Dick Blames Immigration??

Ssshhhh... They are not discussing it to find the truth... The topic just sounds good to their ears.

 

What about this part of the Dick Smith article?

"The majority of the 190,000 migrant places offered by Australia each year are in skilled migration, attracting people with a high level of education and who tend to be of prime working age.

That contrasts with Australia's ageing population, which requires the support of younger workers, and the relatively stable but low birth rate of 1.9 births per woman, which is below the population replacement level.

A report by the Migration Council of Australia used modelling by Independent Economics to declare that by 2050, migration will have added 21.9 per cent to the real wages of low-skilled workers, and will be contributing $1.6 trillion to the country's gross domestic product."

Is this all BS? Or is there some truth to it?

If there is truth to it, and we don't take in large numbers of skilled immigrants, how else are we going to solve this impending problem?

 

I don't think anyone is concerned with the quality of the immigrants we take in so much; just the numbers.

Not much point taking in ever-increasing volumes of people per year if the economy cannot support them via full-time decent paying jobs that they can life a decent lifestyle from...from what I observe this isn't happening.

Hence; we will end up only feeding into the ever-increasing pool of welfare and more competition for the less paid casual and part-time jobs.

As for the birth rate not replacing itself; think of this; each couple - if they produce 1.9 kids, and then if those kids then do the same, and then those kids do the same; you often have 3 or sometimes 4 generations alive simultaneously in the Country from the one family....

Not all of them die at the same time, and so it is fair to assume that with each generation doing the same; without any immigration at all the population does increase.

 

"That contrasts with Australia's ageing population, which requires the support of younger workers, and the relatively stable but low birth rate of 1.9 births per woman, which is below the population replacement level."

Complex issues but to comment on the above, the older Australians paid their way and should not be viewed as being supported by younger workers but being supported by the taxes they paid their whole lives.

The low birth rate may be influenced by significant child care and education costs? If the government addressed these issues then the reliance on immigrants would reduce?

My final comment is on overseas doctors, why do we restrict entry to our institutions for lots of bright young people who wish to train here as doctors but instead we actively try and poach doctors from overseas countries?

Last week by coincidence, Dick gave a presentation at my daughter's school. Flew himself in by helicopter and landed on the oval. Gave the presentation they flew off to his next engagement. Kids loved it. Wonderful man who gives generously to charity.

 

From the video, Waleed Aly was saying it's these numbers that are required to avoid a population/age graph that's an inverted triangle?

Not sure if this is correct.

 

Warren Buffett says he simply had the good luck of winning the “ovarian lottery” to be born American

“This country has been blessed by immigrants,” Warren Buffett said of the US, reminding his fellow citizens that for many, being American is merely an accident of birth—the result of winning the “ovarian lottery.”

Taking it one step further, he calculated his odds of his being born an American male at 80-to-1.

“I was born lucky,” the billionaire investor said at a joint appearance with Bill Gates in New York at Columbia University, where Buffett when to business school, on Jan. 27.

Those remarks came before US president Donald Trump’s executive order suspending travel for immigrants from seven nations, but their comments anticipated them. Immigrants have been vital to US innovation, Gates and Buffett agreed, with examples like Andy Grove, the late CEO of Intel, who was a refugee from Hungary.

Gates and Buffett have joined a number of high-profile US business leaders who have spoken out in defense of immigrants or against Trump’s executive order—Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz pledged to hire 10,000 refugees over five years; Google co-founder Sergey Brin, himself a former refugee, joined a protest at the San Francisco airport; and Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein criticized the order in a letter to employees.

Immigrants have done more than just contribute to the US, Buffett also said. They have quite literally saved it.

One of the most significant acts in American history was the result of immigrants, he added, when Albert Einstein and Leo Szilard, a Hungarian physicist, sent a letter (pdf) to US president Franklin Roosevelt in 1939 warning him that Nazi Germany was developing nuclear weapons. Einstein and Szilard were both Jewish refugees who had fled the Nazis earlier in the decade.

The letter spurred Roosevelt to launch the Manhattan Project, which built the first atomic bomb. “If it weren’t for those two immigrants, who knows if we’d be here,” Buffett said.

Because he believes every life has equal value, Buffett said he’s comfortable donating much of his fortune to projects overseas, despite criticism that he should be helping Americans. “You can improve the lives of a lot more people spending $1 billion elsewhere, than in US,” Buffett added.

 

When did he become an immigration and economics expert?..there are plenty of blokes like him in Parliament right now; and almost none of them worth a pie as economic giants..

From my experience so far on this planet; anyone from the political Left side of viewpoints on all things - never advocates a reduction in immigration numbers....ever.

Aly is of the Left; and therefore he is supporting this observation....as per usual.

In the USA; the Left are more than happy for the 1 million legal immigrants per year to continue to keep on escalating; but the current Administration are proposing to cut that figure in half to 500k per year; and the Left are screaming about it.

Yet; only 25 or so years ago their yearly immigration figure was only 250k per year; and no-one had an issue with that.

So; I don't put much weight into what Mr. Aly has to say on this topic.

 

There is no argument that most Countries have been enriched through immigration; Australia is one of the best examples on Earth.

The argument is about how many, and what criteria everyone comes into the Country.

Obama actually compiled the list originally; and it wasn't a ban for immigrants; it was for a total travel ban from Countries due to their status as failed States and breeding grounds/sponsors for terrorists.

True; and the USA currently take 1 million legal immigrants per year, and several tens of thousands of refugees as well.

There is no disputing that immigrants and refugees have contributed to the USA success; it simply comes back to what is a fiscally viable volume as they look forward; it is simply not economically viable to continue to escalate the number of these each year ad infinitum - either in the USA or anywhere else..

To use the argument that refusing one refugee or immigrant who might be a future Eistein etc - is ridiculous; it means that based on this; you must allow an infinite number of people from everywhere in the world forever....

How does this add up when you consider the USA currently have almost 50m on foodstamps and almost 90m out of their workforce?

People unfortunately have to stop looking at this issue with emotion; branding anyone who contemplates an immigration numbers review/decrease as a Nazi, or racist, or whatever; and start to look at it through an economic lens.

 

Robots will not lead to fewer jobs – but the hollowing out of the middle class | Larry Elliott

 

this assumes that two PhDs are always equally skilled and educated. never true. PhD is a degree like anything and doesn't guarantee a job

 

I agree with you.

It was the case many years ago, but has changed.
Newly graduates won't have enough points to apply for PR without 12 months work experience, either that or they need iELTS score minimum of 8.

 

this doesn't make any sense to me. either there is no demand or the applicants are not skilled enough... why were they able to graduate if they were not good enough to do the job?

 

I believe language is the main barrier for immigrant not getting a job in their field.

In the past, once you graduated from certain degrees of Australian universities, the government assumed that students have sufficient English to then apply for PR. On paper they might be good enough, but IELTS is tested on a variety of aspects (written and verbal). Many overseas student graduates from tertiary level cannot achieve this score.

 

so the students were not good enough even for the academia? universities need to be fixed as well.