Aloysius Posted June 17, 2008 Posted June 17, 2008 http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displa...ory_id=11465271 "In many rich countries where immigration is a politically sensitive matter—America, Britain and Ireland—the number of immigrants seems to be falling as the economy turns down. Not in Australia. The Labor government, under Kevin Rudd, is looking to increase the numbers of foreigners allowed to settle. His predecessor, John Howard, the former conservative leader, had already begun to increase the number, but had to pretend otherwise, since his party claimed to put “Australia first”. Mr Rudd is playing up the increases. On May 13th his government said that Australia would take 190,300 immigrants next year, a rise of 25% on this year. The biggest jump comes in the proportion of those chosen for their skills in a booming economy: at 133,500 they now account for a record 70% of the total intake. These so-called “permanent” settlers tell only part of the story. With another 100,000 arrivals expected under a short-term visa scheme that allows employers to fill urgent job vacancies from outside Australia, the total intake is likely to be closer to 300,000. Other changes will make still more foreigners available for work. The government is abolishing a restriction enforced by the Howard government that meant illegal immigrants later found to be refugees could get only temporary permission to stay in Australia. And it is thinking about letting in guest workers from Pacific Island nations—a measure used successfully in New Zealand and which Mr Howard sternly opposed" "Australia is in some respects paying a price for failing to invest in skills and infrastructure to meet the demands of what the Treasury calls a “once-in-50-years boom”. Not long ago, the sight of a Labor government bowing to demands from bosses and opening the gates to foreign workers would have produced howls of anguish from unions. Not now. With unemployment at a 30-year low, falling union membership and an ageing domestic workforce, the Rudd government can afford to be bold about using immigration as a tool of economic management. Mr Evans says that from now on immigration will play a bigger role in the “structure of Australia's workforce”. He can probably count on Australians tolerating that—so long as the boom continues." Now then - this article is certainly not a Howard friendly one, but leaving politics out of it - it does paint a picture of a country where there are more jobs than people - all the talk about fudged figures etc is shown to be just that - talk.
DrP Posted June 17, 2008 Posted June 17, 2008 The demand for skilled workers exceeds the domestic supply. It might be a worthwhile exercise to ask why that is. Is it entirely due to high demand from certain booming industries? What about the training end of things? Could a deficiency in training programs due to restricted funding be partially responsible? As for figures being fudged, I'm not so sure that those outside of those booming industries find employment opportunities so rosey, but that sort of slant on things is to be expected given who posted it. It seems that 'truth' is a rather selective thing these days.
SDL Posted June 17, 2008 Posted June 17, 2008 True DrP, this does not appreciate that the jobs are in certain sectors, require certain skills, and are in locations not all can go to. The other issue is that many of the roles available are not long term opportunities. Next year our company will likely look to import workers for a boom, but the reason is that it waill be a 3-5 year boom that will finish and training enough people for this will be prohibitive.
Aloysius Posted June 17, 2008 Author Posted June 17, 2008 True DrP, this does not appreciate that the jobs are in certain sectors, require certain skills, and are in locations not all can go to. The other issue is that many of the roles available are not long term opportunities. Next year our company will likely look to import workers for a boom, but the reason is that it waill be a 3-5 year boom that will finish and training enough people for this will be prohibitive. Well, you may know that the 'boom" is not going to last for more than 5 years but some 'experts" would disagree - fact is it's been going for a while now and is accelerating - obviously all things come to an end, but if one considers the major drivers for the boom (Indian and Chinese expansion and growth) then the indicators are not at all pessimistic. Economic growth in the worlds two largest populations has a fair way to go. Can it be credible that our government wants to import permanent residents to throw them out of work in the relatively near future? As for training failures in the past - presumably the driver of that is that those able to make the changes required were thinking that same thing you are articulating - a boom with an end in sight. They were clearly mistaken and we see the results now.
SDL Posted June 18, 2008 Posted June 18, 2008 Well, you may know that the 'boom" is not going to last for more than 5 years but some 'experts" would disagree - fact is it's been going for a while now and is accelerating - obviously all things come to an end, but if one considers the major drivers for the boom (Indian and Chinese expansion and growth) then the indicators are not at all pessimistic.Economic growth in the worlds two largest populations has a fair way to go. Can it be credible that our government wants to import permanent residents to throw them out of work in the relatively near future? As for training failures in the past - presumably the driver of that is that those able to make the changes required were thinking that same thing you are articulating - a boom with an end in sight. They were clearly mistaken and we see the results now. I'm talking about a specific boom in our industry, not the present mining boom.
DrP Posted June 18, 2008 Posted June 18, 2008 obviously all things come to an end, but if one considers the major drivers for the boom (Indian and Chinese expansion and growth) then the indicators are not at all pessimistic. It is a pity that previous governments didn't prepare the workforce for the boom happening now (and during their terms in office). Imagine how many more Australians could be taking up these skilled positions if a more forward looking approach had been taken and appropriate funding allocated to training instead of actions such as dismantling apprenticeship schemes etc.
BribieG Posted June 19, 2008 Posted June 19, 2008 (edited) With wildcards now coming home to roost (hows that for a mixed metaphor ) such as $2.30 a litre petrol and the WA gas disaster, and a looming world recession with the possible economic collapse of China, we could within a few years end up with hundreds of thousands of unemployed Indians, Africans and Asian people in our midst. Whilst I have never supported the politics of Pauline Hanson - AKA Pleen Hansn representing Stroya and all Stroyans - et. al. I can foresee the re-emergence of such politics and even, as foreshadowed by the late Enoch Powell in the UK - (sort of a Pauline Hanson on steroids) - "Blood in the streets" Edited June 19, 2008 by BribieG
ozdoc Posted June 19, 2008 Posted June 19, 2008 With wildcards now coming home to roost (hows that for a mixed metaphor ) such as $2.30 a litre petrol and the WA gas disaster, and a looming world recession with the possible economic collapse of China, we could within a few years end up with hundreds of thousands of unemployed Indians, Africans and Asian people in our midst. It's won't be just unemployed Indians, Africans etc.. There's a large section of our 20yo population up North driving trucks etc. for $100k+, having left study prior to the completion of their degree, and are now supporting largish mortgages and big plasmas. You have to wonder what they will do if their truck driving skills are no longer called for in the future. Hopefully the boom will last long enough to pay of enough of the house.
Aloysius Posted June 19, 2008 Author Posted June 19, 2008 Too much doom and gloom here folks Again I say - here we are living in never before known low unemployment circumstances, with more females than ever before in the workforce. Here we are and some are saying - but just wait till it turns bad! Well hello - we don't know when, or how bad it may get, but if it's a ways off don't you think it's somewhat unrealistic to be preaching gloom and despondency - we are alive now - enjoy the moment. Scurries for cover and predicts a tidal wave of incensed posts berating someone who apparently doesn't want to worry about possible - but unquantified - doom for the kids
DrP Posted June 19, 2008 Posted June 19, 2008 No Aloy, there won't be a torrent of responses to your obvious trolling post. Don't you have anything better to do?
SDL Posted June 19, 2008 Posted June 19, 2008 LOL Aloy, yes lets' get in huge debt while things are going well, don't think it could ever come crashing down. Let's not plan for the inevitable, and yes I say inevitable as having spent a good deal of my early career in the resources industry know it ALWAYS goes in cycles and this boom will be no different. I feel sorry for anyone that does think that their present income levels in some fields is going to last and isn't putting something away for a rainy day. In fact I saw it when I was sitting in mess halls around the world and in outback Australia in my 20's. The 50-60 year old guys who had been doing it all their life and had gone bankrupt and were still chasing a buck as they all think the income stream will never stop.
Aloysius Posted June 19, 2008 Author Posted June 19, 2008 LOL Aloy, yes lets' get in huge debt while things are going well, don't think it could ever come crashing down. Let's not plan for the inevitable, and yes I say inevitable as having spent a good deal of my early career in the resources industry know it ALWAYS goes in cycles and this boom will be no different. I feel sorry for anyone that does think that their present income levels in some fields is going to last and isn't putting something away for a rainy day. In fact I saw it when I was sitting in mess halls around the world and in outback Australia in my 20's. The 50-60 year old guys who had been doing it all their life and had gone bankrupt and were still chasing a buck as they all think the income stream will never stop. Huge debt? $20b Surpluses and near that for the last few years? This thread is about the fact that we have had and are enjoying very low levels of unemployment - it's not really arguable - both major political parties are saying the same thing, the stats say the same thing. My urging of "enjoying the moment" doesn't say - go spend and get into debt - it says face the facts - we are enjoying an extended period of employment growth and should be happy about it. Thankyou for confirming my prediction
SDL Posted June 19, 2008 Posted June 19, 2008 Huge debt? $20b Surpluses and near that for the last few years? This thread is about the fact that we have had and are enjoying very low levels of unemployment - it's not really arguable - both major political parties are saying the same thing, the stats say the same thing. My urging of "enjoying the moment" doesn't say - go spend and get into debt - it says face the facts - we are enjoying an extended period of employment growth and should be happy about it. Thankyou for confirming my prediction The fact the country has growth doesn't mean everyone shares in it. People are suffering more than ever before and the difference between the haves and have nots is greater than ever before. But I know some people want us to be like the US. They want the crime levels, and that the poverty and suffering is the price people must pay if they aren't as lucky and industrious as some others. Unemployment is still a major issue in many parts of the country it's just relabelled and hidden behind growth in some sectors.
Aloysius Posted June 19, 2008 Author Posted June 19, 2008 Source: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/...aspx?symbol=AUD Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2008 4.10 4.00 4.10 4.30 4.30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2007 4.50 4.60 4.50 4.40 4.30 4.30 4.30 4.30 4.20 4.30 4.50 4.20 2006 5.10 5.10 4.90 5.00 4.80 4.80 4.70 4.70 4.70 4.50 4.50 4.50 2005 5.10 5.10 5.20 5.10 5.10 5.00 5.00 4.90 5.00 5.10 5.00 5.00 2004 5.60 5.70 5.40 5.50 5.30 5.50 5.60 5.50 5.40 5.10 5.20 5.10 2003 6.10 6.00 6.10 6.00 6.10 6.10 6.10 5.80 5.80 5.80 5.70 5.70 2002 7.00 6.60 6.40 6.30 6.30 6.50 6.20 6.30 6.30 6.10 6.20 6.20 2001 6.30 6.60 6.50 6.80 6.80 6.90 6.90 6.90 6.80 7.10 6.90 6.80
Aloysius Posted June 19, 2008 Author Posted June 19, 2008 http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/su..._may%202008.pdf Check page 12
ajm1503559545 Posted June 19, 2008 Posted June 19, 2008 $20b Surpluses and near that for the last few years? You do realise you can have a surplus and a huge debt don't you? A surplus is simply a way of saying that after paying the bills (including the incremental loan repayments) there is still a bit of cash left in the wallet. Doesn't mean the Government doesn't still have some massive debts to pay off. Creating is surplus is pretty easy really - don't spend on services, infrastructure or investment. Something the previous Government excelled at.
(ツ) Posted June 19, 2008 Posted June 19, 2008 Source:http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/...aspx?symbol=AUD Have to say it's not everyday I get shown a website that's worthy of a bookmark Well done.
swordfish805 Posted June 20, 2008 Posted June 20, 2008 You do realise you can have a surplus and a huge debt don't you? A surplus is simply a way of saying that after paying the bills (including the incremental loan repayments) there is still a bit of cash left in the wallet. Doesn't mean the Government doesn't still have some massive debts to pay off. Creating is surplus is pretty easy really - don't spend on services, infrastructure or investment. Something the previous Government excelled at. You better back that one up AJM - where is the government debt now? where? Even the unfunded superannuation liabilities of the federal government are well and truly on the way to being covered (and for the uninitiated these are even debts - it is just the obligation to pay a pension to a public servant at some point in the future - which Howard began to fund parking a large chunk of Telstra equity in the Future Fund). If you are talking about private debt (individuals and companies rather than governments then yes there is whacking great foreign debt - but that has nothing to do with the surplus).
SDL Posted June 20, 2008 Posted June 20, 2008 You better back that one up AJM - where is the government debt now? where? Even the unfunded superannuation liabilities of the federal government are well and truly on the way to being covered (and for the uninitiated these are even debts - it is just the obligation to pay a pension to a public servant at some point in the future - which Howard began to fund parking a large chunk of Telstra equity in the Future Fund).If you are talking about private debt (individuals and companies rather than governments then yes there is whacking great foreign debt - but that has nothing to do with the surplus). Correct - and therefore what does the surplus have to do with private wealth or lack thereof - nothing so silly argument by Aloy in the first place.
ajm1503559545 Posted June 20, 2008 Posted June 20, 2008 (edited) You better back that one up AJM - where is the government debt now? where? Even the unfunded superannuation liabilities of the federal government are well and truly on the way to being covered (and for the uninitiated these are even debts - it is just the obligation to pay a pension to a public servant at some point in the future - which Howard began to fund parking a large chunk of Telstra equity in the Future Fund).If you are talking about private debt (individuals and companies rather than governments then yes there is whacking great foreign debt - but that has nothing to do with the surplus). Just trying to point out that a surplus is not the the same as not being in debt. FWIW though the Givt budget papers show an estimated $43 net debt (sum of selected financial liabilities minus the sum of selected financial assets) for 07-08. That's borrowings and doesn't inlude super liabilities. Money owed to someone that the Govt is repaying. Edited June 20, 2008 by ajm
ajm1503559545 Posted June 20, 2008 Posted June 20, 2008 (edited) duplicate. Edited June 20, 2008 by ajm
Aloysius Posted June 20, 2008 Author Posted June 20, 2008 Correct - and therefore what does the surplus have to do with private wealth or lack thereof - nothing so silly argument by Aloy in the first place. Again: The thread is about unemployment levels SDL - if you want to talk about debt start a thread off - The silly argument is the one you have dragged in.
Aloysius Posted June 20, 2008 Author Posted June 20, 2008 Just trying to point out that a surplus is not the the same as not being in debt. FWIW though the Givt budget papers show an estimated $43 net debt (sum of selected financial liabilities minus the sum of selected financial assets) for 07-08. That's borrowings and doesn't inlude super liabilities. Money owed to someone that the Govt is repaying. I agree - ajm your post didn't include much of what is auto-quoted above - how does that work?
ajm1503559545 Posted June 20, 2008 Posted June 20, 2008 I agree - ajm your post didn't include much of what is auto-quoted above - how does that work? Quite simply the Government owes $43 billion. The graph shows positive when that debt is measured against Government assets. But the bottom line is the Government is in debt to the tune of $43 billion.
swordfish805 Posted June 20, 2008 Posted June 20, 2008 Quite simply the Government owes $43 billion. The graph shows positive when that debt is measured against Government assets. But the bottom line is the Government is in debt to the tune of $43 billion. but that's bugger all for a country of 20m people and, as you say, the government has more assets than debt. What is your point ajm?
Recommended Posts