Flood of migrants overwhelm Australia's borders

[rederob]

Hey, I'm not on the team fudging the migration stats to confuse poor Joe Public .... come on Red, explain how the bottom line is derived.

And I see you are back to your usual trick of ignoring the too hard questions Red......so I'll repeat the question:

how many 40k+ net deficit refugees can we absorb?

I'll take a guess and presume your answer is- by increasing our intake of skilled migrants..........

You really don't get it, do you.
All your carrying on and you can't work out the maths, nor understand the generally neglected key benefit of refugee intakes.
Australia's aging population requires an influx of young blood to rebalance itself. It's a reason the baby bonus was implemented, and is also an important reason behind paid maternity leave.
Refugees are definitely expensive in their early years. However, their age profile gives them the best number of "working years" out of all the migration categories.
When you can get your mind on the bigger picture you might then want to rework the numbers for yourself.

By the way, weren't you told about the quality of your questions? Frankly, most don't warrant an answer. I could tell you why, but you might still want to argue the toss on that.

 

[helicart]

Australia's aging population requires an influx of young blood to rebalance itself. It's a reason the baby bonus was implemented, and is also an important reason behind paid maternity leave.

Hey Red, that's the spirit....stay on task here now Red.....so if your major premise is we need migration because we have an aging population, then you must have put a lot of thought into why the population is aging.....

So if our std of living is as good as you say, and it is bound to improve even more, then come on Red.....explain why we have an aging population.

Then explain why your team prefer to deplete other nations of their intellectual capital to compensate the cause our aging population.

 

[helicart]

Here Red, chew on these outcomes of the Access Model.

The figures below are the cost per migrant category (allows for the number of migrants in each category).

Have a look at 'humanitarian or refugee' in particular Red. Those 11,186 we took last financial year are going to cost the country $332,000,000 over 20 years, in real $, not nominal. Hey, and that's only for their first 20 years. After that, they start hitting the pension, and that 332M will sky rocket.

Then, gee it looks like the 'parents-contributory' group aren't making a big enough up front visa payment to cover their drain on welfare. See how the nanny state complicates migration calculus Red?

So what was our legal obligation again Red? Oh yes...to bring in our fair share of anyone with a worse std of living than Australia's bleeding hearts....

No wonder the govt and liberal progressive media want to shut down the debate by calling anyone who questions this stuff a racist.....Joe Average would have a heart attack if he knew his kids would still be paying for the privilege of hosting refugees brought in under our watch.

 

[rederob]

Here Red, chew on these outcomes of the Access Model.

The figures below are the cost per migrant category (allows for the number of migrants in each category).

Have a look at 'humanitarian or refugee' in particular Red. Those 11,186 we took last financial year are going to cost the country $332,000,000 over 20 years, in real $, not nominal. Hey, and that's only for their first 20 years. After that, they start hitting the pension, and that 332M will sky rocket.

Then, gee it looks like the 'parents-contributory' group aren't making a big enough up front visa payment to cover their drain on welfare. See how the nanny state complicates migration calculus Red?

So what was our legal obligation again Red? Oh yes...to bring in our fair share of anyone with a worse std of living than Australia's bleeding hearts....

No wonder the govt and liberal progressive media want to shut down the debate by calling anyone who questions this stuff a racist.....Joe Average would have a heart attack if he knew his kids would still be paying for the privilege of hosting refugees brought in under our watch.

Your maths is quite abysmal. If there were 20 columns of data the tabled totals would be more accurate. However, the totals are just "representative" of the 8 years' data.

The refugee category turns positive after 12 years (not shown in the table). And the average working life of this category on entering Australia is considerably more than 20 years. The table also does not show the significant uptick in surplus for this cohort after 20 years, when the children of this group begin to make a contribution to our economy similar to Australian born. This cohort has, on average, more children than Australian born, meaning the average migrant family will ultimately deliver a better return.

 

[helicart]

Your maths is quite abysmal. If there were 20 columns of data the tabled totals would be more accurate. However, the totals are just "representative" of the 8 years' data.

Doh!!! walked right into that one Red.....but au contraire, it is your math and impetuousness that is on full show.

If you had checked the 20 yr totals, you would have realized they were not a mere summing of 8 columns, but summing of a 20yr extrapolation, as per the expanded chart below. But, I have your measure now....

The refugee category turns positive after 12 years (not shown in the table). And the average working life of this category on entering Australia is considerably more than 20 years. The table also does not show the significant uptick in surplus for this cohort after 20 years, when the children of this group begin to make a contribution to our economy similar to Australian born. This cohort has, on average, more children than Australian born, meaning the average migrant family will ultimately deliver a better return.

Yes, some refugees might have more children, some not. But their childrens' contribution will be paying off their parents deficit for years to come, a burden skippys don't have.......which highlights why Australia should be prioritizing self sufficiency in population and economic sustainability, rather than depriving other countries of their intellectual capital and labour.

Feel free to stop avoiding answering why Australia's birth rate has not been self sustaining for several decades. I am interested in how you reconcile that with your belief our std of living and employment opportunities are rising...

 

[helicart]

This will put a hole in Access Economics migrant operating surplus model......

Skilled unemployment rises 48 per cent in March quarter

• May 18, 2009 - 6:42AM

More than 43,000 skilled workers joined the ranks of the unemployed in the opening months of this year, a survey shows.
Skilled employment has plunged to its worst level since 2001 as a slowing economy drives down demand for trades in every category.

 

[rederob]

helicart
I admit I did not add each of the columns from the full report, and I admit I erred this once in that the figure at 20 years does represent the cohort outcome. Next time I will have a coffee and check for accuracy before posting impetuously, as you say.
That does not change the bottom line, which shows that in every year net migration has a positive outcome.
The other aspect which you just don't get is that the contribution of refugees is quite dissimilar to other categories due to their lower average age. Accordingly, longer run data for the cohort would likely show the average adult refugee (at time of entry) to have made a net positive contribution. Not surprisingly, it takes a long time for any child (migrant or otherwise) to reach working age, and their comparatively large number skew the data for the early years.

 

[helicart]

That does not change the bottom line, which shows that in every year net migration has a positive outcome.

That's on the basis GSMs stay employed (see The Age link above) and our intake of humanitarians and refugees doesn't increase (which bleeding hearts aggressively petition to increase with scant regard for capacity to assimilate).

And your major premise is, no matter what strife the world's Muslims get up to, and self create a blow out in global refugee numbers, Australia is bound by law to take in not just 11,000pa, but 50,000, 100,000, 500,000, 1,000,000.

The problem people like me have with people like you is your unblinking support of dill laws that deny the rights of Aussies to protect their std of living.....And the higher the number of migrants coming in under family parents and humanitarian/refugees visas, the more taxpayer money gets diverted from upholding our std of living......but anyone who talks about putting a ceiling on this stuff gets branded a racist by self righteous and emotionally labile guilt industry goons, like David Marr. The Marrs of the world wouldn't have a clue why net foreign liabilities are going up.....they just presume because they are sitting on easy street, Australia is a rich country.


The other aspect which you just don't get is that the contribution of refugees is quite dissimilar to other categories due to their lower average age. Accordingly, longer run data for the cohort would likely show the average adult refugee (at time of entry) to have made a net positive contribution.

The longer any data run is, the more likely a positive net contribution, in nominal terms. But subject that to net present value consideration of opportunity cost, and you get a different story. The earlier capital is invested in net surplus operations, the greater the compounding multiplier effect.

Not surprisingly, it takes a long time for any child (migrant or otherwise) to reach working age, and their comparatively large number skew the data for the early years.

Until you have objective data supporting that, observer bias reigns.
The media like to hold up the few refugee children who get a good OP and become neurosurgeons and physicists....and from the data I have seen, Asian refugee children do better on average.

But they like to suppress what is going on with the many who don't, such as is ever more common amongst Lebanese/Islamic and Sudanese communities....and ethnic based gang violence and crime.

One has to remain suspicious of why Access Economics only used a 20 years time frame. If a longer time frame would have benefited Labor migration policy, then you'd think they would have exploited that to allay public concern about excessive migration.

 

[rederob]

The problem people like me have with people like you is your unblinking support of dill laws that deny the rights of Aussies to protect their std of living.....And the higher the number of migrants coming in under family parents and humanitarian/refugees visas, the more taxpayer money gets diverted from upholding our std of living......but anyone who talks about putting a ceiling on this stuff gets branded a racist by self righteous and emotionally labile guilt industry goons, like David Marr. The Marrs of the world wouldn't have a clue why net foreign liabilities are going up.....they just presume because they are sitting on easy street, Australia is a rich country.

What standards of living have reduced during our 200 years of immigration? It's a line that gullible xenophobes might swallow, but few others.
Unable to present a cogent case of your own you prefer to use derogatory terms for those with opposing views. It's an unproductive and gutless way of debating.

One has to remain suspicious of why Access Economics only used a 20 years time frame. If a longer time frame would have benefited Labor migration policy, then you'd think they would have exploited that to allay public concern about excessive migration.

First, the model was originally developed in the Howard era, and updated in 2008 to better incorporate longitudinal study results and changes to visa categories and support systems. That aside, the original cohort delivers a net positive financial benefit for every out year, increasing year on year, so it becomes somewhat superfluous to prove the point further.

 

[Joe Blow]

All this blue text is driving me crazy. Helicart, please read this thread on using the quote tags correctly: https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2737

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

All this blue text is driving me crazy. Helicart, please read this thread on using the quote tags correctly: https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2737

Agree totally Joe.

Blue is a lousy colour.

Would maroon be ok?

gg

 

[Joe Blow]

Agree totally Joe.

Blue is a lousy colour.

Would maroon be ok?

gg

GG,

There is no need for any colour but black. People should be making proper use of the quote tags to distinguish between what is quoted and what they have written.

 

[Happy]

...

But they like to suppress what is going on with the many who don't, such as is ever more common amongst Lebanese/Islamic and Sudanese communities....and ethnic based gang violence and crime.

...

This is my worry too, and I would hate to be able to say: 'I told you so'

 

[helicart]

What standards of living have reduced during our 200 years of immigration? It's a line that gullible xenophobes might swallow, but few others.
Unable to present a cogent case of your own you prefer to use derogatory terms for those with opposing views. It's an unproductive and gutless way of debating.

hahahaha.....so gutless isn't derogatory?

What is gutless is your repetitive refusal to address changes in Australia's birth rate and housing affordability stats.

First, the model was originally developed in the Howard era,

your point being?

we can understand Howard hiding pro migrant data.....but what about Rudd?

and updated in 2008 to better incorporate longitudinal study results

oh so Rudd did stretch the term.....but not beyond 20 years hey?

and changes to visa categories and support systems. That aside, the original cohort delivers a net positive financial benefit for every out year, increasing year on year, so it becomes somewhat superfluous to prove the point further.

You still haven't demonstrated how the study derived the bottom line, presumably because you have no idea, just like me.

And to repeat myself ad nauseum, you have consistently argued for more humanitarians and refugee migrants....and presumably you want more GSMs despite their employment prospects......and the Access Economics study reveals the fool's folly of such thinking...

 

[helicart]

All this blue text is driving me crazy. Helicart, please read this thread on using the quote tags correctly: https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2737

Joe, I read the whole thread, and there's no mention of how to appropriately position replies to individual points made in one post....is that reflection on the quality of debate normally carried out here?

And I am not inclined to copy and paste n+1 times, quote html such as
{quote=Joe Blow;436734}
{/quote}

If you can suggest a quicker way around this issue, I am all ears.

Other vbulletin forums are big enough to prioritize the flow of an argument over the eye candy factor.

 

[Calliope]

The Tamil terrorists may have been defeated in Sri Lanka but they are alive and well in Australia.

And we can expect plenty more.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/acid-attack-home-invaders-still-unknown-20090519-bd2o.html

 

[rederob]

You still haven't demonstrated how the study derived the bottom line, presumably because you have no idea, just like me.

Your assumptions have been poorly based, and this one is no exception.

You have not proved any of the points you raised (except when stating the bleeding obvious). You have not disproved any of my points.

You want me to respond to broad questions which you cannot link to the thread's theme, but ask repeatedly.

When cornered you change the topic.

I have seen no evidence that migration is overwhelming our borders, nor (on the whole) that it has a deleterious impact on our society or economy.

You can continue to beat your drum here, but I am moving on.

 

[helicart]

Your assumptions have been poorly based, and this one is no exception.

You have not proved any of the points you raised (except when stating the bleeding obvious). You have not disproved any of my points.

You want me to respond to broad questions which you cannot link to the thread's theme, but ask repeatedly.

They only seem broad to you Red cos you are a micromanager, and have never had responsibility for, or had to consider the consequences of, connecting the dots. Like the typical social democrat that you are, you spend all your time reading about how to redistribute the pie, and zero about creating a bigger sustainable pie.

If lefties knew anything about economics, and could sustainably fulfill their platform promises, they'd never get voted out.....the electorate would be in welfare heaven. But reality is different.

When cornered you change the topic.

Only in your head, Red

I have seen no evidence that migration is overwhelming our borders, nor (on the whole) that it has a deleterious impact on our society or economy.

Observer bias again Red.....$332 million and the NPV opportunity cost of that just went down the gurglar based on last year's humanitarian/refugee intake....just think about all the solar tech research that could have been funded by 332m....gee I could have stayed in academia for much less than that, doing the pure research to create cleaner analgesics than opiates.....

What further bugs me about bleeders like you Red, is that you would preferr Mahatma Gandhi had stayed in London and be a solicitor, rather than go back to India and advance the cause of all Indians.......

You can continue to beat your drum here, but I am moving on.

Yes, you have nothing new to add, and have failed every challenge to your myopic perspective.....there must be more naive minds elsewhere, for you to spin your unruly web. So adieu to you....

 

[GumbyLearner]

myopic perspective

Well I don't think you could accuse rederob of being colour blind? :
But..

In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is King.

 

[helicart]

Well I don't think you could accuse rederob of being colour blind? :
But..

In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is King.

In the immortal words of "The Blues Brothers" movie, Red is "On a Mission from God", though like a true atheist liberal progressive, that God is not the Father of Jesus, nor Allah......it is.....Himself....