This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Flood of migrants overwhelm Australia's borders

Jump to new
Hey rederob see your logged in, no need to :hide: how about backing up your posts , come on now time to put-up or shut up
 
helicart said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
On the other hand, if a migrant worker is more productive than another class of worker, we might logically conclude that 10 migrant workers would be more productive than 10 of the other class, or that 1000 migrant workers would be more productive than 1000 of the other class.
Well, no, according to helicart, because productivity comes mostly from machines.
It sort of begs the question of how we worked out that migrants were more productive in the first place, doesn't it. It's a cut and dried example of a logical fallacy.
I have always liked the 3-strikes rule because it put people out of their misery. In helicart's case I will suspend it indefinitely because I am quite keen to see far he can sink.

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.
 

One State publishes criminality by country of birth. Victoria wasn't it? And if NSW published criminality by country of birth statistics do you really think the representation of ethnic minorities convicted of crimes would be any different to that of Victoria. States with a much lower immigration rate of the same ethnic cultures that are highly represented in the Victorian crime statistics probably would depict a slightly different outcome.

Your comment regarding 'statistical error in extracting criminality/ethnicity from other available data series is so high as to render any conclusions meaningless' doesn't make sense. You are aware that Victoria is the only state to provide statistics of criminality by country of birth. If there were another state that would provide the same stats they would simply be sourced from Police records where the ethnicity of a person charged is always recorded during the processing of the offender. The fact is, that these type of statistics are not generally released for public consumption. If they were available they would not be subject to any statistical error in extraction nor their conclusion meaningless as you assert.

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).
Click to expand...

Such a generalisation and if it were true how does it really change this whole debate that certain ethnic minorities are over represented in reported crime. What you say is partly true, some women won't report a sexual assault due to the stigma associated with going through court, some won't report their letterbox being smashed but the majority of crimes that we are probably talking about here are generally reported.

Regardless, your comment, unless put into some context that would support your views on this matter is also meaningless.
 
Well rederob you have tried personnel attacks on me that go deleted by Joe , you can't seem to understand others views ~ posts , you seem not capable to answer there points when they clash with yours .

You sir are a joke , try redeeming something by answering these fellow posters who have put great effort to communicate with you .

Disarray Post 122
Helicart " 135
Snake " 136
Colb " 144
 
Chairman, you are boring me with your 2nd rate untenured academic criticism of my logic, and your persistent omission of facts to back your views...

I can only surmise this angst ridden micromanager's tactic, so common amongst sharp but uselss public service pedants, is something you are well accustomed with, and revert to often, when you have no facts.

Some bits for you to go away and digest.

- unskilled migrants do have a historical reputation for working harder. (many have been my friends, and my partner was previously married to one but he died in an industrial accident, and I treat his 2 children as if my own). But can the unskilled even get work now? see my point 3 above......you know, that's one of the points that doesn't fit your Disney schema...

- skilled migrants do or do not work more productively....depending on where they originate....NZ, UK, Canada, US, Western Europe,and South Africa in general do.....others in general don't, and have to do additional training before often being relegated to some public sector works dept.

- you are saying it isn't possible for 100,000 harder working migrants to come to Australia (we'll even leave out family reunification and unskilled migrants who don't work) and not raise current gdp per capita by
A: more than current net imports per capita, and
B: more than their demand for additional infrastructure and public services. You can only hold such a view if you don't understand the AUstralian economy Chairman- its terms of trade, balance of payments, net foreign liabilities, source of capital for commercial lending, and vagaries of GDP calculation.

- which 100,000 jobs do you think migrants can do that don't have associated capital costs?

- where's the capital going to come from to supply your 100,000 migrants with 100,000 jobs? and just to clarify somethign you don't seem to get Chairman, because I daresay you haven't created any jobs, we aren't talking about 100,000 existing jobs, we are talking about 100,000 new jobs.

You see Chairman, your specious but fallacious tendency is to always compare and contrast what others say, against your dearth of facts and understanding of macro and micro economics.

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.

rederob said:
Many of your posts in this thread contain errors of fact and, therefore, contain false notions: Such as .
Click to expand...

balderdash Chairman.....now run off and read something more practically applicable than radical empiricism.
 
helicart said:
balderdash Chairman.....now run off and read something more practically applicable than radical empiricism.
Click to expand...

Yep ! so many Pathetic response's from this nobody recently , lets redefine his title as Conrad gutless , the boy attacks then runs for cover every time , Question for rederob , simple question how many boat loads are enough for you ?

Your post 135 was just so spot on well done .
 
It's Snake Pliskin said:
Explanation please!
Click to expand...

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
 

Bobby, no offense to you but you quoted a 'manufactured' statistic, and then was conclusively proven wrong by Julia and Rob. And you are still trying to score on that point...
So what is your contribution to all this discussion, except for being a cheerleader for helicart?


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.
 

Developing world engineers are either avoided by Australian employers and/or quals are not recognised and they have to do additional study...while Australia's engineers seek better paid work OS.

Doctor shortage is due to Gen XY metrosexual males and females (who account for >50% graduates) not wanting to work full time, and not wanting to live in regional areas. Plus some artificial income protection by the AMA by not producing a surplus of doctors to compensate for this. This can be overcome by any govt with the balls to break the AMA and their protectionist trick.

Scientist shortage is due to Australia's non competitive employment opportunities and wages, and lack of venture capital and R&D investment.... This won't change for as long as the electorate buy a left wing agenda (higher taxed welfare state) in preference to an astute understanding of free markets.
 
helicart said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Reference sources are at:
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/6202.0.55.001Jan 2009?OpenDocument
http://www.census.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/5206.0Mar 2007?OpenDocument
 

got that tin foil hat to keep the sun off the back of your neck??
 
rederob said:
The data are conclusive proof that Australia can absorb 100,000 migrants a year and not miss a beat, economically speaking
Click to expand...

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.
 
People from Asia have a lot to offer especially the skilled. Australian society can learn a lot from them.
 
It's Snake Pliskin said:
People from Asia have a lot to offer especially the skilled. Australian society can learn a lot from them.
Click to expand...

I agree.....and Australia will eventually become predominantly Asian race. It might take 100 years+ but it will happen....

Anglo Aussies every year are more represented by white trash...undisciplined, promiscuous, high divorce rate, emotionally unresilient, welfare and drug dependent, unable to manage money or understand how wealth is generated.

I honestly prefer to hang out with my Asian friends more than most anglos. They don't drink to excess if at all, and know the value of a dollar and about being self employed.
 
helicart said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 

And what now that the markets have slowed? Do we ship them back home until the next period of unsustainable "growth"?
 

I said that because I know what GDP per capiita is a derivative of, and migration no longer has the weight you believe it has. You seem to not understand the importance of capital in driving productivity, and the source of Australian capital is evermoreso from overseas.....why? because we have a welfare state, poor savings, no culture of R&D or venture capital, and ridiculous unproductive resi property prices to name a few. The left wing goons that go on about how wealthy we are don't understand these things....and in doing so, they want to import the poverty of more ignorant overpopulated cultures to Australia.....

Here, bleed on this for a moment. If you want to help foreigners in strife, tax payer dollars are better sent offshore to help whole villages then support the poor and unskilled settle in to Australia's welfare system.

So clarify what your goal is....to help 300 asylum seekers, or to help 300,000 villagers at home with food security and education......to focus just on what the cat brings to the back door is a little short sighted isn't it?

I presume you are familiar with the utilitarian calculus of creating the greatest good for the greatest number....whether you adopt a teleological or deontological slant.....why not apply it here....

Or don't tell me you are one of those greedy affluenza types who wants to steal all the smart people from the third world for your own smug well being, and leave their poor cousins back home at the mercy of the less cerebral.

That really is a sad and selfish mind set..... All these foreign doctors we have in Australia could all be back home helping the country folk whose toil paid for their medical education, to climb out of malnutrition and aids and all sorts of other ignorance......So think of the misery your selfishness is perpetuating overseas, when you next invite asylum seekers like the sri lankans (who apparently aren't asylum seekers at all) and skilled migrants to come over for 10 bites of the cherry while 9 of their cousins back home miss out.
 



And where does that money go? Right back into the economy, increasing demand and creating jobs. Its not like they ship it to offshore bank accounts - or invest it in shares that plummet and destroy value, where it effectively disappears altogether

I know people who teach English to refugees, and within 12 months just about all of their students - husband and wives - have jobs (not CEO of Telstra or anything like that but they are working). The main thing they want to do after they get settled is master the lingo before they go off to work. From personal observation, these guys dont seem to be bludgers, they want to provide for their families and take advantage of the good life they can make for themselves here.

Bigger population = bigger economy = richer and more diverse culture = closer relationships with other countries = more tourism and exports = more jobs and money for everyone = happy little capitalists on ASF. A much bigger population is what we need, and as the locals seem to have lost interest in breeding we need immigrants. Its either that or raise tax on birth control and drop it on alcohol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
The American use of War Pretext Incidents
Replies
6
Views
9K
sptrawler
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...