The chief executive of the business lobby, Innes Wilcox, thinks that up to 2.8 million migrants are needed to fill gaps in the economy:
Mr Wilcox says while there are Australians without work, there are not enough skilled workers for a range of specialist occupations, with the Ai Group singling out residential construction as an area of acute shortages.
Strange that he should single out residential construction as a labour shortage area. If you increase migration then you need to build more houses, not less - you could just as easily end up with a worse labour shortage.
Professor Bob Birrell has conducted research which shows that the skilled migration programme is not very successful in plugging skilled labour shortages. The single biggest category of those arriving as skilled migrants are cooks. Of those from non-English speaking backgrounds arriving with degrees, 31 per cent remain unemployed (compared to 9 per cent of locals with degrees) and only 26% end up in professional employment. Of NESBs with management and commerce credentials, only 18% end up being professionally employed.
So what then does big business really want out of a mass immigration programme? One thing to remember is that it is not big business itself that has to pay the cost of that 31% unemployment rate. That cost is spread out amongst the community. And with a supply of overseas labour there is more competition for employment amongst the semi-skilled and unskilled, especially amongst young people. You can understand too that a business lobby group might like the idea that they can freely draw in labour from wherever they want, regardless of economic circumstances or the impact on the host society.
One of the good things about all this are the comments to the ABC news report on this story. Many of the comments reject the idea of relying on overseas migration for skills, calling instead for companies to invest in training locals:
DonM: Surely we are smart enough to get by with a very modest level of migration say less than 100,000 migrants per year and focus on training our own people to meet skill shortages.
OskO: Answer is definitely NO as long as our unemployment rate is above 5% and our under employment rate is above 10%.
Serenity_Gate: Check out Germany's apprenticeship system. Wonder why German technology is so good? Their apprenticeship training scheme. Businesses are FORCED to train apprentices. This should be happening in Australia for our future. This is just a push to drive down costs of production through lower wages.
Kog: This is exactly what has happened across the IT sector, or what is left of it after outsourcing overseas. Record numbers of engineers out of work, and they want to import more?
That last comment does seem to be true. I know of some highly trained and experienced IT professionals who simply can't get work right now. In my industry (education), too, it is not uncommon for there to be over 100 applicants for each vacant position.
Perhaps public opinion, even amongst some middle-class Australians, will begin to make itself heard on this issue.
The comment by Serenity_Gate is true. Germany's apprenticeship scheme is wonderful and should be adopted posthaste.ReplyDelete
It is worth pointing out that the highest number of immigrants on Temporary 457 visas by Industry type is the mysteriously named 'other services’, This category includes health and beauty services, electrical and automotive repair services and religious services to name but a few. In other words not the highly skilled workers the Australian Industry Group indicates we are getting through the fast tracked 457 programme?ReplyDelete
Interesting rebuttal of the skills shortage in the on-line Guardian. Argues that business wants more immigration to drive down labour rates.ReplyDelete
There are many arguments to reduce immigration that I think that the public would respond to.
1) Virtually everyone wonders about the doubling of Sydney and Melbourne predicted over the next few decades. Where will all these people go? Will everyone live in high-rise apartments?The public is not in favour of it.
2) The loss of amenity in a city that is increasing its population that is not counted in pure economic terms. Eg traffic and public transport congestion, loss of back yards, overcrowding at schools and many more.
3) Can we afford the infrastructure required to house, provide transport, schools, water and other utilities, roads, hospitals and other medical facilities for all these new immigrants. A some of some $350,000 in infrastructure is apparently required to be invested by the taxpayer for each new immigrant.
3) People are concerned about high house prices and wonder if their children or grandchildren will be able to afford a house in the future. Immigration is a big factor in the increasing price of land and houses in our larger cities.
4) Countries like Britain have struggled to cope with Healthcare and other services due to massive immigration. Unless we invest a lot we will too.
There are many other negatives to immigration that can be cited.
All the arguments that are commonly given regarding mass non-white immigration and forced assimilation in all white countries have to be wrong, because they are always directed to what seems plausible in that country, but the solution to these "diverse" problems is always the same.ReplyDelete
It doesn't matter whether the local conditions are those of Australia, America, Sweden or any other white country. Big or small makes no difference. Local traditions and cultures make no difference. The current state of the economy makes no difference - except to the rationales for a policy recommendation that is always and everywhere the same - in all white countries and only white countries.
Why does Sweden need Somalis, and Australia, and Minnesota? If you didn't already know, could you have guessed whether that should have been Somalis or Senegalese or Sudanese? Or whether the economy was going up or down when these people were brought in? Or whether the rationale was "need for low cost [and presumably high quality] labor" or something else? It's absurd.
The real commonalities are the ones anti-whites don't want to talk about. They are not forcing "diversity" on Taiwan or Nigeria. South Korea doesn't need "diversity" but Germany does. Kenya doesn't need more diversity, but Canada does. Pakistan doesn't need more "diversity" but France does.
This is about blending out the Indo-European genotype through mass non-white immigration and forced assimilation in all white countries and only in white countries. It's genocide.
I know that's shocking to say, but it's the truth. Think about it. The official stories cannot be true. This is the common thread that accounts for a massive, decades-long and otherwise inexplicable concordance of policies. And it also accounts for the determination of the powers that be to silence public discussion on this topic.
What is interesting about the Australian Industry Group is the ethnic makeup of its "Group Management Team".ReplyDelete
Titus will find the following information of particular interest given his recent series of denunciations of the Irish descended as destroyers of Australia at Counter-Currents.
Here is a list of the surnames of the Management Team of Australian Industry Group. The classification of the surnames is taken from The Internet Surname Database.
Ai Group Management Team
Willox - This surname, chiefly found in England and Scotland derives from the Olde English pre 7th Century personal name Willoc from the German "willa" meaning "will" or "desire".
Burn - This ancient name is of Anglo-Saxon origin, and is one of the earliest topographical surnames existing today.
Cullen - Recorded in many spellings including O'Cullinane, Cullinan, Cullinane, Cullen and occasionally Quillinane, this is an Irish surname.
Nolan - This famous Irish surname is recorded in the varied spellings of O'Nolan, O'Noulane, O'Noland, O' Nowlan, and the short forms of Nolan, Nowlan, and Nowland. However spelt today it is an anglicized form of the original pre 12th century Gaelic O'Nullain
Melville - This name is of French locational origin from any of the various places in Normandy called Malleville, for example, Malleville in Pays de Caux. The name derives from the Old French "mal" meaning "bad" or "poor", referring to the poor quality of the soil in the area, plus "ville", a settlement. This Norman name was brought to Scotland in the mid 11th Century by the first recorded namebearer,
Tsimboulas - Greek?
Smith - Recorded in the spellings of Smith, Smithe, Smythe, and the patronymics Smiths, and Smithson, this is the most popular surname in the English speaking world by a considerable margin. Of pre 7th century Anglo-Saxon origins, it derives from the word 'smitan' meaning 'to smite' and as such is believed to have described not a worker in iron, but a soldier, one who smote.
Piper - This interesting surname is of Anglo-Saxon origin, and is an English occupational name for "a player of the pipe or bagpipes, a piper", from the Olde English pre 7th Century and Middle English word "pipere", a piper, from "pipe", which is cognate with the Germanic "pfeife", whistle, pipe.
Goodsell - This interesting and curious surname is of Anglo-Saxon origin, and is a locational name from any of the places called Gadshill (Kent), recorded as "Godeshyll" in the Anglo- Saxon Chronicles in 973; Godshill (Isle of Wight), which appears as "Godesmanescamp" in the Domesday Book of 1086; or Godshill (Wiltshire), found as "Godeshull" in the Episcopal Registers of circa 1270.
Myatt - This is an unusual and interesting name of English origin found chiefly in the West Midlands. The derivation is from the medieval given name "Myat", itself a diminutive form of "Michael" (from the Middle English "Mihel").
Waldron - This is a surname of ancient pre 7th century origins. Recorded in the spellings of Waldram, Waldren, Waldron, Waleran, and Walrond, it is an excellent example of a style of individual name from the "Dark ages". It derives from the Olde German personal compound name "Wala-hram", and whilst it may have been introduced into Britain by the 8th century Anglo-Saxons, the first certain recordings are Norman-French, or at least after the 1066 Norman Invasion.
Brown - Recorded in many spellings from Brown, Broune, and De Bruyn, to Brauner, Bruni and Brunet, this ancient and prolific surname derives, from a pre 7th century Germanic and Anglo-Saxon word "brun" or the Olde Norse personal name "Bruni".
Lilly - Recorded in many forms as shown below, this is an English surname.
O'Callaghan - This ancient and honourable surname is of Irish and royal origins.
14 positions, ethnicity as follows:
10 Anglo-Saxon/Norman/Germanic all as a subset of English
Reg Sipco, all my philippics against the Irish Menace resolve to a single accusation:Delete
Will. Not. Let. The. Old. Quarrel. Go!
(Or more broadly "silver medal-worthy haters", but if you ask for the topic of the hate, it's back to my single accusation.)
This one accusation of mine generally comes up when the topic drifts to the English and their damnation in perpetuity, the unforgivable Scots-Irish, Oliver Cromwell, potatoes, famines, the illegitimacy of Anglo identity and all Celtic-ness except that of the Irish, and things of that nature.
Point taken on the list of names and their origins. Well researched. Bravo!
Beyond that I'm not interested to argue over it.
Reg Spico, I'm not taking any more comments on this - it seems to be an argument that has spilled over from another forum. I don't think it's the right historic argument to be focused on right now. Whatever happened historically, I don't think that the division between Irish and English is a key one today - both groups are facing the same threat to their existence and not from each other.Delete
Mark Richardson: "...it seems to be an argument that has spilled over from another forum."ReplyDelete
Mark Richardson: "I don't think it's the right historic argument to be focused on right now."
Or preferably ever again. But definitely not now.
Mark Richardson: "Whatever happened historically, I don't think that the division between Irish and English is a key one today - both groups are facing the same threat to their existence and not from each other."
These parasitic business groups are unbelievable. They want cheap labour and more consumers and they expect the rest of us to carry the costs associated with mass immigration. It angers me that immigration levels have shot up at the behest of special interest groups with no concern for the interests of the broader Australian population. My suggestion: write to your local federal MP and ask them to justify their support for mass immigration. They certainly can't claim it's in the national interest.ReplyDelete
Skilled immigration categories in Australia are a joke. Just because someone has a degree doesn't mean they have an in demand skill, or that they likely to seek skilled work.ReplyDelete
Australia's minimum wage is very high by international standards, so it makes perfect sense for say, a mediocre business management student from a middle income country like China or Brazil to come to Australia and work as a kitchen hand or taxi driver.
Similarly places in job training opportunities have little relation to the actual demand for workers. There's a serious lack of job training for many in-demand technical subjects and an oversupply of workers in areas like primary school education.
In these neo-liberal times tertiary job training is based on making money for the colleges, rather than the needs of the country or the labour market.
Anon, good comment.Delete