Every argument for immigration debunked
and the real reason for immigration revealed
The real driving force behind our record levels of immigration are our big corporations, their CEOs, influential groups like the Business Council of Australia (BCA) and their shills. It's quite simple really. More people = more customers = higher revenues = bigger profits = increased share prices = happy shareholders = CEOs get to keep their overpaid jobs = political donations = more people...
 |
| If you doubt this, just google 'Business Council of Australia immigration' |
Governments are easily "influenced" by the BCA to increase immigration as it makes them look like good economic managers by growing the economy and keeping us out of recession. Increased tax revenue also helps balance the books. More people = increased GDP = looks like they're doing a great job = more chance of being re-elected.
Unfortunately, ordinary Australians are made worse off. Much worse off. It's not just that the costs outweigh the benefits. It's that there are no benefits. None. More people = we're getting screwed.
 |
| The good thing about Harry Triguboff is that he often says the quiet bits out loud. |
The BCA's minions are easy to spot. Anyone who apparently can't see the obvious relationship between record levels of immigration and the housing crisis is either a BCA shill or a useful idiot. This includes everyone who says the housing crisis is a supply issue and state governments who - instead of lobbying the federal government to reduce immigration to ameliorate the housing crisis - are busy taking over planning from local councils so they can make more of our suburbs available to billionaire property developers to build high-rises.
The most authoritative study into the benefits and costs of immigration is the Productivity Commission's 2016 "Migrant intake into Australia" inquiry which found a litany of significant costs, but only two (questionable) benefits.
In the following sections, I debunk these and every other excuse being fed to us by the rich and powerful to make themselves even richer while the rest of us are struggling to pay the rent or living in tents. The jig is up. Time to restore democracy.
The Ageing Population
The issue of an aging population is often attributed to "baby boomers" reaching retirement age and our increased lifespans. However, the Productivity Commission identified a different concern—immigration itself. Compared to the demographic shift caused by baby boomers, the population bubble from increased immigration is significantly larger. Hence, there is a need to continually bring in younger migrants to support the aging migrant population. This situation is less a "demographic dividend" (as they coined it) and more a "population ponzi."
There is a consensus both locally and internationally that the best response to an aging population is to increase workforce participation among the over 65s. This doesn't necessarily mean full-time employment; part-time work or "semi-retirement" are viable options. With extended lifespans, the capability to work beyond the traditional retirement age of 65 is evident. Prominent examples include Joe Biden, who serves as the US President at 81, Ita Buttrose who was the chair of the ABC until earlier this year at age 83, and Rupert Murdoch, who retired last year at 92.
As a solution to an aging population, Immigration is:
Increased GDP / GDP per capita
Gross domestic product (GDP) is the market value of all the final goods and services produced by a country in a year and is often used to gauge the health of a country's economy.
Immigration boosts GDP because more people generally means a bigger economy. But bigger isn't always better. Just because the economy grows doesn't mean individuals are better off or that gains are shared equally amongst the population.
The GDP of Norway (population 5 million) is $579 billion, whereas the GDP of the United States (population 340 million) is $25 trillion. Does that make the US better? Of course not. In fact the opposite is true. The per capita GDP of the US is $75,269, whereas the per capita GDP of Norway is $106,594. People in Norway are much better off than people in the US even though Norway has a much smaller GDP.
In the 2016 inquiry report "Migrant intake into Australia", the Productivity Commission predicted that:
"Continuing NOM at the long-term historical average rate and assuming the same young age profile as the current intake is projected to increase GDP per person by around 7 per cent (equivalent to around $7000 per person in 2013-14 dollars) in 2060."
However, models can produce wildly varying results depending on the inputs given. The PC qualified their prediction by noting:
"Many assumptions underpin the analysis and, as such, the projections should be treated as illustrative only"
While per capita GDP has been on the decline due to rising population numbers, the number of major corporations remains largely unchanged, leading to an increase in 'per corporation GDP.' The same dominant players—like the big four banks and the top two supermarkets—benefit from a growing customer base thanks to immigration. This expansion in market size boosts their profits and share prices, and reduces the incentive to compete. With the market itself expanding, corporations don't need to vie for a larger slice of the pie; they all grow with the market.
However, to maintain the illusion that they're doing a good job, CEOs need the market to keep expanding. It's yet another population Ponzi scheme. They seek to "influence" government policies to favor increased immigration, which fuels population growth. Governments are willing participants, as higher GDP figures, make them appear effective, enhancing their re-election prospects. Additionally, a larger population increases income tax revenues, helping to balance federal budgets. This symbiotic relationship between corporations and government perpetuates the cycle, driven by mutual benefits that do not translate to public good.
As a way to increase per capita GDP, immigration is:
Labor/skills shortage
If two decades of mass immigration, adding 8 million people to the population, hasn't resolved the labor or skills shortages, it's never going to.
Market forces should naturally correct skills shortages by increasing wages for in-demand skills, which attracts more people to develop those skills. However, instead of increasing wages, businesses demand more immigration to supply them with cheaper overseas labour.
We keep hearing about a shortage of tradies, but this shortage is CAUSED by immigration as we struggle to build all the additional housing and infrastructure for the increasing population. The suggestion that we need more migrants to build houses for all the migrants coming here is patently absurd, but is often repeated by politicians and business leaders in the media.
However, the main reason we don't have a labour shortage is that there's no such thing as a labour shortage. Labour is a resource. Resources are supposed to be limited. If a business can't get enough labour, they're not paying enough. If they can't pay more, then they're not as productive as the businesses who can pay more. This is how it's supposed to work. If you just keep increasing the supply of labour, the price of labour (wages) decreases and less productive businesses can take on more people. This is why productivity has been declining in Australia. When businesses say there's a labour shortage, what they really mean is they want cheaper labour. There is no set number of job vacancies that need to be filled. There's an endless number of less and less productive job vacancies that can never (and should never) be filled.
As a way to address a labour/skills shortage, immigration is:
Post a Comment
Post a Comment