Comments on: They took our jobs http://economics.com.au/?p=2946 Commentary on economics, strategy and more Tue, 09 Feb 2010 11:45:42 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Chris Lloyd http://economics.com.au/?p=2946&cpage=1#comment-136501 Chris Lloyd Mon, 16 Mar 2009 08:15:25 +0000 http://economics.com.au/?p=2946#comment-136501 Actually, I think your post is quite populist in its appeal to both immigration zealots and libertarian extremists. You say: “We are a nation of immigrants.” (Put to one side that many of us, are remote decendants of immigrants). This means that immigration is a good thing per se does it? In 1950 we could have argued “We are a nation of British immigrants” from which it equally follows that we should not let in any non-British. We were also a nation of homophobes. So exit gay rights.  This is our past, so this must be our future, seems to be the gist of your argument, regardless of circumstance.   You would have done better to concentrate more on the issue of <em>skilled</em> migration. If one were cutting immigrants one would surely not focus on the skilled, but this is the category that is administratively easiest to cut. Do the definitions of “skilled” still make sense though? Are mining workers still getting bonus points? Financial advisors? What specific winners are the immigration department now recommending that we pick?   The notion that immigration can “solve the demographic problems of a greying population” is nonsense. The calculations are clear that it makes no significant difference (because of family reunion schemes).   Let me ask you this. Is there a single scenario where you would be in favour of less immigration than the current record of 300,000 – an intake figure conceived at the height of the boom? I suspect your answer would be no – that you do not believe in national boundaries at all. This extreme libertarian stance ignores culture. It ignores the fact that governments are sluggish in providing infrastructure. It ignores environmental limitations. But maybe this is a straw man. If so, then please tell me under what circumstances less immigration would be indicated.   The idea of increasing skilled immigration at the bottom of a depression because of the lag in their arrival is worth exploring. I am not opposed to the idea. It could be an opportunity to steal the best immigrants from other destinations. But again there needs to be some data. And don’t forget again that we recently increased the intake to record levels. Actually, I think your post is quite populist in its appeal to both immigration zealots and libertarian extremists. You say: “We are a nation of immigrants.” (Put to one side that many of us, are remote decendants of immigrants). This means that immigration is a good thing per se does it? In 1950 we could have argued “We are a nation of British immigrants” from which it equally follows that we should not let in any non-British. We were also a nation of homophobes. So exit gay rights.  This is our past, so this must be our future, seems to be the gist of your argument, regardless of circumstance.
 
You would have done better to concentrate more on the issue of skilled migration. If one were cutting immigrants one would surely not focus on the skilled, but this is the category that is administratively easiest to cut. Do the definitions of “skilled” still make sense though? Are mining workers still getting bonus points? Financial advisors? What specific winners are the immigration department now recommending that we pick?
 
The notion that immigration can “solve the demographic problems of a greying population” is nonsense. The calculations are clear that it makes no significant difference (because of family reunion schemes).
 
Let me ask you this. Is there a single scenario where you would be in favour of less immigration than the current record of 300,000 – an intake figure conceived at the height of the boom? I suspect your answer would be no – that you do not believe in national boundaries at all. This extreme libertarian stance ignores culture. It ignores the fact that governments are sluggish in providing infrastructure. It ignores environmental limitations. But maybe this is a straw man. If so, then please tell me under what circumstances less immigration would be indicated.
 
The idea of increasing skilled immigration at the bottom of a depression because of the lag in their arrival is worth exploring. I am not opposed to the idea. It could be an opportunity to steal the best immigrants from other destinations. But again there needs to be some data. And don’t forget again that we recently increased the intake to record levels.

]]> By: Lefty http://economics.com.au/?p=2946&cpage=1#comment-136499 Lefty Mon, 16 Mar 2009 07:20:01 +0000 http://economics.com.au/?p=2946#comment-136499 Both the article and the first comment are obviously related from a position of personal economic security. I have watched migrant workers used as leverage to de-unionize the workforce and force downward pressure on wages and conditions . And that was in good times. The threat of being able to access alternative imported labour is a powerfull bargaining tool. Both the article and the first comment are obviously related from a position of personal economic security.

I have watched migrant workers used as leverage to de-unionize the workforce and force downward pressure on wages and conditions . And that was in good times.

The threat of being able to access alternative imported labour is a powerfull bargaining tool.

]]> By: maxinquaff http://economics.com.au/?p=2946&cpage=1#comment-136494 maxinquaff Mon, 16 Mar 2009 05:12:13 +0000 http://economics.com.au/?p=2946#comment-136494 Very good argument. It is a pity that it makes populist sense to restrict intake. Very good argument. It is a pity that it makes populist sense to restrict intake.

]]>