Dick Blames Immigration??

Where I am from, graduating from Developed country universities is a luxury only the wealthy families can afford. A few of those students who fall in love with the country try to stay longer by applying for PR and try to get a proper employment.

The reality hits when many of them cannot get a good employment within their intended fields. Many chose to return. What I am saying is those who fail to secure their field jobs will automatically move on and leave the country.

 

Is a taxi driver a skilled job?

 

Is he/she blind?

 

That would only add to the skills

 

A lot of Australia is uninhabitable.
That said, even if we removed that space from the equation we'd probably be low on the list, but I see it as a good thing.
Many Australians like the fact they can have a game of backyard cricket or kick a ball around without going to the park.
Many Australians like the fact they have a lawn for their kids to crawl or run around on.
Many Australians like the fact they can give their dogs a backyard to run around in.
Have you visited those countries with higher density? What is it about them that makes you want Australia to be more like them?
What is it that you dislike about Australia which would be solved by doubling our population?

 

Markets of scale

 

So we get cheaper widgets & in return give up the 'great Australian dream' (quarter acre block). I don't think a majority of Australians would make this trade off.

 

You need to be able to see back to a previous time to see what has actually changed for the better and/or improved. I'm 56; so I've seen a lot in Australia.

It's already been shown using 3 of the most populated Countries on Earth that this does not improve the lifestyle for the vast majority of inhabitants....just a lot more people doing the same thing as Countries with a lot less people - Australia is one of the best examples.

Ask anyone who is complaining about the cost to buy a house, or the traffic on their daily commute from that place that they had to buy in to be able to afford a house, or their wages not going up each year, or the cost of their electricity or food, or queues at airports etc.

Our lifestyle over the last say; 30 years since 1985 (15.76 million) has not improved really; we have better technology, but the main infrastructure and general way of life...much the same; but the population has increased quite a lot (24.13 million in 2016) - that's over a 50% increase in that period of time.
autralian population in 1985 - Google Search

The other irony about all this is that the same folks who constantly advocate larger populations, open borders and all this; are also usually the same folks who constantly whine about climate change and global warming - supposedly cause by humans.

Having more and more humans would make CC and GW worse, right?

 

This article suggests we had the best quality of life in 1974 and a population of 15 million,

Why a population of, say, 15 million makes sense for Australia

As to economies of scale we don't make much now days in any case. Also there are a lot of dis- economies with high population growth. Ie our infrastructure becomes overload and it becomes increasingly more expensive to retrofit improvements in our built up cities.

 

Most of the people pushing for high immigration levels and population growth need to go spend some time living in other parts of the world. Actually live there not just go for a holiday and see how "great" it is when you are cashed up and staying in hotels.

Huge immigration levels only lead to the down fall of middle classes, the loss in national sovereignty and a strain on the economy. Of course Warren Buffett and co push for it as it means cheap Labour. It's got nothing to do with the well being of immigrants and if you think that your kidding yourself.

Parts of Europe have already turned into ghettos while other countries are trying to keep their sovereignty and built walls to stop the influx of them. I have relatives in Germany and trust me the majority of people are against Merkels and the Nazi EU's immigration quotas being forced on the people. People are being forced from their homes in Germany to make for "refugees" in there thousands. Lots are now moving to the east to Poland, Hungary and Slovakia to get away from it all.

 

Agree as there is definitely some truth to that if we look at the majority (all ?) of high population countries. But that is one side of the picture and there are other sides too. Australia won't be able to perform the level of R&D happening in those countries because of the smaller market it has. Heck we cannot build a few submarines on our shores without their help. We have practically become a poodle to one of the high population nations so they defend us when we need it... and we are the champions of sovereignty.

Although big backyards are a very luxurious and vital lifestyle decision but they certainly aren't the most important one. All the high rises going up in the capital cities closer to CBDs and the Australian population distribution between urban and rural areas are proof enough that lifestyle for many is much more than just a backyard. The smaller Australia party is louder not a majority.

But I understand that it is a matter of perspective and we can agree to disagree.

 

I applaud Dick Smith for having the guts to call a spade a shovel, if Australia wants to maintain quality of lifestyle then we need to take better care of what we have.


MTR

 

As someone who has had a big house on a quarter acre block in the past and gave it up for something much smaller (by preference, not necessity), I agree that big backyards are not for everyone, but do you really think all the high rises going up are mostly a result of lifestyle change by choice (?) as opposed to:

- Many FHBs (and other buyers) being priced out of the 'house' market and just buying what they can within a reasonable commute to work
- Developers taking advantage of the higher margins in a new apartment complex vs new house when selling to foreign investors
- Population growth in those cities driving a necessity to maximise land use in central locations or locations close to public transport

If you really think this has been a shift by choice (mostly), can you provide some context around:

Why you think the change has been so dramatic, so quickly (i.e. huge apartment construction boom over the past 5 years)?
Why has this change been more focused in those capitals with the highest population growth rates?

 

As I said in my post it is a matter of perspective and nothing wrong in proposing a smaller Australia.

Think about this, if you have a college going kid and they get admission in Harvard which is on the other side of the country what choices do they have? Go to Harvard and live in a share house with other students and work part time to meet expenses or continue living in their bedroom provided by mum and dad and study in their local community college? Nothing wrong in choosing either but you got to make those choices in life.

Everyone who buys an apartment can afford a house too they just choose to live at a certain location to be able to do what they like. Big population provides more choices for career options.

QoL does suffer though... no doubt.

 

Australia doesn't have 'colleges'

 

I reckon the many hundreds of thousands (millions) of people in Countries like Indonesia, India, Africa, China and the USA (90 million out of the workforce and 50 million on foodstamps in the USA ) would disagree.

 

Yes 'career options' doesn't mean you will get a job. And mass immigration coupled with the widely rorted 457 visas into a slack labour market doesn't make getting a good job easier.

 

‘Australia will be Asian country’ - news.com.au
‘Australia will be Asian country’ — news.com.au

 

This is excellent, makes sense.