Saturday, August 09, 2014

Curious

This week Professor Bob Birrell warned (here and here) that high rates of immigration were making it difficult for young Australians to access the job market. Immigrants who have arrived in the past three years have filled 380,000 out of 400,000 newly created jobs. According to Professor Birrell:
The hardest hit are amongst young people seeking entry-level semi-skilled jobs and recent graduates in a widening range of professions, including nursing, information communication technology and accounting.

Professor Birrell goes on to show that the current immigration policy is not successfully targeting shortages in the labour supply. An example given is that there were about 7,000 accountants trained in Australia last year; despite a current oversupply of accountants, the government nonetheless went on to issue visas to an additional 7,000 overseas trained accountants. Australian graduates will be competing in a very tight job market with thousands of additional workers from overseas.

Why is it curious that this information has been published? Well, it appeared in the Fairfax press, which in Australia represents the politically correct left-wing point of view.

Additionally, a similar report has appeared in a business paper. The business writer is concerned that the government is trying to shift young Australians off welfare, whilst at the same time making employment access for young Australians more difficult through its immigration policies. He agrees that Australia's immigration policy is not meeting its stated aim of addressing labour shortages.

So here we have reports in both the left-wing media and the business media pointing out the failings in the current immigration system. I find this an interesting development.

18 comments:

  1. Some of these issues were covered at our recent function, last evening (although particularly in relation to the employment prospects of US Blacks in the face of illegal and legal). Unfortunately, a change towards a sane immigration policy would require a revolutionary shift in though among both major parties. Such a change is less likely among the "conservative" Coalition however, mostly because they are too busy trying to prove to the world that they're not "racists". It's an insurmountable obstacle.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wonder if it goes deeper than just proving to the world they're not racists. For some people on the right, the thinking seems to go like this:

      a) the purpose of life is the pursuit of rational self-interest in the market
      b) economic migrants pursue rational self-interest in a big way by abandoning their countries and making a journey to get to somewhere with better market opportunities
      c) therefore economic migrants are the ideal, heroic citizens of a "right wing" society - more so than the natives

      I think you're right that a change of heart is more likely on the left - even though the left draws on the migrant vote. If a section of the left did shift, though, it might embolden some of those on the right who don't think along the lines I outlined above.

      Delete
    2. (excuse the typos in the earlier post)

      It's true that mainstream conservatism has been redefined by radical autonomy theory. That has resulted in a conservatism which is self-defeating in the long term. But party leaders can't think long beyond a single electoral term. This largely suggests that this will not be won in the halls of parliament. The left too, is being redefined. It's no surprise that many in the Old Left probably seem more traditionalist than House Conservatism.

      Delete
  2. They are caught in their doublemindedness. They believe immigration to be good (because all are equal, and we can show the world how to love each other in the spirit of human siblinghood) and yet the problems it creates are now so obvious that they cannot deny them. They cling to their ideology even as it kills them, and despite the demographic fires licking at their feet, they console themselves with the notion that they are noble in their immolation.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This article being published in Fairfax press is a promising sign ( as well as other articles regarding corruption in the Immigration department via individuals of certain ethnic communities ) to be a promising sign .

    I've never known the Fairfax press to even contemplate the possibility that huge mass diverse ( = non-white non Christian ) immigration could possibly have any downside

    Remember News Ltd media is all for huge immigration ( although it may be good on other issues )

    ReplyDelete
  4. Jason, there are no problems being created if you believe in a universalist morality. They believe that everyone is equally deserving; your co-nationals have no more worth than someone in another far away country. So, sure it is harder for locals to get jobs, but they have family and other forms of social capital to fall back on. The immigrants tend not to, and need these jobs more. So, it is all to the good as far as universalist moralists are concerned.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well, here's something else to throw into the mix. If you look at the intellectual history of the progressive movement, there arose at certain times a humanism that was a reaction to Christianity. The idea of this humanism was that people would serve not God but humanity. However, humanity was taken to be a single entity or object. So rather than serving humanity by serving one's own people, humanity in the general and abstract was what was being promoted. This then logically led to the kind of universalist morality that CamelCaseRob describes above.

    ReplyDelete
  6. So how does one promote the good in a humanist / universalist framework?. Obviously you can't select a single group and point to its gains as evidence of successful policy, as that excludes the gains or failures of other groups. All people must benefit equally within the system, and the system would need some way of tracking this equal benefit. So do away with troublesome cultural markers of progress, and institute an abstracted, economic barometer of success, success in the market by satellite individuals - individuals with no proper national or cultural affiliations, but a strong adherence to humanist values (which come to replace the nation state of ethnic origin)

    But there are problems. Time and time again certain 'groups' do better than other 'groups', and the explanations as to why groups are different don't fit properly into the humanist frame. So out come all the rationales for these disparities; racism, discrimination, privilege, historical oppression, and so on. Now, some groups, the ones who historically do well, need to be seen to be doing WORSE than other groups, as that satisfies the idea that those groups were doing well due to the reasons mentioned above, and now that group's lower performance suggests the successful removal of those artificial, non-humanist privileges. Of course the groups who consistently do poorly in the market still need a hand up to make things equal, so we make an exception to humanist values and start discriminating against successful groups. That seems to be the moral thing to do in a humanist society

    ReplyDelete
  7. I've seen this sort of statement being astroturfed by leftists for years. It is an attempt to force a change in the narrative used by leftists. The change in narrative is that the leftists never supported mass immigration at all and care deeply about the native worker. In fact it was the evil capitalists and conservatives that were responsible all along!
    Now why do leftists say this when it is apparent to anyone that isn't lobotomized that it's their fault?
    Well they either hope that the rails can be switched at the last moment before they hit the wall(as in switch to an anti-immigration policy and the wall being political suicide) or they hope to take the steam out of their competitions success.
    In my opinion I don't think they can do it but their attempt at this sort of skulduggery is just another proof of their bankruptcy.

    ReplyDelete
  8. 1) We talk about immigration and HBD a decent amount because the low IQ of immigrants makes the bell curve so obvious, but the bell curve in general seems to be the problem. Even if the country was 100% white, "conservatives" would still be pushing the idea that "everyone should go to college" and "anyone who works hard can be a millionaire pulling up by their own bootstraps, etc". Meanwhile, we know that only about 20% of even the white population can really handle college, maybe 30% if we count some jobs that don't really require college but do now. The fact that the remaining 70% need some role to play in society escapes "conservatives". They are just moochers that should die off. There is a commitment to being "against genes" on the conservative side. And some idea that extreme meritocracy (with merit being measured by who makes the most money any way they can) somehow constitutes a society. The idea that ones success is largely genetic would clash with this instinct even if you removed the extra factor of race.

    I think is a deeper spiritual problem then people let on. These people have no sense of solidarity with their fellow man in general. Immigration is just a ruse to justify in-group selfishness that was already there.

    2) I'm not sure immigration can be justified on utilitarian grounds either. You rarely see immigration between first world countries. People don't like moving to another country and permanently living in a culture not their own. The only ones that do it are desperate people from third world countries, and they do it not because of some desire for western culture but because of an immediate material improvement in their lives.

    We can formulate then that its all about the money. Both them and their descendants will have to pay the long term price of being foreigners in a strange land. Meanwhile, if these immigrants are as great as they say we should expect their own countries to eventually become rich as well. They will get rich even faster if the smart fraction of the country stays. So we are really talking about families moving to get material improvement a generation or two faster. Hardly the be all end all. On the other side of the balance sheet are the permanent costs of diversity on both natives and immigrants. It's not clear to me this is a net positive in the long run.

    In those cases where the immigrants aren't so desirable and their countries will remain poor as a result, then bringing them hear only threatens to kill the golden goose, hardly a good prospect for anyone.

    ReplyDelete
  9. CamelCR, I think the article is evidence that they see a problem.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jason, are the people who are pointing out the problem universalist moralists? Not everyone on the left is -- in fact many on the left are there simply because they are the "oppressed" that benefit financially from leftist policies. Others are simply bleeding hearts who don't develop policy frameworks and just act from emotion. And, in the U.S., increasingly Bobos/SWPLs have voted left because they can't stand to be in the same party as "low-brow anti-science Jesus freaks". These people certainly aren't universalists and are very much concerned with their own economic well being and that of their children.

      Delete
  10. Jason, I don't think they have a problem with the problem. It is more leftwing gloating over Australians losing out.

    ReplyDelete
  11. It's funny, I was considering pointing out this and the story about the Indian immigration scam to Mark but it appears the grape vine beat me to it.

    "the low IQ of immigrants makes the bell curve so obvious"

    Does this account for the higher than average achievements of Chinese, Japanese, (a lot of sub-groups of) Indians and strangely Iranians? From memory, Vietnamese tend to do worse than average, but Iranians were a shock success story.

    " The fact that the remaining 70% need some role to play in society escapes "conservatives". They are just moochers that should die off."

    I consider myself a very moderate conservative (and I would stress the position of being small 'c' conservative) but this is why I hesitate to support our Conservative party. It seems to be a choice between right liberals (aka verminous scum) who have the moral and philosophical outlook of a teenager, or embarrassingly extreme 'traditionalists'. I may be against abortion, but I'm not going to claim against scientific evidence that there is a link with breast cancer. I'm also against gay marriage, but I wouldn't compare it to bestiality. I think that climate change may not be as apocalyptic as some of the predictions, but I don't deny a huge scientific consensus on the reality of the physics.
    To be perfectly honest I'd be more inclined to vote DLP at the moment than support the Liberal party; at least the DLP acknowledges the existence of a society. It's like libertarians/ "Conservatives" think the advent of civilization was a communist conspiracy.

    "I think is a deeper spiritual problem then people let on. These people have no sense of solidarity with their fellow man in general. Immigration is just a ruse to justify in-group selfishness that was already there."

    Thoroughly agree.

    "You rarely see immigration between first world countries."

    Is Ireland a first-world country? I'm frankly sick of all the Irish immigrants around where I am.
    They're especially whiny.

    "Meanwhile, if these immigrants are as great as they say we should expect their own countries to eventually become rich as well."

    It's a funny outcome when aid agencies and charities work to build education standards in Africa (for example) and then the majority of the doctors and other specialists emigrate to the West anyway. If you have no loyalty to your own country, why the hell should I trust you with mine?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In America most immigrants are Hispanic and NE Asians are a rounding error. So when we say immigration we mean Hispanic immigration. For many in Europe immigration means mostly Muslims. Both of these are low IQ, often violent, races.

      There are separate issues with NE Asian/Brahmin Indian immigration, though obviously the negatives aren't as bad. The thing is they aren't big in numbers, and are usually brought up as some kind of "gotcha" that, statistically speaking, just isn't important.

      Delete
    2. http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Regnerus-Graph.jpg

      Perhaps you don't want to compare gay marriage with bestiality, but I think its fair to compare it with polygamy, hook-up society, and other non-conservative things. I would even go so far as to say its linked to pedophilia, given the high rates of pedophilia in the gay community.

      Delete
    3. I apologise for it taking nearly a month to reply, especially as this won't likely be seen.

      NE Asian and Indian are large factors in Australia though, which is where Mark and I hail from.
      And to speak of the UK, sub-continentals could almost claim a succession vote in their numbers, couldn't they? Some people go as far as considering curry to be a British national cuisine.

      Regarding homosexuality, I think it is wrong, but it's more of a delusion. And lots of people are deluded.
      Bestiality is more of a mental illness. Something like that should be a warning sign that there are probably other dangerous and destructive tendencies.
      As you suggest, I'd be more inclined to lump homosexuality with polygamy and the mutual objectification.

      Delete
  12. Fairfax was quiet when Rudd-Gillard ramped up immigration to record high levels on spurious economic grounds. I suspect they are only raising this issue now in an effort to embarrass the Abbott government.

    In any case, mass immigration is a disaster for native-born Australians, particularly the white Australian working class. Not that anybody cares about them.

    ReplyDelete