Australian Job Boom Sends Immigration ‘Wake-Up Call’

Oct. 8 (Bloomberg) -- Australia’s surging job market, capping its strongest quarter since 2006, signals the government may need to retreat from a campaign pledge to slow population growth as the central bank tries to control inflation.

The number of people employed rose 49,500 in September from a month earlier, almost 2 ½ times the median estimate in a Bloomberg News survey and the most since January, the statistics bureau said yesterday in Sydney. Full-time employment jumped 112,500 in the past two months, the biggest back-to-back increase since 1988.

“Clearly the latest jobs data sends a wake-up call to the government,” said Craig James, a senior economist at Commonwealth Bank of Australia in Sydney. “If we want to restrain wage pressures and keep interest rates low then labor supply needs to increase and that means more migrants.”

Net immigration dropped 25 percent to 241,400 in the year ended March 31 from 320,400 recorded for the year earlier, a statistics bureau report showed last month.

In the past year, immigration has fallen at the fastest rate on record, which is “certainly not a desirable outcome,” James said.

Under the baseline scenario of a Treasury report in February, the population is forecast to expand 1.2 percent a year to 35.9 million by 2050. Paring that rate by one-third would cut the average annual economic growth rate to 2.3 percent from 2.7 percent, according to the Treasury. Net migration is the “key” variable influencing the outcomes, the study said.
Link -
http://noir.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aUVuPXRq4L2A&pos=2
=====================
Yes, immigrants have brought along many benefits, in the past!

As did the high natural birth rates of mid last century, which brought Economic benefits!

However, nothing ever goes in one direction forever and we now find ourselves in a different situation to which we have been, for the last 50-60 years, in particular.

Sustaining that past high growth in the natural birth rate & in immigration is now more of a cost/benefit equation, rather than simply a benefit!

For example, we are already starting to struggle to provide Food & fresh Water for the existing Population, let alone double the current Population, which is where both major Political party's are heading.

An example of that is the Murray Darling basin, which is the Food bowl of Australia. It is struggling now, under a lack of water and will not double its Food production, as Climate Change continues to become a drier the continent, over time.

A second example is WA and the mining boom. But, the wheatbelt area & general agricultural Production are struggling against a lack of rainfall & Production will not support increasing numbers.

This is particular applicable in Perth city, as it is drying up from lack of rainfall, as shown in our current dam levels which are only 35% of capacity, having just come out of another low rainfall winter.

Then, there is the matter of Peak Energy, where Global Oil Production is already in Decline & Coal & Gas are set to follow, within 20-30 years.

Housing & Infrastructure are no longer simply benefits, they are two edged swords.

It's time to think a little further ahead, than the usual Political timeline of the next election & the Economic imperative of the next quarterly profit figures!

It's time for the Politicians, Economists & the Establishment to wake up, there is no such thing as exponential Growth and if you try to enforce it, then things will not end well!
===========
FD
I count at least 7 threads on the "Politicians Suck" page, which have little or nothing to do with "Politicians Sucking".

Even though this relates directly to actions of Politicians that suck, you shift this one to the General page and leave the others on the "Politicians Suck" page.

I would like to see your criteria of what is ok for the "Politicians Suck" page & what is not?

In particular, if this article is not ok for "Politicians Suck", then under what criteria is it ok to leave "Climate Change Religion", with 367 posts, but nothing what-so-ever to do with "Politicians Sucking", still on the Political thread?

This is more to do with your petty whims, than any criteria & it is becoming a joke!

Ha! Ha!

You have a nice day now, ya hear?

FD
I count at least 9 threads on the "Politicians Suck" page, NOW, which have little or nothing to do with "Politicians Sucking", but you select "Keynes, Aus-terity OR ?", as the only one you move.

You have done this before and I posed the same statement/question.

I would like to see your criteria of what is ok for the "Politicians Suck" page & what is not?

This is more to do with your petty whims, than any criteria & it is now a joke!

Ha! Ha!

You have a nice day now, ya hear

well I am all for topic of the day.. get a bit weary of the old whinges coming up over and over.. life is more complicated today and just about everything affects us one way or another..if it was all about I hate gillard and you Hate Abbott.. wouldnt that be a tad boring as well..I am all for learning about the different issues..

It beats me why some  of your threads get moved when they ARE about politics perception. . But where ever they end up I read them. I note that imcookonit may have the same issues.

codswal wrote on Oct 29^th, 2010 at 5:57pm:

well I am all for topic of the day.. get a bit weary of the old whinges coming up over and over.. life is more complicated today and just about everything affects us one way or another..if it was all about I hate gillard and you Hate Abbott.. wouldnt that be a tad boring as well..I am all for learning about the different issues..

I think my thoughts on our Pollies are fairly obvious from what I post in the "politicians Suck" area of this site and that is that they (& their helpers) DO SUCK!  

Some may start with good intentions, but that doesn't last long, then it stops being about us, it reverts to them and that's pretty much all of them (Pollies)!

That said, this thread is more to do with FD's whims, which apparently is purely how he decides what goes on this "politicians Suck" area!

For a start, if it were purely "politicians Suck", then Policy matters wouldn't get a look in and as you said it would get very boring simply running down Pollies & their helpers, no matter how much they may deserve it.

But if that was THE criteria, then that's fine!

However, that isn't the criteria, in fact there isn't any criteria, it purely comes down to FD's whims and if your not onside with FD, then tough.

I don't start too many threads on the "Politicians Suck" area, but I think all but this one have been moved, whereas there have been countless off-subject threads that have been allowed to stay, approved by FD!

Well, if it is good enough for all those other off-topic threads to remain in "Politicians Suck", then why move the ones that you do move, FD???

Btw, Cods, the reason I put "Keynes, Aus-terity OR?" into the Politicians Suck" area, was that I thought it may be a good subject to inform a wider audience than regularly may go to the "Finance & Economics" area.

<<I don't start too many threads on the "Politicians Suck" area, but I think all but this one have been moved, whereas there have been countless off-subject threads that have been allowed to stay, approved by FD!>>
.......................................................................................

This is my observation too, and I am wondering why.

The moderators, including FD haven't been around much lately so I doubt it's intentional that some threads get moved and others don't. I agree there are too many non-political topics on the Politicians Suck forum - but how many times do people need to be told they're posting in the wrong forum?

They've been told so many times - but continue to do it.

Probably the best thing to do is post the links of the culprit threads to either Mozzaok, Locutius or FD with a copy to each and keep your fingers crossed that someone gets around to moving them.

I dont know what difference it makes to be honest..as long as its not rude or abusive.. what the heck we can all learn from listening/reading others points of view.on just about anything..I stay away from religion and finance neither of which I am interested or knowledgeable in..but heaps are and good luck to them..give us a break and leave it up to our own inteligence to decide whats good for us..the topics need to change all the time thats what makes us come in every day

The blanket statement that "Politicians & Economists are Hopeless", flies like a lead duck.  The political system could use quite a bit of refreshing, the PC attempt to idiot proof the world has had the stifling effect of smothering all of us in "lowest common denominator" regulation and handicap.  There are some comitted people in Australian politics, it`s all to easy to criticise.

aussiefree2ride wrote on Oct 29^th, 2010 at 8:22pm:

The blanket statement that "Politicians & Economists are Hopeless", flies like a lead duck.  The political system could use quite a bit of refreshing, the PC attempt to idiot proof the world has had the stifling effect of smothering all of us in "lowest common denominator" regulation and handicap.  There are some comitted people in Australian politics, it`s all to easy to criticise.

I would like to know who is truly committed aussie..so much is corrupt at the top it frightens me..and the so called committed turn the other cheek and pretend they havent seen it..I agree it isnt always the person more the system but they do little if anything to change that system..

pollies long ago forgot who they are working for.

as for economists.. just who are they kidding? its all a mirage, if they tell us all is well then we have no choice but to believe them.who else is there to ask.. I ask?.lol

Stupid topic by the OP, obviously they have no idea.

codswal wrote on Oct 30^th, 2010 at 8:09am:

aussiefree2ride wrote on Oct 29th, 2010 at 8:22pm: The blanket statement that "Politicians & Economists are Hopeless", flies like a lead duck.  The political system could use quite a bit of refreshing, the PC attempt to idiot proof the world has had the stifling effect of smothering all of us in "lowest common denominator" regulation and handicap.  There are some comitted people in Australian politics, it`s all to easy to criticise. I would like to know who is truly committed aussie..so much is corrupt at the top it frightens me..and the so called committed turn the other cheek and pretend they havent seen it..I agree it isnt always the person more the system but they do little if anything to change that system.. pollies long ago forgot who they are working for. as for economists.. just who are they kidding? its all a mirage, if they tell us all is well then we have no choice but to believe them.who else is there to ask.. I ask?.lol

Cods, agreed about economists, but the question re polies is a hard one, however, generalisations aren`t at all helpful.  I believe we`re overdue for a revamp of our Justice, Bureaucratic, Education, and political systems. We have become bogged down with trivia, departmental and party politic parochialism, and fear of litigation.

perceptions_now wrote on Oct 29^th, 2010 at 1:40pm:

FD I count at least 9 threads on the "Politicians Suck" page, NOW, which have little or nothing to do with "Politicians Sucking", but you select "Keynes, Aus-terity OR ?", as the only one you move. You have done this before and I posed the same statement/question. I would like to see your criteria of what is ok for the "Politicians Suck" page & what is not? This is more to do with your petty whims, than any criteria & it is now a joke! Ha! Ha! You have a nice day now, ya hear

If it is predominantly about a politician, political party or official party policy, then it belongs in politicians suck. This board is not intended to be limited to exposing personal scandals.

freediver wrote on Oct 30^th, 2010 at 9:26am:

perceptions_now wrote on Oct 29th, 2010 at 1:40pm: FD I count at least 9 threads on the "Politicians Suck" page, NOW, which have little or nothing to do with "Politicians Sucking", but you select "Keynes, Aus-terity OR ?", as the only one you move. You have done this before and I posed the same statement/question. I would like to see your criteria of what is ok for the "Politicians Suck" page & what is not? This is more to do with your petty whims, than any criteria & it is now a joke! Ha! Ha! You have a nice day now, ya hear If it is predominantly about a politician, political party or official party policy, then it belongs in politicians suck. This board is not intended to be limited to exposing personal scandals.

There are numerous threads that have little relevance, even to your broader description of Politics, which are still retained on the "Politicians Suck" board.

Even my own posts on the "Politicians Suck" board are hit & miss!

You move some and don't move others and there is little or no criteria involved, it is purely on your whim of the day.

Only "Keynes, Aus-terity OR?" & a select few others have been put, by me, into the Politicians Suck" area, since the Finance & Economics Board started.

I have done so, generally, because there were Macro Economic issues  involved that directly impact & interact with Politics and I thought it may be a good subject to inform a wider audience than  may regularly go to the "Finance & Economics" area.

Your interpretations of what you leave on "Politicians Suck" board is whimsical, at best.

In my opinion, you & moderators generally (including me),  would be better placed to concentrate on attending to some posts & posters, who are clearly miscreants!

And, other than that, leave the lines of information & communication open, without arbitrarily deciding what & or who, fits where!

perceptions_now wrote on Oct 30^th, 2010 at 12:05pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 30th, 2010 at 9:26am: perceptions_now wrote on Oct 29th, 2010 at 1:40pm: FD I count at least 9 threads on the "Politicians Suck" page, NOW, which have little or nothing to do with "Politicians Sucking", but you select "Keynes, Aus-terity OR ?", as the only one you move. You have done this before and I posed the same statement/question. I would like to see your criteria of what is ok for the "Politicians Suck" page & what is not? This is more to do with your petty whims, than any criteria & it is now a joke! Ha! Ha! You have a nice day now, ya hear If it is predominantly about a politician, political party or official party policy, then it belongs in politicians suck. This board is not intended to be limited to exposing personal scandals. There are numerous threads that have little relevance, even to your broader description of Politics, which are still retained on the "Politicians Suck" board. Even my own posts on the "Politicians Suck" board are hit & miss! You move some and don't move others and there is little or no criteria involved, it is purely on your whim of the day. Only "Keynes, Aus-terity OR?" & a select few others have been put, by me, into the Politicians Suck" area, since the Finance & Economics Board started. I have done so, generally, because there were Macro Economic issues  involved that directly impact & interact with Politics and I thought it may be a good subject to inform a wider audience than  may regularly go to the "Finance & Economics" area. Your interpretations of what you leave on "Politicians Suck" board is whimsical, at best. In my opinion, you & moderators generally (including me),  would be better placed to concentrate on attending to some posts & posters, who are clearly miscreants! And, other than that, leave the lines of information & communication open, without arbitrarily deciding what & or who, fits where!

bump

The Queen of England, you know the one, Elizabeth II, wanted to know all about the global financial crises, how it come about and what went wrong. So she calls an economist over to Buckingham Palace. He tells her all about what happened and how bad it is rah rah rah.

AT the end of the explanation, she asks him how it is that none of the so called leading economists saw this coming.

He had no explanation at first. He had to get back to her.

In a letter, he wrote that basically we didn't see it because we didn't want to.

It will be the same next time.

We saw it coming a year or two before. We see it coming again. Do they?

Many economists had predicted it - they were just ignored by the mainstream. At the moment, the increasingly popular Neo-keynesianism is becoming the new standard, which I personally think is even worse than mainstream economics.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Oct 31^st, 2010 at 5:37pm:

The Queen of England, you know the one, Elizabeth II, wanted to know all about the global financial crises, how it come about and what went wrong. So she calls an economist over to Buckingham Palace. He tells her all about what happened and how bad it is rah rah rah. AT the end of the explanation, she asks him how it is that none of the so called leading economists saw this coming. He had no explanation at first. He had to get back to her. In a letter, he wrote that basically we didn't see it because we didn't want to. It will be the same next time. We saw it coming a year or two before. We see it coming again. Do they?

None are so blind, as those who will not see!

None so deaf, as those who will not hear!

And, none so ignorant, as those who will not accept facts, which logic says is true!

Hlysnan wrote on Oct 31^st, 2010 at 7:40pm:

1) Many economists had predicted it - they were just ignored by the mainstream. 2) At the moment, the increasingly popular Neo-keynesianism is becoming the new standard, which I personally think is even worse than mainstream economics.

1) Some Economists predicted, some of what happened and only noting some of the factors, which affected events and are still affecting events. And, yes, mainstream economists & Politicians general disregarded those predictions & took no action. Biut that's been happening for a long time (decades, not years) and it's not likely to change, near term!

2)  Keynesism certainly has its advocates, new or old, but so to does the Austrian school of Economics.

Whilst both have their advocates and both may have some aspects, which could be usefull in the current circumstances, I fear that neither will have the answers wanted by Politicians & the general Public, as we have already gone past major tipping points, some recently & some decades ago, which means that we are now locked into certain outcomes, many of which are likely to be adverse for some time to come!     

mantra wrote on Oct 29^th, 2010 at 6:59pm:

The moderators, including FD haven't been around much lately so I doubt it's intentional that some threads get moved and others don't. I agree there are too many non-political topics on the Politicians Suck forum - but how many times do people need to be told they're posting in the wrong forum? They've been told so many times - but continue to do it. Probably the best thing to do is post the links of the culprit threads to either Mozzaok, Locutius or FD with a copy to each and keep your fingers crossed that someone gets around to moving them.

Mantra,
Thank you for your input!

My apologies for not responding earlier!

As I have indicated in other posts, I really don't have a problem with posts not being moved. Whether they fit any particular parameters for that board segment or not.

Where I have a problem, is where one particular person apparently uses two different sets of values to determine a course of action.

That person (FD), is the pre-dominant person who moves threads to different board segments, but he disregards a large number of threads (including some of my own), which obviously have little or nothing to do with that board segment.

However, he then moves a relative few, which may or may not have either direct &/or indirect Political associations, which seems more to do with his whim of the day, at best or some form of personal censorship!      

In my opinion, moving or deleting threads &/or posts, are somthing that should be reserved for miscreants & obviously nasty posts or legal dilemma's, but certainly not for the run of the mill thread or post, whether on topic or not!