Mar

16

They took our jobs

by Sam Wylie | Filed Under Economics 

The Australian Government intends to head into the G20 meeting in April with strong warnings against the dangers of growing economic nationalism around the globe, so we should not expect the Government to exhibit any such traits in the lead up to the London meeting. 

On Sunday morning Wayne Swan was offered the chance to pillory ANZ for out-sourcing 500 back office jobs to India.  He was asked on the ABC Insiders program whether the Government was getting enough in return for the financial guarantees provided to the banks, given that jobs are being sent off-shore.  Swan’s reply was reassuring in its economic liberalism.  Swan said that the guarantees and off-shoring of jobs were unrelated issues, and he only urged banks to look after their employees. 

So far so good.  But then on Monday we hear that the Government is to slash Australia’s skilled migrant intake. 

 This is a bad decision on every level.  It trashes the Government’s credibility in arguing against economic nationalism; it restricts the flow of valuable human capital into Australia; and it pulls up the ladder people who are in the pipeline and could reasonably have expected to come to Australia this year.   Josh Gans explains below that there is little or no evidence that immigration increases either unemployment or rents in a recession.   

We are a nation of immigrants.  Apart from our indigenous population, everybody who lives in Australia is descended from immigrants (and/or convicts).  Our immigration policy has served the nation fantastically well and should not be used as a semi-annual labour market policy instrument (the skilled immigration quota increased substantially only 9 months ago).

The Government might just as easily have announced that in the global war for talent the GFC presents a unique opportunity for Australia to bring in a wave of talented and energetic immigrants that will carry us forward for decades.  It might have announced that in the interests of up-skilling the economy and solving the demographic problems of a greying population, skilled migration will be increased by 100% for the next three years.  Skilled immigration is like adrenaline to any society and an opportunity to attract this much talent is unlikely to present itself again, so lets go for it. 

But, alas no.  Instead we have a sop to ACTU lobbying that does a lot of harm and and very little good.

Comments

3 Responses to “They took our jobs”

  1. maxinquaff on March 16th, 2009 4:12 pm

    Very good argument. It is a pity that it makes populist sense to restrict intake.

  2. Lefty on March 16th, 2009 6:20 pm

    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.

  3. Chris Lloyd on March 16th, 2009 7:15 pm

    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.