SkyscraperCity Forum banner

Immigration, the economy and the job market

23049 Views 927 Replies 58 Participants Last post by  bazza667
So I was just having dinner at a venue in the NSW Riverina last night, just over the border from the Victorian Mallee and I was thinking why is it that whenever I come here that they have backpackers working here? Couldn't they fill these positions with locals given that these regions are not usually flush with employment?

Which opens up a small part of a large can of worms, which is the common accusation that foreigners are taking our jobs. Which I think is partly true - if it's not the backpackers on working holiday visas who both do things like fruit picking that genuinely isn't suitable for/can't be filled by locals and work in the sort of places like where I went to which IMO is taking up jobs that could be filled by locals in a place where there aren't many jobs.

Let's be honest that the visa system in Australia is open to rorting. I'm actually not against immigration at all but it needs to be managed properly - which it isn't now. Plenty of people coming here using dodgy training providers to complete courses when their only plan is to get PR and work as a security guard in Melbourne for life, filling a completely unskilled job and moving to a city that's increasingly becoming overcrowded due to any lack of a plan to accomodate growth apart from building more urban sprawl - is that what the migration system set out to achieve? To let anyone in here who wants to come here because you can make good money in this country by not doing a lot? :eek:hno:

If we had plans to build new greenfield cities (as we should do given our land mass/low population) and needed to populate them, then there isn't much reason not to let someone in who only aspires to work in an entry level job - if they're of good character, why not? But until then, what's the point of mass immigration with no real plan for how to handle it, or objectives for how it will benefit us other than "bigger population = bigger economy"?

And is this causing some states in particular to move from a skilled to a services based economy? Here in Melbourne there's far more competition for unskilled work than there ever used to be in the past, and it doesn't help that the number of full time jobs (as opposed to "jobs" in general) being created is lagging behind population growth. Casual jobs aren't enough.

Here's some figures from today:
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/australias-population-growth-just-hit-the-accelerator-2017-9
Get ready for the “Big Australia” debate to go up a notch or two.

According to data released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) today, Australia’s estimated residential population soared by 389,100, or 1.61%, to 24.512 million in the year to March, the fastest increase since 2014.

From 1990, that means Australia’s population has now increased by a mammoth 40%.

Over the year, most of that growth came via net overseas migration, increasing by 231,900, or 2.4%. Natural increase, a figure simply derived by subtracting deaths from births, accounted for the rest.



As natural increase slows, net overseas migration is picking up, and fast, returning to the levels seen immediately before and after the global financial crisis, periods when Australia’s economy was significantly stronger than what is presently the case.
See less See more
  • Like
Reactions: 2
1 - 20 of 928 Posts
To me the economy is a second order issue. I just don't see ang reason not to let in people who want to come. Which is, after all why L2, Shiggy, Eco-rat and every other poster is here at all. We, or our ancestors, came, and were allowed in.

The spurious reasons to stop people coming keep changing but they are always spurious: not white enough. Not protestant enough. Not loyal enough. Not skilled enough. Not 'assimilated' enough. Not rich enough. Not enough rainfall. Not enough soil depth. Not enough roads and rail.
Yes, but why? Why do we need such a high immigration rate?

We are doing nobody any favours out there in the big bad world by creating a low skilled service based economy....whats the point of allowing all these people in and then not providing the productivity levels and economic complexity needed to provide and high quality way of life? We will be no better than Argentina.
GDP per capita is not keeping pace with our increase in population, which is way above OCED averages. Project that out in the future and it's not great. I think we're destroying the really well-balanced society we have where everyone is in the middle class just about. It all begs the question, why and who benefits, well, not the majority of people that's for sure and certainly not younger generations. Does a young couple enjoy paying $1 million+ for their first house in Sydney whilst earning a fraction of that? Seems like a pretty bum deal to me.
  • Like
Reactions: 1
To me the economy is a second order issue. I just don't see ang reason not to let in people who want to come. Which is, after all why L2, Shiggy, Eco-rat and every other poster is here at all. We, or our ancestors, came, and were allowed in.

The spurious reasons to stop people coming keep changing but they are always spurious: not white enough. Not protestant enough. Not loyal enough. Not skilled enough. Not 'assimilated' enough. Not rich enough. Not enough rainfall. Not enough soil depth. Not enough roads and rail.
You do realise that loyalty is paramount?

If we let in 10m Chinese you really think they wouldn't shift Australia to obey China without question?

You think the Americans will tolerate this? I would not be surprised if they declared us a hostile nation and then took military action against us.

There is also the prospect for Civil War with Chinese dominated regions breaking away to be incorporated into China.

There are also possibilities certain religions could become dominant and impose all of their beliefs on the now minority.

The destruction of the English language, with vast areas unable to speak it - thats already happening in this country.
  • Like
Reactions: 3
These arguments were used before. If they had any validity then chances are you wouldn 't be here.
Yes, but why? Why do we need such a high immigration rate?

We are doing nobody any favours out there in the big bad world by creating a low skilled service based economy....whats the point of allowing all these people in and then not providing the productivity levels and economic complexity needed to provide and high quality way of life? We will be no better than Argentina.
We don't need a high immigration rate all I said was I want one. And no, I do not want them in Sydney and Melbourne. I was very clear about that. I want movement controls. Internal checkpoints. So that we can offer 1 million places in Esperance or Weipa if anyone wants them. Please don't read into my opinion anything that wasn't there.
You think the Americans will tolerate this? I would not be surprised if they declared us a hostile nation and then took military action against us.
Compare the immigration policies of the US to ours. If I wanted to move to the US, my only options would be to try the green card lottery or find a local to marry. Perhaps a 1 in 20 chance of the former (it's easier to win it in our region than some others) and not much of the latter.

If I wasn't already an Australian Citizen, I could easily enough get myself in here and get my permanent residency.
We don't need a high immigration rate all I said was I want one. And no, I do not want them in Sydney and Melbourne. I was very clear about that. I want movement controls. Internal checkpoints. So that we can offer 1 million places in Esperance or Weipa if anyone wants them. Please don't read into my opinion anything that wasn't there.
Eco, I won't read into your comment of you answer my questions:

  • Why?
  • What are these 1 million residents of god forsaken Weipa doing exactly? What are they producing the world wants to buy?
Shiggy I don't really care TBH. I am happy for foreigners to make a go of whatever they find. Small scale agriculture. More of the same property ponzi if they wish. Enterprise zones.
If they are fleeing war, we have no war. If growing veges here is better remunerated than their own country let them do it here.
  • Like
Reactions: 1
I would suggest that in fact leaving the door OPEN might reveal how few people really do want to come. No soft options if we allow you into Ceduna but you'll have to make Ceduna prosperous through your own sweat rather than the efforts of previous inhabitants.
Who is to say we can't do what that greenhouse in Port Augusta that runs on sun and seawater on worthless land, in Ceduna, port Lincoln x 1000.
Sounds like the creation of Bantustans. You can't just plant millions of people in such marginal places without infrastructure or services.

Australia does not need legislated third class residents, we aren't the UAE. We are a liberal Western democracy, with a robust history of freedom and human rights.

Seriously. We do not want to create a large and filthy underclass.
  • Like
Reactions: 3
To be fair to my idea, which I dont feel you are:
-democracy, freedom and rule of law would all still apply, why you think they wouldnt idk
-they wouldnt all arrive at once, and infrastructure would be provided at pace
-they are not marginal, no more than Adelaide or perth or townsville.
Immigration is fine but it should be people who are highly educated and share the values of our society and it needs to be at a measured rate that doesn't have overly adverse economic impacts.

Germany, for instance, has 97% of it's recent illegal immigrants on welfare, 75% will remain long-term unemployed, that's nothing to emulate.
  • Like
Reactions: 5
Immigration is fine but it should be people who are highly educated and share the values of our society and it needs to be at a measured rate that doesn't have overly adverse economic impacts.

Germany, for instance, has 97% of it's recent illegal immigrants on welfare, 75% will remain long-term unemployed, that's nothing to emulate.
Would your ancestors have got in with those restrictions? My grandfather jumped off a Swedish ship in his teens. A grandmother was a teen bride of a northern irish soldier after WWI. Another set of relatives were poor farmers from Devon. Educated? Probably not. Australian values???
Would your ancestors have got in with those restrictions? My grandfather jumped off a Swedish ship in his teens. A grandmother was a teen bride of a northern irish soldier after WWI. Another set of relatives were poor farmers from Devon. Educated? Probably not. Australian values???
The world has changed. We aren't a low skilled economy anymore, and we shouldn't mourn the loss of it.

I agree with your idea, partially. However, the onus should be on these new arrivals to pay for the services they need. The want it, they can pay for it.
  • Like
Reactions: 2
My 2c:

Immigration is fundamentally a good thing. Yes, there are limits, but don't think the levels in Australia are unhealthy. Australia multicultural, 1/4 overseas born and 1/2 first generation, and we're right up the top as a rich, successful, free and fair country by world standards. That alone is overwhelming evidence.

Immigrants are more likely to be job creators. The type of person who leaves everything behind to move to a new country where they have fewer support networks is generally going to be more of a risk taker. More entrepreneurial, less welfare bum. They start small businesses, and this more than most things grows the economy. Even with all the talk of mining and automation, small businesses are the majority of the economy and the majority of the job market.

Personally, I think anyone who's got a reasonable degree from a reasonable university should be allowed in, no limits, and their immediate family (spouse, kids). And it's good for us - we get a free skilled person without the cost of a lifetime of state-subsidised education. I don't care if they can't speak English, they'll learn or adapt. Half the Italians and Greeks who came couldn't speak English either.

I don't agree with this concern about low-skills and automation. We've been automating for 100 years and outsourcing for 50. It comes in waves, we adapt, new professions are created to fill new specialisations, and we're better for it. There is no way to predict which big employer will go first. The best way to handle this technological progress is with an open mind to new ideas, which in practices means a diversity of cultural backgrounds. Jobs aren't a finite resource. The important thing is we have the safety nets so one small hic-up doesn't ruin someone's life, and the protections so people are paid and treated fairly (something we are losing focus on IMO).

Immigrants are good for trade. We trade so amazingly well with China because we are Chinese, we understand their culture, their way of doing business, so it's easier for us. Ditto all our big trading partners.

I don't agree with the arguments on infrastructure. That's a political failing, not a demographic one. There's plenty of examples of bad policy which has left us where we are: Howard's privatisation of everything, Carr's "Sydney is Full", subsidising private schools & hospital at the expense of public systems, a fear of debt, poor urban planning, pork barrelling, populism. We have the capacity to build and supply (or import) what we need to meet this demand, we lack the political ability. (House prices are a symptom of this IMO)

I don't think we should be telling where immigrants should live. They'll figure out where's best for them way better than any bureaucrat. The important thing is they be afforded the opportunities to be good little taxpayers, send their kids to school and be content.

I don't buy the Dick Smith argument that immigrants are bad for the environment - it's still a human wherever in the world it is. Australia has better environmental controls than most. That Australia has higher CO2 emissions than most countries, again, is a political failing we should be responding to regardless of immigration policy.

The caveat - they need support. They may even need welfare to start off with. Some may never succeed. But treat them as second class citizens and of course they'll fail. Give them a fair go. And remember it takes a generation, not an election cycle.
See less See more
  • Like
Reactions: 2
I just want to add. I don't see settlement restrictions as 'second class' no more than imposing capital controls or work restrictions are used today. I would have the pathway to -full citizenship, if anything better than now. More open and visible. Certainly happy to say that certain classes of.immigrants should be fully self funding. If one million people came to Ceduna with 100,000 each raised from their relatives back.home, that would provide 100 billion as a base on which plenty of housing, schools, roads and rail could be built, and leverage for even more spending later on.

Most families can raise this sort of money in the better off parts of the developing world, if only because of the promise to repatriate income or sponsor further migrants.
1 - 20 of 928 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top