malcolm 'Paddy' King

Immigrants should have zero unemployment, and a full participation rate, because they are brought in to do a job.

And a job is already there waiting for them to fill.

Or is it that our government really doesn’t know where skills are required, and is just making a wild guess at job forecasts?

“In 1999 the ABS forecast the total size of the Australian labour force up to 2008. ABS estimates were short by 750,000 people. If we can’t accurately forecast the total labour supply, how is it possible to actually project individual occupations within the labour market?”

http://theconversation.com/governments-play-flawed-skilled-jobs-guessing-game-22527

Out by 750,000 people.

Not good guessing.

Or good management of the country.

And considering the general state of our government, (i.e. ZERO confidence in it), I would have no hesitation in stating that immigration should be dramatically cut.

Just to err on the side of safety, (before we all go down the plug hole together).
Posted by Incomuicardo, Saturday, 2 August 2014 1:22:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paddy,

Incomuicardo is doing a marvellous job without me.

<Normally Divergence would have inserted her usual instrumentalist paragraph from the 2006 PC report that migrants are not worth as much as dinky di, true blue Aussies ... Oi!... Oi!... Oi! Must be on holiday.>

Lie. I challenge you to link to any post of mine that makes any such suggestion, nor is that what the Productivity Commission report says. I have a problem with excessive population growth because of the harm that it is doing to our society and environment, not because migrants are less worthy people.

<To obtain zero net migration, the Australian Government would need to:

1. Set the skilled permanent entry to zero because the loss of Australian citizens is very small. No movement would be permitted onshore to a permanent skilled visa....>

Lie. According to Fact Sheet 5 from the Immigration Department, permanent departures of Australian citizens in 2012/2013 amounted to 91,737 people. Of these, 43,423 were Australian born, and the rest were Australian citizens born overseas. Ample numbers for spouses and other family members, skilled migrants who are genuinely needed (not because employers prefer migrants, especially on temporary visas, or don't want to train Australians), and even some refugees.

https://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/05emigration.htm

The infrastructure and other costs of a bigger population far outweigh the financial benefits of letting our universities run an immigration scam. Too bad if foreign students fall back to traditional numbers and some universities have to close. Nor is the Trans-Tasman agreement sacred if the population flows are one-sided.

You still haven't come clean on whether your public relations firm is being paid to attack us.

"Whose bread I eat, his song I sing."
Posted by Divergence, Saturday, 2 August 2014 2:41:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Malcolm King, I am not a "depopulationist".
I am a "deimmigrationist".

I actually want Australians to have *large* families, as birth order studies show later born children to be more creative risk-takers.

I also believe children with siblings benefit from those relationships.
There are always other children around to play and learn with.

A nation of only-children would be as much a social nightmare as a nation of 6000+ ethnic groups (that's 36 million potential conflicts).
Posted by Shockadelic, Saturday, 2 August 2014 8:22:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Divergence

I think Paddy is now accepting of the fact that immigration does little to improve our economy, it does little to improve our culture, and it only slightly reduces the average age in Australia, while greatly adding to the total population.

And of course immigration does absolutely nothing to improve our natural environment, while it increases the consumption of our finite natural resources.

The only query Paddy has is the education level of the average immigrant.

It is interesting that you mentioned some universities would have to close if immigration is reduced.

Possibly true, but Australians has been subsidising and pampering the universities for quite some time now, while these universities are renowned for their mediocre teaching and research.

Indeed, the ANU vice-chancellor has recently given Australian universities a "B minus" for quality.

He also said "Our universities are huge by world standards. This is bad for the quality of the education we provide to our young people and bad for the quality of research,"

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-30/anu-vice-chancellor-ian-young-delivers-damning-uni-report-card/5635964

So the universities are already too big, and if immigration was expanded even further and more foreign students brought in, it would only make the universities worse (and the ANU vice-chancellor would have to give the universities a "C minus" for quality).

But, if immigration was reduced or stopped, the universities would probably have reduced numbers of foreign students, and this should actually improve the quality of our universities, and the students would be better off.

So a reduction in immigration would be better for foregin students, as well as better for everyone else (except perhaps the 1%).
Posted by Incomuicardo, Sunday, 3 August 2014 9:12:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My apologies to you Shocka. Anyone who knows about the Sulloway thesis must be on the ball.
Posted by Malcolm 'Paddy' King, Sunday, 3 August 2014 1:12:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In 2012-13, Australia accepted about 200,000 permanent migrants, of which roughly 125,000 were skilled. In the 1980s the great majority of Australia's migrants were family migrants. Since the late 1990s and especially since 2005, Australia has accepted more skilled than family migrants.

While the 2006 Productivity Commission report conducted some basic modeling on the effects of migration, it did so looking back to the previous 20 years when we had low skilled migration. The PC found that migration had a mild positive economic correlation.

It stated back then, before the influx of targeted skilled workers, that the annual flow of migrants was small relative to the stock of workers and population. “…migrants are not very different in relevant respects from the Australian-born population and, over time, the differences become smaller.”

From 2005, the proportion has been roughly two-thirds skilled and one-third family. Indeed, contrary to many of the post on OLO by the depopulationists, Australia has one of the lowest unemployment rates for migrants in the OECD.

It is one of only three OECD countries where migrants' unemployment rates are virtually the same as for the locally born. Skilled migrants take up to three years to settle and then make substantial contributions to the economy through taxation, consumption, revenue generation and even employment.

Migrants have consistently had higher average skill levels than the Australian-born population. Since the late 1990s, migrants have been more highly educated, with a greater proportion of recent migrants having qualifications at the postgraduate, bachelor degree and diploma level.
Posted by Malcolm 'Paddy' King, Sunday, 3 August 2014 2:30:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. 11
  13. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy