methinks you are too generous Snake.
All fallacies are logical by nature. Chairman's redundant phraseology just reveal his compromised education in science, philosophy and logic.
Hahahahah ,
methinks you are too generous Snake.
All fallacies are logical by nature. Chairman's redundant phraseology just reveal his compromised education in science, philosophy and logic.
Many of your posts in this thread contain errors of fact and, therefore, contain false notions: Such as "... I presume yours goes a couple of hours longer Chairman, in that flexi public service job you've got". As I left the public sector in the 90s it is a fallacy to presume I also have long lunches.methinks you are too generous Snake.
All fallacies are logical by nature. Chairman's redundant phraseology just reveal his compromised education in science, philosophy and logic.
Originally Posted by Rederob
AIC publications are typically my source as they integrate State-by-State data. helicart's posted charts have dubious integrity in that only one State publishes criminality by country of birth. Aside from that, the statistical error in extracting criminality/ethnicity from other available data series is so high as to render any conclusions meaningless.
Originally Posted by Rederob
By the way, most crimes are not reported, and of those that are, an overwhelming majority do not lead to a conviction (because nobody was charged in the first place).
Many of your posts in this thread contain errors of fact and, therefore, contain false notions: Such as .
balderdash Chairman.....now run off and read something more practically applicable than radical empiricism.
Bobby/Snake
Now pay careful attention.
I have demonstrated that some fallacies draw from errors of fact, while others may draw from errors of logic.
Accordingly, helicart's original assertion is wrong.
Explanation please!
Its all sh*t talk , may be a compromised agenda regarding race ?
You notice how aggressive he got with me when I stated what I heard on the radio , was like a witch hunt run by a goose ,.
Kinda funny if the goose knew what he was taking on , I was nice to him for a while but he stepped over the line![]()
Highly skilled jobs (Engineers, doctors, scientists etc.) are hard to fill by the current bunch of born Australians. If the situation is not improved then within 10 years most of these vacancies will be filled by immigrants, probably of Asian descent.
In the 5 years to January 2009 almost 1.2 million jobs were created.The issue is not your numpty interpretation of whether 100,000 migrants are more productive than 100,000 Skippies; it is whether Australia can create 100,000 additional jobs for 100,000 migrants, without lowering gdp per capita.
While I would agree with many of the initiatives of the ALP government I feel that they are being schmoozed by the rich and powerful in Asia in to allowing queue jumpers to hire boats and just land on our Northern border.
I can see us down the track having "Australians" with agendas in other places, calling themselves Australian when all they seek is a piece of paper to further their agenda.
It reminds me of the Keating years when the Lebanese conflict was headlines, and for which we Australians are still paying.
gg
The data are conclusive proof that Australia can absorb 100,000 migrants a year and not miss a beat, economically speaking
People from Asia have a lot to offer especially the skilled. Australian society can learn a lot from them.Highly skilled jobs (Engineers, doctors, scientists etc.) are hard to fill by the current bunch of born Australians. If the situation is not improved then within 10 years most of these vacancies will be filled by immigrants, probably of Asian descent.
People from Asia have a lot to offer especially the skilled. Australian society can learn a lot from them.
Then why did you say, "The issue is not your numpty interpretation of whether 100,000 migrants are more productive than 100,000 Skippies; it is whether Australia can create 100,000 additional jobs for 100,000 migrants, without lowering gdp per capita"?As I alluded, that growth was on the back of unsustainable growth in net foreign liabilities....the only way we can keep creating jobs under that scenario is to sell mines to China or continue to divert more gdp to servicing foreign sourced debt.
In the 5 years to January 2009 almost 1.2 million jobs were created.
In 2007 alone, about 300,000 jobs were created.
Until the global financial crisis hit our economy like a brick in 2008, these years were marked by steady GDP, our highest ever migrant intakes, and generally low unemployment rates.
The data are conclusive proof that Australia can absorb 100,000 migrants a year and not miss a beat, economically speaking.
Then why did you say, "The issue is not your numpty interpretation of whether 100,000 migrants are more productive than 100,000 Skippies; it is whether Australia can create 100,000 additional jobs for 100,000 migrants, without lowering gdp per capita"?
I get the feeling the goalposts keep moving to suit your next novel, unsustainable position.
Y1: 1212 x 20000pa = $24 249 090
Y2: 2(1212 x 20000pa) = $48 498 181
Y3: 3(1212 x 20000pa) = ....
Y4: 4(1212 x 20000pa) = ....
Y5: 5(1212 x 20000pa) = ....
Y6: 6(1212 x 20000pa) = ....
Y7: 7(1212 x 20000pa) = ....
Y8: 8(1212 x 20000pa) = ....
Y9: 9(1212 x 20000pa) = ....
Y10: 10(1212 x 20000pa) = $242 400 000
Welfare isn't cheap.
Also consider for a second how many countries these people could happily stop off in on their way from Afghanistan/Iran/India/wherever to get to here. Ask yourself why they don't stop and escape their persecution in any of those countries?
Because they don't get big fat tasty hand outs from our over generous government
Hello and welcome to Aussie Stock Forums!
To gain full access you must register. Registration is free and takes only a few seconds to complete.
Already a member? Log in here.