Page 2 of 37 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 541
  1. #16
    CC Grandmaster Ian Murray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,240
    Population growth is inevitabe, unless we opt for zero immigration and a limit of two kids per family, and hence stagnation. If those options were put to Australians as poll or referendum questions, obviously the vast majority would say no.

    So immigration policy becomes a cost/benefit analysis, one which should be decided on a long term basis rather than year-by-year.

    There are benefits, not usually considered by the bloke in the street:
    National security considerations, as flagged by Igor
    Economic growth. More people = more demand for goods and services = larger market, greater economy of scale, lower unit prices for industry
    More taxpayers to offset the declining homegrown workforce as the baby boomers from the 40s and 50s retire; more tax dollars to expand infrastructure

    The cost is the strain on existing housing, transport and utilities infrastructure, which will always be in catch-up mode

    Again the boat-people xenophobia is being used for political gain. The suggestion is that the reinstatement of temporary protection visas, and the repatriation of refugees when the situation stabilises in their countries of origin, will solve the problems of population growth. The figures tell a different story. There were 6200 asylum applications in 2009 (3 per 10,000 population), while the regular immigration quota for 2009/10 is 168700. By origin China was the main source of refugee claimants - all of those arrived by air.

    We have a moral obligation to accept refugees, and a legal obligation under international law. It is interesting to compare our performance with other western countries (data from United Nations High Commission for Refugees):-


    Last edited by Ian Murray; 08-04-2010 at 11:01 PM.

  2. #17
    CC Grandmaster Adamski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Penrith, NSW
    Posts
    8,716

    Immigration works 2 ways

    Quote Originally Posted by arosar
    Well, for my money, I reckon we gotta immediately put a cap on these blow-ins until the supply of housing catches up. We also need to start taking seriously the infrastructure problem, particularly transport. Look at Sydney. It's a joke!

    But more important is that we gotta teach Australians to start living in small high rise apartments. Sprawling out further and further into the woods doesn't help the environment and only keeps pressure on transport and other services.

    AR
    And is Japan putting quotas on the number of "Aussies" thay admit in?
    God exists. Short and to the point.

    Secretary of, and regularly arbiter at, Rooty Hill RSL Chess Club. See www.rootyhillchessclub.org.

    Psephological insight. "Controversial will only lose you votes. Courageous will lose you the election." Sir Humphrey Appleby on Yes Minister.

    Favorite movie line: Girl friend Cathy to Jack Ryan in "Sum of all Fears". "What kind of emergency does an historian have?".

  3. #18
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    13,144
    I am a strong supporter of the professional immigration program. We can not only increase our population but also get a lot of professionals and para-professionals who can contribute to our economy. On the other hand, we should close our shores to the so-called ''boat people'' as well as those who are fabricating documents in order to exploit our family migration program. Only genuine family members should be allowed into the country. It does not cost much in countries like Iraq and Bangladesh to buy a certificate saying that you are a brother/sister of some Iraqi-born auzzie citizen as long as the citizen is happy to confirm it. To me, immigration is more about quality than about quantity.
    Interested in Chess Lessons?
    Email webbaron!@gmail.com for more Info!

  4. #19
    CC International Master TheJoker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,646
    Quote Originally Posted by Igor_Goldenberg
    They can't, but it's not their job. Let private sector do it.
    Except the private sector is more likely to provide an under allocation of infra-structure resources than the government because a large amount of the benefits of infrastructure cannot be monetised.

  5. #20
    CC International Master TheJoker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,646
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelBaron
    I am a strong supporter of the professional immigration program. We can not only increase our population but also get a lot of professionals and para-professionals who can contribute to our economy. On the other hand, we should close our shores to the so-called ''boat people'' as well as those who are fabricating documents in order to exploit our family migration program. Only genuine family members should be allowed into the country. It does not cost much in countries like Iraq and Bangladesh to buy a certificate saying that you are a brother/sister of some Iraqi-born auzzie citizen as long as the citizen is happy to confirm it. To me, immigration is more about quality than about quantity.
    I'd add that we should maintain the focus on immigration for educated youth. As I don't think the aging population is really an issue since we can simply balance the demographic by allowing young people to migrate. I suspect countries like india have a large number of young well educated people who would be happy to migrate to Australia given the opportunity

  6. #21
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    5,531
    Quote Originally Posted by TheJoker
    Except the private sector is more likely to provide an under allocation of infra-structure resources than the government because a large amount of the benefits of infrastructure cannot be monetised.
    It depends on the type of infrastructure. Private sector will be more then happy to build houses, factories, shops and shopping centres, etc. They'll be happy to build car parks if they can operate them and charge fee.
    Road improvement is a bit more problematic because it's in government hand.
    However, large population = large tax base + higher productivity (higher specialisation or economy of scale)=>higher tax intake as well. More then enough money for government to squander on pet projects, something could even be left for the roads.
    Phone lines, gas and water pipelines and electricity grid will be happily developed by private sector.

    Is there anything I left out apart from the roads?
    For private coaching (IM, four times VIC champion) call or SMS 0417519733
    Computer tells you what to play. Good coach explains why.

  7. #22
    CC Grandmaster ER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne - Australia
    Posts
    11,976
    Quote Originally Posted by Igor_Goldenberg

    Is there anything I left out apart from the roads?
    Education? Spending my hard earned cash for social security handouts? What do I care? till I retire I will spend EVERYTHING I have so I can live on social security handouts till I can spend no more!
    Talking immigration you people seem to take land, state, country ownership too seriously!
    ACF 3118316
    FIDE 3201457

    https://aus2020.chesschamp.net/

  8. #23
    CC International Master TheJoker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,646
    Quote Originally Posted by Igor_Goldenberg
    It depends on the type of infrastructure. Private sector will be more then happy to build houses, factories, shops and shopping centres, etc. They'll be happy to build car parks if they can operate them and charge fee.
    Road improvement is a bit more problematic because it's in government hand.
    However, large population = large tax base + higher productivity (higher specialisation or economy of scale)=>higher tax intake as well. More then enough money for government to squander on pet projects, something could even be left for the roads.
    Phone lines, gas and water pipelines and electricity grid will be happily developed by private sector.

    Is there anything I left out apart from the roads?
    Hospitals, Schools and Parks.

    Also certain utilities infrastructures are natural monopolies (e.g. gas and water pipelines and electricity grid) which again leads to an under allocation.

    BTW I am not saying we should limit immigration due to infrastrucuture constraints, rather that we should invest in public infrastructure to facilitate immigration.

  9. #24
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    5,531
    Quote Originally Posted by TheJoker
    Hospitals, Schools and Parks.
    We differ on the view how Medicine and School should be funded, but even if they are taxpayer funded, growing population provides bigger tax base to pay for it.
    And funding for Parks? Not sure I understand what you mean.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheJoker
    Also certain utilities infrastructures are natural monopolies (e.g. gas and water pipelines and electricity grid) which again leads to an under allocation.
    Higher consumer base provides more then enough funds to upgrade facilities
    (without going into debate about "natural monopolies" where we also disagree).


    Quote Originally Posted by TheJoker
    BTW I am not saying we should limit immigration due to infrastrucuture constraints, rather that we should invest in public infrastructure to facilitate immigration.
    Some politicians, including Liberal spokesman for climate action, environment and heritage Greg Hunt argue that immigration should follow improved infrastructure (if I got his view correctly, which is difficult when dealing with a politician). They probably don't understand basic economy principals that it should be another way around - immigration will drive demand for, among many other things, infrastructure.

    As long as vast majority of immigrants skilled and young it will pay for itself many times. I remember that Keating government introduced two year waiting period for receiving welfare. It was only properly enforced and made unconditional by Howard government. That created disincentives for "welfare immigrants", but not, IMO, sufficient.

    Boat people problem is not related to immigration/population policy, it's a matter of strict border control that must be exercised by any sovereign state. Some countries even have a mandatory jail term for border violation, including unlawful entry.
    For private coaching (IM, four times VIC champion) call or SMS 0417519733
    Computer tells you what to play. Good coach explains why.

  10. #25
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,661
    Quote Originally Posted by TheJoker
    Except the private sector is more likely to provide an under allocation of infra-structure resources than the government because a large amount of the benefits of infrastructure cannot be monetised.
    Most unlikely. Private sector is more likely to maintain its assets; politicians want to be remembered for building new ones and allowing old ones to decay.

    Furthermore, Burt Folsom points out:

    Put another way–privately run companies have strong advantages over government run (or subsidized) companies. The Ford example is one of many. John Jacob Astor, the first American to be worth $10 million, built his fortune on his privately run American Fur Company. A government-subsidized fur company was his chief competitor, and it eventually lagged so far behind Astor that Congress finally shut it down in the 1820s. In railroads, James J. Hill privately financed his Great Northern Railroad–the only transcontinental railroad never to go bankrupt. By contrast, the Union Pacific and Central Pacific Railroads–with massive federal aid–both went broke during the 1890s and both consumed millions of taxpayer dollars in financing.

    When people run their own businesses, they try to appeal to other people to buy their products. When the federal government gets involved, it skews the incentives. Soon we have CEOs trying to secure federal aid from Congress more than they are trying to make products people want to buy. The historical record suggests that a free economy works better for customers than an economy riddled with federal subsidies and a web of regulations.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  11. #26
    CC Grandmaster Spiny Norman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    4,437
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Murray
    Population growth is inevitable, unless we opt for zero immigration and a limit of two kids per family ...
    There's no need for a limit of "two kids per family" ... there are plenty of people who choose to live alone (or who cannot find a partner of the opposite sex, or who are homosexual), those who are incapable physiologically of having children, those who choose not to have any children, those who choose to have only one child, those who have children that die before they grow up and reach child-bearing age, and so on. Just removing the artifical baby bonus payments would have a noticable impact in reducing population growth (and improve our long-term national IQ situation to boot). Without artificial factors such as baby bonus and immigration, our population would stabilise and might even go backwards long-term.
    “As you perhaps know, I haven't always been a Christian. I didn't go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don't recommend Christianity.” -- C.S.Lewis

  12. #27
    CC Grandmaster Ian Murray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,240
    Quote Originally Posted by The Snail King
    There's no need for a limit of "two kids per family" ... there are plenty of people who choose to live alone (or who cannot find a partner of the opposite sex, or who are homosexual), those who are incapable physiologically of having children, those who choose not to have any children, those who choose to have only one child, those who have children that die before they grow up and reach child-bearing age, and so on. Just removing the artifical baby bonus payments would have a noticable impact in reducing population growth (and improve our long-term national IQ situation to boot). Without artificial factors such as baby bonus and immigration, our population would stabilise and might even go backwards long-term.
    Make it 2.4 - any lower leads to stagnation

  13. #28
    CC Grandmaster Desmond's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The island
    Posts
    12,628
    Rudd labelled a redneck by the greens for his immigration policy. ouch!
    So what's your excuse? To run like the devil's chasing you.

    See you in another life, brotha.

  14. #29
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    13,144
    Quote Originally Posted by TheJoker
    I'd add that we should maintain the focus on immigration for educated youth. As I don't think the aging population is really an issue since we can simply balance the demographic by allowing young people to migrate. I suspect countries like india have a large number of young well educated people who would be happy to migrate to Australia given the opportunity
    Thats right! Thats what I refer to as professional immigration
    Interested in Chess Lessons?
    Email webbaron!@gmail.com for more Info!

  15. #30
    CC Grandmaster arosar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    5,046
    I saw this and I suddenly missed Sydney. Whatever you think of blow-ins, they raised the cuisine of skippies from fish n' chips to something more sophisticated. That's for sure.

    AR

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Abbott's maternity leave policy
    By Igor_Goldenberg in forum Politics
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 26-03-2010, 12:17 PM
  2. Copenhagen summit (sf COAG)
    By Capablanca-Fan in forum Politics
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 13-03-2010, 02:43 PM
  3. Australia: Defence / Foreign Policy
    By ER in forum Non-Chess
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 07-05-2009, 10:06 AM
  4. A policy of Irony
    By firegoat7 in forum Non-Chess
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 30-11-2007, 11:36 PM
  5. ACF policy on event names
    By pax in forum Australian Chess
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 24-09-2007, 10:38 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •