Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 
Send Topic Print
Abbott is right, we need to reduce immigration (Read 2988 times)
Bam
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male
Re: Abbott is right, we need to reduce immigration
Reply #30 - Feb 26th, 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.
...
Back to top
 

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.
 
IP Logged
 
crocodile
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6683
Gender: male
Re: Abbott is right, we need to reduce immigration
Reply #31 - Feb 26th, 2018 at 4:50pm
 
Bam wrote on Feb 26th, 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.
Back to top
 

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.
 
IP Logged
 
Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 89156
Proud Old White Australian Man
Gender: male
Re: Abbott is right, we need to reduce immigration
Reply #32 - Feb 27th, 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....

Smiley  Wink  Grin
Back to top
 

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams
 
IP Logged
 
crocodile
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6683
Gender: male
Re: Abbott is right, we need to reduce immigration
Reply #33 - Feb 27th, 2018 at 11:56am
 
Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 27th, 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....

Smiley  Wink  Grin


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.
Back to top
 

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.
 
IP Logged
 
Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 89156
Proud Old White Australian Man
Gender: male
Re: Abbott is right, we need to reduce immigration
Reply #34 - 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....

Smiley  Wink  Grin


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...
Back to top
 

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams
 
IP Logged
 
crocodile
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6683
Gender: male
Re: Abbott is right, we need to reduce immigration
Reply #35 - Feb 27th, 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....

Smiley  Wink  Grin


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.
Back to top
 

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.
 
IP Logged
 
it_is_the_light
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Christ Light

Posts: 41434
The Pyramid of LIGHT
Gender: male
Re: Abbott is right, we need to reduce immigration
Reply #36 - Feb 27th, 2018 at 6:07pm
 
salad in wrote on Feb 26th, 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

...
Back to top
 

ॐ May Much LOVE and CHRISTS LIGHT be upon and within us all.... namasté ▲ - : )  ╰დ╮ॐ╭დ╯
it_is_the_light it_is_the_light Christ+Light Christ+Light  
IP Logged
 
Dnarever
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 60773
Here
Gender: male
Re: Abbott is right, we need to reduce immigration
Reply #37 - Feb 27th, 2018 at 6:30pm
 
Tony's Hanson popularist impersonation.

Rednecks rednecks look at me look at me !!!!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Valkie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16172
Central Coast
Gender: male
Re: Abbott is right, we need to reduce immigration
Reply #38 - Feb 27th, 2018 at 6:42pm
 
Karnal wrote on Feb 25th, 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.
Back to top
 

I HAVE A DREAM
A WONDERFUL, PEACEFUL, BEAUTIFUL DREAM.
A DREAM OF A WORLD THAT HAS NEVER KNOWN ISLAM
A DREAM OF A WORLD FREE FROM THE HORRORS OF ISLAM.

SUCH A WONDERFUL DREAM
O HOW I WISH IT WERE TRU
 
IP Logged
 
Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 89156
Proud Old White Australian Man
Gender: male
Re: Abbott is right, we need to reduce immigration
Reply #39 - Feb 28th, 2018 at 12:08pm
 
crocodile wrote on Feb 27th, 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....

Smiley  Wink  Grin


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?

Grin
Back to top
 

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams
 
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Abbott is right, we need to reduce immigration
Reply #40 - 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.
Back to top
 

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Abbott is right, we need to reduce immigration
Reply #41 - Feb 28th, 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.
Back to top
 

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
Bam
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male
Re: Abbott is right, we need to reduce immigration
Reply #42 - 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.
Back to top
 

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.
 
IP Logged
 
crocodile
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6683
Gender: male
Re: Abbott is right, we need to reduce immigration
Reply #43 - Feb 28th, 2018 at 7:40pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28th, 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.

Back to top
 

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.
 
IP Logged
 
crocodile
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6683
Gender: male
Re: Abbott is right, we need to reduce immigration
Reply #44 - 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.
Back to top
 

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 
Send Topic Print