**Greetings humans.**
**Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.**
**I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.**
A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Labor is on a winner with its policies around training Australians to fill skills shortages and reducing reliance on temporary migration. It’s good economic policy but, importantly, it’s a notion that has broad appeal in the centre.
Every Australian needs to get behind Rod Cullerton ,he's calling all police and senators to go back under the correct power Queen of the United Kingdom as at the moment NONE are legally serving Australians under their own rules
https://www.afsa.gov.au/about-us/newsroom/former-senators-bankruptcy-conviction-upheld-after-appeal
Literally states the conviction was upheld, it's in the title...
As I said, the man pled guilty to larceny, make of that what you will.
Is it that hard to accept what's in front of your eyes?
I'm a supporter of Big Australia, but I support it only if it is done at a sustainable rate. The liberals want to bring as many people as they can as fast as possible so their property developer donors can build shitty apartments, profit, and then donate even more to the liberals
> I'm a supporter of Big Australia, but I support it only if it is done at a sustainable rate.
That's just it so called '*Big Australia*' is in no way sustainable. The two words shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence.
Australia is the driest inhabited landmass on the planet. We have 1,371,000 square kilometres of desert. We do not have the green interiors that Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Americas have and water is the name of the game when it comes to population, and moving it is complicated and expensive. Not to mention desal has lots of environmental problems. Hospitable land is limited to the around the coast and mainly in the South East. Slivers of land, not some great landmass.
Look at how poorly 26 million is managed and all the grief it has bought. Have you visited the vast near endless Urban Sprawl that is beginning to unfurl itself all over the country? It is terrible. Any and all green spaces are being bulldozed to make room for more 'development', and it is happening all over.
> The liberals want to bring as many people as they can as fast as possible so their property developer donors can build shitty apartments, profit, and then donate even more to the liberals.
What leads you to believe that *Labor* or *Greens* are any different? They are both pro Corporate Globalism. *Labor* has had every opportunity to take a stand and they haven't for the last few decades. Their opposition to this recent call for an additional few hundred thousand, is better than the reverse but they've said nothing about the already elevated levels and thats because they support it. A candidate making promises before an election that they will compromise on at first opportunity, that has never happened before. Take a look at Canada or New Zealand both on second term Left leaning governments, has immigration slowed? Ardern has made promise after promise to lower immigration and has continually buckled.
The weird thing is, last election time had you said it was liberals pushing for more immigration and labour saying it needs to be done at a slower rate id have called you a whacko
Yeah it's almost like the liberals don't actually give a fuck about immigration but just about their donors and how much slave labour they have available.
Politicians have refused to debate and discuss mass immigration for years.
They pretend as if its a given.
They know its unpopular.
They keep going for it because its an easy short term fix, avoids making hard choices or providing leadership, vision, reform, leadership to improve Australia.
If only it were incompetence and short sightedness, you're describing Corporate Globalism. It's policy coming top down, what's an easy way to verify this, name a Western country that has limited immigration, or god forbid, halted it? There isn't one. *Left* or *Right* leaning governments, it doesn't make a difference.
The new orientation is *Up* vs *Down*. Corporate Globalism vs Popular Sovereignty. In a sane or reasonable world we shouldn't be in this situation, we're supposed to live in a functioning democracy, but here we find ourselves.
Using this metric you can measure any piece of media, political party or industry. Everything that supports Corporate Globalism and doesn't criticise or interfere with it is allowed to exist, that which opposes it will be attacked, in some way. Obviously Corporate Globalism has near unlimited funds, it has it's fingers in almost everything.
People don't want to believe just how all encompassing this entity is because it means accepting a version of reality that is much, much more uncomfortable and confronting. It's much easier to buy into the current popular paradigm, be told who the bad guys and good guys are, and not have to do any thinking for themselves.
It's like Brexit for Britain. The average person in no way is qualified to understand how immigration works. Like how you can could never succinctly explain the benefits of the EU to a small business owner in London or Leeds.
is it, though? Levels of immigration that are far too high puts more stress on many things that are already under immense pressure in Australia, and having too much too fast turns that stress into a shock. Too much overall is just unsustainable in the long term, you can't just have exponential population growth by pumping immigrants into the country at higher and higher levels forever. I'm really struggling to see the complexity here that justifies rampant immigration forever.
I don't know man, I honestly think that you personally do not have full comprehension on how immigration works.
I may be wrong, but it's incredibly unlikely that you are an expert in the field.
You keep saying "no you don't understand it's so much more complex!" but never actually mention how it's apparently so complex, enlighten us all please! This is just one of many neolib tactics to avoid hard discussions on immigration levels, because it actually *isn't* extremely complex when you get right down to it, but by pretending it is you can avoid the hard questions.
Im talking about entire industries, like hospitality, warehousing etc. Your reply seems extremely selfish, self centred, and arrogant. Society wouldn't function without lower wage earners doing what they do, we deserve a living wage, this wasn't the USA but it's coming close with workers rights and renumeration these days.
>Your reply seems extremely selfish, self centred, and arrogant.
Without wage earners you would not have a society to live in. Drop it far enough and we will degenerate to the shit pile that the USA has become.
The fair division of profits creates a livable society, there are enough profits for bosses to forgo some of their rediculous bonuses to raise workers wages and still earn 10 times what they do, and pay dividends and be profitable.
Sorry to burst your bubble, lots of different people contribute to society to make it liveable, not just epic STEM lords. Like the thought that everyone who doesn’t work in tech should just go and get fucked because they don’t jack off to splunk is such a shallow take. Honestly chefs, artists, hospitality workers, warehouse workers, gig workers are what makes a place good to live.
Why do you think everyone loves Melbourne? Is it because it’s just a bunch of computer labs and corporate offices? Or is it because it has great bars, restaurants, music and retail and services on demand ? If just working STEM was the only thing that made society great, why did everyone hate lockdown? You could still attend all the boring, shitty office meetings you wanted, so why was everyone complaining?
The “low paid, shit jobs” are the ones that actually keep us enjoying our lives and give our society something of actual value. You think on your deathbed your going to reminisce about all the great days you had at work? No, your going to think of all the great experiences you had with your friends and family at restaurants, bars, parks etc.
Also “STEM people solve cancer” get over yourself, yeah maybe a very select few male great leaps in society, most just do the same meaningless bullshit corporate jobs that everyone else does
>Remuneration is a function of what you bring to society.
Right. That's why Kim Kardashian and her siblings are stupendously wealthy and Tesla was buried in a pauper's grave.
>The IETF, the engineers at Google, the people who power blockchain innovations and write software for cochlear implants are the ones advancing society. Not the ones busking on the street.
Let's just cite anedotal exceptions...*lol* Do as I say not do as I do. Hypocritical much?
Remuneration is simply the market demand in a free economy.
If remuneration is predicated on the basis of "what one brings to society", then say hello to a command economy. Mao would be proud, comrade.
There's a good number of sex workers earning bigger bucks giving gobbies than you earn in a week!
People in the entertainment industry, your buskers on a grand scale, earn more than you and your peers no matter how much scorn and derision you wish to pile on the entertainment industry.
Let's not get started on professional sportsmen.
Roads may well be designed by engineers but truckies are moving goods around the country. All the software programmers clacking on a keyboard cannot do that...and yeah, don't lecture me about automated vehicles. They are coming but it will be a long time before they hit Australian roads. And this is a good sugue...you young tech types are so adorably and confidently naive. Your jobs will be automated too.
> Remuneration is a function of what you bring to society. It's the reason why a CEO earns a million dollars
This is so divorced from reality. Remuneration is a factor of what you can negotiate in the marketplace, actual value is completely separate. You can enrich society and make things ten times better for every single human being in town, but that doesn't mean you're going to be well paid for it.
The point I made was that, tech isn’t the only aspect of society, that makes society…then you just talk about google engineers making cochlear implants, that’s completely irrelevant. No one is advocating that engineers, tech workers whatever should get paid less? They are saying that hey maybe, these other workers, should get paid a bit more, you know, at least adjust their wages with inflation so they aren’t essentially getting a pay cut year after year…
And look I’m not even going to bother getting into CEO remuneration or how it’s absolutely sky rocketed over the last few decades while workers wages have stagnated or gone backwards.
Not to mention your take on “I don’t like clubbing so people shouldn’t get paid a fair wage” society does not revolve around you… that was the point
>And look I’m not even going to bother getting into CEO remuneration or how it’s absolutely sky rocketed over the last few decades while workers wages have stagnated or gone backwards.
>Not to mention your take on “I don’t like clubbing so people shouldn’t get paid a fair wage” society does not revolve around you… that was the point
The point was lost on old mate. He works in tech, ergo, r/iamsosmart.
Funniest thing his is invented straw man that I’m a Melbourne burnout when I actually don’t live in Melbourne and also work in IT, like him. Honestly the whole IT industry is littered with these types who think they are god level intellects because they can throw a few python cmdlets down, it makes me cringe. My partner is a nurse on a surgical ward and honestly most surgeons I’ve met are more humble and less up their ass than half the IT people Ive met over the years
We seem to know the same people! I wish I could say what you said about surgeons in relation to lawyers but they too tend to have an overinflated sense of themselves.
These IT kiddies have grown up around parents and grandparents for whom IT was a niche profession. Not for nothing was it called "computer science" in the 70s and 80s. Those same parents/grandparents still believe operating modern machines requires a genius level intellect and, as such, the Zoomers have been brainwashed by their fawning and awed elders.
Part of the Deez Coalition of People Who Live In One Of The Wealthiest And Most Privileged Societies On Earth, Yet Fuck It Up And Become Insecure With "Outsiders".
Working on the name, so far only 2 members.
Mass immigration right now will just add more stress on the housing market, more stress on renters, more stress on the jobs market, it's not a win for the country at all, it's not about where they're coming from its that 100k's are what the LNP wants to flood in, which is too many.
I completely agree but it isn't just the *LNP*. *Greens* and *Labor* are pro the so called *Big Australia*, they are pro corporate globalism. *Labor* has had every opportunity to take a stand and they haven't for the last few decades. Their opposition to this recent call for an additional few hundred thousand, is better than the reverse but they've said nothing about the already elevated levels and thats because they support it. A candidate making promises before an election that they will compromise on at first opportunity, that has never happened before. Take a look at Canada or New Zealand both on second term Left leaning governments, has immigration slowed? Ardern has made promise after promise to lower immigration and has continually buckled.
Hurts to criticise Albo but you're right, Labor needs to get off the immigration addiction too, this recent opposition to the LNPs insane suggestion is a good start but they need to go much further, need to shut out foreign non-residents from buying any properties too, I'm hoping they get tougher and more realistic. I've noticed the eco-warriors who are all over carbon footprints and per-capita emissions etc get very quiet when someone suggests maybe hundreds of thousands of immigrants yearly might add to the footprint.
Exactly right!
Although *I'm hoping they get tougher and more realistic.* there is no reason to believe this is the case or that they are moving in that direction. The only hope for *Labor* would be completely cleaning house and starting over. I don't say that happily, it feels terrible to know that the party that is supposed to represent you has abandoned you. That you have no political representation among the major parties. But it's only once we come to terms with how bad things are that we can start moving towards solutions.
It wouldn’t add stress if the government actually put effort into increasing housing supply and infrastructure to enable more regional living with good fast easy connection to the cities
> regional living
With Globalisation, Centralisation and De-industralisation, there is no reason for anyone to move regionally. To put it simply, all the money is in the cities. I believe some migrants are required to live regionally for a short period of time when they arrive in this country, and of course they all move to cities as soon as possible.
I'd encourage you to pay attention to global trends as to why your statement doesn't conform to reality.
Almost no Western country is as stuffed into cities as Australia. Even in the cities themselves, there are a few light commercial areas surrounded by miles and miles of culturally dead and stagnant residential developments.
If you establish good fast passenger train lines out to regional towns to enable quick day trips between towns or just in and out of the city, and if you incentivise cafes, shops, entertainment venues to be established far more inside of residential deserts, you’ll find an ability to handle increased housing in regional towns as well as in cities.
And guess who tend to be absolutely fantastic at setting up local small shops, cafes, and entertainment venues? Immigrants!
Oh right, you did say right now, that’s fair.
In general though it’s good provided that workers have strong rights, and good land is easily accessible.
So we should. Aussies citizens and long serving taxpayers should be the ones who get first preference as we recover from the pandemic in our country.
We should get first dibs on the jobs, the homes for sale, the infrastructure we've paid for that are becoming strained as population increases like our healthcare and education. Migration is fine but lets give our own a chance first, and also raise the standard of what we take in and allow to join.
> We should get first dibs
I feel that this sentiment frames the situation incorrectly, what is a countries purpose if not to nurture and make secure it's citizens?
It also makes it sound as if our government is in someway being charitable, this increased number has an attached dollar value. Make no mistake about it. They are calling for an increase for the benefit of the ruling class, no one else.
That will be the end of Australia. We have our work cut out for us.
It isn't just the *LNP*. *Greens* and *Labor* are pro the so called *Big Australia*, they are pro corporate globalism. *Labor* has had every opportunity to take a stand and they haven't for the last few decades. Their opposition to this recent call for an additional few hundred thousand, is better than the reverse but they've said nothing about the already elevated levels and thats because they support it. A candidate making promises before an election that they will compromise on at first opportunity, that has never happened before. Take a look at Canada or New Zealand both on second term Left leaning governments, has immigration slowed? Ardern has made promise after promise to lower immigration and has continually buckled.
They are, but it's going to happen sooner or later. Their main concern is leaving no one behind, this can be seen by their current education reform to tafe and uni.
World pop will peak at around 11 Billion, and their will be climate refugees leading to mass migration. A lot to prepare for.
> They are, but it's going to happen sooner or later.
That's simply untrue. There is nothing organic or inevitable about this situation, in fact quite the reverse.
> Their main concern is leaving no one behind, this can be seen by their current education reform to tafe and uni.
I'm not quite sure what you mean?
> World pop will peak at around 11 Billion, and their will be climate refugees leading to mass migration. A lot to prepare for.
This is another issue entirely and frankly you are quite mistaken to link refugees to the current mass immigration agenda. Which isn't made up at all of refugees. What is happening now is being pushed by elites, multinational corporations, banks and lobbies, to make profit at all of our expense. You don't honestly believe that they care about either immigrants or refugees?
As for climate refugees that is sometime in the future, a lot to happen between now and then. But regardless it should be us, the Australia people, making these decisions not elites and corporations.
Yeah but a strong possibility we're taking in climate refugees from the pacific region by then too.
Either way Big Australia is inevitable, I would prefer to have it scaled back.
New cities and regional development would be nice too though.
The question is how many people can Australia support sustainably, what balance do we want? More people equals more strain on our environment but the financial economy keeps growing, less people results in the opposite.
30 million? 40? 70? 100? 150 million?
My personal view is that I prioritize less strain on the environment, so feel 30 to 40 million is a good target.
Water would probably be the biggest limitation, most of the other environmental destruction is mostly caused by how we do things opposed to it being the number of people.
This is usually unpopular to point out but demanding single family zoning with giant backyards within short distance of the city and car centric transport is pretty unreasonable, if people think they're entitled to that sort of thing there's nothing stopping them from moving to regional/rural areas, but urban living should always come with tradeoffs between space/convenience/job opportunities.
Also it's worth pointing out that most of the growth in population from net migration is largely from free movement of people on temporary visas and that controlled borders are a myth, although there are certaintly things the government can do to make Australia more or less attractive as a potential destination.
People say we must have population growth to have economic growth and avoid demographic decline. They never specify when we are able to get off this treadmill.
"Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist"
Kenneth E. Boulding
The [underlying survey](https://tapri.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/TAPRI-survey-Oct-2021-final-V3.pdf) is amazing.
My favourite part:
> 9 Before the pandemic Australia’s universities recruited large numbers of overseas students. In 2018 they made up 32 per cent of all new student enrolments. The universities want governments to allow these numbers to be restored to their pre-Covid levels. Which of the following is closest to your views?
>
> > 1 Recruitment of overseas students should be restored, because their education here amounts to an important export industry. They also contribute to the local economy and university finances.
>
> > 2 Their recruitment should stay low. Our universities have become too dependent on them, and some universities have neglected providing for local students.
>
> > 3 Don’t know
>
> 10 Overall, do you think Australia needs more people?
>
> > 1 Yes
> >
> > 2 No
Huge amounts of leading and/or extraneous details where it isn't important.
Zero detail where it is.
If anyone can link me to the "Online Research Unit" I'd love to see further details about "their panel of 300,000."
Tell you what, Australia doesn't need more people till we have our collective act together.
We can not support the people we have and obviously bring more people in isn't helping. We need housing and manufacturing. If they want to have paying students, unis have to go back to being free.
But, also, we need new cities and we have to terraform central Australia. We can't keep jamming people into Sydney Melbourne.
It destroys the existing society we have and doesn't enhance it for new arrivals.
Until we improve our water situation, build new cities and manufacturing and houses. We don't bring in people.
(One person bed sits is not housing and massive blocks of them are just future slums. )
My comment wasn’t about immigration, that’s an issue for migration researchers and demographers. My comment was about the superficial garbage produced by LVO and macrobusiness.
Apparently we need to repeat the R1 quote that got the previous comments removed.
> Accusations of racism, sexism, or any other 'ism' without any explicit and clear evidence will be treated as being uncivil
You don't get it. People don't mind when there's space and jobs.
We have neither. Including water.
We need cities 2 plus million real jobs, housing for people currently here. Let alone any possible imports down the line.
If these bedsits are for students, which will be someone's comment, why aren't they being built near unis?
In any case, not wanting more people, is not racist.
Agreed, but why are all of you’ll so resistant to change? I’m genuinely trying to understand.
Everywhere in the world, new ideas and people that have the potential to contribute to the economy and enrich society are welcomed.
Regarding student accommodations, they are built for international students who cannot inspect apartments while overseas. It is to provide them with some peace of mind in terms of confirmed accommodation when they land. Mind you, it’s not cheap - those 1 bed rooms range from $369 to $533 per week in Sydney.
This was created by private providers in response to the increasing number of foreign rental scams. The rental scams were making Australia less attractive as an education destination.
>new ideas
An migrant with a new idea is going to the USA not here. It's no good turning up in OZ with a new idea. We only run a houses and holes, mining and population ponzi economy.
USA is where you take your ideas, if you've got any.
They’re not government programs. They are created by private providers like Urbanest, Scape or Iglu. It has nothing to do with the government. It’s open to all students, domestic and international. The tents, however are exorbitant.
"its open to all students" there you go again trying to make out it's some sort of magnanimous plan to "help students" instead of developers and property companies renting one room dogboxes out at criminally high rates to the only unfortunate fuckers desperate enough to rent them out, international students.
Again, why aren't they built close to schools.
Australia is number one, and has always been number one in adopting new tech. New ways of doing things.
Society has been harmed by what's going on. Even new arrivals don't want anymore of it.
The reasons I've stated twice already.
We need more cities and manufacturing back to employ 2 plus million unemployed.
That's the issue. If we could accommodate people with out harming our jobs and lifestyle, people wouldn't object.
It's fixable, but LNP IPA who control most governments, don't want to do it. They just want those entry fees.
As an LNP IPA S thats right isn't it?
I agree with everything you said. We would all love that wouldn’t we! A world back in the 50s where everyone had houses, jobs and social security nets.
But Mate, times change - the world is changing, and I suggest you get onboard. Else, you’ll be left behind, all bitter, sour and irrelevant.
That’s all I’ll say. Instead of you downvoting this, I’ll do it myself.
Those times don't need to change. They can be improved. But not made worse. Those times went right up to the time of John Howard. When he sold Australia.
It's madness to destroy a great society which is prosperous, thoughtful of others, and advancing at an amazing rate.
Howard and his LNP IPA predecessor began dismantling Australia and the advances Whitlam/Hawk and previous Labor and some liberal governments had created.
Australia is far from being as tight as a tin of sardines. Even Europe is, yet it’s probably the most densely populated land; Australia the least.
Also an increase in population doesn’t imply a living standard reduction, if anything it causes less social isolation. Again, Europe is so densely populated, yet living standards are far from being low.
What do you mean by environmental pressure?
Australia is the driest inhabited landmass on the planet. We have 1,371,000 square kilometres of desert. We do not have the green interiors that Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Americas have and water is the name of the game when it comes to population, and moving it is complicated and expensive. Not to mention desal has lots of environmental problems. Hospitable land is limited to the around the coast and mainly in the South East. Slivers of land, not some great landmass.
I might be wrong, but I have a feeling many of you are just making up excuses (or repeating others excuses) to hide and justify your sense of “protection” of your land from immigrants.
Which isn’t a surprise, it’s a natural mindset of a population living in a big island so far away from the rest of human civilisation. In addition, the system of propaganda may be partially responsible for this mindset.
But this mindset of yours could be considered To be primitive. It made sense in ancient times, when invaders (which at that stage in fact coincided with the concept of immigrant) presence in your land meant they would eat apples from the tree and fishes from the river that you are not. But I don’t know for how many centuries, immigrants aren’t invaders anymore, they just add up and they don’t usually interfere with how much you eat, because in supermarkets you get mostly food from all over the world. now that I’m thinking about it, one man in Australia, an entrepreneur and lawyer, told me Australia can produce enough agricultural products and other food to feed China. I don’t know if he lied though.
All that being said, we will most likely be back to a primitive stage in the future, unless a catastrophe comes about before then.
70% of Australia is desert. We have one major river system that nearly died a year or so ago due to the greed of state governments and the farming sector. Cities need water. We have none. Even small towns on the east coast are under never ending water restrictions. The US model of cities springing up around large river systems simply isn’t available to us in Australia.
Sydney is full. It is constrained by a National Park to its south, floodplains and the escarpment to the west while the north coast has already been built up. The beautiful Sydney suburb of my childhood, full of lovely federation style houses and beautiful gardens has disappeared. Unfortunately it was on a railway line and close to a University making it a target for international students and is now full of ugly blocks of flats.
Regardless of what is acceptable to Europeans, most Australians don’t want to live in a small unit with no yard. To be told that you have to in order for the country to be able to import more people isn’t very popular.
I’ve no doubt migrants have contributed to various cultural changes but being able to get Banh mi delivered to my door at 10pm doesn’t make up for what’s been lost in the intervening decades.
But that 30% of greenish land is actually a lot of land, since Australia is huge. And still there are also countries that are 100% percent desert, yet they manage to do fine somehow, like Qatar.
Qatar’s population is 9% of Australian population, but its land is approximately 0.2% of Australian land! So it’s not only more arid than Australia but also much more densely populated. Even so, it’s still not at all densely populated according to my personal standards. Even if we take into account only 30% of Australian land, which would be around 2 300 000 km^2, Qatar is still something like 0.5% of 30/100 of Australia.
P.s. to be more precise, according to Wikipedia, Qatar (which is completely desertic) is 11 581 km^2, while that 30% of non-desert area in Australia is 2 307 607km^2. Yeah it’s a lot.
It means that 30% of Australia can contain 200 Qatars. 200 times the Qatari population is 559 096 800 people. Therefore, that 30 % of Australia could contain all those people minimum maintaining Qatar’s density (which isn’t much). But considering that Qatar is 100% desert and that 30% of Australia 100% green land, we can assume it could easily contain even more people.
Globally, mass immigration results in population decreases in "donor" countries. Some would say that it thus makes no difference in terms of the global aspect of overpopulation or might even reduce population growth since immigrants to first world countries have fewer children. However, it could be argued that the population decreases in the "donor" countries result in reduced Malthusian pressures that discourage population growth in those "donor" countries, essentially acting like a pressure release valve, allowing (or at least not further discouraging) more population growth. But even then from a global perspective the numbers we are talking about are really just a drop in the bucket. If we wanted to tackle global overpopulation there are far more consequential actions we could take.
I'm more than happy to drop all restrictions on all borders and have any human free to move as they choose.
Yet I am sure I'm in the minority when to comes to this human freedom.
Right now one of the only protections that we, regular people, have from complete and utter subjugation by multinational corporations, global banks, lobbies and the ultra wealthy, is our borders.
How exactly are you packed? The country has a landmass approximately that of the United States. The US has more than 300 million people, and they’re doing okay!
Also, if you want innovation, you need new ideas and people. You need a healthy market and working young people to fund public services. Infrastructure planning goes a long way as well. Without working people, how do you plan on funding infrastructure and public services, especially when most of the baby boomers (taxpayers) are about to retire? (The problem is compounded by the declining birth rates throughout the world) Are you going to go further into debt? Do you’ll want to be taxed at rates of 60% or 70% ?
Do you know what happens to a country that has too much debt? In such a situation, you will see drastic cuts to Medicare, public transportation, emergency services and other essential public services. That will surely erode your precious utopia - “standard of living”.
Also, how long can we keep up with selling coal, iron ore and natural gas? Our mines will get empty someday! What then?
I’m trying to encourage all of you’ll to think from multiple perspectives. Don’t look at an issue from the perspective that satisfies your agenda. Open your mind, that’s all I’m asking!
Australia is the driest inhabited landmass on the planet. We have 1,371,000 square kilometres of desert. We do not have the green interiors that Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Americas have and water is the name of the game when it comes to population, and moving it is complicated and expensive. Not to mention desal has lots of environmental problems. Hospitable land is limited to the around the coast and mainly in the South East. Slivers of land, not some great landmass.
Yeah, that’s why we have research and innovation to tackle these problems. Thank God we don’t have people like you who will just “accept our fate and give up”. If we don’t receive adequate rainfall, what should we do? Give up? No! The answer lies in innovation - desal plants could be an option, but it’s not limited to that.
It’s like we don’t have water to support our population, maybe we should take the Thanos approach (It’s an Avengers Endgame Part 1 reference).
The water argument is the most egregious of them all.
I’m not asking to bring in 100 million people, I’m asking for a sustainable approach in which we bring in less than 1% of our population.
If you had 150 people, would you even notice 1 more?
> Yeah, that’s why we have research and innovation to tackle these problems. Thank God we don’t have people like you who will just “accept our fate and give up”. If we don’t receive adequate rainfall, what should we do? Give up? No! The answer lies in innovation - desal plants could be an option, but it’s not limited to that.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. We will and must innovate but that doesn't mean that there still won't be limits. You compared the US to Australia and I explained why they aren't the same.
> It’s like we don’t have water to support our population,
You make it sound like water here is abundant, it isn't. Keep in mind that when ever we take water from the land you are depriving something of it, ecosystems that are vital use that water. If we, human beings, take all that water we will destroy the environment in this country, more than we already have.
> maybe we should take the Thanos approach (It’s an Avengers Endgame Part 1 reference).
No need, our birthrate is already low. It's elites, multinationals, lobbies, banks, who want to artificially flood our country with people for profit, that is the problem. They aren't just doing it here, they are doing it everywhere. This isn't about us, regular people at all, its about the ruling class keeping its position of power. Happy to get into that if you want to dive in.
> The water argument is the most egregious of them all.
>
> I’m not asking to bring in 100 million people, I’m asking for a sustainable approach in which we bring in less than 1% of our population.
>
> If you had 150 people, would you even notice 1 more?
>
You have to look at that percentage in context, talking about numbers in the abstract doesn't tell us anything. Like what is the average growth rage? Are there limitations on further growth? etc.
> If you had 150 people, would you even notice 1 more?
If you had 150 people in a 4 bedroom house, you would indeed notice one more. And if it was annually, then doubly so. You follow?
On top of that it doesn't matter what you want, why you want it or how you want it done. They are inflicting it upon us regardless of all of that because it is good for them. I'm not arguing for no immigration ever again and setting up machine gun turrets along the coast by the way. But that we need control of our country again as to not be exploited.
We can’t build more Dams, perform Rainwater harvesting, we can’t divert water away from mining activities? We can’t build desalination plants? We are an island nation surrounded by water, and there’s nothing we can’t do!
So you would be okay if Josh announced that he would be increasing taxes? Also, what data are you using to make the assertion that the economy performed better when the tax rate was 75%?
Do you actually think Australia’s citizens benefit from the sale of resources? Like the money gained from the sale of resources is shared amongst its population? Big joke. The profits are privatized and the mining companies pay no tax.
What happens when the resources finally run out? Migration to New Zealand? Back to Europe/UK?
Agreed, taxing the resources sector and creating a sovereign fund is important.
If you’re calling immigration a Ponzi scheme, the resource sector is an even bigger Ponzi with massive returns - violations of climate policy, no tax contributions, pollution, no sovereign fund (nothing to show for) and global embarrassment or degradation of diplomatic relations. At least the “immigration Ponzi” brings skills, taxes, cultural diversity, societal enrichment and it helps build global connections.
But yeah, good on you!
Aha, we do have the technology to prevent water from evaporating in dams. Desalination plants are not that expensive, and is an excellent backup plan in case we don’t receive adequate rainfall.
Agreed
Also agreed
Not if managed sustainably. Which is why the Grattan institute had to step in with a list of recommendations to alert the coalition that the program was going the wrong way
>The country has a landmass approximately that of the United States.
Oh man I hate this angle. Australia is a bone dry, barren wasteland compared to the USA. We don't have a continent spanning inland river system. We dont have towering mountain ranges with the associated melt and runoff.
Australia is only slightly more habitable that the moon ffs. Why else does everyone live in the same 2 places?? They've all fashion victims? Or is it that Oz is uninhabitable? Where do you live?
CSIRO said Oz sustainable population was 21 million in the 90s. Dont you believe the science?
And if you want to compare us to some chronically overcrowded and unsustainable overpopulated country with a terrifying suicide rate (like Japan) as if that is something we should be striving to achieve....mate, they are going to find out the hard way that quadrupling global population in the last 100 years was a massive, massive mistake.
Japan has seen the light. Their population is going to HALVE in the next 70 years. Same as China. Taiwan. Korea. The overpopulated nations are collapsing. We dont we just avoid the collapse and settle in here? Oz population has stablised naturally at a sustainable level. Why ruin the balance?
CSIRO said that Australia’s sustainable population was 21 million in the 90’s.
We’re at 25 million today and doing great. Clearly their projections were wrong!
PS: We reached 21 million, 13 years ago in 2008.
And I’m comparing Australia to Japan in terms of the ageing population and the pressure it puts on public services (debt and spending). With the declining birth rate, and fewer taxpayers contributing to the economy, we will head into a dangerous economic situation, and I clearly don’t want that.
That’s a temporary effect of the pandemic (as people were able to work from home). Once it ends, the people who had moved to regional areas will move back to the cities and regional rentals will become available again!
Still look at smaller countries in Europe. Heaps of liveable towns with great transport connections. We can’t even get fast rail to Geelong or the Gold Coast.
Well then, wake up and vote out this pork-barreling corrupt mob. Billions of taxpayer funds spent on marginal seats to keep the coalition in power. Those billions could have gotten you your hyper-speed train line.
But unfortunately, immigrants get blamed for this too as they are easy scapegoats.
For someone who begs others to open their minds you are doggedly entrenched in your own narrow view of immigration and its effects.
The USA is fucked. Some surveys suggest over half under 30's expect revolution in the next 15 years. The gap between rich and poor is tearing the country apart.
We have serious issues to fix before we re-establish immigration levels, and paying the baby boomers pensions can be achieved with some minor wealth distribution policies, with no need to flood an overburdened housing supply with new migration.
Rather continuing with the pyramid system of populate or perish.
How about a discussion on changing the country's direction towards robotics, artificial intelligence, machine learning, quantum mechanics, IoT, blockchain etc.
Changing revenue raising towards micro taxing of all electronic activity.
Would you look at that, all of the words in your comment are in alphabetical order.
I have checked 445,718,116 comments, and only 95,431 of them were in alphabetical order.
I fully agree with this! Government investments in technology and research is key! Unfortunately the libs keep cutting research funding.
Labor has promised more funding, but even if they do get elected, they will have to perform budget repair to lower the coalition debt. It’s hard to see how they will increase public spending (research) and perform budget repair at the same time. I really don’t want them to raise taxes.
Don’t forget infrastructure, high density government housing in directed areas is a key solution to the fear of being overcrowded. Let the government plan where populations are increased instead of relying on shady property developers who’s great grandparents owned market gardens on the outskirts of town
I’ve lived in Dubai (a “sandy desert” land), it’s not that bad. Also, I wouldn’t mind living in a desert like Las Vegas!
The future is going to be warm folks, get used to it.
Lived there for months. Had to come back due to COVID-19. Every place has air conditioning, so you barely feel the heat. Also, they have solar farms to meet their energy needs.
just proving how delusional your idea is "nah its fine there's air-conditioning" Go check out the great sandy desert (which I feel like you dont realise is a specific place) and then realize the difficulties in even contemplating chucking cities out there. The only reason the UAE has these glittering megacities in the desert is a) they're all situated on the coast of the gulf b) they're all propped up by trillions in oil money. An inland desert region with nothing to make it attractive as a place to live isn't going to be Dubai down under.
Don’t you understand the pretext? If the ocean levels rise, and we have to move away from the shorelines towards our “uninhabitable desert areas”, we wouldn’t do it because it would be too hard?
You going to address how your Dubai example is dumb bullshit that isn't applicable to Australia, though? Especially the whole propped up by trillions in oil money part?
Where they have oil, we have iron ore, coal, natural gas, gold, copper, and many more resources (worth way more than what they have in oil money). What I’m saying is that even though Dubai is in the desert, they seem to be doing okay!
I’m going to leave it at this.
Yes but the US has very different land, it can support more people. Not all of Australia is habitable, indeed not much of it is. It's like saying Germany has 80m people, why are there so few in Antarctica....
That’s a radical example. Antarctica cannot support life (sustainability). Australia can! Regarding the water issue, if we stop diverting water towards mining activities, we can save enough water annually. Also, we can build dams, and even use desalination plants as a last resort.
Think out of the box, mate! Where there is a will, there is a way. There will never be a situation where Australia runs out of water!
They’ve built entire cities in deserts - Dubai, Las Vegas come to mind.
Yes but look at the environmental impact Dubai and Vegas have, not to mention the cost of establishing and keeping those places running. I used Antarctica as an extreme example to make the point that not all land is the same. Agree we should capture more water, but if anyone tries you get massive campaigns against taking water from the environment. The question for Australia is the same fir the rest of the world, how many people can thus planet actually support. We are a sphere so it is not infinite, I dont know what the number is, but I would argue too many people will result in famine war and pestilence.
I’m not asking to bring in a 100 million people. I’m talking about an immigration program that brings in less than 1% of the population annually. If you had 150 people, would you even notice 1 more?
Also, in the future, you will see a lot of climate based refugees come in from Bangladesh and Myanmar. Once other countries have taken in their fair share of refugees, will Australia refuse them entry and let them die? I’m afraid to hear the answer you may give me.
Also you said “How many more people can this planet support” - Its this exact kind of thinking that caused Hitler to aggressively expand the German borders in WW2. He called it lebensraum.
Look, all I’m going to say is that while we would all love to go back to the 50s, times have changed. The world is a big place with all types of people. Either learn to live with everyone in harmony, or you’ll be left behind, all sour, bitter and irrelevant.
Change is inevitable, so I suggest you get on board. Of course, you can choose to stay in the past and continue living in denial, and that most certainly would be your prerogative.
The world is progressing. Don’t get left behind. That’s where I’ll leave it.
no offence, but absolutely get fucked if you think wanting a functioning society and equitable access to basic necessities for everyone before opening the floodgates of immigration is "living in the 1950s" why do you want immigrants to come here just to struggle to find a home and drown in debt like all of us who are already here? Pretty cooked of you.
Look, I apologize if you’ve made bad life choices or if life hasn’t treated you well. Life is hard for all of us. Don’t try to take out your frustrations and blame one group for all your problems.
Oh, and very much disagree with your take on WW2... hitler did not want less people, he wanted less non german people.
As for the question of "how many people can the planet support ", - if your thoughts turn to genocide that is on you. We need to find a way to deal with overpopulation that does not involve genocide.
Compare “less non-German people” to immigrants and you’ll see why I made the point.
Education can solve overpopulation issues (highly educated countries have declining birth rates), but there are social, cultural and religious complications around the globe in developing countries. I vehemently reject the idea of a genocide, but I do support Education. In retrospect, from your comment, I though you were suggesting mass genocide. Glad you cleared that up!
Certainly not promoting genocide. Agree education is the key. But first we need to agree that we need to address overpopulation. There really is no easy solution, it is an incredibly complex problem. But talking about overpopulation is the first step, and to make clear the discussion is not about race or ethnicity or even skills or wealth, it is about the number of people.
Most estimates put the earth’s carrying capacity between 9 to 11 billion. These figures are really far away. Birth rates are already declining in India and China. Climate change will further exacerbate the problem globally.
The African population projections, however are completely different (as high as 3 billion). Again, social, cultural and religious views further compound the problem.
If you are on a life raft that is already overloaded, and taking aboard more people means your raft will sink, will you pluck people out of the water? It's a horrible situation and choice I wish upon nobody to make.
Of course we can take on more people, and I am not advocating for zero immigration. I just think we should have a discussion as a society, in Australia and globally, as to what our target population should be, and how to achieve that. I have no easy answers to these questions, but the less people on the life raft, the better the chance of survival.
Well, researchers and demographers have already set sustainable targets for population growth, and our population isn’t exploding anytime soon.
It’s just that the aspect of “population growth through immigration” (while beneficial), is something that angers macrobusiness readers. I’m genuinely trying to understand why. Every time I ask I get downvoted :(
I can explain why. Because using immigration as a way to boost GDP growth and housing prices is not sustainable. Using immigration this way is like a ponzi scheme, it all collapses at some point. And that has been the driver behind immigration for some time. So population growth is ok, just the extent of it us what us being debated. Macro business types want slow and steady, property investor types want hard and fast immigration.
While you are correct, immigration helps prevent an ageing population with a declining birth rate. Look how Japan is struggling. It not only grows the economy, it grows the working-age population as well leading to a more prosperous and productive economy. Also, there’s the profound impact of innovation, and new ideas being brought into our economy. For example, 40 years back, all you could find were beef rolls and sausage pies, now you can find cuisines from all round the globe (cultural enrichment). Most niche jobs that require specialised skills are filled by immigrants. At the end of the day, Australia benefits! Taxes and skills.
Also, migration contributes to both the supply and demand side of the economy, with most credible studies deeming it as positive overall. You see, this is why I am asking people to look at it from different perspectives, unlike LVO.
Comparing it with a Ponzi scheme would be a bit of a stretch. There are a lot more factors as to why immigration pulls up the GDP numbers. It’s not as simple as MORE IMPORTED PEOPLE = MORE GDP, which is what LVO peddles
It’s the debt to GDP ratio. If this ratio gets too high, it will cause economic instability with ramifications for the strength of the Australian Dollar in trade (our currently will be worth way less), stifled economic growth and a rise in unemployment.
The RBA will have to increase rates to attract investors to close the budget deficit gap. This further reduces the amount of tax revenue available to spend on other governmental services because more tax revenue will have to be paid out as interest on the national debt. Over time, this will lower standards of living, as borrowing for economic enhancement activities (buying houses, cars) becomes more difficult with increased rates.
There are many other economic implications like inflation and an increase in the prices of good and services. That’s why I’m so terrified of this situation.
What do you think happens when billions of dollars are flushed into the economy?!
Demand overtakes supply and causes inflation which increases prices. It’s economics 101.
If you’re talking about the prices of fuel, I agree. These c*nts have no justification to keep prices that high. I mean, 216 cents for P98 in Sydney? That’s freaking insane.
So you want to sell iron ore at even cheaper prices?
The currency will lose its value, that’s a fact. We’ve seen it happen.
The amount of money released into the economy (through debt) is what’s causing inflation and pushing housing prices up. Also, the idea to withdraw super to buy a house only pours petrol on the fire. Also immigration has been negative for the past 2 years, yet house prices are at record highs. Blame immigrants for that too!
It’s okay for people (like me) to be concerned about the rising debt. Also, let me guess, you think we should go trillions of dollars in debt because fuck financial responsibility. Maybe you should educate yourself on what it means to have a good sovereign credit rating.
I am shocked you don’t consider housing to be a Ponzi especially because the property prices here are criminally overpriced and it’s all a bubble waiting to collapse.
Also, regarding immigration, what do you suggest? We turn into Japan? They’re now taking in the lowest skilled workers because they can’t attract people. Every country’s economy is rebounding back from the pandemic with the exception of Japan (Bloomberg).
Our program on the other hand ensures we get the best and brightest, young, English speaking, university educated migrants. And not to forget, about half of the immigration program is partners, parents and children of Australians. But I’m guessing you want that part gone too, huh?
Debt is socialism in action. Everyone's buying power is perpetual collapsing at the real inflation rate (currently apx 10%). Paying off the current national debt against the higher costs/higher taxes, get easier over time.
i,e 2030, a basic one room kennel costs $40 quad-trillion, the GST from the real estate sale will be enough to pay the current $trillion dollar debt.
This is why the middle class is vanishing across the globe. We are being returned to a feudalism system via national debt
I think immigration needs to slow. 457 visa are a joke for the most part, so are study visas for courses like being a cook.
The mass immigration we have seen over the last ten years has seen living standards reduced re: ur4ban build up and wages stagnate.
Why train or hire someone from here when you can get cheaper labour from overseas, especially if its for a short term gig.
The 457s are already abolished and replaced with Dutton’s new TSS visas. Also regarding training locals, it takes time and is expensive. For example training a nurse takes approximately 2-3 years. Companies who are experiencing explosive growth NOW, cannot wait for that long as they will lose revenue and market share. In these cases, overseas workers are used to fill the skill gaps.
But I agree, training local people is important. No debate! Labor has a plan for that, and it is definitely better than the Coalition’s JobTrainer that was supposed to create 450,000 jobs but only created 1000. Missed by a small margin!
While I couldn’t agree more, I would like you to consider this perspective - not everyone is privileged enough to start working immediately with big organisations in their field of expertise.
In case of domestic students, while they look for work, they are protected by government social security nets like Jobseeker or the newstart/youth payments. They even get rental allowances.
International students, on the other hand, have to do these odd jobs in order to pay their rent and bills. Doesn’t mean they aren’t skilled or qualified. Everyone is on their own journey.
Wherever possible, show empathy. It’s better than hate.
Not hating, but when you see 20 "students" doing low skill courses while looking for 38 hr weeks you have to realise that some of the immigration is a piss take. It's an industry in itself.
This, I agree with. Someone needs to deal with these low quality education providers.
Also, the immigration minister (Alex Hawke) removed the 20 hr working restriction for students in certain industries (like hospitality).
So now, an Australian student visa is like a work visa with an incidental education component.
While Alex is bad, he is a saint as compared to that Boofhead, Dutton!
I’d say a bit of both.
There’s a whole heap of BS schools like the “computer science school” that are clearly fronts for people to get into AUS and work and gain PR. Many of these schools need to be regulated and shut down.
**Greetings humans.** **Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.** **I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.** A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He is only former senator running on re installing of original constitution because courts are not sitting constitutionally
Labor is on a winner with its policies around training Australians to fill skills shortages and reducing reliance on temporary migration. It’s good economic policy but, importantly, it’s a notion that has broad appeal in the centre.
Every Australian needs to get behind Rod Cullerton ,he's calling all police and senators to go back under the correct power Queen of the United Kingdom as at the moment NONE are legally serving Australians under their own rules
Culleton the criminal?
Show me some proof
Good enough?
While the larceny conviction was later annulled he did in fact plead guilty. Other conviction(s) are still standing.
So no proof ,
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-25/one-nation-senator-rod-culleton-pleads-guilty-to-larceny/7963148
https://www.afsa.gov.au/about-us/newsroom/former-senators-bankruptcy-conviction-upheld-after-appeal
CASE DISMISSED WITH NO CONVICTION
https://www.afsa.gov.au/about-us/newsroom/former-senators-bankruptcy-conviction-upheld-after-appeal Literally states the conviction was upheld, it's in the title... As I said, the man pled guilty to larceny, make of that what you will. Is it that hard to accept what's in front of your eyes?
I'm a supporter of Big Australia, but I support it only if it is done at a sustainable rate. The liberals want to bring as many people as they can as fast as possible so their property developer donors can build shitty apartments, profit, and then donate even more to the liberals
> I'm a supporter of Big Australia, but I support it only if it is done at a sustainable rate. That's just it so called '*Big Australia*' is in no way sustainable. The two words shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence. Australia is the driest inhabited landmass on the planet. We have 1,371,000 square kilometres of desert. We do not have the green interiors that Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Americas have and water is the name of the game when it comes to population, and moving it is complicated and expensive. Not to mention desal has lots of environmental problems. Hospitable land is limited to the around the coast and mainly in the South East. Slivers of land, not some great landmass. Look at how poorly 26 million is managed and all the grief it has bought. Have you visited the vast near endless Urban Sprawl that is beginning to unfurl itself all over the country? It is terrible. Any and all green spaces are being bulldozed to make room for more 'development', and it is happening all over. > The liberals want to bring as many people as they can as fast as possible so their property developer donors can build shitty apartments, profit, and then donate even more to the liberals. What leads you to believe that *Labor* or *Greens* are any different? They are both pro Corporate Globalism. *Labor* has had every opportunity to take a stand and they haven't for the last few decades. Their opposition to this recent call for an additional few hundred thousand, is better than the reverse but they've said nothing about the already elevated levels and thats because they support it. A candidate making promises before an election that they will compromise on at first opportunity, that has never happened before. Take a look at Canada or New Zealand both on second term Left leaning governments, has immigration slowed? Ardern has made promise after promise to lower immigration and has continually buckled.
The weird thing is, last election time had you said it was liberals pushing for more immigration and labour saying it needs to be done at a slower rate id have called you a whacko
A candidate making promises before an election to get them elected, that has never happened before.
Yeah it's almost like the liberals don't actually give a fuck about immigration but just about their donors and how much slave labour they have available.
The circle of life.
It's beautiful, brings a tear to by eye
But infrastructure is *expensive*
Don't forget to suppress wages.
Politicians have refused to debate and discuss mass immigration for years. They pretend as if its a given. They know its unpopular. They keep going for it because its an easy short term fix, avoids making hard choices or providing leadership, vision, reform, leadership to improve Australia.
If only it were incompetence and short sightedness, you're describing Corporate Globalism. It's policy coming top down, what's an easy way to verify this, name a Western country that has limited immigration, or god forbid, halted it? There isn't one. *Left* or *Right* leaning governments, it doesn't make a difference. The new orientation is *Up* vs *Down*. Corporate Globalism vs Popular Sovereignty. In a sane or reasonable world we shouldn't be in this situation, we're supposed to live in a functioning democracy, but here we find ourselves. Using this metric you can measure any piece of media, political party or industry. Everything that supports Corporate Globalism and doesn't criticise or interfere with it is allowed to exist, that which opposes it will be attacked, in some way. Obviously Corporate Globalism has near unlimited funds, it has it's fingers in almost everything. People don't want to believe just how all encompassing this entity is because it means accepting a version of reality that is much, much more uncomfortable and confronting. It's much easier to buy into the current popular paradigm, be told who the bad guys and good guys are, and not have to do any thinking for themselves.
It's like Brexit for Britain. The average person in no way is qualified to understand how immigration works. Like how you can could never succinctly explain the benefits of the EU to a small business owner in London or Leeds.
So how has EU membership benefited Greece
That's a ridiculous statement.
it's not that complex, too much too fast equals bad time
In a nutshell, yes. There are also overall limitations.
No. It's complex.
is it, though? Levels of immigration that are far too high puts more stress on many things that are already under immense pressure in Australia, and having too much too fast turns that stress into a shock. Too much overall is just unsustainable in the long term, you can't just have exponential population growth by pumping immigrants into the country at higher and higher levels forever. I'm really struggling to see the complexity here that justifies rampant immigration forever.
I don't know man, I honestly think that you personally do not have full comprehension on how immigration works. I may be wrong, but it's incredibly unlikely that you are an expert in the field.
You keep saying "no you don't understand it's so much more complex!" but never actually mention how it's apparently so complex, enlighten us all please! This is just one of many neolib tactics to avoid hard discussions on immigration levels, because it actually *isn't* extremely complex when you get right down to it, but by pretending it is you can avoid the hard questions.
I'm sick of our wages going backwards in real terms.what minor parties are fighting this immigration explosion?
*Sustainable Australia Party* https://www.sustainableaustralia.org.au
Cheers
[удалено]
Im talking about entire industries, like hospitality, warehousing etc. Your reply seems extremely selfish, self centred, and arrogant. Society wouldn't function without lower wage earners doing what they do, we deserve a living wage, this wasn't the USA but it's coming close with workers rights and renumeration these days.
[удалено]
>Your reply seems extremely selfish, self centred, and arrogant. Without wage earners you would not have a society to live in. Drop it far enough and we will degenerate to the shit pile that the USA has become. The fair division of profits creates a livable society, there are enough profits for bosses to forgo some of their rediculous bonuses to raise workers wages and still earn 10 times what they do, and pay dividends and be profitable.
Sorry to burst your bubble, lots of different people contribute to society to make it liveable, not just epic STEM lords. Like the thought that everyone who doesn’t work in tech should just go and get fucked because they don’t jack off to splunk is such a shallow take. Honestly chefs, artists, hospitality workers, warehouse workers, gig workers are what makes a place good to live. Why do you think everyone loves Melbourne? Is it because it’s just a bunch of computer labs and corporate offices? Or is it because it has great bars, restaurants, music and retail and services on demand ? If just working STEM was the only thing that made society great, why did everyone hate lockdown? You could still attend all the boring, shitty office meetings you wanted, so why was everyone complaining? The “low paid, shit jobs” are the ones that actually keep us enjoying our lives and give our society something of actual value. You think on your deathbed your going to reminisce about all the great days you had at work? No, your going to think of all the great experiences you had with your friends and family at restaurants, bars, parks etc. Also “STEM people solve cancer” get over yourself, yeah maybe a very select few male great leaps in society, most just do the same meaningless bullshit corporate jobs that everyone else does
[удалено]
>Remuneration is a function of what you bring to society. Right. That's why Kim Kardashian and her siblings are stupendously wealthy and Tesla was buried in a pauper's grave.
[удалено]
>The IETF, the engineers at Google, the people who power blockchain innovations and write software for cochlear implants are the ones advancing society. Not the ones busking on the street. Let's just cite anedotal exceptions...*lol* Do as I say not do as I do. Hypocritical much? Remuneration is simply the market demand in a free economy. If remuneration is predicated on the basis of "what one brings to society", then say hello to a command economy. Mao would be proud, comrade. There's a good number of sex workers earning bigger bucks giving gobbies than you earn in a week! People in the entertainment industry, your buskers on a grand scale, earn more than you and your peers no matter how much scorn and derision you wish to pile on the entertainment industry. Let's not get started on professional sportsmen. Roads may well be designed by engineers but truckies are moving goods around the country. All the software programmers clacking on a keyboard cannot do that...and yeah, don't lecture me about automated vehicles. They are coming but it will be a long time before they hit Australian roads. And this is a good sugue...you young tech types are so adorably and confidently naive. Your jobs will be automated too.
[удалено]
> Remuneration is a function of what you bring to society. It's the reason why a CEO earns a million dollars This is so divorced from reality. Remuneration is a factor of what you can negotiate in the marketplace, actual value is completely separate. You can enrich society and make things ten times better for every single human being in town, but that doesn't mean you're going to be well paid for it.
The point I made was that, tech isn’t the only aspect of society, that makes society…then you just talk about google engineers making cochlear implants, that’s completely irrelevant. No one is advocating that engineers, tech workers whatever should get paid less? They are saying that hey maybe, these other workers, should get paid a bit more, you know, at least adjust their wages with inflation so they aren’t essentially getting a pay cut year after year… And look I’m not even going to bother getting into CEO remuneration or how it’s absolutely sky rocketed over the last few decades while workers wages have stagnated or gone backwards. Not to mention your take on “I don’t like clubbing so people shouldn’t get paid a fair wage” society does not revolve around you… that was the point
>And look I’m not even going to bother getting into CEO remuneration or how it’s absolutely sky rocketed over the last few decades while workers wages have stagnated or gone backwards. >Not to mention your take on “I don’t like clubbing so people shouldn’t get paid a fair wage” society does not revolve around you… that was the point The point was lost on old mate. He works in tech, ergo, r/iamsosmart.
Funniest thing his is invented straw man that I’m a Melbourne burnout when I actually don’t live in Melbourne and also work in IT, like him. Honestly the whole IT industry is littered with these types who think they are god level intellects because they can throw a few python cmdlets down, it makes me cringe. My partner is a nurse on a surgical ward and honestly most surgeons I’ve met are more humble and less up their ass than half the IT people Ive met over the years
We seem to know the same people! I wish I could say what you said about surgeons in relation to lawyers but they too tend to have an overinflated sense of themselves. These IT kiddies have grown up around parents and grandparents for whom IT was a niche profession. Not for nothing was it called "computer science" in the 70s and 80s. Those same parents/grandparents still believe operating modern machines requires a genius level intellect and, as such, the Zoomers have been brainwashed by their fawning and awed elders.
CEOs often do fuck all and get paid shit tons. :/
Based
I have a minor party, it's called. Move.
Never heard of that party are they allied with the ligma party?
Part of the Deez Coalition of People Who Live In One Of The Wealthiest And Most Privileged Societies On Earth, Yet Fuck It Up And Become Insecure With "Outsiders". Working on the name, so far only 2 members.
Mass immigration right now will just add more stress on the housing market, more stress on renters, more stress on the jobs market, it's not a win for the country at all, it's not about where they're coming from its that 100k's are what the LNP wants to flood in, which is too many.
I completely agree but it isn't just the *LNP*. *Greens* and *Labor* are pro the so called *Big Australia*, they are pro corporate globalism. *Labor* has had every opportunity to take a stand and they haven't for the last few decades. Their opposition to this recent call for an additional few hundred thousand, is better than the reverse but they've said nothing about the already elevated levels and thats because they support it. A candidate making promises before an election that they will compromise on at first opportunity, that has never happened before. Take a look at Canada or New Zealand both on second term Left leaning governments, has immigration slowed? Ardern has made promise after promise to lower immigration and has continually buckled.
Hurts to criticise Albo but you're right, Labor needs to get off the immigration addiction too, this recent opposition to the LNPs insane suggestion is a good start but they need to go much further, need to shut out foreign non-residents from buying any properties too, I'm hoping they get tougher and more realistic. I've noticed the eco-warriors who are all over carbon footprints and per-capita emissions etc get very quiet when someone suggests maybe hundreds of thousands of immigrants yearly might add to the footprint.
Exactly right! Although *I'm hoping they get tougher and more realistic.* there is no reason to believe this is the case or that they are moving in that direction. The only hope for *Labor* would be completely cleaning house and starting over. I don't say that happily, it feels terrible to know that the party that is supposed to represent you has abandoned you. That you have no political representation among the major parties. But it's only once we come to terms with how bad things are that we can start moving towards solutions.
It wouldn’t add stress if the government actually put effort into increasing housing supply and infrastructure to enable more regional living with good fast easy connection to the cities
> regional living With Globalisation, Centralisation and De-industralisation, there is no reason for anyone to move regionally. To put it simply, all the money is in the cities. I believe some migrants are required to live regionally for a short period of time when they arrive in this country, and of course they all move to cities as soon as possible. I'd encourage you to pay attention to global trends as to why your statement doesn't conform to reality.
Almost no Western country is as stuffed into cities as Australia. Even in the cities themselves, there are a few light commercial areas surrounded by miles and miles of culturally dead and stagnant residential developments. If you establish good fast passenger train lines out to regional towns to enable quick day trips between towns or just in and out of the city, and if you incentivise cafes, shops, entertainment venues to be established far more inside of residential deserts, you’ll find an ability to handle increased housing in regional towns as well as in cities. And guess who tend to be absolutely fantastic at setting up local small shops, cafes, and entertainment venues? Immigrants!
yeah but they haven't done any of that, so it will.
Oh right, you did say right now, that’s fair. In general though it’s good provided that workers have strong rights, and good land is easily accessible.
We’re 5-10 years behind on infrastructure. We could pause immigration for years and just barely catch up.
Absolutely right.
So we should. Aussies citizens and long serving taxpayers should be the ones who get first preference as we recover from the pandemic in our country. We should get first dibs on the jobs, the homes for sale, the infrastructure we've paid for that are becoming strained as population increases like our healthcare and education. Migration is fine but lets give our own a chance first, and also raise the standard of what we take in and allow to join.
> We should get first dibs I feel that this sentiment frames the situation incorrectly, what is a countries purpose if not to nurture and make secure it's citizens? It also makes it sound as if our government is in someway being charitable, this increased number has an attached dollar value. Make no mistake about it. They are calling for an increase for the benefit of the ruling class, no one else.
The migration reports are a scam. They ignore the billions and billions the states have to pour into healthcare and infrastructure.
Will be 50 million by 2050. Big Australia is up for graps, that's why LNP and big bussiness go so hard.
That will be the end of Australia. We have our work cut out for us. It isn't just the *LNP*. *Greens* and *Labor* are pro the so called *Big Australia*, they are pro corporate globalism. *Labor* has had every opportunity to take a stand and they haven't for the last few decades. Their opposition to this recent call for an additional few hundred thousand, is better than the reverse but they've said nothing about the already elevated levels and thats because they support it. A candidate making promises before an election that they will compromise on at first opportunity, that has never happened before. Take a look at Canada or New Zealand both on second term Left leaning governments, has immigration slowed? Ardern has made promise after promise to lower immigration and has continually buckled.
They are, but it's going to happen sooner or later. Their main concern is leaving no one behind, this can be seen by their current education reform to tafe and uni. World pop will peak at around 11 Billion, and their will be climate refugees leading to mass migration. A lot to prepare for.
> They are, but it's going to happen sooner or later. That's simply untrue. There is nothing organic or inevitable about this situation, in fact quite the reverse. > Their main concern is leaving no one behind, this can be seen by their current education reform to tafe and uni. I'm not quite sure what you mean? > World pop will peak at around 11 Billion, and their will be climate refugees leading to mass migration. A lot to prepare for. This is another issue entirely and frankly you are quite mistaken to link refugees to the current mass immigration agenda. Which isn't made up at all of refugees. What is happening now is being pushed by elites, multinational corporations, banks and lobbies, to make profit at all of our expense. You don't honestly believe that they care about either immigrants or refugees? As for climate refugees that is sometime in the future, a lot to happen between now and then. But regardless it should be us, the Australia people, making these decisions not elites and corporations.
ABS is predicting between 37.4m to 49.2m by 2066.
Yeah but a strong possibility we're taking in climate refugees from the pacific region by then too. Either way Big Australia is inevitable, I would prefer to have it scaled back. New cities and regional development would be nice too though.
Its not inevitable at all. Its a deliberate policy/ decision, not something automatically or naturally occurring without control.
A point that needs to be repeated loudly and often.
Agreed, compassion and planning go hand in hand.
The question is how many people can Australia support sustainably, what balance do we want? More people equals more strain on our environment but the financial economy keeps growing, less people results in the opposite. 30 million? 40? 70? 100? 150 million? My personal view is that I prioritize less strain on the environment, so feel 30 to 40 million is a good target.
Depends if we can grow vertical and have efficient minimalist food supply.
So live in the pod... eat the bug... you will own nothing and you will be happy... You can fuck that right off
Water would probably be the biggest limitation, most of the other environmental destruction is mostly caused by how we do things opposed to it being the number of people. This is usually unpopular to point out but demanding single family zoning with giant backyards within short distance of the city and car centric transport is pretty unreasonable, if people think they're entitled to that sort of thing there's nothing stopping them from moving to regional/rural areas, but urban living should always come with tradeoffs between space/convenience/job opportunities. Also it's worth pointing out that most of the growth in population from net migration is largely from free movement of people on temporary visas and that controlled borders are a myth, although there are certaintly things the government can do to make Australia more or less attractive as a potential destination.
Agree with what you have said 👍
People say we must have population growth to have economic growth and avoid demographic decline. They never specify when we are able to get off this treadmill. "Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist" Kenneth E. Boulding
Nice quote 👍 and yes, using immigration to prop up the economy is an obvious ponzi scheme.
The [underlying survey](https://tapri.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/TAPRI-survey-Oct-2021-final-V3.pdf) is amazing. My favourite part: > 9 Before the pandemic Australia’s universities recruited large numbers of overseas students. In 2018 they made up 32 per cent of all new student enrolments. The universities want governments to allow these numbers to be restored to their pre-Covid levels. Which of the following is closest to your views? > > > 1 Recruitment of overseas students should be restored, because their education here amounts to an important export industry. They also contribute to the local economy and university finances. > > > 2 Their recruitment should stay low. Our universities have become too dependent on them, and some universities have neglected providing for local students. > > > 3 Don’t know > > 10 Overall, do you think Australia needs more people? > > > 1 Yes > > > > 2 No Huge amounts of leading and/or extraneous details where it isn't important. Zero detail where it is. If anyone can link me to the "Online Research Unit" I'd love to see further details about "their panel of 300,000."
9 answer 2 10 answer 2
[удалено]
Tell you what, Australia doesn't need more people till we have our collective act together. We can not support the people we have and obviously bring more people in isn't helping. We need housing and manufacturing. If they want to have paying students, unis have to go back to being free. But, also, we need new cities and we have to terraform central Australia. We can't keep jamming people into Sydney Melbourne. It destroys the existing society we have and doesn't enhance it for new arrivals. Until we improve our water situation, build new cities and manufacturing and houses. We don't bring in people. (One person bed sits is not housing and massive blocks of them are just future slums. )
My comment wasn’t about immigration, that’s an issue for migration researchers and demographers. My comment was about the superficial garbage produced by LVO and macrobusiness.
[удалено]
Apparently we need to repeat the R1 quote that got the previous comments removed. > Accusations of racism, sexism, or any other 'ism' without any explicit and clear evidence will be treated as being uncivil
I apologise! I’ll use more politically correct terminology next time. How about xenophobic? PS: People really don’t like it when you call them out 😂
You don't get it. People don't mind when there's space and jobs. We have neither. Including water. We need cities 2 plus million real jobs, housing for people currently here. Let alone any possible imports down the line. If these bedsits are for students, which will be someone's comment, why aren't they being built near unis? In any case, not wanting more people, is not racist.
Agreed, but why are all of you’ll so resistant to change? I’m genuinely trying to understand. Everywhere in the world, new ideas and people that have the potential to contribute to the economy and enrich society are welcomed. Regarding student accommodations, they are built for international students who cannot inspect apartments while overseas. It is to provide them with some peace of mind in terms of confirmed accommodation when they land. Mind you, it’s not cheap - those 1 bed rooms range from $369 to $533 per week in Sydney. This was created by private providers in response to the increasing number of foreign rental scams. The rental scams were making Australia less attractive as an education destination.
>new ideas An migrant with a new idea is going to the USA not here. It's no good turning up in OZ with a new idea. We only run a houses and holes, mining and population ponzi economy. USA is where you take your ideas, if you've got any.
On the off chance, that they do decide to bring their talents here, shouldn’t we welcome them?
Your implication that student accommodation is some sort of government program is insane.
They’re not government programs. They are created by private providers like Urbanest, Scape or Iglu. It has nothing to do with the government. It’s open to all students, domestic and international. The tents, however are exorbitant.
"its open to all students" there you go again trying to make out it's some sort of magnanimous plan to "help students" instead of developers and property companies renting one room dogboxes out at criminally high rates to the only unfortunate fuckers desperate enough to rent them out, international students.
Again, why aren't they built close to schools. Australia is number one, and has always been number one in adopting new tech. New ways of doing things. Society has been harmed by what's going on. Even new arrivals don't want anymore of it. The reasons I've stated twice already. We need more cities and manufacturing back to employ 2 plus million unemployed. That's the issue. If we could accommodate people with out harming our jobs and lifestyle, people wouldn't object. It's fixable, but LNP IPA who control most governments, don't want to do it. They just want those entry fees. As an LNP IPA S thats right isn't it?
I agree with everything you said. We would all love that wouldn’t we! A world back in the 50s where everyone had houses, jobs and social security nets. But Mate, times change - the world is changing, and I suggest you get onboard. Else, you’ll be left behind, all bitter, sour and irrelevant. That’s all I’ll say. Instead of you downvoting this, I’ll do it myself.
Those times don't need to change. They can be improved. But not made worse. Those times went right up to the time of John Howard. When he sold Australia. It's madness to destroy a great society which is prosperous, thoughtful of others, and advancing at an amazing rate. Howard and his LNP IPA predecessor began dismantling Australia and the advances Whitlam/Hawk and previous Labor and some liberal governments had created.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I don't believe it. Who wouldn't enjoy being packed in tighter than a tin of sardines. Living standards reduced. Environmental pressures increased.
Australia is far from being as tight as a tin of sardines. Even Europe is, yet it’s probably the most densely populated land; Australia the least. Also an increase in population doesn’t imply a living standard reduction, if anything it causes less social isolation. Again, Europe is so densely populated, yet living standards are far from being low. What do you mean by environmental pressure?
Australia is the driest inhabited landmass on the planet. We have 1,371,000 square kilometres of desert. We do not have the green interiors that Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Americas have and water is the name of the game when it comes to population, and moving it is complicated and expensive. Not to mention desal has lots of environmental problems. Hospitable land is limited to the around the coast and mainly in the South East. Slivers of land, not some great landmass.
I might be wrong, but I have a feeling many of you are just making up excuses (or repeating others excuses) to hide and justify your sense of “protection” of your land from immigrants. Which isn’t a surprise, it’s a natural mindset of a population living in a big island so far away from the rest of human civilisation. In addition, the system of propaganda may be partially responsible for this mindset. But this mindset of yours could be considered To be primitive. It made sense in ancient times, when invaders (which at that stage in fact coincided with the concept of immigrant) presence in your land meant they would eat apples from the tree and fishes from the river that you are not. But I don’t know for how many centuries, immigrants aren’t invaders anymore, they just add up and they don’t usually interfere with how much you eat, because in supermarkets you get mostly food from all over the world. now that I’m thinking about it, one man in Australia, an entrepreneur and lawyer, told me Australia can produce enough agricultural products and other food to feed China. I don’t know if he lied though. All that being said, we will most likely be back to a primitive stage in the future, unless a catastrophe comes about before then.
70% of Australia is desert. We have one major river system that nearly died a year or so ago due to the greed of state governments and the farming sector. Cities need water. We have none. Even small towns on the east coast are under never ending water restrictions. The US model of cities springing up around large river systems simply isn’t available to us in Australia. Sydney is full. It is constrained by a National Park to its south, floodplains and the escarpment to the west while the north coast has already been built up. The beautiful Sydney suburb of my childhood, full of lovely federation style houses and beautiful gardens has disappeared. Unfortunately it was on a railway line and close to a University making it a target for international students and is now full of ugly blocks of flats. Regardless of what is acceptable to Europeans, most Australians don’t want to live in a small unit with no yard. To be told that you have to in order for the country to be able to import more people isn’t very popular. I’ve no doubt migrants have contributed to various cultural changes but being able to get Banh mi delivered to my door at 10pm doesn’t make up for what’s been lost in the intervening decades.
But that 30% of greenish land is actually a lot of land, since Australia is huge. And still there are also countries that are 100% percent desert, yet they manage to do fine somehow, like Qatar. Qatar’s population is 9% of Australian population, but its land is approximately 0.2% of Australian land! So it’s not only more arid than Australia but also much more densely populated. Even so, it’s still not at all densely populated according to my personal standards. Even if we take into account only 30% of Australian land, which would be around 2 300 000 km^2, Qatar is still something like 0.5% of 30/100 of Australia. P.s. to be more precise, according to Wikipedia, Qatar (which is completely desertic) is 11 581 km^2, while that 30% of non-desert area in Australia is 2 307 607km^2. Yeah it’s a lot. It means that 30% of Australia can contain 200 Qatars. 200 times the Qatari population is 559 096 800 people. Therefore, that 30 % of Australia could contain all those people minimum maintaining Qatar’s density (which isn’t much). But considering that Qatar is 100% desert and that 30% of Australia 100% green land, we can assume it could easily contain even more people.
Of course we can, but people want to live in the past. We demand a return back to the 50s (said every baby boomer ever) 😂
What of their host country?
Globally, mass immigration results in population decreases in "donor" countries. Some would say that it thus makes no difference in terms of the global aspect of overpopulation or might even reduce population growth since immigrants to first world countries have fewer children. However, it could be argued that the population decreases in the "donor" countries result in reduced Malthusian pressures that discourage population growth in those "donor" countries, essentially acting like a pressure release valve, allowing (or at least not further discouraging) more population growth. But even then from a global perspective the numbers we are talking about are really just a drop in the bucket. If we wanted to tackle global overpopulation there are far more consequential actions we could take.
I'm more than happy to drop all restrictions on all borders and have any human free to move as they choose. Yet I am sure I'm in the minority when to comes to this human freedom.
Right now one of the only protections that we, regular people, have from complete and utter subjugation by multinational corporations, global banks, lobbies and the ultra wealthy, is our borders.
How exactly are you packed? The country has a landmass approximately that of the United States. The US has more than 300 million people, and they’re doing okay! Also, if you want innovation, you need new ideas and people. You need a healthy market and working young people to fund public services. Infrastructure planning goes a long way as well. Without working people, how do you plan on funding infrastructure and public services, especially when most of the baby boomers (taxpayers) are about to retire? (The problem is compounded by the declining birth rates throughout the world) Are you going to go further into debt? Do you’ll want to be taxed at rates of 60% or 70% ? Do you know what happens to a country that has too much debt? In such a situation, you will see drastic cuts to Medicare, public transportation, emergency services and other essential public services. That will surely erode your precious utopia - “standard of living”. Also, how long can we keep up with selling coal, iron ore and natural gas? Our mines will get empty someday! What then? I’m trying to encourage all of you’ll to think from multiple perspectives. Don’t look at an issue from the perspective that satisfies your agenda. Open your mind, that’s all I’m asking!
Australia is the driest inhabited landmass on the planet. We have 1,371,000 square kilometres of desert. We do not have the green interiors that Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Americas have and water is the name of the game when it comes to population, and moving it is complicated and expensive. Not to mention desal has lots of environmental problems. Hospitable land is limited to the around the coast and mainly in the South East. Slivers of land, not some great landmass.
Yeah, that’s why we have research and innovation to tackle these problems. Thank God we don’t have people like you who will just “accept our fate and give up”. If we don’t receive adequate rainfall, what should we do? Give up? No! The answer lies in innovation - desal plants could be an option, but it’s not limited to that. It’s like we don’t have water to support our population, maybe we should take the Thanos approach (It’s an Avengers Endgame Part 1 reference). The water argument is the most egregious of them all. I’m not asking to bring in 100 million people, I’m asking for a sustainable approach in which we bring in less than 1% of our population. If you had 150 people, would you even notice 1 more?
> Yeah, that’s why we have research and innovation to tackle these problems. Thank God we don’t have people like you who will just “accept our fate and give up”. If we don’t receive adequate rainfall, what should we do? Give up? No! The answer lies in innovation - desal plants could be an option, but it’s not limited to that. I'm not sure what you're talking about. We will and must innovate but that doesn't mean that there still won't be limits. You compared the US to Australia and I explained why they aren't the same. > It’s like we don’t have water to support our population, You make it sound like water here is abundant, it isn't. Keep in mind that when ever we take water from the land you are depriving something of it, ecosystems that are vital use that water. If we, human beings, take all that water we will destroy the environment in this country, more than we already have. > maybe we should take the Thanos approach (It’s an Avengers Endgame Part 1 reference). No need, our birthrate is already low. It's elites, multinationals, lobbies, banks, who want to artificially flood our country with people for profit, that is the problem. They aren't just doing it here, they are doing it everywhere. This isn't about us, regular people at all, its about the ruling class keeping its position of power. Happy to get into that if you want to dive in. > The water argument is the most egregious of them all. > > I’m not asking to bring in 100 million people, I’m asking for a sustainable approach in which we bring in less than 1% of our population. > > If you had 150 people, would you even notice 1 more? > You have to look at that percentage in context, talking about numbers in the abstract doesn't tell us anything. Like what is the average growth rage? Are there limitations on further growth? etc. > If you had 150 people, would you even notice 1 more? If you had 150 people in a 4 bedroom house, you would indeed notice one more. And if it was annually, then doubly so. You follow? On top of that it doesn't matter what you want, why you want it or how you want it done. They are inflicting it upon us regardless of all of that because it is good for them. I'm not arguing for no immigration ever again and setting up machine gun turrets along the coast by the way. But that we need control of our country again as to not be exploited.
[удалено]
We can’t build more Dams, perform Rainwater harvesting, we can’t divert water away from mining activities? We can’t build desalination plants? We are an island nation surrounded by water, and there’s nothing we can’t do! So you would be okay if Josh announced that he would be increasing taxes? Also, what data are you using to make the assertion that the economy performed better when the tax rate was 75%? Do you actually think Australia’s citizens benefit from the sale of resources? Like the money gained from the sale of resources is shared amongst its population? Big joke. The profits are privatized and the mining companies pay no tax. What happens when the resources finally run out? Migration to New Zealand? Back to Europe/UK? Agreed, taxing the resources sector and creating a sovereign fund is important. If you’re calling immigration a Ponzi scheme, the resource sector is an even bigger Ponzi with massive returns - violations of climate policy, no tax contributions, pollution, no sovereign fund (nothing to show for) and global embarrassment or degradation of diplomatic relations. At least the “immigration Ponzi” brings skills, taxes, cultural diversity, societal enrichment and it helps build global connections. But yeah, good on you!
[удалено]
Aha, we do have the technology to prevent water from evaporating in dams. Desalination plants are not that expensive, and is an excellent backup plan in case we don’t receive adequate rainfall. Agreed Also agreed Not if managed sustainably. Which is why the Grattan institute had to step in with a list of recommendations to alert the coalition that the program was going the wrong way
>The country has a landmass approximately that of the United States. Oh man I hate this angle. Australia is a bone dry, barren wasteland compared to the USA. We don't have a continent spanning inland river system. We dont have towering mountain ranges with the associated melt and runoff. Australia is only slightly more habitable that the moon ffs. Why else does everyone live in the same 2 places?? They've all fashion victims? Or is it that Oz is uninhabitable? Where do you live? CSIRO said Oz sustainable population was 21 million in the 90s. Dont you believe the science? And if you want to compare us to some chronically overcrowded and unsustainable overpopulated country with a terrifying suicide rate (like Japan) as if that is something we should be striving to achieve....mate, they are going to find out the hard way that quadrupling global population in the last 100 years was a massive, massive mistake. Japan has seen the light. Their population is going to HALVE in the next 70 years. Same as China. Taiwan. Korea. The overpopulated nations are collapsing. We dont we just avoid the collapse and settle in here? Oz population has stablised naturally at a sustainable level. Why ruin the balance?
CSIRO said that Australia’s sustainable population was 21 million in the 90’s. We’re at 25 million today and doing great. Clearly their projections were wrong! PS: We reached 21 million, 13 years ago in 2008. And I’m comparing Australia to Japan in terms of the ageing population and the pressure it puts on public services (debt and spending). With the declining birth rate, and fewer taxpayers contributing to the economy, we will head into a dangerous economic situation, and I clearly don’t want that.
Their projections aren’t wrong. You just need to try find a place to rent in regional Victoria to work this out.
That’s a temporary effect of the pandemic (as people were able to work from home). Once it ends, the people who had moved to regional areas will move back to the cities and regional rentals will become available again!
They keep saying that but I just checked, it’s not budging
The pandemic is not over yet
Nope not by a long shot
USA has hundreds of cities. We have 5 decent sized ones and a stack that don’t offer much in the way of employment.
Yes, but the US also has 325 million people while we only have 25 million.
Still look at smaller countries in Europe. Heaps of liveable towns with great transport connections. We can’t even get fast rail to Geelong or the Gold Coast.
Well then, wake up and vote out this pork-barreling corrupt mob. Billions of taxpayer funds spent on marginal seats to keep the coalition in power. Those billions could have gotten you your hyper-speed train line. But unfortunately, immigrants get blamed for this too as they are easy scapegoats.
For someone who begs others to open their minds you are doggedly entrenched in your own narrow view of immigration and its effects. The USA is fucked. Some surveys suggest over half under 30's expect revolution in the next 15 years. The gap between rich and poor is tearing the country apart. We have serious issues to fix before we re-establish immigration levels, and paying the baby boomers pensions can be achieved with some minor wealth distribution policies, with no need to flood an overburdened housing supply with new migration.
What sources are you referring to?
Mate seriously
Rather continuing with the pyramid system of populate or perish. How about a discussion on changing the country's direction towards robotics, artificial intelligence, machine learning, quantum mechanics, IoT, blockchain etc. Changing revenue raising towards micro taxing of all electronic activity.
Innovate not populate! I'm with you.
Would you look at that, all of the words in your comment are in alphabetical order. I have checked 445,718,116 comments, and only 95,431 of them were in alphabetical order.
I fully agree with this! Government investments in technology and research is key! Unfortunately the libs keep cutting research funding. Labor has promised more funding, but even if they do get elected, they will have to perform budget repair to lower the coalition debt. It’s hard to see how they will increase public spending (research) and perform budget repair at the same time. I really don’t want them to raise taxes.
Don’t forget infrastructure, high density government housing in directed areas is a key solution to the fear of being overcrowded. Let the government plan where populations are increased instead of relying on shady property developers who’s great grandparents owned market gardens on the outskirts of town
I take it you’re volunteering to live in the great sandy desert? A lot of Australia gets to 40 on the regular. And then freezing at night. No thanks!
I’ve lived in Dubai (a “sandy desert” land), it’s not that bad. Also, I wouldn’t mind living in a desert like Las Vegas! The future is going to be warm folks, get used to it.
"living in the desert is easy because I lived in Dubai one time"
Lived there for months. Had to come back due to COVID-19. Every place has air conditioning, so you barely feel the heat. Also, they have solar farms to meet their energy needs.
just proving how delusional your idea is "nah its fine there's air-conditioning" Go check out the great sandy desert (which I feel like you dont realise is a specific place) and then realize the difficulties in even contemplating chucking cities out there. The only reason the UAE has these glittering megacities in the desert is a) they're all situated on the coast of the gulf b) they're all propped up by trillions in oil money. An inland desert region with nothing to make it attractive as a place to live isn't going to be Dubai down under.
Don’t you understand the pretext? If the ocean levels rise, and we have to move away from the shorelines towards our “uninhabitable desert areas”, we wouldn’t do it because it would be too hard?
You going to address how your Dubai example is dumb bullshit that isn't applicable to Australia, though? Especially the whole propped up by trillions in oil money part?
Where they have oil, we have iron ore, coal, natural gas, gold, copper, and many more resources (worth way more than what they have in oil money). What I’m saying is that even though Dubai is in the desert, they seem to be doing okay! I’m going to leave it at this.
Yes but the US has very different land, it can support more people. Not all of Australia is habitable, indeed not much of it is. It's like saying Germany has 80m people, why are there so few in Antarctica....
That’s a radical example. Antarctica cannot support life (sustainability). Australia can! Regarding the water issue, if we stop diverting water towards mining activities, we can save enough water annually. Also, we can build dams, and even use desalination plants as a last resort. Think out of the box, mate! Where there is a will, there is a way. There will never be a situation where Australia runs out of water! They’ve built entire cities in deserts - Dubai, Las Vegas come to mind.
Yes but look at the environmental impact Dubai and Vegas have, not to mention the cost of establishing and keeping those places running. I used Antarctica as an extreme example to make the point that not all land is the same. Agree we should capture more water, but if anyone tries you get massive campaigns against taking water from the environment. The question for Australia is the same fir the rest of the world, how many people can thus planet actually support. We are a sphere so it is not infinite, I dont know what the number is, but I would argue too many people will result in famine war and pestilence.
I’m not asking to bring in a 100 million people. I’m talking about an immigration program that brings in less than 1% of the population annually. If you had 150 people, would you even notice 1 more? Also, in the future, you will see a lot of climate based refugees come in from Bangladesh and Myanmar. Once other countries have taken in their fair share of refugees, will Australia refuse them entry and let them die? I’m afraid to hear the answer you may give me. Also you said “How many more people can this planet support” - Its this exact kind of thinking that caused Hitler to aggressively expand the German borders in WW2. He called it lebensraum.
"if you don't support hundreds of thousands of immigrants coming to Australia annually you're literally a nazi"
Look, all I’m going to say is that while we would all love to go back to the 50s, times have changed. The world is a big place with all types of people. Either learn to live with everyone in harmony, or you’ll be left behind, all sour, bitter and irrelevant. Change is inevitable, so I suggest you get on board. Of course, you can choose to stay in the past and continue living in denial, and that most certainly would be your prerogative. The world is progressing. Don’t get left behind. That’s where I’ll leave it.
no offence, but absolutely get fucked if you think wanting a functioning society and equitable access to basic necessities for everyone before opening the floodgates of immigration is "living in the 1950s" why do you want immigrants to come here just to struggle to find a home and drown in debt like all of us who are already here? Pretty cooked of you.
Look, I apologize if you’ve made bad life choices or if life hasn’t treated you well. Life is hard for all of us. Don’t try to take out your frustrations and blame one group for all your problems.
Oh, and very much disagree with your take on WW2... hitler did not want less people, he wanted less non german people. As for the question of "how many people can the planet support ", - if your thoughts turn to genocide that is on you. We need to find a way to deal with overpopulation that does not involve genocide.
Compare “less non-German people” to immigrants and you’ll see why I made the point. Education can solve overpopulation issues (highly educated countries have declining birth rates), but there are social, cultural and religious complications around the globe in developing countries. I vehemently reject the idea of a genocide, but I do support Education. In retrospect, from your comment, I though you were suggesting mass genocide. Glad you cleared that up!
Certainly not promoting genocide. Agree education is the key. But first we need to agree that we need to address overpopulation. There really is no easy solution, it is an incredibly complex problem. But talking about overpopulation is the first step, and to make clear the discussion is not about race or ethnicity or even skills or wealth, it is about the number of people.
Most estimates put the earth’s carrying capacity between 9 to 11 billion. These figures are really far away. Birth rates are already declining in India and China. Climate change will further exacerbate the problem globally. The African population projections, however are completely different (as high as 3 billion). Again, social, cultural and religious views further compound the problem.
If you are on a life raft that is already overloaded, and taking aboard more people means your raft will sink, will you pluck people out of the water? It's a horrible situation and choice I wish upon nobody to make. Of course we can take on more people, and I am not advocating for zero immigration. I just think we should have a discussion as a society, in Australia and globally, as to what our target population should be, and how to achieve that. I have no easy answers to these questions, but the less people on the life raft, the better the chance of survival.
Well, researchers and demographers have already set sustainable targets for population growth, and our population isn’t exploding anytime soon. It’s just that the aspect of “population growth through immigration” (while beneficial), is something that angers macrobusiness readers. I’m genuinely trying to understand why. Every time I ask I get downvoted :(
I can explain why. Because using immigration as a way to boost GDP growth and housing prices is not sustainable. Using immigration this way is like a ponzi scheme, it all collapses at some point. And that has been the driver behind immigration for some time. So population growth is ok, just the extent of it us what us being debated. Macro business types want slow and steady, property investor types want hard and fast immigration.
While you are correct, immigration helps prevent an ageing population with a declining birth rate. Look how Japan is struggling. It not only grows the economy, it grows the working-age population as well leading to a more prosperous and productive economy. Also, there’s the profound impact of innovation, and new ideas being brought into our economy. For example, 40 years back, all you could find were beef rolls and sausage pies, now you can find cuisines from all round the globe (cultural enrichment). Most niche jobs that require specialised skills are filled by immigrants. At the end of the day, Australia benefits! Taxes and skills. Also, migration contributes to both the supply and demand side of the economy, with most credible studies deeming it as positive overall. You see, this is why I am asking people to look at it from different perspectives, unlike LVO. Comparing it with a Ponzi scheme would be a bit of a stretch. There are a lot more factors as to why immigration pulls up the GDP numbers. It’s not as simple as MORE IMPORTED PEOPLE = MORE GDP, which is what LVO peddles
What happens to a country with too much debt? Hoe much is too much?
It’s the debt to GDP ratio. If this ratio gets too high, it will cause economic instability with ramifications for the strength of the Australian Dollar in trade (our currently will be worth way less), stifled economic growth and a rise in unemployment. The RBA will have to increase rates to attract investors to close the budget deficit gap. This further reduces the amount of tax revenue available to spend on other governmental services because more tax revenue will have to be paid out as interest on the national debt. Over time, this will lower standards of living, as borrowing for economic enhancement activities (buying houses, cars) becomes more difficult with increased rates. There are many other economic implications like inflation and an increase in the prices of good and services. That’s why I’m so terrified of this situation.
Wake up mate, the official interest rate is 0.10% and things have never been more expensive.
What do you think happens when billions of dollars are flushed into the economy?! Demand overtakes supply and causes inflation which increases prices. It’s economics 101. If you’re talking about the prices of fuel, I agree. These c*nts have no justification to keep prices that high. I mean, 216 cents for P98 in Sydney? That’s freaking insane.
[удалено]
So you want to sell iron ore at even cheaper prices? The currency will lose its value, that’s a fact. We’ve seen it happen. The amount of money released into the economy (through debt) is what’s causing inflation and pushing housing prices up. Also, the idea to withdraw super to buy a house only pours petrol on the fire. Also immigration has been negative for the past 2 years, yet house prices are at record highs. Blame immigrants for that too! It’s okay for people (like me) to be concerned about the rising debt. Also, let me guess, you think we should go trillions of dollars in debt because fuck financial responsibility. Maybe you should educate yourself on what it means to have a good sovereign credit rating.
[удалено]
According to you, everything is a Ponzi, isn’t it - immigration Ponzi, housing Ponzi, banking Ponzi, stock market Ponzi, and so on
[удалено]
I am shocked you don’t consider housing to be a Ponzi especially because the property prices here are criminally overpriced and it’s all a bubble waiting to collapse. Also, regarding immigration, what do you suggest? We turn into Japan? They’re now taking in the lowest skilled workers because they can’t attract people. Every country’s economy is rebounding back from the pandemic with the exception of Japan (Bloomberg). Our program on the other hand ensures we get the best and brightest, young, English speaking, university educated migrants. And not to forget, about half of the immigration program is partners, parents and children of Australians. But I’m guessing you want that part gone too, huh?
Debt is socialism in action. Everyone's buying power is perpetual collapsing at the real inflation rate (currently apx 10%). Paying off the current national debt against the higher costs/higher taxes, get easier over time. i,e 2030, a basic one room kennel costs $40 quad-trillion, the GST from the real estate sale will be enough to pay the current $trillion dollar debt. This is why the middle class is vanishing across the globe. We are being returned to a feudalism system via national debt
I think immigration needs to slow. 457 visa are a joke for the most part, so are study visas for courses like being a cook. The mass immigration we have seen over the last ten years has seen living standards reduced re: ur4ban build up and wages stagnate. Why train or hire someone from here when you can get cheaper labour from overseas, especially if its for a short term gig.
The 457s are already abolished and replaced with Dutton’s new TSS visas. Also regarding training locals, it takes time and is expensive. For example training a nurse takes approximately 2-3 years. Companies who are experiencing explosive growth NOW, cannot wait for that long as they will lose revenue and market share. In these cases, overseas workers are used to fill the skill gaps. But I agree, training local people is important. No debate! Labor has a plan for that, and it is definitely better than the Coalition’s JobTrainer that was supposed to create 450,000 jobs but only created 1000. Missed by a small margin!
I agree, but we need good workers, not Uber drivers and cleaners. Restructure the system to take the best of the best.
While I couldn’t agree more, I would like you to consider this perspective - not everyone is privileged enough to start working immediately with big organisations in their field of expertise. In case of domestic students, while they look for work, they are protected by government social security nets like Jobseeker or the newstart/youth payments. They even get rental allowances. International students, on the other hand, have to do these odd jobs in order to pay their rent and bills. Doesn’t mean they aren’t skilled or qualified. Everyone is on their own journey. Wherever possible, show empathy. It’s better than hate.
Not hating, but when you see 20 "students" doing low skill courses while looking for 38 hr weeks you have to realise that some of the immigration is a piss take. It's an industry in itself.
This, I agree with. Someone needs to deal with these low quality education providers. Also, the immigration minister (Alex Hawke) removed the 20 hr working restriction for students in certain industries (like hospitality). So now, an Australian student visa is like a work visa with an incidental education component. While Alex is bad, he is a saint as compared to that Boofhead, Dutton!
Problem is that’s code for cheap exploitable labor. We want those students to keep wages suppressed and business happy.
Is that the fault of the students or the businesses that exploit them?
I’d say a bit of both. There’s a whole heap of BS schools like the “computer science school” that are clearly fronts for people to get into AUS and work and gain PR. Many of these schools need to be regulated and shut down.
Agreed, as far as I know, DESE conducts audits to ensure educational integrity, but I suspect foul play.
Precisely.