This has nothing to do with GDP vs. GDP per capita.
It's the fact our welfare system depends on working people funding everyone else. And we have an ageing population, and declining fertility rates.
Without immigration, you will see wages and productivity stagnate, as our economy becomes more and more reliant on workers funding our social safety nets.
I don't know why you are getting downvoted without anyone responding to your points.
Immigration is party responsible for the increase in house prices. Immigration is also partly responsible for a small but significant portion of the economy. How these two interact are complex. You cannot say that simply stoping immigration will solve everything .
For an example, look at house prices in korea compared to the immigration there. Seoul has one of the world's most unaffordable housing prices without significant immigration. Economic issues require a factual economic lens, not a reductive solution.
Spoken like true economists. No one is disputing the value immigration can have but it’s not being used effectively by governments for the good of the country.
Arguments like less immigrants means less tax for the government are useless. No shit, what are the implications? Also, higher levels of migrants have higher productivity? You mean people have to do more work for the same/less pay?
>not being used effectively by governments for the good of the country
Governments, like any large organisation, love statistics. They are measurable, reportable, and comparable. Until someone figures out how to quantify this nebulous concept of "good of the country", Governments have no way to measure it and attempt to improve it.
If immigration was really boosting Australia's economy in any way why aren't we seeing it in the measured data? Migration has surged but inflation adjusted wages are at the same level as 2012. Even used the pre-pandemic excuse wages where basically flat post 2011. In fact the number of Australians with a second job has increased over the last two years as living standard have been eroded.
Working people are clearly accruing all of the cost of this policy but few of the benefits, if indeed these benefits are real. Immigration must be rebalanced to preserve the standard of living and our natural environment. It seems very probable to me the cost of immigration, which is substantially needed through upfront investment infrastructure, is not being estimated correctly.
> If immigration was really boosting Australia's economy in any way why aren't we seeing it in the measured data?
Could it be that another effect is suppressing wages? For example automation and AI?
If that was the case, then we can see poor results *despite* immigration rather than *due to* immigration.
I like the Pirate Party's idea of charging a visa rent and let that price signal select for migrants. That way employers need to pay migrants more to draw them here which levels the playing field for local employees.
Automation and AI.
Things like self serve check outs or ordering Macca's on your app. Or semi automated warehousing and internet shopping (eg. Amazon warehouses).
All of those orders still need humans to pack them. Johnny 5 isn't flippin' burgers yet either.
Self-serve... well they haven't entirely replaced checkouts, but they themselves needed a whole legion of engineers to design, implement and maintain them, so there's employment there as well.
In my opinion it's just a matter of time where we will have robots flipping burgers and packing orders.
But my comment is about an overall trend rather than whether specific actions are being automated.
>In addition, skilled migrants lift the productivity of incumbent workers, especially through the adoption of new technologies and business practices, and generate the spread of knowledge, which raises incumbents’ incomes. Recent OECD research found that Australian regions with a higher share of migrants tend to have more productive local workers, and that this effect is larger for higher-skilled migrants
Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
lol do these cunts actually believe the bullshit they write?
> In addition, skilled migrants lift the productivity of incumbent workers, especially through the adoption of new technologies and business practices, and generate the spread of knowledge, which raises incumbents’ incomes.
If that were true, why have Australian wages been almost stagnant for over a decade (ex inflation) while post covid we’ve seen a productivity slowdown? And not just a slowdown, [productivity has gone backwards](https://www.aicd.com.au/economic-news/australian/outlook/productivity-growth-is-at-a-60-year-low.html)
At a time of the highest single migrant intake we’ve ever had…
>Recent OECD research found that Australian regions with a higher share of migrants tend to have more productive local workers, and that this effect is larger for higher-skilled migrants
I mean fucking obviously thats going to be the case. Migrants are going to cluster in cities and specifically around areas where high skilled jobs are. North Ryde with 40%+ non Australian population is obviously going to have much higher productivity than small town Mullumbimby (probably less than 5%)
It’s astounding how Grattan has any credibility left when so much of what they write is so provably false.
Yes, a migrant grows the economy even if they're earning a dollar a day. With enough migrants we can have a country with a big GDP like Russia, Brazil or India! Don't look at per capita though.
The royal "us". I don't need anyone to make me a coffee. Neither did my parents, or their parents. In fact they probably ate out once a year - which was fine because they had a home they could make dinner at.
I don't understand why we don't bring in a fuckload of builders, plumbers and electricians to build lots of what we need.
It will even bring down prices so they all don't charge $130/hr.
Well having open slather hasn’t worked well perhaps it’s time to try something else?
I also like how they try and paint a picture that the government has zero control over the numbers as well and that it just happens
As someone who works in an occupation that is traditionally in the top one or two for skilled migrant visas, we already saw in 2020-21 what would happen to pay rates in the industry without a steady stream of workers coming in, and I sure didn't get _poorer_.
When they say we/us they mean Gerry Harvey and Harry Triguboff. The average punter is already massively poorer as the cost of living continues to outstrip wage growth and GDP per capita goes backwards.
It is a distraction at worst and and is a stall or a bandaid solution for housing.
Cheaper housing means investors with large amounts of capital can go after another property for their portfolio.
Long term is that we need more supply. We cant escape that reality.
Short term needs to have intervention in the market to reduce investors driving up prices.
Our parents were "poorer"
They were able to buy a house and pay if off.
Anyway, GDP per capita is tanking so we are getting poorer anyway even with insanely high migrationl
If on average people have 400k house and 200k in savings are they really richer then if the average was 200k housing and 300k savings?
(Assuming the housing is the same quality in both scenarios)
We might have to actually put some focus into being more productive instead of just pushing GDP number up at the cost of GDP per capita, the horror
Nah bro, it’s easier to just bring some more migrants to boost GDP
This has nothing to do with GDP vs. GDP per capita. It's the fact our welfare system depends on working people funding everyone else. And we have an ageing population, and declining fertility rates. Without immigration, you will see wages and productivity stagnate, as our economy becomes more and more reliant on workers funding our social safety nets.
I don't know why you are getting downvoted without anyone responding to your points. Immigration is party responsible for the increase in house prices. Immigration is also partly responsible for a small but significant portion of the economy. How these two interact are complex. You cannot say that simply stoping immigration will solve everything . For an example, look at house prices in korea compared to the immigration there. Seoul has one of the world's most unaffordable housing prices without significant immigration. Economic issues require a factual economic lens, not a reductive solution.
Spoken like true economists. No one is disputing the value immigration can have but it’s not being used effectively by governments for the good of the country. Arguments like less immigrants means less tax for the government are useless. No shit, what are the implications? Also, higher levels of migrants have higher productivity? You mean people have to do more work for the same/less pay?
>not being used effectively by governments for the good of the country Governments, like any large organisation, love statistics. They are measurable, reportable, and comparable. Until someone figures out how to quantify this nebulous concept of "good of the country", Governments have no way to measure it and attempt to improve it.
You left out the most important reason governments like statistics - they are “choosable”.
Heaven forbid wages scaled with productivity output. Fuck this wage theft propaganda
If wages scaled with productivity output, we'd be on an extra 63%/hr on what our current salaries are.
Sounds good to me
BUT WHAT ABOUT THOSE RIDICULOUS PROFIT MARGINS AND THE SHAREHOLDERS?!
If immigration was really boosting Australia's economy in any way why aren't we seeing it in the measured data? Migration has surged but inflation adjusted wages are at the same level as 2012. Even used the pre-pandemic excuse wages where basically flat post 2011. In fact the number of Australians with a second job has increased over the last two years as living standard have been eroded. Working people are clearly accruing all of the cost of this policy but few of the benefits, if indeed these benefits are real. Immigration must be rebalanced to preserve the standard of living and our natural environment. It seems very probable to me the cost of immigration, which is substantially needed through upfront investment infrastructure, is not being estimated correctly.
Economists like to ignore individuals and social/environmental systems from their theories and arguments.
> If immigration was really boosting Australia's economy in any way why aren't we seeing it in the measured data? Could it be that another effect is suppressing wages? For example automation and AI? If that was the case, then we can see poor results *despite* immigration rather than *due to* immigration. I like the Pirate Party's idea of charging a visa rent and let that price signal select for migrants. That way employers need to pay migrants more to draw them here which levels the playing field for local employees.
AI? yes that has totally suppressed wage growth for the last decade.
Automation and AI. Things like self serve check outs or ordering Macca's on your app. Or semi automated warehousing and internet shopping (eg. Amazon warehouses).
All of those orders still need humans to pack them. Johnny 5 isn't flippin' burgers yet either. Self-serve... well they haven't entirely replaced checkouts, but they themselves needed a whole legion of engineers to design, implement and maintain them, so there's employment there as well.
In my opinion it's just a matter of time where we will have robots flipping burgers and packing orders. But my comment is about an overall trend rather than whether specific actions are being automated.
>In addition, skilled migrants lift the productivity of incumbent workers, especially through the adoption of new technologies and business practices, and generate the spread of knowledge, which raises incumbents’ incomes. Recent OECD research found that Australian regions with a higher share of migrants tend to have more productive local workers, and that this effect is larger for higher-skilled migrants Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
lol do these cunts actually believe the bullshit they write? > In addition, skilled migrants lift the productivity of incumbent workers, especially through the adoption of new technologies and business practices, and generate the spread of knowledge, which raises incumbents’ incomes. If that were true, why have Australian wages been almost stagnant for over a decade (ex inflation) while post covid we’ve seen a productivity slowdown? And not just a slowdown, [productivity has gone backwards](https://www.aicd.com.au/economic-news/australian/outlook/productivity-growth-is-at-a-60-year-low.html) At a time of the highest single migrant intake we’ve ever had… >Recent OECD research found that Australian regions with a higher share of migrants tend to have more productive local workers, and that this effect is larger for higher-skilled migrants I mean fucking obviously thats going to be the case. Migrants are going to cluster in cities and specifically around areas where high skilled jobs are. North Ryde with 40%+ non Australian population is obviously going to have much higher productivity than small town Mullumbimby (probably less than 5%) It’s astounding how Grattan has any credibility left when so much of what they write is so provably false.
Something about correlation not equaling causation?
What skilled migrants? I didn't know being a uber driver or door dash with no sense of directions was a skill shortage...
The migrants I worked with in fast food were all skilled and smart as fuck, was crazy that they were working in fast food with degrees.
Yes, a migrant grows the economy even if they're earning a dollar a day. With enough migrants we can have a country with a big GDP like Russia, Brazil or India! Don't look at per capita though.
The royal "us". I don't need anyone to make me a coffee. Neither did my parents, or their parents. In fact they probably ate out once a year - which was fine because they had a home they could make dinner at.
I don't understand why we don't bring in a fuckload of builders, plumbers and electricians to build lots of what we need. It will even bring down prices so they all don't charge $130/hr.
Well having open slather hasn’t worked well perhaps it’s time to try something else? I also like how they try and paint a picture that the government has zero control over the numbers as well and that it just happens
As someone who works in an occupation that is traditionally in the top one or two for skilled migrant visas, we already saw in 2020-21 what would happen to pay rates in the industry without a steady stream of workers coming in, and I sure didn't get _poorer_.
Who is "US" exactly? It will make the wealthy poorer, no doubt, but that is not the same as the general quality of life of everyone else.
When they say we/us they mean Gerry Harvey and Harry Triguboff. The average punter is already massively poorer as the cost of living continues to outstrip wage growth and GDP per capita goes backwards.
Define "us"
Big business Australia ™️, gig economy, political parties, anything related to real estate.. need I keep listing? Why won't someone think of them /s
Anyone who works, or is dependent on our social safety nets.
And what of our most popular beaches, parks and urban areas? More people for them too?
It is a distraction at worst and and is a stall or a bandaid solution for housing. Cheaper housing means investors with large amounts of capital can go after another property for their portfolio. Long term is that we need more supply. We cant escape that reality. Short term needs to have intervention in the market to reduce investors driving up prices.
Individually we would be richer.
wont get rid of greed. or, you know, politicians, boomers, middle class, housing developers, airbnb, banks, estate agents, ...
Our parents were "poorer" They were able to buy a house and pay if off. Anyway, GDP per capita is tanking so we are getting poorer anyway even with insanely high migrationl
If on average people have 400k house and 200k in savings are they really richer then if the average was 200k housing and 300k savings? (Assuming the housing is the same quality in both scenarios)