Thanks for another great thought provoking podcast!
Leith frustrates me because he raises some really great concerns, like the issues with temporary visas and what amounts to blatant scamming of student visas. But then appears to lean on nothing of economic note at all to argue his ‘small Australia’ case outside of ‘it’s been bad since 2000’.
That response to your devils advocate question was laughable and nothing more than a deflection. I wish you drilled him more on that.
It would appear to me that it is simply a question of needing the requisite city planning, housing and infrastructure to keep pace. This should be entirely manageable with the right coordination and governmental fortitude that has so far been clearly lacking. Maybe the structure isn’t right between states and the feds though, which is a great point and something we as a nation really need to address!
It’s a shame there is no discussion about the value a big population would bring in global politics, for military security, the importance of big cities for innovation and also no discussion on the population cliff we are slowly marching towards.
As for the environment, I don’t see Leith advocating for a stop to agricultural land clearing and fossil fuel mining development, nor for a rapid reduction in carbon emissions. No, even for environmental issues, he just zeros straight in, on only his pet project.
The lack of objectivity really does reduce the strength of the very important issues he does raise.
The countries that are adopting this high immigration approach are the same countries whose economies became highly financialised during the Neolib era. As Thatcher & Reagan were the cheerleaders for this, this largely means the Anglosphere, though other advanced economies are not immune and also have large-scale immigration.
The 'miracle' of this era was the bankrolling of apparent economic advancement by exponential enlargement of private (mainly mortgage) debt, and the projection of this debt onto future generations by increases in the price of assets (primarily real estate) that were collateral to these loans. This is a one-way street of higher prices facilitated by falling interest rates, with no planned end-game, as the 2007/8 crisis demonstrates. This all falls over when people become resistant to taking on more debt.
As, from a macro point of view, the economy doesn't see individuals, but turns everything into aggregates, it matters not whether it is served by a stable population taking on more debt, or by an immigrant population taking on debt in addition to that held by the resident population.
This comes with at least two advantages; Firstly, the upwards pressure that enlarging population puts on existing real-estate prices. Secondly, as a result of conditions in their native countries, the immigrant population tend to accept higher density of occupation in housing and lower levels of consumption of 'lifestyle' purchases, meaning a larger proportion of their earnings are available for mortgage repayments.
All other considerations- social, environmental etc. are as nothing compared to the requirement to stabilise an essentially unsustainable economic model.
Australia has a gigantic part of the federal budget, $300 billion, 50% of the $600 billion dedicated to welfare & healthcare spending. I’m told a large proportion of both are dedicated to retirees on the age pension, and as the biggest users of healthcare as people get older. IMO Australia is a black hole of spending that always needs new & regular sources of revenue to fund it - if we aren’t to impose painful new taxes on existing working Aussie families.
The government discovered an expedient fix that allowed them to maintain spending, while keeping taxes lower on citizens:
Take in millions of working age people who want to come here and work or study, and slap them with the raft of taxes. The research is pretty clear today: even unskilled working age immigrants are a net benefit. They will pay more in to the system than they take out.
They also have no say in elections because they aren’t even here yet!
The government can maintain its spending & voter bribes, without raising taxes on the working to pay for them in full. Which would otherwise be punitive.
Japan, a well-known low-immigration example, is an example of what kind of spending you can’t afford.
Their pensioners receive the equivalent of AUD $320 a fortnight from the government.
Aussie pensioners receive $1,100!
Simply for reaching retirement age, you’ve “earned” the right to live on the taxes of working aged people.
So I would like Leith to explain how exactly the a large chunk in the black hole of Aussie spending would be funded, if migration were pared back to levels he’d prefer to see?
The problem to me starts with spending promises.
If we cut back revenue sources - which political voter group has to go on the chopping block for spending cuts?
More please.
Thanks for another great thought provoking podcast!
Leith frustrates me because he raises some really great concerns, like the issues with temporary visas and what amounts to blatant scamming of student visas. But then appears to lean on nothing of economic note at all to argue his ‘small Australia’ case outside of ‘it’s been bad since 2000’.
That response to your devils advocate question was laughable and nothing more than a deflection. I wish you drilled him more on that.
It would appear to me that it is simply a question of needing the requisite city planning, housing and infrastructure to keep pace. This should be entirely manageable with the right coordination and governmental fortitude that has so far been clearly lacking. Maybe the structure isn’t right between states and the feds though, which is a great point and something we as a nation really need to address!
It’s a shame there is no discussion about the value a big population would bring in global politics, for military security, the importance of big cities for innovation and also no discussion on the population cliff we are slowly marching towards.
As for the environment, I don’t see Leith advocating for a stop to agricultural land clearing and fossil fuel mining development, nor for a rapid reduction in carbon emissions. No, even for environmental issues, he just zeros straight in, on only his pet project.
The lack of objectivity really does reduce the strength of the very important issues he does raise.
I thought Australia (like Canada) already had a just about perfect system designed to recruit world talent.
It's all about the Macro...
The countries that are adopting this high immigration approach are the same countries whose economies became highly financialised during the Neolib era. As Thatcher & Reagan were the cheerleaders for this, this largely means the Anglosphere, though other advanced economies are not immune and also have large-scale immigration.
The 'miracle' of this era was the bankrolling of apparent economic advancement by exponential enlargement of private (mainly mortgage) debt, and the projection of this debt onto future generations by increases in the price of assets (primarily real estate) that were collateral to these loans. This is a one-way street of higher prices facilitated by falling interest rates, with no planned end-game, as the 2007/8 crisis demonstrates. This all falls over when people become resistant to taking on more debt.
As, from a macro point of view, the economy doesn't see individuals, but turns everything into aggregates, it matters not whether it is served by a stable population taking on more debt, or by an immigrant population taking on debt in addition to that held by the resident population.
This comes with at least two advantages; Firstly, the upwards pressure that enlarging population puts on existing real-estate prices. Secondly, as a result of conditions in their native countries, the immigrant population tend to accept higher density of occupation in housing and lower levels of consumption of 'lifestyle' purchases, meaning a larger proportion of their earnings are available for mortgage repayments.
All other considerations- social, environmental etc. are as nothing compared to the requirement to stabilise an essentially unsustainable economic model.
Australia has a gigantic part of the federal budget, $300 billion, 50% of the $600 billion dedicated to welfare & healthcare spending. I’m told a large proportion of both are dedicated to retirees on the age pension, and as the biggest users of healthcare as people get older. IMO Australia is a black hole of spending that always needs new & regular sources of revenue to fund it - if we aren’t to impose painful new taxes on existing working Aussie families.
The government discovered an expedient fix that allowed them to maintain spending, while keeping taxes lower on citizens:
Take in millions of working age people who want to come here and work or study, and slap them with the raft of taxes. The research is pretty clear today: even unskilled working age immigrants are a net benefit. They will pay more in to the system than they take out.
They also have no say in elections because they aren’t even here yet!
The government can maintain its spending & voter bribes, without raising taxes on the working to pay for them in full. Which would otherwise be punitive.
Japan, a well-known low-immigration example, is an example of what kind of spending you can’t afford.
Their pensioners receive the equivalent of AUD $320 a fortnight from the government.
Aussie pensioners receive $1,100!
Simply for reaching retirement age, you’ve “earned” the right to live on the taxes of working aged people.
So I would like Leith to explain how exactly the a large chunk in the black hole of Aussie spending would be funded, if migration were pared back to levels he’d prefer to see?
The problem to me starts with spending promises.
If we cut back revenue sources - which political voter group has to go on the chopping block for spending cuts?
The "not enough water" argument over and over again.
Have you heard of desalination?