PaddyT Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 Whilst on the surface increasing house prices seem good, and they are great for those who already own a house the skewing of the economy to a " rent seeking " one (which is what has happened in Australia has done two really bad things to the economy and these will come out to play soon 1. the assets (houses) are out of reach for the younger generation- i bought my first house in 1990 for $136K and was on a salary of $22 K as a trainee Industrial Chemist (i did have help from the bank of mum and dad) at an interest rate of 14% (i think it may actually have been higher) but the average Sydney salary in 1990 was $20K so the multiple i borrowed ($105K)was 5 times the average Sydney salary-that same house last year was worth about $800K (i sold it in 1998) and the average Syd wage is $51K so to purchase this house in 2020 requires a loan of about 14 X the average Sydney salary. 2. The second thing that is really scary for the Australian economy is this-because investors can make good and "thought free" returns on real estate they no longer put money into things that truly add value to our economy- so unlike the post war migrant boom people dont come here and set up factories or the like they just try to buy real estate-and all foreign investment does in the real estate market is put further upwards pressure on prices-again great if you are in, terrible if you are out. So what has happened is this-we are now an economy that doesnt make anything, we dont add value to our exports , we simply sell each other houses and take away coffee and hope that a few tourists visit and we have a huge accounting industry that spends vast amounts of time working out how business can pay less tax (so less infrastructure,police, ambo's , healthcare etc etc). Im the child of two immigrants and im married to one, immigrants themselves are not a problem, they are a massive benefit but simply pouring people in without REAL planning is a potential disaster. Witness the running down of vital industries thats occured over the last 20 years-fuel, basic chemicals, medical supplies, medicines, even the building materials needed for all the new houses. And finally food and water security- I watch development on the Hawkesbury flood plain with a sense of total disgust-the downstream effects on the river are yet to be seen but will come, there are vast estates being built in areas ive seen under meters of water and the SES doesnt think it can evacute the floodplain without massive loss of life-development in Sydney should NOT be happening here- it should be concentrated around the already existing transport nodes and on the high sandstone ridges of the North shore- and the Hawkesbury (which actually has some of the best black soil IN THE WORLD) should be purely agricultural but NIMBYism stops that-anyway i can go on and on-problems we wont solve here! 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingfishbig Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 34 minutes ago, GoingFishing said: Sounds like entitled arrogance to me..... "yes we want your money and w Immigration has served us well yes. Post federation? Do you mean when our population was a measly few million compared to what it is now? As a percentage against population our immigration intake is very low comparatively on a global scale. Y I also find your example about india humorous. Noone likes reductio ad absurdom. No one wants Australia to have the same population as india, nor have i suggested we should. Ie.... don't exxagerate the result/argument in order to give yourself oppprtunity to critisize that result/argument. Post federation means just that - from 1901 to the recent past. I mentioned Japan as well which you ignored. Or you could just look at a graph of GDP per capita growth vs population growth for all OECD countries and you will find that there is no correlation. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zmk1962 Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 (edited) Guys... as much as I like this debate it is somewhat removed from @DerekD's OP. ... perhaps start a separate topic in the bar about Oz's immigration policy and the repercussions ... Derek's topic at least had something to do with Fishing and belonged in a fishing chat. Derek, I'm sure there are several if not many FR's who share your problem and I know that you said you are"..,over it and give up" . But where these is a problem there is opportunity. FR is a collection of like minded people. Is there a way that the FR community can form an FR group (by location or suburb) that can negotiate a better storage deal, or collectively (say 3-4FR's) hire a yard or something where they share costs and facilities that would solve their problem. After all we are like minded ... just putting it out there. Cheers Zoran Edited August 14, 2020 by zmk1962 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoingFishing Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, kingfishbig said: Numbers aren't entitled, arrogant, racist Your right, but humans are entitled and arrogant. And if your philosophy is "we like your money and your investment, but your not welcome here". then sorry buddy, thats entitled and arrogant ! Especially applicable in circumstances where the "Australia" you love so deeply and want to greedily keep to yourself, only exists off the back of immigrants and foreign investment. 1 hour ago, kingfishbig said: Post federation means just that - from 1901 to the recent past. I mentioned Japan as well which you ignored. Or you could just look at a graph of GDP per capita growth vs population growth for all OECD countries and you will find that there is no correlation. Thats exactly my point 🤣🤣 so using your numbers - Population in 1901 was circa 3.8M people. immigrant intake per annum 70,000 total or 1.8% of population per annum 2019 - 25.5M people against 200K immigrants is 0.07%.... YOUR RIGHT - we should revert back to post federation immigration intake Edited August 14, 2020 by GoingFishing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingfishbig Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 (edited) 16 minutes ago, GoingFishing said: Your right, but humans are entitled and arrogant. And if your philosophy is "we like your money and your investment, but your not welcome here". then sorry buddy, thats entitled and arrogant ! Especially applicable in circumstances where the "Australia" you love so deeply love and want to greedily keep to yourself, only exists off the back of immigrants and foreign investment. Thats exactly my point 🤣🤣 so using your numbers - Population in 1901 was circa 3.8M people. immigrant intake per annum 70,000 total or 1.8% of population per annum 2019 - 25.5M people against 200K immigrants is 0.07%.... YOUR RIGHT - we should revert back to post federation immigration intake Well I am using empirical evidence, ie numbers. If you are accusing me of wanting an immigration rate that benefits our existing population then yes guilty as charged. Your pejoratives on the other hand don't really stand up. Eg if you support the current rate but I say we should bring in a million a year then does that make you entitled , arrogant , etc? And you have got your numbers mixed up. The 70,000 was the average for the 20th century and you have applied it to 1901. And I think the 2019 NOM figure was at least 240,000 so that gives you 1% as the immigration rate (so you have missed a zero). It has been around 1% for the last 15 years. And absolute no's matter. Don't you realise that if our population rate as a % stays the same it will become exponential? Eg we will have 340 million people by 2200! Edited August 14, 2020 by kingfishbig 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoingFishing Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 Your right. I think the better outcome might be that immigrants (and foreign investment) go to another country who would be happy to take them on a non entitled non racist and mutually beneficial basis. Then when Australia becomes a second or third world country with high unemployment and no money to fund health education or anythint else.......maybe youll be happy then 😊 Incase you missed it buddy. Again. Australia would be nothing without immigrants and foreign investment. And it will be nothing in the future without them too. Aus is not self sustaining. Cant have your cake and eat it too 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingfishbig Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 11 minutes ago, GoingFishing said: Your right. I think the better outcome might be that immigrants (and foreign investment) go to another country who would be happy to take them on a non entitled non racist and mutually beneficial basis. Then when Australia becomes a second or third world country with high unemployment and no money to fund health education or anythint else.......maybe youll be happy then 😊 Incase you missed it buddy. Again. Australia would be nothing without immigrants and foreign investment. And it will be nothing in the future without them too. Aus is not self sustaining. Cant have your cake and eat it too You keep asserting things with no evidence (and ignore evidence when it is provided). Without immigration we will have less unemployment. It's just basic supply and demand. Why would we have no money to fund health and education? It would be easier to fund without having to keep up with population growth. And why do you keep conflating immigration with foreign investment when they are two different things. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest123456789 Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 9 hours ago, kingfishbig said: Most immigrants are working below their skill level and even the primary skilled stream has higher unemployment than locals. And we have the one of the least skills shortages in the World. All that would happen with immigration would be that we would better utilise our own workforce given that we have 14% underutilisation. An no one is talking about no immigration. About 60K pa NOM would be enough to stabilise the population. The pre Covid NOM of 250K or so was giving us the highest population growth in the developed World (depending on how you count it). Never before have we run mass immigration into a slack labour market - it has always been would back to suit the conditions. At the moment we have about 3 million people aged 65+. In 20 years that will approximately TRIPLE to 9 million. so unless you want economic collapse we have two options: *bring in 200,000 younger working people each year *sharply reduce welfare for those 65+ Overcrowded cities and underemployment are big problems but you can tackle these by encouraging people to move to regional areas. And the slack labour market you can blame the unions - 18 year old apprentices on $100k to work in a factory at Holden no wonder the jobs moved offshore. https://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/13D196FB0DBECC3BCA257C2E00173FAD/$File/32220_2012 (base) to 2101.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingfishbig Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 (edited) The cost of an ageing 13 minutes ago, flatheadluke said: At the moment we have about 3 million people aged 65+. In 20 years that will approximately TRIPLE to 9 million. so unless you want economic collapse we have two options: *bring in 200,000 younger working people each year *sharply reduce welfare for those 65+ Overcrowded cities and underemployment are big problems but you can tackle these by encouraging people to move to regional areas. And the slack labour market you can blame the unions - 18 year old apprentices on $100k to work in a factory at Holden no wonder the jobs moved offshore. https://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/13D196FB0DBECC3BCA257C2E00173FAD/$File/32220_2012 (base) to 2101.pdf The cost of an ageing population are trivial and can easily be met by the current generation. Immigration is certainly no cure for the simple reason that immigrants will age too. It's just kicking the can down the road with the can getting bigger. And the effect on our age structure is small as well as temporary. Our Productivity Commission has been saying this for years. It's better just to deal with it eg encourage saving, enable people to work longer if they wish. Decentralisation is a pipe dream we have been talking about for a 100 years. Our Treasury has said it's a bad idea. The pull factors of the cities for migrants are too strong. PS 100K for an apprentice sounds far fetched. But the main factor was the government withdrawing it's subsidy. Anyway these days it's stagnant wages that are the problem .. Edited August 14, 2020 by kingfishbig 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoingFishing Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 (edited) 17 minutes ago, kingfishbig said: You keep asserting things with no evidence (and ignore evidence when it is provided). Without immigration we will have less unemployment. It's just basic supply and demand. Why would we have no money to fund health and education? It would be easier to fund without having to keep up with population growth. And why do you keep conflating immigration with foreign investment when they are two different things. Your statements are unfounded and viewed in a lense where you care about no one but yourself, which is why i ignore them. Lets pick one simple example. "Immigration and foreign investment being two different things and not connected"". Generally speaking in a scenario where one country wants to encourage foreign investment, they do so on the basis that it is mutually benefitting for both parties. The investing country will benefit from the financial rewards yes but also the two countries will build relationships in education for instance, better trade deals, and yes..........encouraging immigration between the two countries. In recent years this was Japan followed by China. In both cases Australia took highly skilled and hard working immigrants from both countries. You cant see the link between immigration and foreign investment...because your version of Australian foreign investment is one where we are greedy & entitled and dont gIve anything back. So in a hypothetical scenario where foreign investment dries up and goes elsewhere, yes....Australia is screwed mate. Foreign investment drives a huge chunk of our economy and thus drives the workforce, employment and also drives the revenue in taxes that fund education, healthcare etc. Edited August 14, 2020 by GoingFishing 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoingFishing Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 1 minute ago, kingfishbig said: The cost of an ageing The cost of an ageing population are trivial and can easily be met by the current generation. Immigration is certainly no cure for the simple reason that immigrants will age too. It's just kicking the can down the road with the can getting bigger. And the effect on our age structure is small as well as temporary. Our Productivity Commission has been saying this for years. It's better just to deal with it eg encourage saving, enable people to work longer if they wish. Decentralisation is a pipe dream we have been talking about for a 100 years. Our Treasury has said it's a bad idea. The pull factors of the cities for migrants are too strong. PS 100K for an apprentice sounds far fetched and anyway these days it's stagnant wages that are the problem. You best beleive it mate.....i was a 4th year apprentice in 2009 and my income was 86k a year back then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingie chaser Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingfishbig Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 11 minutes ago, GoingFishing said: Your statements are unfounded and viewed in a lense where you care about no one but yourself, which is why i ignore them. Lets pick one simple example. "Immigration and foreign investment being two different things and not connected"". Generally speaking in a scenario where one country wants to encourage foreign investment, they do so on the basis that it is mutually benefitting for both parties. The investing country will benefit from the financial rewards yes but also the two countries will build relationships in education for instance, better trade deals, and yes..........encouraging immigration between the two countries. In recent years this was Japan followed by China. In both cases Australia took highly skilled and hard working immigrants from both countries. You cant see the link between immigration and foreign investment...because your version of Australian foreign investment is one where we are greedy & entitled and dont gIve anything back. So in a hypothetical scenario where foreign investment dries up and goes elsewhere, yes....Australia is screwed mate. Foreign investment drives a huge chunk of our economy and thus drives the workforce, employment and also drives the revenue in taxes that fund education, healthcare etc. You haven't demonstrated any link - just repeated your unfounded assertion. You even mention Japan which has hardly any immigration. How come it's not an international pariah? How come things are so good on the ground despite it's falling population, eg excellent infrastructure, unemployment at 2.4%, respectable per capita GDP growth? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest123456789 Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 16 minutes ago, kingfishbig said: The cost of an ageing The cost of an ageing population are trivial and can easily be met by the current generation. Immigration is certainly no cure for the simple reason that immigrants will age too. It's just kicking the can down the road with the can getting bigger. And the effect on our age structure is small as well as temporary. Our Productivity Commission has been saying this for years. It's better just to deal with it eg encourage saving, enable people to work longer if they wish. Decentralisation is a pipe dream we have been talking about for a 100 years. Our Treasury has said it's a bad idea. The pull factors of the cities for migrants are too strong. PS 100K for an apprentice sounds far fetched. But the main factor was the government withdrawing it's subsidy. Anyway these days it's stagnant wages that are the problem .. I think I can explain things a bit better. RIGHT NOW about 3 million people aged 65+ (Retirement age) About 12 million people aged 15 to 64 (working age) so a ratio of working age to retireamber age of 1/4 projected 20 years time about 10 million people retirement age About 20 million working age so a working age to retirement age of 1/2 what do you think would happen right now if we halved the number of people working and paying taxes? Could we still afford pensions and free healthcare? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoingFishing Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 3 minutes ago, flatheadluke said: I think I can explain things a bit better. RIGHT NOW about 3 million people aged 65+ (Retirement age) About 12 million people aged 15 to 64 (working age) so a ratio of working age to retireamber age of 1/4 projected 20 years time about 10 million people retirement age About 20 million working age so a working age to retirement age of 1/2 what do you think would happen right now if we halved the number of people working and paying taxes? Could we still afford pensions and free healthcare? We already know what kingfishbig solution is !! Increase retirement age to 90 years old !!! Problem solved. Straight from the workforce to the cemetary. No pension or free healthcare needed🤣🤣🤣 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingfishbig Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 (edited) 10 minutes ago, flatheadluke said: I think I can explain things a bit better. RIGHT NOW about 3 million people aged 65+ (Retirement age) About 12 million people aged 15 to 64 (working age) so a ratio of working age to retireamber age of 1/4 projected 20 years time about 10 million people retirement age About 20 million working age so a working age to retirement age of 1/2 what do you think would happen right now if we halved the number of people working and paying taxes? Could we still afford pensions and free healthcare? You have ignored my point - it will be easier just to deal with it. I can provide some references if you like. Also where did you get those figures from? PS ironically much of the ageing bulge is the result of past waves of immigration. Edited August 14, 2020 by kingfishbig 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoingFishing Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 1 minute ago, kingfishbig said: You have ignored my point - it will be easier just to deal with it. I can provide some references if you like. Also where did you get those figures from? PS ironically much of the ageing bulge the the result of past waves of immigration. Hahahaha....wowwww Just remember buddy !!!! Australia would be a third world country without immigrants and their money !!! Australia didnt build itself by being self sustaining. Australia owes its existence to foreigners 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest123456789 Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 In any event @DerekD I hope you can sort out the boat launching problem because we’re no closer to solving Australia’s sustainable economic development problem 🤣 that will teach you to open a thread inviting a whinge about Sydney 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😉 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scratchie Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 Wow fellas, I now have a headache! Thanks for the discussion! regards scratchie mod team 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts