The Albanese government

[moXJO]

So albo is about to up immigration intake to 200,000 for skilled migration. And accept shtty third world training/degrees.
On advise from the business(slave trader) council.

Homeless at record highs. Housing being built is currently slowing. And your Australian education basically void. Currently it's an employees market, but say goodbye to that.

Some things never change it seems.

 

[JohnDe]

So albo is about to up immigration intake to 200,000 for skilled migration. And accept shtty third world training/degrees.
On advise from the business(slave trader) council.

Homeless at record highs. Housing being built is currently slowing. And your Australian education basically void. Currently it's an employees market, but say goodbye to that.

Some things never change it seems.

Australia is the country it is today because of immigration, starting with the first fleet.

 

[wayneL]

Australia is the country it is today because of immigration, starting with the first fleet.

Immigration is nuanced.

We want immigrants that will benefit Australia and *Australians/current residents* as a whole.

Not to specifically benefit the corporatocrats(sic) et al.

 

[Smurf1976]

Australia is the country it is today because of immigration, starting with the first fleet.

It is but as with anything more isn't automatically better.

Growing population is directly at odds with concerns about the natural environment for example. It's more food, more water, more minerals, more everything and ultimately it must stop at some point.

It would be less of an issue if we were an economy based on intellectual pursuits or at least manufacturing which can simply be scaled up as population grows. In practice however we're an economy that's substantially reliant on resource extraction and therein lies the problem - there's only a finite quantity of those resources such that each additional person means less per capita, the resource base doesn't grow with population.

Related is the question of where that growth is focused.

More people in WA, NT, SA and Tas might actually achieve something, it might make viable some things that aren't really viable at present due to an insufficient population base but the same isn't true in Sydney or Melbourne, there's very little that the big two don't have today on account of lack of population.

Growth can be good but it isn't automatically, it depends greatly on the detail.

 

[JohnDe]

It is but as with anything more isn't automatically better.

Growing population is directly at odds with concerns about the natural environment for example. It's more food, more water, more minerals, more everything and ultimately it must stop at some point.

It would be less of an issue if we were an economy based on intellectual pursuits or at least manufacturing which can simply be scaled up as population grows. In practice however we're an economy that's substantially reliant on resource extraction and therein lies the problem - there's only a finite quantity of those resources such that each additional person means less per capita, the resource base doesn't grow with population.

Related is the question of where that growth is focused.

More people in WA, NT, SA and Tas might actually achieve something, it might make viable some things that aren't really viable at present due to an insufficient population base but the same isn't true in Sydney or Melbourne, there's very little that the big two don't have today on account of lack of population.

Growth can be good but it isn't automatically, it depends greatly on the detail.

Everyone has a different definition of more. Yours might be less than mine, and mine less than my neighbours.

 

[moXJO]

Australia is the country it is today because of immigration, starting with the first fleet.

Failing to address the housing crisis, or tafe/university first is what I have a problem with. Flooding in cheap labour helps big business, which Labor is notorious for. Despite their supposed idealogical position.

 

[mullokintyre]

Albanese may have pissed off a small but important section of the Population, the Vietnam Era veterans.
Yesterday was Vietnam Vets day, though you might never have known about it given the low level of publicity.
Albanese acknowledges anything and everything, but some how his army of advisers missed the day.
The Minister for veterans affairs put out a press release before the day, so they were at least on the ball.
Lets hope that he does better next year when its the 50th anniversary of the battle of Long tan.
mick

 

[SirRumpole]

It is but as with anything more isn't automatically better.

Growing population is directly at odds with concerns about the natural environment for example. It's more food, more water, more minerals, more everything and ultimately it must stop at some point.

It would be less of an issue if we were an economy based on intellectual pursuits or at least manufacturing which can simply be scaled up as population grows. In practice however we're an economy that's substantially reliant on resource extraction and therein lies the problem - there's only a finite quantity of those resources such that each additional person means less per capita, the resource base doesn't grow with population.

Related is the question of where that growth is focused.

More people in WA, NT, SA and Tas might actually achieve something, it might make viable some things that aren't really viable at present due to an insufficient population base but the same isn't true in Sydney or Melbourne, there's very little that the big two don't have today on account of lack of population.

Growth can be good but it isn't automatically, it depends greatly on the detail.

I'd like to see the government solve the basic problems first.

Like housing, people sleeping on the streets or in shipping containers is not what this country should be about.

Where are another 200,000 a year going to sleep, in caves ?

 

[sptrawler]

Albanese may have pissed off a small but important section of the Population, the Vietnam Era veterans.
Yesterday was Vietnam Vets day, though you might never have known about it given the low level of publicity.
Albanese acknowledges anything and everything, but some how his army of advisers missed the day.
The Minister for veterans affairs put out a press release before the day, so they were at least on the ball.
Lets hope that he does better next year when its the 50th anniversary of the battle of Long tan.
mick

Maybe wanting to stick to the small target theme, better to have missed it than have the media going on about him glorifying war.
Keep the focus on the secret ministries, that in the same breath the reporters are saying the deputy P.M McCormack knew about. Lol

 

[sptrawler]

Failing to address the housing crisis, or tafe/university first is what I have a problem with. Flooding in cheap labour helps big business, which Labor is notorious for. Despite their supposed idealogical position.

Mate you need to cut out the free thought and stick to the script, or you will be cancelled. Lol

 

[JohnDe]

Failing to address the housing crisis, or tafe/university first is what I have a problem with. Flooding in cheap labour helps big business, which Labor is notorious for. Despite their supposed idealogical position.

Utopia is a myth. There is always going to be problems, but we always work out solutions.

TAFE was introduced to overcome problems "Technical education tended to prosper during times of national crises such as world wars and economic depression when there were more funds provided for buildings and student places." We are currently experiencing a national crisis.

A labour shortage will help existing workers increase their wages, and for a short time this is good. But what happens if the labour shortage continues for an extended period and gets worse?

Impact of labour shortages – Summary​

• Rising wages in competitive industries
• Rising inflation as firms pass wage costs onto consumers
• Higher wages may increase labour supply as it becomes more attractive to work.
• Potentially rising productivity as firms invest more in technology and capital to replace workers
• Firms move production overseas where there is better supply of workers
• Shortage of goods and services
• If migrants leave, this causes a fall in labour supply, but it should also be remembered this will also cause a fall in demand for labour. If workers leave they will not spend here so there will be lower aggregate demand.

There needs to be balance, that is what the existing federal government is trying to do; a balance between higher wages, economic prosperity and a continuing development of Australia.

The other alternative is to follow the extreme left - governing bodies control wages, everyone is treated equally, environment is protected by having minimal industrial development.

Which do you prefer?

 

[SirRumpole]

The other alternative is to follow the extreme left - governing bodies control wages, everyone is treated equally, environment is protected by having minimal industrial development.

False argument, pretending that only extremes are valid.

 

[JohnDe]

False argument, pretending that only extremes are valid.

A one sentence response offers no information on what you are trying to convey.

False argument? No argument just a limited example due to format and time constraints.

Pretending that only extremes are valid? Again, it was only a limited example. In this instance taken from my days as a member of the greens many moons ago.

FYI I don't class the Greens as extreme left (just far left), though I do wonder how they would implement their policies if they had full control of parliament

 

[SirRumpole]

A one sentence response offers no information on what you are trying to convey.

You said

"The other alternative is to follow the extreme left - governing bodies control wages, everyone is treated equally, environment is protected by having minimal industrial development."

You implied that there was only one alternative to "your way" and that was to follow the extreme Left. That statement is extreme in itself.

There are other ways that are not extreme but rational.

One is recognising that there is a limit on development and population that must be recognised to avoid degradation of resources and lifestyle.

 

[JohnDe]

You said

"The other alternative is to follow the extreme left - governing bodies control wages, everyone is treated equally, environment is protected by having minimal industrial development."

You implied that there was only one alternative to "your way" and that was to follow the extreme Left. That statement is extreme in itself.

There are other ways that are not extreme but rational.

One is recognising that there is a limit on development and population that must be recognised to avoid degradation of resources and lifestyle.

To be clear, writing on an internet forum "the other alternative is" does not translate to 'the only alternative'. It only indicates that there is another alternative, it may be the only one or there could be others. On the other hand if I had said 'the only other alternative is', then I would have limited it to one.

"One is recognising that there is a limit on development and population that must be recognised to avoid degradation of resources and lifestyle." Yes, that was Greens policy when I was a member 30 odd years ago. It disappeared from their written formats and discussions not long after. They even had a population number that Australia could comfortably accommodate that would not cause any further damage to the environment, water supply, and so on.

 

[SirRumpole]

To be clear, writing on an internet forum "the other alternative is" does not translate to 'the only alternative'. It only indicates that there is another alternative, it may be the only one or there could be others. On the other hand if I had said 'the only other alternative is', then I would have limited it to one.

"One is recognising that there is a limit on development and population that must be recognised to avoid degradation of resources and lifestyle." Yes, that was Greens policy when I was a member 30 odd years ago. It disappeared from their written formats and discussions not long after. They even had a population number that Australia could comfortably accommodate that would not cause any further damage to the environment, water supply, and so on.

The is singular indicating only one. If you wanted to suggest that there may be more than one alternative another would be more appropriate.

Anyway, let's not nitpick about semantics because I think we are on the same page as far as the Greens are concerned.

I think they were a good party until they were infiltrated by communists like Lee Rhiannon. Thankfully she is gone but Bandt seems to have taken over her mantle. Although he makes some good points about corporate profits and tax dodging he still seems to think that money can be plucked out of thin air or printed without causing unwanted consequences. A bit more pragmatism wouldn't go astray.

 

[JohnDe]

The is singular indicating only one. If you wanted to suggest that there may be more than one alternative another would be more appropriate.

Anyway, let's not nitpick about semantics because I think we are on the same page as far as the Greens are concerned.

I think they were a good party until they were infiltrated by communists like Lee Rhiannon. Thankfully she is gone but Bandt seems to have taken over her mantle. Although he makes some good points about corporate profits and tax dodging he still seems to think that money can be plucked out of thin air or printed without causing unwanted consequences. A bit more pragmatism wouldn't go astray.

The options are ….

 

[SirRumpole]

The options are ….

You only stated one.

 

[JohnDe]

You only stated one.

Definition of option

(Entry 1 of 2) 1 : an act of choosing hard to make an option between such alternatives.

 

[JohnDe]

The is singular indicating only one. If you wanted to suggest that there may be more than one alternative another would be more appropriate.

Anyway, let's not nitpick about semantics because I think we are on the same page as far as the Greens are concerned.

I think they were a good party until they were infiltrated by communists like Lee Rhiannon. Thankfully she is gone but Bandt seems to have taken over her mantle. Although he makes some good points about corporate profits and tax dodging he still seems to think that money can be plucked out of thin air or printed without causing unwanted consequences. A bit more pragmatism wouldn't go astray.

True.