I was driving through the western suburbs of Sydney this week and it just made me realise how much we need to cut immigration, particularly that from Muslim countries. Lakemba is like mini Baghdad. It's funny how all of those on the sanctimonious left (and by that I include a substantial amount of Liberal Party MPs) say that we need to be so nice and let them all come in, but why don't those that say that want to live anywhere near them? They live in their nice trendy houses in Newtown, Balmain, Birchgrove and Marrickville and expect battling working class mum, dad and the kids in places like Liverpool, Bankstown, Campsie and Lakemba to live surrounded by Muslims who don't work, can't speak a word of English, have up to 10 kids and go on welfare. Put the Muslims near them and I bet that they would change their tone.

Thank God you're back, Matty. Thank heavens the grown-ups are back in charge.

It's about time we had a thread about mussies , those boongs have been copping a flogging of late

too late, abbott already here.

matty wrote on Feb 25^th, 2018 at 9:46pm:

I was driving through the western suburbs of Sydney this week and it just made me realise how much we need to cut immigration, particularly that from Muslim countries. Lakemba is like mini Baghdad. It's funny how all of those on the sanctimonious left (and by that I include a substantial amount of Liberal Party MPs) say that we need to be so nice and let them all come in, but why don't those that say that want to live anywhere near them? They live in their nice trendy houses in Newtown, Balmain, Birchgrove and Marrickville and expect battling working class mum, dad and the kids in places like Liverpool, Bankstown, Campsie and Lakemba to live surrounded by Muslims who don't work, can't speak a word of English, have up to 10 kids and go on welfare. Put the Muslims near them and I bet that they would change their tone.

So based on your BS anecdote, what do you want us to do?

matty wrote on Feb 25^th, 2018 at 9:46pm:

I was driving through the western suburbs of Sydney this week and it just made me realise how much we need to cut immigration, particularly that from Muslim countries. Lakemba is like mini Baghdad. It's funny how all of those on the sanctimonious left (and by that I include a substantial amount of Liberal Party MPs) say that we need to be so nice and let them all come in, but why don't those that say that want to live anywhere near them? They live in their nice trendy houses in Newtown, Balmain, Birchgrove and Marrickville and expect battling working class mum, dad and the kids in places like Liverpool, Bankstown, Campsie and Lakemba to live surrounded by Muslims who don't work, can't speak a word of English, have up to 10 kids and go on welfare. Put the Muslims near them and I bet that they would change their tone.

Neither side of politics wants to talk about it because they need mass immigration to keep their fake debt ladened services economy going. This is what happens when you de-industrialize a country and throw away its manufacturing capacity !!

Not only should we have a drastic reduction in immigration numbers but we should send out a message to the various groups here in Oz who sought our protection. Hey Iraqis, Mr S Hussein has been removed so it is now safe to return home. Hey Sri Lankans/Tamils, the war is over so you no longer have a reason to stay in Oz. We'll try and get along without you difficult as that task may be. Hey Vietnamese, your home country is now a popular tourist destination so it seems to be a safe country so off you go.

Amazing how people advocate for dropping immigration but can't articulate a solution to the fact that the population is aging.

Immigration is about the only reason the libtards are managing their .1 of a percent growth per quarter

crocodile wrote on Feb 26^th, 2018 at 10:09am:

Amazing how people advocate for dropping immigration but can't articulate a solution to the fact that the population is aging.

You still haven't learned why you're wrong about this. Immigration is NOT at a level that maintains a stable population but is substantially greater than this. This population Ponzi scheme is not sustainable in the long term.

matty wrote on Feb 25^th, 2018 at 9:46pm:

I was driving through the western suburbs of Sydney this week and it just made me realise how much we need to cut immigration, particularly that from Muslim countries. Lakemba is like mini Baghdad. It's funny how all of those on the sanctimonious left (and by that I include a substantial amount of Liberal Party MPs) say that we need to be so nice and let them all come in, but why don't those that say that want to live anywhere near them? They live in their nice trendy houses in Newtown, Balmain, Birchgrove and Marrickville and expect battling working class mum, dad and the kids in places like Liverpool, Bankstown, Campsie and Lakemba to live surrounded by Muslims who don't work, can't speak a word of English, have up to 10 kids and go on welfare. Put the Muslims near them and I bet that they would change their tone.

Newtown, Balmain, Birchgrove, Marrickville - they are all suburbs with 2 mil median house price.  More likely to vote for liberals than labor. 

Bam wrote on Feb 26^th, 2018 at 10:45am:

crocodile wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 10:09am: Amazing how people advocate for dropping immigration but can't articulate a solution to the fact that the population is aging. You still haven't learned why you're wrong about this. Immigration is NOT at a level that maintains a stable population but is substantially greater than this. This population Ponzi scheme is not sustainable in the long term.

You haven't thought that one through very well. A stable population is not much use when the ratio of workers to non workers keeps diminishing.

crocodile wrote on Feb 26^th, 2018 at 10:09am:

Amazing how people advocate for dropping immigration but can't articulate a solution to the fact that the population is aging.

china is no longer taking our waste. Can we dump it on your back yard ?

crocodile wrote on Feb 26^th, 2018 at 10:54am:

Bam wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 10:45am: crocodile wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 10:09am: Amazing how people advocate for dropping immigration but can't articulate a solution to the fact that the population is aging. You still haven't learned why you're wrong about this. Immigration is NOT at a level that maintains a stable population but is substantially greater than this. This population Ponzi scheme is not sustainable in the long term. You haven't thought that one through very well. A stable population is not much use when the ratio of workers to non workers keeps diminishing.

and you keep sending all of the jobs to china.

crocodile wrote on Feb 26^th, 2018 at 10:54am:

Bam wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 10:45am: crocodile wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 10:09am: Amazing how people advocate for dropping immigration but can't articulate a solution to the fact that the population is aging. You still haven't learned why you're wrong about this. Immigration is NOT at a level that maintains a stable population but is substantially greater than this. This population Ponzi scheme is not sustainable in the long term. You haven't thought that one through very well. A stable population is not much use when the ratio of workers to non workers keeps diminishing.

That's a specious argument that ignores the reasons why this is happening. Immigration is adding cost pressures to infrastructure and housing that would not be as great if the population was stable. Another problem is a lack of jobs in regional areas. Reduce these cost pressures and create these jobs in regional areas, and people could live more cheaply and afford to have more children.

You're also ignoring what happens when working-age immigrants reach retirement age. Do we solve that with even more immigration? Do we send them "home"?

Another factor that reduces taxation revenue and the birthrate is the 20% of the working age population who are forced by government policy to have no work at all or insufficient work. Eradicating involuntary unemployment could do a lot to boost the spending power of this bottom quintile of the working-age population. Taxation revenues would increase, and they could afford to have more children - future taxpayers.

Bam wrote on Feb 26^th, 2018 at 11:11am:

crocodile wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 10:54am: Bam wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 10:45am: crocodile wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 10:09am: Amazing how people advocate for dropping immigration but can't articulate a solution to the fact that the population is aging. You still haven't learned why you're wrong about this. Immigration is NOT at a level that maintains a stable population but is substantially greater than this. This population Ponzi scheme is not sustainable in the long term. You haven't thought that one through very well. A stable population is not much use when the ratio of workers to non workers keeps diminishing. That's a specious argument that ignores the reasons why this is happening. Immigration is adding cost pressures to infrastructure and housing that would not be as great if the population was stable. Another problem is a lack of jobs in regional areas. Reduce these cost pressures and create these jobs in regional areas, and people could live more cheaply and afford to have more children. You're also ignoring what happens when working-age immigrants reach retirement age. Do we solve that with even more immigration? Do we send them "home"? Another factor that reduces taxation revenue and the birthrate is the 20% of the working age population who are forced by government policy to have no work at all or insufficient work. Eradicating involuntary unemployment could do a lot to boost the spending power of this bottom quintile of the working-age population. Taxation revenues would increase, and they could afford to have more children - future taxpayers.

Specious my arse. We're living longer. In 50 years time the 65 and over will account for 25% of the population against today's 15%. How in the fukk are we going to produce the same level of goods and services with 10% less labour. You can waffle about infrastructure and all other undesirable outcomes as much as you want but it does not address the first fundamental problem.

crocodile wrote on Feb 26^th, 2018 at 11:22am:

Bam wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 11:11am: crocodile wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 10:54am: Bam wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 10:45am: crocodile wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 10:09am: Amazing how people advocate for dropping immigration but can't articulate a solution to the fact that the population is aging. You still haven't learned why you're wrong about this. Immigration is NOT at a level that maintains a stable population but is substantially greater than this. This population Ponzi scheme is not sustainable in the long term. You haven't thought that one through very well. A stable population is not much use when the ratio of workers to non workers keeps diminishing. That's a specious argument that ignores the reasons why this is happening. Immigration is adding cost pressures to infrastructure and housing that would not be as great if the population was stable. Another problem is a lack of jobs in regional areas. Reduce these cost pressures and create these jobs in regional areas, and people could live more cheaply and afford to have more children. You're also ignoring what happens when working-age immigrants reach retirement age. Do we solve that with even more immigration? Do we send them "home"? Another factor that reduces taxation revenue and the birthrate is the 20% of the working age population who are forced by government policy to have no work at all or insufficient work. Eradicating involuntary unemployment could do a lot to boost the spending power of this bottom quintile of the working-age population. Taxation revenues would increase, and they could afford to have more children - future taxpayers. Specious my arse. We're living longer. In 50 years time the 65 and over will account for 25% of the population against today's 15%. How in the fukk are we going to produce the same level of goods and services with 10% less labour. You can waffle about infrastructure and all other undesirable outcomes as much as you want but it does not address the first fundamental problem.

Increase the superannuation guarantee to 15% as Keating originally intended. That would solve a lot of problems with an aging population by allowing retirees to be more self-funded. Businesses can pay for that extra cost easily if payroll tax was abolished.

Its time wrote on Feb 25^th, 2018 at 10:26pm:

It's about time we had a thread about mussies , those boongs have been copping a flogging of late

I agree. First stop, the Muselman. We'll deal with the Boongs next.

Matty is correct, as usual.

Bam wrote on Feb 26^th, 2018 at 11:25am:

crocodile wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 11:22am: Bam wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 11:11am: crocodile wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 10:54am: Bam wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 10:45am: crocodile wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 10:09am: Amazing how people advocate for dropping immigration but can't articulate a solution to the fact that the population is aging. You still haven't learned why you're wrong about this. Immigration is NOT at a level that maintains a stable population but is substantially greater than this. This population Ponzi scheme is not sustainable in the long term. You haven't thought that one through very well. A stable population is not much use when the ratio of workers to non workers keeps diminishing. That's a specious argument that ignores the reasons why this is happening. Immigration is adding cost pressures to infrastructure and housing that would not be as great if the population was stable. Another problem is a lack of jobs in regional areas. Reduce these cost pressures and create these jobs in regional areas, and people could live more cheaply and afford to have more children. You're also ignoring what happens when working-age immigrants reach retirement age. Do we solve that with even more immigration? Do we send them "home"? Another factor that reduces taxation revenue and the birthrate is the 20% of the working age population who are forced by government policy to have no work at all or insufficient work. Eradicating involuntary unemployment could do a lot to boost the spending power of this bottom quintile of the working-age population. Taxation revenues would increase, and they could afford to have more children - future taxpayers. Specious my arse. We're living longer. In 50 years time the 65 and over will account for 25% of the population against today's 15%. How in the fukk are we going to produce the same level of goods and services with 10% less labour. You can waffle about infrastructure and all other undesirable outcomes as much as you want but it does not address the first fundamental problem. Increase the superannuation guarantee to 15% as Keating originally intended. That would solve a lot of problems with an aging population by allowing retirees to be more self-funded. Businesses can pay for that extra cost easily if payroll tax was abolished.

It doesn't matter how much money the retirees have in their claw. They can only purchase what is produced. How do you intend to satisfy the production needs with less labour.

crocodile wrote on Feb 26^th, 2018 at 10:09am:

Amazing how people advocate for dropping immigration but can't articulate a solution to the fact that the population is aging.

Its amazing the number of people advocate high immigration that can not articulate a solution to how the states infrastructure can keep up with it.

crocodile wrote on Feb 26^th, 2018 at 11:33am:

Bam wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 11:25am: crocodile wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 11:22am: Bam wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 11:11am: crocodile wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 10:54am: Bam wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 10:45am: crocodile wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 10:09am: Amazing how people advocate for dropping immigration but can't articulate a solution to the fact that the population is aging. You still haven't learned why you're wrong about this. Immigration is NOT at a level that maintains a stable population but is substantially greater than this. This population Ponzi scheme is not sustainable in the long term. You haven't thought that one through very well. A stable population is not much use when the ratio of workers to non workers keeps diminishing. That's a specious argument that ignores the reasons why this is happening. Immigration is adding cost pressures to infrastructure and housing that would not be as great if the population was stable. Another problem is a lack of jobs in regional areas. Reduce these cost pressures and create these jobs in regional areas, and people could live more cheaply and afford to have more children. You're also ignoring what happens when working-age immigrants reach retirement age. Do we solve that with even more immigration? Do we send them "home"? Another factor that reduces taxation revenue and the birthrate is the 20% of the working age population who are forced by government policy to have no work at all or insufficient work. Eradicating involuntary unemployment could do a lot to boost the spending power of this bottom quintile of the working-age population. Taxation revenues would increase, and they could afford to have more children - future taxpayers. Specious my arse. We're living longer. In 50 years time the 65 and over will account for 25% of the population against today's 15%. How in the fukk are we going to produce the same level of goods and services with 10% less labour. You can waffle about infrastructure and all other undesirable outcomes as much as you want but it does not address the first fundamental problem. Increase the superannuation guarantee to 15% as Keating originally intended. That would solve a lot of problems with an aging population by allowing retirees to be more self-funded. Businesses can pay for that extra cost easily if payroll tax was abolished. It doesn't matter how much money the retirees have in their claw. They can only purchase what is produced. How do you intend to satisfy the production needs with less labour.

Your argument is relying on false assumptions. The labour IS available, but is not currently being utilised. How can you assert that there isn't the labour available when 10% to 20% of the workforce doesn't have enough work?

Its time wrote on Feb 25^th, 2018 at 10:26pm:

It's about time we had a thread about mussies , those boongs have been copping a flogging of late

Plenty to spread around... let 'em have a taste of it.... they cop a flogging because they deserve it....they could always change their ways and earn respect......

crocodile wrote on Feb 26^th, 2018 at 10:09am:

Amazing how people advocate for dropping immigration but can't articulate a solution to the fact that the population is aging.

Please expand?  How is bringing in masses of people assisting in any way the 'problem' of aging population?

By diluting the available workforce so that super is not as viable for the many currently working, thus affecting retirement funding?

By placing added burdens on the social security budget so as to ensure that the aging population is targeted as a 'burden'?

Why is it 'necessary' to bring in hordes of illiterate and anathemic people who have no affiliation to this nation or its people, and no interest in the prosperity of the nation?  Surely we could find some tame Irish or English or German or something.....

Methinks you are sweeping the dust under the carpet with a wide broom here..... so please explain?

I remember the Australia first party and the way they were vilified as Fascists and tyrants for wanting to reduce immigration from Third World nations with a populace inimical to Australian ways...

Thirty years later the worm turns.... a New Messiah arises from the ashes of defeat ....a distant rumble of thunder is heard ..... there are signs and portents in the skies and the Tiber runs red like blood..... Tony has crossed the Rubicon ..... (or was that the Rube Con?)......

No wonder people offshore think we are a nation of drongoes.... thing is - it's our political 'leadership' who are drongoes and have not the best interests of this nation at heart...  but I assume, in conjunction with a 'fair go for all Aussies' - that's bordering on National Socialism......

Tony is at least listening to the howling gale going on about the current immigration policies and mix..... how will he reconcile this latest stand with the idea that we 'need' an endless supply of fresh meat to sustain the staggering economy based on fresh air and promises and never-ending expansion?  Any fool can see, with half an eye, that you cannot 'expand' indefinitely..... and under what terms is this 'expansion' continuing?

It seems from endless reports that Gypoes are buying houses from the proceeds of crime first, and embarking on a course of self-enrichment , rather than working to sustain a mortgage..... meanwhile the entire housing bubble on which 'expansion' is built is excluding those who are genuinely in it for the long term..... none of this is a solid expansion of anything but trouble and strife....

RightSaidFred wrote on Feb 26^th, 2018 at 11:36am:

crocodile wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 10:09am: Amazing how people advocate for dropping immigration but can't articulate a solution to the fact that the population is aging. Its amazing the number of people advocate high immigration that can not articulate a solution to how the states infrastructure can keep up with it.

I don't know anybody like that. However, simply cutting migration numbers without attention to the effects has less than desirable consequences as well. It's OK for Abbott and Smith to keep banging on about it but until they can propose a solution as well it is just chest beating.

Bam wrote on Feb 26^th, 2018 at 12:08pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 11:33am: Bam wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 11:25am: crocodile wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 11:22am: Bam wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 11:11am: crocodile wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 10:54am: Bam wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 10:45am: crocodile wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 10:09am: Amazing how people advocate for dropping immigration but can't articulate a solution to the fact that the population is aging. You still haven't learned why you're wrong about this. Immigration is NOT at a level that maintains a stable population but is substantially greater than this. This population Ponzi scheme is not sustainable in the long term. You haven't thought that one through very well. A stable population is not much use when the ratio of workers to non workers keeps diminishing. That's a specious argument that ignores the reasons why this is happening. Immigration is adding cost pressures to infrastructure and housing that would not be as great if the population was stable. Another problem is a lack of jobs in regional areas. Reduce these cost pressures and create these jobs in regional areas, and people could live more cheaply and afford to have more children. You're also ignoring what happens when working-age immigrants reach retirement age. Do we solve that with even more immigration? Do we send them "home"? Another factor that reduces taxation revenue and the birthrate is the 20% of the working age population who are forced by government policy to have no work at all or insufficient work. Eradicating involuntary unemployment could do a lot to boost the spending power of this bottom quintile of the working-age population. Taxation revenues would increase, and they could afford to have more children - future taxpayers. Specious my arse. We're living longer. In 50 years time the 65 and over will account for 25% of the population against today's 15%. How in the fukk are we going to produce the same level of goods and services with 10% less labour. You can waffle about infrastructure and all other undesirable outcomes as much as you want but it does not address the first fundamental problem. Increase the superannuation guarantee to 15% as Keating originally intended. That would solve a lot of problems with an aging population by allowing retirees to be more self-funded. Businesses can pay for that extra cost easily if payroll tax was abolished. It doesn't matter how much money the retirees have in their claw. They can only purchase what is produced. How do you intend to satisfy the production needs with less labour. Your argument is relying on false assumptions. The labour IS available, but is not currently being utilised. How can you assert that there isn't the labour available when 10% to 20% of the workforce doesn't have enough work?

There aren't any false assumptions just your misunderstanding. Even if every unemployed person could be deployed it only avoids the inevitable labour shortage for a short time until life expectancy increases past the rate of resupply.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 26^th, 2018 at 1:10pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 10:09am: Amazing how people advocate for dropping immigration but can't articulate a solution to the fact that the population is aging. Please expand?  How is bringing in masses of people assisting in any way the 'problem' of aging population? By diluting the available workforce so that super is not as viable for the many currently working, thus affecting retirement funding? By placing added burdens on the social security budget so as to ensure that the aging population is targeted as a 'burden'? Why is it 'necessary' to bring in hordes of illiterate and anathemic people who have no affiliation to this nation or its people, and no interest in the prosperity of the nation?  Surely we could find some tame Irish or English or German or something..... Methinks you are sweeping the dust under the carpet with a wide broom here..... so please explain?

I don't believe I've indicated any such notion that immigration is the final solution. It has real problems that I understand. Unfortunately, what I've explained still holds.

Suppose there was no immigration and we suddenly start rooting enough to replace the death rate. Life expectancy is increasing leaving a smaller proportion of the population of working age. The problem still remains that less people need to provide all of the goods and services for the entire population. Sticking extra super in their hands doesn't help. It is a shortage of manpower.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 26^th, 2018 at 1:36pm:

I remember the Australia first party and the way they were vilified as Fascists and tyrants for wanting to reduce immigration from Third World nations with a populace inimical to Australian ways... Thirty years later the worm turns.... a New Messiah arises from the ashes of defeat ....a distant rumble of thunder is heard ..... there are signs and portents in the skies and the Tiber runs red like blood..... Tony has crossed the Rubicon ..... (or was that the Rube Con?)...... No wonder people offshore think we are a nation of drongoes.... thing is - it's our political 'leadership' who are drongoes and have not the best interests of this nation at heart...  but I assume, in conjunction with a 'fair go for all Aussies' - that's bordering on National Socialism...... Tony is at least listening to the howling gale going on about the current immigration policies and mix..... how will he reconcile this latest stand with the idea that we 'need' an endless supply of fresh meat to sustain the staggering economy based on fresh air and promises and never-ending expansion?  Any fool can see, with half an eye, that you cannot 'expand' indefinitely..... and under what terms is this 'expansion' continuing? It seems from endless reports that Gypoes are buying houses from the proceeds of crime first, and embarking on a course of self-enrichment , rather than working to sustain a mortgage..... meanwhile the entire housing bubble on which 'expansion' is built is excluding those who are genuinely in it for the long term..... none of this is a solid expansion of anything but trouble and strife....

Yes there was that. Unfortunately, not enough white anglo saxon protestants desire to come here to meet trend production requirements.

First of all, we are not talking about refugee immigration.  They are a separate humanitarian program, that is not designed to alleviate the ageing crisis.  We will be talking about our skills and business program. 

Well, ageing population is a very big issue.  Mind you, more ageing Australians vote for liberals than younger ones.   So, there will never be a big cuts to that.  Well, Tony Abbott tried to do this, and failed almost immediately.  Couldn't even pass the senate. 

Ageing population means more services are needed, as when we ageing, we tend to have more illness, both physically and mentally.  For example, if an elderly had a fall, and sustained a facture.  There is medical cost side of things.  But also require his family to take time off to looking after him.  And that also require OTs to do home assessments, for home modification.   And if there are a lot of elderlies with the same, then there would not be enough OTs, or tradies to help with that.

Immigration - importing of readily qualified labor can only at max be part of solution, but not the whole solution.   And unless we find suitable solutions or alternatives, immigration - this bandaid solution is here to stay. 

crocodile wrote on Feb 26^th, 2018 at 2:53pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 1:10pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 10:09am: Amazing how people advocate for dropping immigration but can't articulate a solution to the fact that the population is aging. Please expand?  How is bringing in masses of people assisting in any way the 'problem' of aging population? By diluting the available workforce so that super is not as viable for the many currently working, thus affecting retirement funding? By placing added burdens on the social security budget so as to ensure that the aging population is targeted as a 'burden'? Why is it 'necessary' to bring in hordes of illiterate and anathemic people who have no affiliation to this nation or its people, and no interest in the prosperity of the nation?  Surely we could find some tame Irish or English or German or something..... Methinks you are sweeping the dust under the carpet with a wide broom here..... so please explain? I don't believe I've indicated any such notion that immigration is the final solution. It has real problems that I understand. Unfortunately, what I've explained still holds. Suppose there was no immigration and we suddenly start rooting enough to replace the death rate. Life expectancy is increasing leaving a smaller proportion of the population of working age. The problem still remains that less people need to provide all of the goods and services for the entire population. Sticking extra super in their hands doesn't help. It is a shortage of manpower.

I haven't seen anyone in this thread or any of our elected politicians actually suggesting that immigration be halted. That's quite a silly argument.

It's also ludicrously inaccurate for you to assert that there is a shortage of "manpower" when 20% of Australians of working age have insufficient work to meet their needs. You've already has this explained to you and you still deny it. There is no shortage of labour in Australia. The only shortage is education, training and opportunity.

crocodile wrote on Feb 26^th, 2018 at 2:45pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 12:08pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 11:33am: Bam wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 11:25am: crocodile wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 11:22am: Bam wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 11:11am: crocodile wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 10:54am: Bam wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 10:45am: crocodile wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 10:09am: Amazing how people advocate for dropping immigration but can't articulate a solution to the fact that the population is aging. You still haven't learned why you're wrong about this. Immigration is NOT at a level that maintains a stable population but is substantially greater than this. This population Ponzi scheme is not sustainable in the long term. You haven't thought that one through very well. A stable population is not much use when the ratio of workers to non workers keeps diminishing. That's a specious argument that ignores the reasons why this is happening. Immigration is adding cost pressures to infrastructure and housing that would not be as great if the population was stable. Another problem is a lack of jobs in regional areas. Reduce these cost pressures and create these jobs in regional areas, and people could live more cheaply and afford to have more children. You're also ignoring what happens when working-age immigrants reach retirement age. Do we solve that with even more immigration? Do we send them "home"? Another factor that reduces taxation revenue and the birthrate is the 20% of the working age population who are forced by government policy to have no work at all or insufficient work. Eradicating involuntary unemployment could do a lot to boost the spending power of this bottom quintile of the working-age population. Taxation revenues would increase, and they could afford to have more children - future taxpayers. Specious my arse. We're living longer. In 50 years time the 65 and over will account for 25% of the population against today's 15%. How in the fukk are we going to produce the same level of goods and services with 10% less labour. You can waffle about infrastructure and all other undesirable outcomes as much as you want but it does not address the first fundamental problem. Increase the superannuation guarantee to 15% as Keating originally intended. That would solve a lot of problems with an aging population by allowing retirees to be more self-funded. Businesses can pay for that extra cost easily if payroll tax was abolished. It doesn't matter how much money the retirees have in their claw. They can only purchase what is produced. How do you intend to satisfy the production needs with less labour. Your argument is relying on false assumptions. The labour IS available, but is not currently being utilised. How can you assert that there isn't the labour available when 10% to 20% of the workforce doesn't have enough work? There aren't any false assumptions just your misunderstanding. Even if every unemployed person could be deployed it only avoids the inevitable labour shortage for a short time until life expectancy increases past the rate of resupply.

Rubbish. The economy seriously constrains the spending power of 20% of the workforce with an artificial shortage of jobs and over three million Australians live in poverty. The low birthrate is an inevitable consequence of this.

The birthrate dropped substantially around the same time as when full employment was abolished. The contraceptive pill was introduced around 1960.
https://aifs.gov.au/sites/default/files/figure1_1.gif

Bam wrote on Feb 26^th, 2018 at 4:46pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 2:45pm: Bam wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 12:08pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 11:33am: Bam wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 11:25am: crocodile wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 11:22am: Bam wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 11:11am: crocodile wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 10:54am: Bam wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 10:45am: crocodile wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 10:09am: Amazing how people advocate for dropping immigration but can't articulate a solution to the fact that the population is aging. You still haven't learned why you're wrong about this. Immigration is NOT at a level that maintains a stable population but is substantially greater than this. This population Ponzi scheme is not sustainable in the long term. You haven't thought that one through very well. A stable population is not much use when the ratio of workers to non workers keeps diminishing. That's a specious argument that ignores the reasons why this is happening. Immigration is adding cost pressures to infrastructure and housing that would not be as great if the population was stable. Another problem is a lack of jobs in regional areas. Reduce these cost pressures and create these jobs in regional areas, and people could live more cheaply and afford to have more children. You're also ignoring what happens when working-age immigrants reach retirement age. Do we solve that with even more immigration? Do we send them "home"? Another factor that reduces taxation revenue and the birthrate is the 20% of the working age population who are forced by government policy to have no work at all or insufficient work. Eradicating involuntary unemployment could do a lot to boost the spending power of this bottom quintile of the working-age population. Taxation revenues would increase, and they could afford to have more children - future taxpayers. Specious my arse. We're living longer. In 50 years time the 65 and over will account for 25% of the population against today's 15%. How in the fukk are we going to produce the same level of goods and services with 10% less labour. You can waffle about infrastructure and all other undesirable outcomes as much as you want but it does not address the first fundamental problem. Increase the superannuation guarantee to 15% as Keating originally intended. That would solve a lot of problems with an aging population by allowing retirees to be more self-funded. Businesses can pay for that extra cost easily if payroll tax was abolished. It doesn't matter how much money the retirees have in their claw. They can only purchase what is produced. How do you intend to satisfy the production needs with less labour. Your argument is relying on false assumptions. The labour IS available, but is not currently being utilised. How can you assert that there isn't the labour available when 10% to 20% of the workforce doesn't have enough work? There aren't any false assumptions just your misunderstanding. Even if every unemployed person could be deployed it only avoids the inevitable labour shortage for a short time until life expectancy increases past the rate of resupply. Rubbish. The economy seriously constrains the spending power of 20% of the workforce with an artificial shortage of jobs and over three million Australians live in poverty. The low birthrate is an inevitable consequence of this. The birthrate dropped substantially around the same time as when full employment was abolished. The contraceptive pill was introduced around 1960. https://aifs.gov.au/sites/default/files/figure1_1.gif

Full employment was never abolished as you say. Try looking at the participation rate around the '60s.

crocodile wrote on Feb 26^th, 2018 at 11:22am:

Bam wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 11:11am: crocodile wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 10:54am: Bam wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 10:45am: crocodile wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 10:09am: Amazing how people advocate for dropping immigration but can't articulate a solution to the fact that the population is aging. You still haven't learned why you're wrong about this. Immigration is NOT at a level that maintains a stable population but is substantially greater than this. This population Ponzi scheme is not sustainable in the long term. You haven't thought that one through very well. A stable population is not much use when the ratio of workers to non workers keeps diminishing. That's a specious argument that ignores the reasons why this is happening. Immigration is adding cost pressures to infrastructure and housing that would not be as great if the population was stable. Another problem is a lack of jobs in regional areas. Reduce these cost pressures and create these jobs in regional areas, and people could live more cheaply and afford to have more children. You're also ignoring what happens when working-age immigrants reach retirement age. Do we solve that with even more immigration? Do we send them "home"? Another factor that reduces taxation revenue and the birthrate is the 20% of the working age population who are forced by government policy to have no work at all or insufficient work. Eradicating involuntary unemployment could do a lot to boost the spending power of this bottom quintile of the working-age population. Taxation revenues would increase, and they could afford to have more children - future taxpayers. Specious my arse. We're living longer. In 50 years time the 65 and over will account for 25% of the population against today's 15%. How in the fukk are we going to produce the same level of goods and services with 10% less labour. You can waffle about infrastructure and all other undesirable outcomes as much as you want but it does not address the first fundamental problem.

Oh - simple enough - technology will solve all of our needs and will provide undreamt of luxury and leisure time for everyone.... that's the official line anyway...... unless of course all technology is waylaid by the Uberkapitalists for their own mega benefit while the rest eat cake.

'We' hardly produce any 'goods' at all these days anyway and services - well - they're becoming part-time casual..... you can always get a job as a waiter...... part-time casual and lower penalty rates for Sundays... that last will assist in your inability to pay the higher tax burden needed to support an aging population - let alone one increasingly out of work....

:)  ;)  ;D

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 27^th, 2018 at 11:04am:

crocodile wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 11:22am: Bam wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 11:11am: crocodile wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 10:54am: Bam wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 10:45am: crocodile wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 10:09am: Amazing how people advocate for dropping immigration but can't articulate a solution to the fact that the population is aging. You still haven't learned why you're wrong about this. Immigration is NOT at a level that maintains a stable population but is substantially greater than this. This population Ponzi scheme is not sustainable in the long term. You haven't thought that one through very well. A stable population is not much use when the ratio of workers to non workers keeps diminishing. That's a specious argument that ignores the reasons why this is happening. Immigration is adding cost pressures to infrastructure and housing that would not be as great if the population was stable. Another problem is a lack of jobs in regional areas. Reduce these cost pressures and create these jobs in regional areas, and people could live more cheaply and afford to have more children. You're also ignoring what happens when working-age immigrants reach retirement age. Do we solve that with even more immigration? Do we send them "home"? Another factor that reduces taxation revenue and the birthrate is the 20% of the working age population who are forced by government policy to have no work at all or insufficient work. Eradicating involuntary unemployment could do a lot to boost the spending power of this bottom quintile of the working-age population. Taxation revenues would increase, and they could afford to have more children - future taxpayers. Specious my arse. We're living longer. In 50 years time the 65 and over will account for 25% of the population against today's 15%. How in the fukk are we going to produce the same level of goods and services with 10% less labour. You can waffle about infrastructure and all other undesirable outcomes as much as you want but it does not address the first fundamental problem. Oh - simple enough - technology will solve all of our needs and will provide undreamt of luxury and leisure time for everyone.... that's the official line anyway...... unless of course all technology is waylaid by the Uberkapitalists for their own mega benefit while the rest eat cake. 'We' hardly produce any 'goods' at all these days anyway and services - well - they're becoming part-time casual..... you can always get a job as a waiter...... part-time casual and lower penalty rates for Sundays... that last will assist in your inability to pay the higher tax burden needed to support an aging population - let alone one increasingly out of work.... :)  ;)  ;D

That's just waffle Grapples. Technology won't take over on current trends. Just have a look where productivity has been heading over the last decade. Try again.

crocodile wrote on Feb 27^th, 2018 at 11:56am:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 27th, 2018 at 11:04am: Oh - simple enough - technology will solve all of our needs and will provide undreamt of luxury and leisure time for everyone.... that's the official line anyway...... unless of course all technology is waylaid by the Uberkapitalists for their own mega benefit while the rest eat cake. 'We' hardly produce any 'goods' at all these days anyway and services - well - they're becoming part-time casual..... you can always get a job as a waiter...... part-time casual and lower penalty rates for Sundays... that last will assist in your inability to pay the higher tax burden needed to support an aging population - let alone one increasingly out of work.... :)  ;)  ;D That's just waffle Grapples. Technology won't take over on current trends. Just have a look where productivity has been heading over the last decade. Try again.

Ex-ACKERY!  Keep thinking..... so why are we being sold the line that technology will make everyone's lives easier?

A li'l ol' bit of Luddism on the front porch never hurt nobody...

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 27^th, 2018 at 5:45pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 27th, 2018 at 11:56am: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 27th, 2018 at 11:04am: Oh - simple enough - technology will solve all of our needs and will provide undreamt of luxury and leisure time for everyone.... that's the official line anyway...... unless of course all technology is waylaid by the Uberkapitalists for their own mega benefit while the rest eat cake. 'We' hardly produce any 'goods' at all these days anyway and services - well - they're becoming part-time casual..... you can always get a job as a waiter...... part-time casual and lower penalty rates for Sundays... that last will assist in your inability to pay the higher tax burden needed to support an aging population - let alone one increasingly out of work.... :)  ;)  ;D That's just waffle Grapples. Technology won't take over on current trends. Just have a look where productivity has been heading over the last decade. Try again. Ex-ACKERY!  Keep thinking..... so why are we being sold the line that technology will make everyone's lives easier? A li'l ol' bit of Luddism on the front porch never hurt nobody...

Who told us that.

salad in wrote on Feb 26^th, 2018 at 10:02am:

Not only should we have a drastic reduction in immigration numbers but we should send out a message to the various groups here in Oz who sought our protection. Hey Iraqis, Mr S Hussein has been removed so it is now safe to return home. Hey Sri Lankans/Tamils, the war is over so you no longer have a reason to stay in Oz. We'll try and get along without you difficult as that task may be. Hey Vietnamese, your home country is now a popular tourist destination so it seems to be a safe country so off you go.

not to mention the first boat people that invaded this land over 200 years ago ..

off you go your queen is waiting for you to go black home sweethearts

http://2nerd.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Inappropriate-Joke-Queen.png

Tony's Hanson popularist impersonation.

Rednecks rednecks look at me look at me !!!!

Karnal wrote on Feb 25^th, 2018 at 10:24pm:

Thank God you're back, Matty. Thank heavens the grown-ups are back in charge.

Is this the Matty you continue to confuse me with analkanal?

I realise that you are not real bright.
In fact if intelligence was measured in lux you would be less than a locked box.

But Matty is not me.

So, analkanal, go and play with your other voices and go away.

crocodile wrote on Feb 27^th, 2018 at 5:56pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 27th, 2018 at 5:45pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 27th, 2018 at 11:56am: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 27th, 2018 at 11:04am: Oh - simple enough - technology will solve all of our needs and will provide undreamt of luxury and leisure time for everyone.... that's the official line anyway...... unless of course all technology is waylaid by the Uberkapitalists for their own mega benefit while the rest eat cake. 'We' hardly produce any 'goods' at all these days anyway and services - well - they're becoming part-time casual..... you can always get a job as a waiter...... part-time casual and lower penalty rates for Sundays... that last will assist in your inability to pay the higher tax burden needed to support an aging population - let alone one increasingly out of work.... :)  ;)  ;D That's just waffle Grapples. Technology won't take over on current trends. Just have a look where productivity has been heading over the last decade. Try again. Ex-ACKERY!  Keep thinking..... so why are we being sold the line that technology will make everyone's lives easier? A li'l ol' bit of Luddism on the front porch never hurt nobody... Who told us that.

Been said so many times over the years it's becomebackground to the latest rape of jobs....

It's verity is shown in the dumping of 6000 jobs at a time.... must be right....

Now - exactly how do the benefits pass on to our nation, culture, and economy?  By supporting shareholders and CEOs and board members so that the trickle down will finally begin?

;D

Bam wrote on Feb 26^th, 2018 at 10:45am:

crocodile wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 10:09am: Amazing how people advocate for dropping immigration but can't articulate a solution to the fact that the population is aging. You still haven't learned why you're wrong about this. Immigration is NOT at a level that maintains a stable population but is substantially greater than this. This population Ponzi scheme is not sustainable in the long term.

Immigration is at best a short term solution to the ageing population problem. The main problem with it is that a) immigrants age too, and b) immigrants invariably end up having the same number of children as the average - even if they originally came from high birth countries. So ultimately the only way for this solution to work is to forever continue to increase the immigration rate (to offset more and more ageing people) - which is obviously unsustainable.

Perhaps  its time to embrace our ageing population and look at other more sustainable solutions like medical technology to make the elderly more productive and less of a burden to society, and an economy that is more and more based on automation.

crocodile wrote on Feb 26^th, 2018 at 2:45pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 12:08pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 11:33am: Bam wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 11:25am: crocodile wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 11:22am: Bam wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 11:11am: crocodile wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 10:54am: Bam wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 10:45am: crocodile wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 10:09am: Amazing how people advocate for dropping immigration but can't articulate a solution to the fact that the population is aging. You still haven't learned why you're wrong about this. Immigration is NOT at a level that maintains a stable population but is substantially greater than this. This population Ponzi scheme is not sustainable in the long term. You haven't thought that one through very well. A stable population is not much use when the ratio of workers to non workers keeps diminishing. That's a specious argument that ignores the reasons why this is happening. Immigration is adding cost pressures to infrastructure and housing that would not be as great if the population was stable. Another problem is a lack of jobs in regional areas. Reduce these cost pressures and create these jobs in regional areas, and people could live more cheaply and afford to have more children. You're also ignoring what happens when working-age immigrants reach retirement age. Do we solve that with even more immigration? Do we send them "home"? Another factor that reduces taxation revenue and the birthrate is the 20% of the working age population who are forced by government policy to have no work at all or insufficient work. Eradicating involuntary unemployment could do a lot to boost the spending power of this bottom quintile of the working-age population. Taxation revenues would increase, and they could afford to have more children - future taxpayers. Specious my arse. We're living longer. In 50 years time the 65 and over will account for 25% of the population against today's 15%. How in the fukk are we going to produce the same level of goods and services with 10% less labour. You can waffle about infrastructure and all other undesirable outcomes as much as you want but it does not address the first fundamental problem. Increase the superannuation guarantee to 15% as Keating originally intended. That would solve a lot of problems with an aging population by allowing retirees to be more self-funded. Businesses can pay for that extra cost easily if payroll tax was abolished. It doesn't matter how much money the retirees have in their claw. They can only purchase what is produced. How do you intend to satisfy the production needs with less labour. Your argument is relying on false assumptions. The labour IS available, but is not currently being utilised. How can you assert that there isn't the labour available when 10% to 20% of the workforce doesn't have enough work? There aren't any false assumptions just your misunderstanding. Even if every unemployed person could be deployed it only avoids the inevitable labour shortage for a short time until life expectancy increases past the rate of resupply.

Here's a false assumption: that the economy of the future can only work with the same sized labour force that we have now.

Here's an idea: technological advances, along with investment in skills and infrastructure makes our industries far more efficient, requiring less human labour. Add to that the inevitable advances in medicine that will improve the quality of life for the elderly, not only reducing the economic burden they put on society, but actually enabling them to remain productive.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 3:41pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 10:45am: crocodile wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 10:09am: Amazing how people advocate for dropping immigration but can't articulate a solution to the fact that the population is aging. You still haven't learned why you're wrong about this. Immigration is NOT at a level that maintains a stable population but is substantially greater than this. This population Ponzi scheme is not sustainable in the long term. Immigration is at best a short term solution to the ageing population problem. The main problem with it is that a) immigrants age too, and b) immigrants invariably end up having the same number of children as the average - even if they originally came from high birth countries. So ultimately the only way for this solution to work is to forever continue to increase the immigration rate (to offset more and more ageing people) - which is obviously unsustainable. Perhaps  its time to embrace our ageing population and look at other more sustainable solutions like medical technology to make the elderly more productive and less of a burden to society, and an economy that is more and more based on automation.

The low birth rate is a direct consequence of 20% of the working age population having insufficient income. Eradicate poverty, and the birth rate will take care of itself.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 3:47pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 2:45pm: Bam wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 12:08pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 11:33am: Bam wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 11:25am: crocodile wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 11:22am: Bam wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 11:11am: crocodile wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 10:54am: Bam wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 10:45am: crocodile wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 10:09am: Amazing how people advocate for dropping immigration but can't articulate a solution to the fact that the population is aging. You still haven't learned why you're wrong about this. Immigration is NOT at a level that maintains a stable population but is substantially greater than this. This population Ponzi scheme is not sustainable in the long term. You haven't thought that one through very well. A stable population is not much use when the ratio of workers to non workers keeps diminishing. That's a specious argument that ignores the reasons why this is happening. Immigration is adding cost pressures to infrastructure and housing that would not be as great if the population was stable. Another problem is a lack of jobs in regional areas. Reduce these cost pressures and create these jobs in regional areas, and people could live more cheaply and afford to have more children. You're also ignoring what happens when working-age immigrants reach retirement age. Do we solve that with even more immigration? Do we send them "home"? Another factor that reduces taxation revenue and the birthrate is the 20% of the working age population who are forced by government policy to have no work at all or insufficient work. Eradicating involuntary unemployment could do a lot to boost the spending power of this bottom quintile of the working-age population. Taxation revenues would increase, and they could afford to have more children - future taxpayers. Specious my arse. We're living longer. In 50 years time the 65 and over will account for 25% of the population against today's 15%. How in the fukk are we going to produce the same level of goods and services with 10% less labour. You can waffle about infrastructure and all other undesirable outcomes as much as you want but it does not address the first fundamental problem. Increase the superannuation guarantee to 15% as Keating originally intended. That would solve a lot of problems with an aging population by allowing retirees to be more self-funded. Businesses can pay for that extra cost easily if payroll tax was abolished. It doesn't matter how much money the retirees have in their claw. They can only purchase what is produced. How do you intend to satisfy the production needs with less labour. Your argument is relying on false assumptions. The labour IS available, but is not currently being utilised. How can you assert that there isn't the labour available when 10% to 20% of the workforce doesn't have enough work? There aren't any false assumptions just your misunderstanding. Even if every unemployed person could be deployed it only avoids the inevitable labour shortage for a short time until life expectancy increases past the rate of resupply. Here's a false assumption: that the economy of the future can only work with the same sized labour force that we have now. Here's an idea: technological advances, along with investment in skills and infrastructure makes our industries far more efficient, requiring less human labour. Add to that the inevitable advances in medicine that will improve the quality of life for the elderly, not only reducing the economic burden they put on society, but actually enabling them to remain productive.

A correct observation Gandy. Unfortunately, one only has to look where productivity has been headed for the last two decades to realise that it is a forlorn hope on current trends.

Bam wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 6:01pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28th, 2018 at 3:41pm: Bam wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 10:45am: crocodile wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 10:09am: Amazing how people advocate for dropping immigration but can't articulate a solution to the fact that the population is aging. You still haven't learned why you're wrong about this. Immigration is NOT at a level that maintains a stable population but is substantially greater than this. This population Ponzi scheme is not sustainable in the long term. Immigration is at best a short term solution to the ageing population problem. The main problem with it is that a) immigrants age too, and b) immigrants invariably end up having the same number of children as the average - even if they originally came from high birth countries. So ultimately the only way for this solution to work is to forever continue to increase the immigration rate (to offset more and more ageing people) - which is obviously unsustainable. Perhaps  its time to embrace our ageing population and look at other more sustainable solutions like medical technology to make the elderly more productive and less of a burden to society, and an economy that is more and more based on automation. The low birth rate is a direct consequence of 20% of the working age population having insufficient income. Eradicate poverty, and the birth rate will take care of itself.

Even with a fertility rate equal to the death rate it does not obviate the ageing population problem. At a fertility rate of 2 and an ageing population it will no longer be a stable population but one that still increases with time.

Frank wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 8:02pm:

The great immigration deceit https://spectatorau.imgix.net/content/uploads/2018/02/Capture-8.jpg In 2015, the Germany fertility rate was at 1.5 births per woman. This is below the EU average, and far lower than the population ‘replacement rate’ of 2.1. By 2030, the proportion of working-age residents in Germany is also predicted to fall from 61 per cent to 54 per cent. However, while it is true that Germany does face issues of demography, is mass immigration a practical solution to the problem? British writer Douglas Murray, in The Strange Death of Europe, gives an infallible argument against Merkel’s reasoning. Murray leaves no doubt in reader’s minds that the European Union’s most powerful official must be either critically incompetent; or a liar. For one, Merkel’s reasoning ignores the fact, so clearly elucidated by Murray, that migrants themselves get older; thus causing the eternal need for ever more migrants as time progresses. As migrants enter Germany, they ensure that even greater numbers are required in future; and thus the process is doomed to repeat itself with a continually increasing rate of immigration. Merkel’s espoused strategy is not sustainable in the long-term; immaterial of the fact that many migrants require more money from the state, over their lifetime, than they could ever contribute in the form of taxation. Merkel’s outlook towards demographics also ignores the essential truth behind why German birth rates are so low. When first ruminating on your nation’s low birth rate, any competent world leader would surely look at fixing the root causes of the problem; as opposed to immediately looking to import a million people. The low birth rates in Western Europe are not indicative of a continent that has shunned the idea of children, but instead portrays a continent where lifestyle factors have led women to decide against having large families. British research, quoted by Murray in The Strange Death of Europe, found that only 8 per cent of women didn’t want children, and only 4 per cent wanted one child. By contrast, 55 per cent wanted two children; and the rest of the population three or more. For the average Western European woman, it is facts of life, such as the loss of income when a child is born, that discourage them from having as many children as they desire. When facing the migrant crisis in 2015, Merkel would surely have been aware of this sentiment in her own country. If she had any idea, then Merkel should have known that mass migration was not a viable long-term solution to account for low German birth rates. By fixing the root issues that are causing native Germans to have fewer children, Merkel would have been infinitely more successful in plugging the nation’s long-term demographic shortfall. Programs such a generous maternity leave, while expensive to implement, would largely negate any apparent ‘necessity’ for mass immigration from the third-world; and would avoid the litany of costs and threats to social cohesion that present themselves as a result. https://www.spectator.com.au/2018/02/the-great-immigration-deceit/ Anyone who argues for mass third world immigration to the West is critically incompetent or a liar.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 3:47pm:

Here's a false assumption: that the economy of the future can only work with the same sized labour force that we have now. Here's an idea: technological advances, along with investment in skills and infrastructure makes our industries far more efficient, requiring less human labour. Add to that the inevitable advances in medicine that will improve the quality of life for the elderly, not only reducing the economic burden they put on society, but actually enabling them to remain productive.

There speaks the pre-Muslim-conversion Australian.

Frank wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 8:31pm:

Frank wrote on Feb 28th, 2018 at 8:02pm: The great immigration deceit https://spectatorau.imgix.net/content/uploads/2018/02/Capture-8.jpg In 2015, the Germany fertility rate was at 1.5 births per woman. This is below the EU average, and far lower than the population ‘replacement rate’ of 2.1. By 2030, the proportion of working-age residents in Germany is also predicted to fall from 61 per cent to 54 per cent. However, while it is true that Germany does face issues of demography, is mass immigration a practical solution to the problem? British writer Douglas Murray, in The Strange Death of Europe, gives an infallible argument against Merkel’s reasoning. Murray leaves no doubt in reader’s minds that the European Union’s most powerful official must be either critically incompetent; or a liar. For one, Merkel’s reasoning ignores the fact, so clearly elucidated by Murray, that migrants themselves get older; thus causing the eternal need for ever more migrants as time progresses. As migrants enter Germany, they ensure that even greater numbers are required in future; and thus the process is doomed to repeat itself with a continually increasing rate of immigration. Merkel’s espoused strategy is not sustainable in the long-term; immaterial of the fact that many migrants require more money from the state, over their lifetime, than they could ever contribute in the form of taxation. Merkel’s outlook towards demographics also ignores the essential truth behind why German birth rates are so low. When first ruminating on your nation’s low birth rate, any competent world leader would surely look at fixing the root causes of the problem; as opposed to immediately looking to import a million people. The low birth rates in Western Europe are not indicative of a continent that has shunned the idea of children, but instead portrays a continent where lifestyle factors have led women to decide against having large families. British research, quoted by Murray in The Strange Death of Europe, found that only 8 per cent of women didn’t want children, and only 4 per cent wanted one child. By contrast, 55 per cent wanted two children; and the rest of the population three or more. For the average Western European woman, it is facts of life, such as the loss of income when a child is born, that discourage them from having as many children as they desire. When facing the migrant crisis in 2015, Merkel would surely have been aware of this sentiment in her own country. If she had any idea, then Merkel should have known that mass migration was not a viable long-term solution to account for low German birth rates. By fixing the root issues that are causing native Germans to have fewer children, Merkel would have been infinitely more successful in plugging the nation’s long-term demographic shortfall. Programs such a generous maternity leave, while expensive to implement, would largely negate any apparent ‘necessity’ for mass immigration from the third-world; and would avoid the litany of costs and threats to social cohesion that present themselves as a result. https://www.spectator.com.au/2018/02/the-great-immigration-deceit/ Anyone who argues for mass third world immigration to the West is critically incompetent or a liar.

The article perfectly illustrates the problems. Nobody is suggesting that migration is the silver bullet and the great fix. All acknowledge it's inherent shortcomings and future pitfalls. The overriding issue is that nobody has come close to suggesting a viable alternative. This includes the author of the article.


Quote:

Anyone who argues for mass third world immigration to the West is critically incompetent or a liar.

That's fantastic but what are the alternatives.

crocodile wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 9:17pm:

Frank wrote on Feb 28th, 2018 at 8:31pm: Frank wrote on Feb 28th, 2018 at 8:02pm: The great immigration deceit https://spectatorau.imgix.net/content/uploads/2018/02/Capture-8.jpg In 2015, the Germany fertility rate was at 1.5 births per woman. This is below the EU average, and far lower than the population ‘replacement rate’ of 2.1. By 2030, the proportion of working-age residents in Germany is also predicted to fall from 61 per cent to 54 per cent. However, while it is true that Germany does face issues of demography, is mass immigration a practical solution to the problem? British writer Douglas Murray, in The Strange Death of Europe, gives an infallible argument against Merkel’s reasoning. Murray leaves no doubt in reader’s minds that the European Union’s most powerful official must be either critically incompetent; or a liar. For one, Merkel’s reasoning ignores the fact, so clearly elucidated by Murray, that migrants themselves get older; thus causing the eternal need for ever more migrants as time progresses. As migrants enter Germany, they ensure that even greater numbers are required in future; and thus the process is doomed to repeat itself with a continually increasing rate of immigration. Merkel’s espoused strategy is not sustainable in the long-term; immaterial of the fact that many migrants require more money from the state, over their lifetime, than they could ever contribute in the form of taxation. Merkel’s outlook towards demographics also ignores the essential truth behind why German birth rates are so low. When first ruminating on your nation’s low birth rate, any competent world leader would surely look at fixing the root causes of the problem; as opposed to immediately looking to import a million people. The low birth rates in Western Europe are not indicative of a continent that has shunned the idea of children, but instead portrays a continent where lifestyle factors have led women to decide against having large families. British research, quoted by Murray in The Strange Death of Europe, found that only 8 per cent of women didn’t want children, and only 4 per cent wanted one child. By contrast, 55 per cent wanted two children; and the rest of the population three or more. For the average Western European woman, it is facts of life, such as the loss of income when a child is born, that discourage them from having as many children as they desire. When facing the migrant crisis in 2015, Merkel would surely have been aware of this sentiment in her own country. If she had any idea, then Merkel should have known that mass migration was not a viable long-term solution to account for low German birth rates. By fixing the root issues that are causing native Germans to have fewer children, Merkel would have been infinitely more successful in plugging the nation’s long-term demographic shortfall. Programs such a generous maternity leave, while expensive to implement, would largely negate any apparent ‘necessity’ for mass immigration from the third-world; and would avoid the litany of costs and threats to social cohesion that present themselves as a result. https://www.spectator.com.au/2018/02/the-great-immigration-deceit/ Anyone who argues for mass third world immigration to the West is critically incompetent or a liar. The article perfectly illustrates the problems. Nobody is suggesting that migration is the silver bullet and the great fix. All acknowledge it's inherent shortcomings and future pitfalls. The overriding issue is that nobody has come close to suggesting a viable alternative. This includes the author of the article. Quote: Anyone who argues for mass third world immigration to the West is critically incompetent or a liar. That's fantastic but what are the alternatives.

The alternative is not to have mass third world immigration.

It is not worth it in any reckoning.

The article actually does show how to to maintain population - do not take away the incentive from Western women to have babies. They want more babies than they are having:

British research, quoted by Murray in The Strange Death of Europe, found that only 8 per cent of women didn’t want children, and only 4 per cent wanted one child. By contrast, 55 per cent wanted two children; and the rest of the population three or more. For the average Western European woman, it is facts of life, such as the loss of income when a child is born, that discourage them from having as many children as they desire.

crocodile wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 7:44pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 28th, 2018 at 6:01pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28th, 2018 at 3:41pm: Bam wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 10:45am: crocodile wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 10:09am: Amazing how people advocate for dropping immigration but can't articulate a solution to the fact that the population is aging. You still haven't learned why you're wrong about this. Immigration is NOT at a level that maintains a stable population but is substantially greater than this. This population Ponzi scheme is not sustainable in the long term. Immigration is at best a short term solution to the ageing population problem. The main problem with it is that a) immigrants age too, and b) immigrants invariably end up having the same number of children as the average - even if they originally came from high birth countries. So ultimately the only way for this solution to work is to forever continue to increase the immigration rate (to offset more and more ageing people) - which is obviously unsustainable. Perhaps  its time to embrace our ageing population and look at other more sustainable solutions like medical technology to make the elderly more productive and less of a burden to society, and an economy that is more and more based on automation. The low birth rate is a direct consequence of 20% of the working age population having insufficient income. Eradicate poverty, and the birth rate will take care of itself. Even with a fertility rate equal to the death rate it does not obviate the ageing population problem. At a fertility rate of 2 and an ageing population it will no longer be a stable population but one that still increases with time.

Incorrect. The replacement level of population isn't 2, but slightly higher than this, around 2.1, to account for some people not having children for various reasons. You're implying that the replacement level is below 2. That's frankly ludicrous.

Any tendency to increased longevity will not cause the population to increase in the long term. Once the demographics stabilises, so does population, if people are having children at the replacement rate with immigration replacing any shortfall in the birth rate.

I repeat - our high level of immigration is not sustainable. Immigrants won't usually leave the country on retirement. Many stay here - to become old people in need of support just like everyone else.

In terms of making up the numbers - it seems to be more an issue of the immigration (not refugee) mix than of numbers... and that includes where people are coming from and the values they bring with them.

Many have no idea that you pay your staff according to rules here and you pay their super as well.

Bam wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 9:24pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 28th, 2018 at 7:44pm: Bam wrote on Feb 28th, 2018 at 6:01pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28th, 2018 at 3:41pm: Bam wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 10:45am: crocodile wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 10:09am: Amazing how people advocate for dropping immigration but can't articulate a solution to the fact that the population is aging. You still haven't learned why you're wrong about this. Immigration is NOT at a level that maintains a stable population but is substantially greater than this. This population Ponzi scheme is not sustainable in the long term. Immigration is at best a short term solution to the ageing population problem. The main problem with it is that a) immigrants age too, and b) immigrants invariably end up having the same number of children as the average - even if they originally came from high birth countries. So ultimately the only way for this solution to work is to forever continue to increase the immigration rate (to offset more and more ageing people) - which is obviously unsustainable. Perhaps  its time to embrace our ageing population and look at other more sustainable solutions like medical technology to make the elderly more productive and less of a burden to society, and an economy that is more and more based on automation. The low birth rate is a direct consequence of 20% of the working age population having insufficient income. Eradicate poverty, and the birth rate will take care of itself. Even with a fertility rate equal to the death rate it does not obviate the ageing population problem. At a fertility rate of 2 and an ageing population it will no longer be a stable population but one that still increases with time. Incorrect. The replacement level of population isn't 2, but slightly higher than this, around 2.1, to account for some people not having children for various reasons. You're implying that the replacement level is below 2. That's frankly ludicrous. Any tendency to increased longevity will not cause the population to increase in the long term. Once the demographics stabilises, so does population, if people are having children at the replacement rate with immigration replacing any shortfall in the birth rate. I repeat - our high level of immigration is not sustainable. Immigrants won't usually leave the country on retirement. Many stay here - to become old people in need of support just like everyone else.

Wrong. If the population continually ages and the replacement rate equals the attrition rate, the population will expand.

Frank wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 9:22pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 28th, 2018 at 9:17pm: Frank wrote on Feb 28th, 2018 at 8:31pm: Frank wrote on Feb 28th, 2018 at 8:02pm: The great immigration deceit https://spectatorau.imgix.net/content/uploads/2018/02/Capture-8.jpg In 2015, the Germany fertility rate was at 1.5 births per woman. This is below the EU average, and far lower than the population ‘replacement rate’ of 2.1. By 2030, the proportion of working-age residents in Germany is also predicted to fall from 61 per cent to 54 per cent. However, while it is true that Germany does face issues of demography, is mass immigration a practical solution to the problem? British writer Douglas Murray, in The Strange Death of Europe, gives an infallible argument against Merkel’s reasoning. Murray leaves no doubt in reader’s minds that the European Union’s most powerful official must be either critically incompetent; or a liar. For one, Merkel’s reasoning ignores the fact, so clearly elucidated by Murray, that migrants themselves get older; thus causing the eternal need for ever more migrants as time progresses. As migrants enter Germany, they ensure that even greater numbers are required in future; and thus the process is doomed to repeat itself with a continually increasing rate of immigration. Merkel’s espoused strategy is not sustainable in the long-term; immaterial of the fact that many migrants require more money from the state, over their lifetime, than they could ever contribute in the form of taxation. Merkel’s outlook towards demographics also ignores the essential truth behind why German birth rates are so low. When first ruminating on your nation’s low birth rate, any competent world leader would surely look at fixing the root causes of the problem; as opposed to immediately looking to import a million people. The low birth rates in Western Europe are not indicative of a continent that has shunned the idea of children, but instead portrays a continent where lifestyle factors have led women to decide against having large families. British research, quoted by Murray in The Strange Death of Europe, found that only 8 per cent of women didn’t want children, and only 4 per cent wanted one child. By contrast, 55 per cent wanted two children; and the rest of the population three or more. For the average Western European woman, it is facts of life, such as the loss of income when a child is born, that discourage them from having as many children as they desire. When facing the migrant crisis in 2015, Merkel would surely have been aware of this sentiment in her own country. If she had any idea, then Merkel should have known that mass migration was not a viable long-term solution to account for low German birth rates. By fixing the root issues that are causing native Germans to have fewer children, Merkel would have been infinitely more successful in plugging the nation’s long-term demographic shortfall. Programs such a generous maternity leave, while expensive to implement, would largely negate any apparent ‘necessity’ for mass immigration from the third-world; and would avoid the litany of costs and threats to social cohesion that present themselves as a result. https://www.spectator.com.au/2018/02/the-great-immigration-deceit/ Anyone who argues for mass third world immigration to the West is critically incompetent or a liar. The article perfectly illustrates the problems. Nobody is suggesting that migration is the silver bullet and the great fix. All acknowledge it's inherent shortcomings and future pitfalls. The overriding issue is that nobody has come close to suggesting a viable alternative. This includes the author of the article. Quote: Anyone who argues for mass third world immigration to the West is critically incompetent or a liar. That's fantastic but what are the alternatives. The alternative is not to have mass third world immigration. It is not worth it in any reckoning. The article actually does show how to to maintain population - do not take away the incentive from Western women to have babies. They want more babies than they are having: British research, quoted by Murray in The Strange Death of Europe, found that only 8 per cent of women didn’t want children, and only 4 per cent wanted one child. By contrast, 55 per cent wanted two children; and the rest of the population three or more. For the average Western European woman, it is facts of life, such as the loss of income when a child is born, that discourage them from having as many children as they desire.

That's fantastic that western women want more babies. But they aint. Problem not solved.

Bam wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 9:24pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 28th, 2018 at 7:44pm: Bam wrote on Feb 28th, 2018 at 6:01pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28th, 2018 at 3:41pm: Bam wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 10:45am: crocodile wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 10:09am: Amazing how people advocate for dropping immigration but can't articulate a solution to the fact that the population is aging. You still haven't learned why you're wrong about this. Immigration is NOT at a level that maintains a stable population but is substantially greater than this. This population Ponzi scheme is not sustainable in the long term. Immigration is at best a short term solution to the ageing population problem. The main problem with it is that a) immigrants age too, and b) immigrants invariably end up having the same number of children as the average - even if they originally came from high birth countries. So ultimately the only way for this solution to work is to forever continue to increase the immigration rate (to offset more and more ageing people) - which is obviously unsustainable. Perhaps  its time to embrace our ageing population and look at other more sustainable solutions like medical technology to make the elderly more productive and less of a burden to society, and an economy that is more and more based on automation. The low birth rate is a direct consequence of 20% of the working age population having insufficient income. Eradicate poverty, and the birth rate will take care of itself. Even with a fertility rate equal to the death rate it does not obviate the ageing population problem. At a fertility rate of 2 and an ageing population it will no longer be a stable population but one that still increases with time. Incorrect. The replacement level of population isn't 2, but slightly higher than this, around 2.1, to account for some people not having children for various reasons. You're implying that the replacement level is below 2. That's frankly ludicrous. Any tendency to increased longevity will not cause the population to increase in the long term. Once the demographics stabilises, so does population, if people are having children at the replacement rate with immigration replacing any shortfall in the birth rate. I repeat - our high level of immigration is not sustainable. Immigrants won't usually leave the country on retirement. Many stay here - to become old people in need of support just like everyone else.

Nobody suggested that it was. Repeat until the cows come home if you want to. Nobody has come up with a viable alternative.

crocodile wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 10:58pm:

Frank wrote on Feb 28th, 2018 at 9:22pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 28th, 2018 at 9:17pm: Frank wrote on Feb 28th, 2018 at 8:31pm: Frank wrote on Feb 28th, 2018 at 8:02pm: The great immigration deceit https://spectatorau.imgix.net/content/uploads/2018/02/Capture-8.jpg In 2015, the Germany fertility rate was at 1.5 births per woman. This is below the EU average, and far lower than the population ‘replacement rate’ of 2.1. By 2030, the proportion of working-age residents in Germany is also predicted to fall from 61 per cent to 54 per cent. However, while it is true that Germany does face issues of demography, is mass immigration a practical solution to the problem? British writer Douglas Murray, in The Strange Death of Europe, gives an infallible argument against Merkel’s reasoning. Murray leaves no doubt in reader’s minds that the European Union’s most powerful official must be either critically incompetent; or a liar. For one, Merkel’s reasoning ignores the fact, so clearly elucidated by Murray, that migrants themselves get older; thus causing the eternal need for ever more migrants as time progresses. As migrants enter Germany, they ensure that even greater numbers are required in future; and thus the process is doomed to repeat itself with a continually increasing rate of immigration. Merkel’s espoused strategy is not sustainable in the long-term; immaterial of the fact that many migrants require more money from the state, over their lifetime, than they could ever contribute in the form of taxation. Merkel’s outlook towards demographics also ignores the essential truth behind why German birth rates are so low. When first ruminating on your nation’s low birth rate, any competent world leader would surely look at fixing the root causes of the problem; as opposed to immediately looking to import a million people. The low birth rates in Western Europe are not indicative of a continent that has shunned the idea of children, but instead portrays a continent where lifestyle factors have led women to decide against having large families. British research, quoted by Murray in The Strange Death of Europe, found that only 8 per cent of women didn’t want children, and only 4 per cent wanted one child. By contrast, 55 per cent wanted two children; and the rest of the population three or more. For the average Western European woman, it is facts of life, such as the loss of income when a child is born, that discourage them from having as many children as they desire. When facing the migrant crisis in 2015, Merkel would surely have been aware of this sentiment in her own country. If she had any idea, then Merkel should have known that mass migration was not a viable long-term solution to account for low German birth rates. By fixing the root issues that are causing native Germans to have fewer children, Merkel would have been infinitely more successful in plugging the nation’s long-term demographic shortfall. Programs such a generous maternity leave, while expensive to implement, would largely negate any apparent ‘necessity’ for mass immigration from the third-world; and would avoid the litany of costs and threats to social cohesion that present themselves as a result. https://www.spectator.com.au/2018/02/the-great-immigration-deceit/ Anyone who argues for mass third world immigration to the West is critically incompetent or a liar. The article perfectly illustrates the problems. Nobody is suggesting that migration is the silver bullet and the great fix. All acknowledge it's inherent shortcomings and future pitfalls. The overriding issue is that nobody has come close to suggesting a viable alternative. This includes the author of the article. Quote: Anyone who argues for mass third world immigration to the West is critically incompetent or a liar. That's fantastic but what are the alternatives. The alternative is not to have mass third world immigration. It is not worth it in any reckoning. The article actually does show how to to maintain population - do not take away the incentive from Western women to have babies. They want more babies than they are having: British research, quoted by Murray in The Strange Death of Europe, found that only 8 per cent of women didn’t want children, and only 4 per cent wanted one child. By contrast, 55 per cent wanted two children; and the rest of the population three or more. For the average Western European woman, it is facts of life, such as the loss of income when a child is born, that discourage them from having as many children as they desire. That's fantastic that western women want more babies. But they aint. Problem not solved.

Which is why anyone who argues for mass third world immigration to the West is critically incompetent or a liar. 

Immigration isnt exactly the problem its made out to be since the govts are making sure that everyone goes to the cities they are getting more crowded. Reducing transport and sending jobs overseas - contributing to making the cities more crowded while not doing anything about housing.

Spot

crocodile wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 11:02pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 28th, 2018 at 9:24pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 28th, 2018 at 7:44pm: Bam wrote on Feb 28th, 2018 at 6:01pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28th, 2018 at 3:41pm: Bam wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 10:45am: crocodile wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 10:09am: Amazing how people advocate for dropping immigration but can't articulate a solution to the fact that the population is aging. You still haven't learned why you're wrong about this. Immigration is NOT at a level that maintains a stable population but is substantially greater than this. This population Ponzi scheme is not sustainable in the long term. Immigration is at best a short term solution to the ageing population problem. The main problem with it is that a) immigrants age too, and b) immigrants invariably end up having the same number of children as the average - even if they originally came from high birth countries. So ultimately the only way for this solution to work is to forever continue to increase the immigration rate (to offset more and more ageing people) - which is obviously unsustainable. Perhaps  its time to embrace our ageing population and look at other more sustainable solutions like medical technology to make the elderly more productive and less of a burden to society, and an economy that is more and more based on automation. The low birth rate is a direct consequence of 20% of the working age population having insufficient income. Eradicate poverty, and the birth rate will take care of itself. Even with a fertility rate equal to the death rate it does not obviate the ageing population problem. At a fertility rate of 2 and an ageing population it will no longer be a stable population but one that still increases with time. Incorrect. The replacement level of population isn't 2, but slightly higher than this, around 2.1, to account for some people not having children for various reasons. You're implying that the replacement level is below 2. That's frankly ludicrous. Any tendency to increased longevity will not cause the population to increase in the long term. Once the demographics stabilises, so does population, if people are having children at the replacement rate with immigration replacing any shortfall in the birth rate. I repeat - our high level of immigration is not sustainable. Immigrants won't usually leave the country on retirement. Many stay here - to become old people in need of support just like everyone else. Nobody suggested that it was. Repeat until the cows come home if you want to. Nobody has come up with a viable alternative.

Because they - politicians, NGOs, public servants - are critically incompetent or they are liars.

Western women want to have children. But Western societies are organised so a lit of them do not have any, many have only one or two. Remove the crippling disincentives for having children and you do not need mass third world immigration.

The viable alternative you ask for is staring everyone in the face. Spend all that immigrant integration money on a population policy that support your own people. How's that for a viable alternative?

Frank wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 6:23pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 28th, 2018 at 11:02pm: Bam wrote on Feb 28th, 2018 at 9:24pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 28th, 2018 at 7:44pm: Bam wrote on Feb 28th, 2018 at 6:01pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28th, 2018 at 3:41pm: Bam wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 10:45am: crocodile wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 10:09am: Amazing how people advocate for dropping immigration but can't articulate a solution to the fact that the population is aging. You still haven't learned why you're wrong about this. Immigration is NOT at a level that maintains a stable population but is substantially greater than this. This population Ponzi scheme is not sustainable in the long term. Immigration is at best a short term solution to the ageing population problem. The main problem with it is that a) immigrants age too, and b) immigrants invariably end up having the same number of children as the average - even if they originally came from high birth countries. So ultimately the only way for this solution to work is to forever continue to increase the immigration rate (to offset more and more ageing people) - which is obviously unsustainable. Perhaps  its time to embrace our ageing population and look at other more sustainable solutions like medical technology to make the elderly more productive and less of a burden to society, and an economy that is more and more based on automation. The low birth rate is a direct consequence of 20% of the working age population having insufficient income. Eradicate poverty, and the birth rate will take care of itself. Even with a fertility rate equal to the death rate it does not obviate the ageing population problem. At a fertility rate of 2 and an ageing population it will no longer be a stable population but one that still increases with time. Incorrect. The replacement level of population isn't 2, but slightly higher than this, around 2.1, to account for some people not having children for various reasons. You're implying that the replacement level is below 2. That's frankly ludicrous. Any tendency to increased longevity will not cause the population to increase in the long term. Once the demographics stabilises, so does population, if people are having children at the replacement rate with immigration replacing any shortfall in the birth rate. I repeat - our high level of immigration is not sustainable. Immigrants won't usually leave the country on retirement. Many stay here - to become old people in need of support just like everyone else. Nobody suggested that it was. Repeat until the cows come home if you want to. Nobody has come up with a viable alternative. Because they - politicians, NGOs, public servants - are critically incompetent or they are liars. Western women want to have children. But Western societies are organised so a lit of them do not have any, many have only one or two. Remove the crippling disincentives for having children and you do not need mass third world immigration. The viable alternative you ask for is staring everyone in the face. Spend all that immigrant integration money on a population policy that support your own people. How's that for a viable alternative?

So much for their desire for aspiration, Soren.   "Oh, no, you can't have that new [insert object of their desire], you have to have kids instead!"  So, how many kids did you subject your wife to, Soren?   One, two, three, half a dozen, a dozen?   Tsk, tsk, hypocrite.   ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 6:31pm:

Frank wrote on Mar 1st, 2018 at 6:23pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 28th, 2018 at 11:02pm: Bam wrote on Feb 28th, 2018 at 9:24pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 28th, 2018 at 7:44pm: Bam wrote on Feb 28th, 2018 at 6:01pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28th, 2018 at 3:41pm: Bam wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 10:45am: crocodile wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 10:09am: Amazing how people advocate for dropping immigration but can't articulate a solution to the fact that the population is aging. You still haven't learned why you're wrong about this. Immigration is NOT at a level that maintains a stable population but is substantially greater than this. This population Ponzi scheme is not sustainable in the long term. Immigration is at best a short term solution to the ageing population problem. The main problem with it is that a) immigrants age too, and b) immigrants invariably end up having the same number of children as the average - even if they originally came from high birth countries. So ultimately the only way for this solution to work is to forever continue to increase the immigration rate (to offset more and more ageing people) - which is obviously unsustainable. Perhaps  its time to embrace our ageing population and look at other more sustainable solutions like medical technology to make the elderly more productive and less of a burden to society, and an economy that is more and more based on automation. The low birth rate is a direct consequence of 20% of the working age population having insufficient income. Eradicate poverty, and the birth rate will take care of itself. Even with a fertility rate equal to the death rate it does not obviate the ageing population problem. At a fertility rate of 2 and an ageing population it will no longer be a stable population but one that still increases with time. Incorrect. The replacement level of population isn't 2, but slightly higher than this, around 2.1, to account for some people not having children for various reasons. You're implying that the replacement level is below 2. That's frankly ludicrous. Any tendency to increased longevity will not cause the population to increase in the long term. Once the demographics stabilises, so does population, if people are having children at the replacement rate with immigration replacing any shortfall in the birth rate. I repeat - our high level of immigration is not sustainable. Immigrants won't usually leave the country on retirement. Many stay here - to become old people in need of support just like everyone else. Nobody suggested that it was. Repeat until the cows come home if you want to. Nobody has come up with a viable alternative. Because they - politicians, NGOs, public servants - are critically incompetent or they are liars. Western women want to have children. But Western societies are organised so a lit of them do not have any, many have only one or two. Remove the crippling disincentives for having children and you do not need mass third world immigration. The viable alternative you ask for is staring everyone in the face. Spend all that immigrant integration money on a population policy that support your own people. How's that for a viable alternative? So much for their desire for aspiration, Soren.   "Oh, no, you can't have that new [insert object of their desire], you have to have kids instead!"  So, how many kids did you subject your wife to, Soren?   One, two, three, half a dozen, a dozen?   Tsk, tsk, hypocrite.   ::) ::)

They don't  have to, you incomprehending fool. They want more children.

You can't  possibly be this stupid and unable to grasp simple sentences in English.  It has to be your relentless drive to be a lying, deceiving, distorting bastard.

Nobody can be as stupid as you without really, really putting some serious effort into it. And boy, you are working very hard at being an idiot.

Frank wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 6:23pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 28th, 2018 at 11:02pm: Bam wrote on Feb 28th, 2018 at 9:24pm: The replacement level of population isn't 2, but slightly higher than this, around 2.1, to account for some people not having children for various reasons. You're implying that the replacement level is below 2. That's frankly ludicrous. Any tendency to increased longevity will not cause the population to increase in the long term. Once the demographics stabilises, so does population, if people are having children at the replacement rate with immigration replacing any shortfall in the birth rate. I repeat - our high level of immigration is not sustainable. Immigrants won't usually leave the country on retirement. Many stay here - to become old people in need of support just like everyone else. Nobody suggested that it was. Repeat until the cows come home if you want to. Nobody has come up with a viable alternative. Because they - politicians, NGOs, public servants - are critically incompetent or they are liars. Western women want to have children. But Western societies are organised so a lit of them do not have any, many have only one or two. Remove the crippling disincentives for having children and you do not need mass third world immigration. The viable alternative you ask for is staring everyone in the face. Spend all that immigrant integration money on a population policy that support your own people. How's that for a viable alternative?

Yes, we need to support our own people more. We probably disagree over exactly how that is to be done, but broadly speaking I agree.

How I would do it:

Increase the spending power of working-age Australians in the bottom income quintile so they can afford to have children
* Create more jobs for Australians including a Job Guarantee.
* Give Australians first right of refusal for all Australian jobs, no exceptions.
* Cut foreign work visas and cap them.
* Repeal all free trade agreements that allow companies to bring in workers from overseas.
* Make jobs easier to get in regional areas.

Better support for parents
* Cheap, heavily-subsidised childcare on a model similar to Medicare.
* Extend paid parental leave to 26 weeks.

Reduce housing costs for families
* Encourage more housing by removing constraints on supply.
* Very strong tax disincentives for investors who choose to leave houses empty.
* Easier access to jobs in regional areas would allow families to relocate to areas with cheaper housing.

That would do for a start - the problem is a structural problem that affects different parts of the economy and requires a broad approach to fix it.

Frank wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 6:23pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 28th, 2018 at 11:02pm: Bam wrote on Feb 28th, 2018 at 9:24pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 28th, 2018 at 7:44pm: Bam wrote on Feb 28th, 2018 at 6:01pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28th, 2018 at 3:41pm: Bam wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 10:45am: crocodile wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 10:09am: Amazing how people advocate for dropping immigration but can't articulate a solution to the fact that the population is aging. You still haven't learned why you're wrong about this. Immigration is NOT at a level that maintains a stable population but is substantially greater than this. This population Ponzi scheme is not sustainable in the long term. Immigration is at best a short term solution to the ageing population problem. The main problem with it is that a) immigrants age too, and b) immigrants invariably end up having the same number of children as the average - even if they originally came from high birth countries. So ultimately the only way for this solution to work is to forever continue to increase the immigration rate (to offset more and more ageing people) - which is obviously unsustainable. Perhaps  its time to embrace our ageing population and look at other more sustainable solutions like medical technology to make the elderly more productive and less of a burden to society, and an economy that is more and more based on automation. The low birth rate is a direct consequence of 20% of the working age population having insufficient income. Eradicate poverty, and the birth rate will take care of itself. Even with a fertility rate equal to the death rate it does not obviate the ageing population problem. At a fertility rate of 2 and an ageing population it will no longer be a stable population but one that still increases with time. Incorrect. The replacement level of population isn't 2, but slightly higher than this, around 2.1, to account for some people not having children for various reasons. You're implying that the replacement level is below 2. That's frankly ludicrous. Any tendency to increased longevity will not cause the population to increase in the long term. Once the demographics stabilises, so does population, if people are having children at the replacement rate with immigration replacing any shortfall in the birth rate. I repeat - our high level of immigration is not sustainable. Immigrants won't usually leave the country on retirement. Many stay here - to become old people in need of support just like everyone else. Nobody suggested that it was. Repeat until the cows come home if you want to. Nobody has come up with a viable alternative. Because they - politicians, NGOs, public servants - are critically incompetent or they are liars. Western women want to have children. But Western societies are organised so a lit of them do not have any, many have only one or two. Remove the crippling disincentives for having children and you do not need mass third world immigration. The viable alternative you ask for is staring everyone in the face. Spend all that immigrant integration money on a population policy that support your own people. How's that for a viable alternative?

Still the problem here is in thinking an ever growing population is the solution. Its not - whether its through immigration or higher birth rates, it shouldn't be our goal. Instead we need to embrace sustainable and relatively static population growth. Learn to evolve the economy beyond reliance on massive armies of (young) workers. Its started already anyway, with advances in technology - creating efficiencies and automation. We just need to give it more of a boost. The savings we make in increased efficiencies, and reducing the burden of the elderly on the public purse (medical advances will improve health and quality of life) -
will go towards providing a reliable living income to offset increasing job insecurity. Japan should be the model - they have been dealing with a static population, with next to no immigration for quite a while now. And while all the economic talking heads bemoan their low or static economic growth, and promise doom and gloom - as yet living standards their haven't actually suffered. And thats surely the most important consideration.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2018 at 3:13pm:

Frank wrote on Mar 1st, 2018 at 6:23pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 28th, 2018 at 11:02pm: Bam wrote on Feb 28th, 2018 at 9:24pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 28th, 2018 at 7:44pm: Bam wrote on Feb 28th, 2018 at 6:01pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28th, 2018 at 3:41pm: Bam wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 10:45am: crocodile wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 10:09am: Amazing how people advocate for dropping immigration but can't articulate a solution to the fact that the population is aging. You still haven't learned why you're wrong about this. Immigration is NOT at a level that maintains a stable population but is substantially greater than this. This population Ponzi scheme is not sustainable in the long term. Immigration is at best a short term solution to the ageing population problem. The main problem with it is that a) immigrants age too, and b) immigrants invariably end up having the same number of children as the average - even if they originally came from high birth countries. So ultimately the only way for this solution to work is to forever continue to increase the immigration rate (to offset more and more ageing people) - which is obviously unsustainable. Perhaps  its time to embrace our ageing population and look at other more sustainable solutions like medical technology to make the elderly more productive and less of a burden to society, and an economy that is more and more based on automation. The low birth rate is a direct consequence of 20% of the working age population having insufficient income. Eradicate poverty, and the birth rate will take care of itself. Even with a fertility rate equal to the death rate it does not obviate the ageing population problem. At a fertility rate of 2 and an ageing population it will no longer be a stable population but one that still increases with time. Incorrect. The replacement level of population isn't 2, but slightly higher than this, around 2.1, to account for some people not having children for various reasons. You're implying that the replacement level is below 2. That's frankly ludicrous. Any tendency to increased longevity will not cause the population to increase in the long term. Once the demographics stabilises, so does population, if people are having children at the replacement rate with immigration replacing any shortfall in the birth rate. I repeat - our high level of immigration is not sustainable. Immigrants won't usually leave the country on retirement. Many stay here - to become old people in need of support just like everyone else. Nobody suggested that it was. Repeat until the cows come home if you want to. Nobody has come up with a viable alternative. Because they - politicians, NGOs, public servants - are critically incompetent or they are liars. Western women want to have children. But Western societies are organised so a lit of them do not have any, many have only one or two. Remove the crippling disincentives for having children and you do not need mass third world immigration. The viable alternative you ask for is staring everyone in the face. Spend all that immigrant integration money on a population policy that support your own people. How's that for a viable alternative? Still the problem here is in thinking an ever growing population is the solution. Its not - whether its through immigration or higher birth rates, it shouldn't be our goal. Instead we need to embrace sustainable and relatively static population growth. Learn to evolve the economy beyond reliance on massive armies of (young) workers. Its started already anyway, with advances in technology - creating efficiencies and automation. We just need to give it more of a boost. The savings we make in increased efficiencies, and reducing the burden of the elderly on the public purse (medical advances will improve health and quality of life) - will go towards providing a reliable living income to offset increasing job insecurity. Japan should be the model - they have been dealing with a static population, with next to no immigration for quite a while now. And while all the economic talking heads bemoan their low or static economic growth, and promise doom and gloom - as yet living standards their haven't actually suffered. And thats surely the most important consideration.

Just so.