Back menu

Immigration is not good for you--Khaleej Times Article

Jump to Bottom ...
Page 1 of 2
  • freedom74
  • http://khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArtic...on=opinion&col

    Discuss with comparisons to Australia.

    Consider the impact of immigration on:

    the labor market,
    artificial labor shortages,
    earnings in the unskilled and semi-skilled labor force sectors,
    opportunities for longer-established and Australian born workers,
    property prices and rents
    wages offered by employers,
    lower cash-in-hand rates for unskilled jobs,
    the bipartisan labeling of any critics as racist when thats often without foundation.

    Or anything else you see as relevant.
  • nettsu
  • i thought it was laboUr...

    I don't see anything relevant here
    this will be another pointless whinge about how the world is so against giving you a job
  • big eddie


  • DEY TOOK OUR JERBS
  • Geezah
  • Quote:

    Originally Posted by freedom74

    http://khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArtic...on=opinion&col

    Discuss with comparisons to Australia.

    Consider the impact of immigration on:

    the labor market,
    artificial labor shortages,
    earnings in the unskilled and semi-skilled labor force sectors,
    opportunities for longer-established and Australian born workers,
    property prices and rents
    wages offered by employers,
    lower cash-in-hand rates for unskilled jobs,
    the bipartisan labeling of any critics as racist when thats often without foundation.

    Or anything else you see as relevant.

    I think these issues are worth discussing. As is a discussion about population control surveyed against dwindling natural metal/food/fuel resources. And I also really feel for your situation, I can't begin to imagine the psychological paralysis someone of your situation finds themselves in. It must be horrible. And I think I've on occasion probably been invectively personal towards you which I apologise for. But....

    ..... the way you frame arguments makes you seem like you discriminate in a very calculated way dismissing those in the exact same way that those that probably dismiss you do, without taking into regard others' personal circumstances. You have intelligence but you have no heart for others, and no credibility because you always, always sound self-serving. Your arguments always frame yourself only at the centre. Everyone thinks of themselves first, but a large majority of people factor in how society and culture works too. You just don't have any credibility on these kinds of things especially in this particular forum. I hope you sort yourself out, I really do.
  • legal-affairs
  • Quote:

    Originally Posted by freedom74

    Or anything else you see as relevant.

    The author of that piece has an AOL address. I am inclined to see that as being a relevant reason to say that he is a pillock.

    More to the point though, starting a piece about immigration by considering the violence in South Africa against Zimbabweans rather misses the point that in the case of the Zimbabweans, there are no controls on the flow of migrants at all.
  • freedom74
  • Quote:

    Originally Posted by Geezah

    You have intelligence but you have no heart for others, and no credibility because you always, always sound self-serving.

    Hang on, aren't I a human being? The debate about immigration must be first about economic considerations. Humanitarian issues run second, as neither this government nor the last one, had any mandate from me to open the floodgates. Economic considerations that encourage immigration include:

    the desire for lower labor costs in real terms,
    desire for lower inflation,
    maintaining NAIRU [non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment], pleasing industry lobbies that are keen on lower labor costs,
    pleasing the property industry with surging demand and housing costs that run ahead of rises in the CPI as well as average unskill/semi-skill wages,
    saving money on proper training and job arrangements for locals.

    The labor cost and inflation one is the biggest, its the elephant in the room. Nobody wants to go near the subject, because its the truth. Humanitarianism as a claimed government motive for immigration is the red herring for the plan. Immigration is the trojan horse to lower labor costs in real terms.

    See whats happening, in real terms, to unskilled and semi-skilled labor costs? Housing costs? Life in Paris? The British Midlands? Brussels? Johannesburg? Islam extremism, the Netherlands, Pim Fortuyn and Ayaan Hirsi Ali? Crime? Higher Unemployment? Reduced local training places/funding in higher education while we quarantine places to sell off to the highest offshore bidders. Higher labor force casualization?

    The beneficiaries of this swelling of our low wage labor force and sub proletariat, various employers and property mini barons, most of the time are able to live in districts where they are not confronted with the extreme consequences of economic policies they have pressed for in order to fatten their bottom lines.
  • magictorch
  • Quote:

    Originally Posted by IMMIGRATION, INCOME AND UNEMPLOYMENT: AN APPLICATION OF THE BOUNDS TESTING APPROACH TO COINTEGRATION, The Journal of Developing Areas, Fall 2007

    This article has investigated the nature of the relationship between immigration and two variables, GDP per capita and unemployment, using ARDL bounds testing approach to cointegration. As a result of the Granger-causality tests, strong evidence emerged to support the existence of a long-run bidirectional causality between immigration and GDP per capita. Nevertheless, results do not suggest that immigration causes unemployment. On the contrary, evidence suggests that unemployment causes immigration. A number of policy implications emerge from these results. For instance, as evident from their positive impact on GDP per capita, immigrants and their children will be a great asset to Sweden in the future. Therefore, taking care of immigrants' basic requirements and making Sweden attractive to foreign employees must be a priority for the policy makers. Hence, the results of the present article emphasizes the importance of a well-designed immigration policy which takes into consideration how many, and what type of, immigrants are needed. In addition, results indicate that immigration does not lead to increased unemployment in Sweden. This invalidates the prevailing arguments that immigration reduces employment opportunities for the existing workforce in Sweden. Therefore, policies should be developed to educate domestic societies to tolerate the presence of immigrants. This also emphasizes the necessity of well-designed immigration regulations and policies to tackle the negative social impacts of immigrants that primarily arise from their segregation from the rest of the society.

    Link
  • trist
  • Quote:

    Originally Posted by magictorch

    Link

    I think we have done this before, but again I'll take your obscure Swedish report and raise you:

    http://www.publications.parliament.u...onaf/82/82.pdf

    An extract:

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by House of Lords

    Overall GDP, which the Government has persistently emphasised, is an irrelevant and misleading criterion for assessing the economic impacts of immigration on the UK. The total size of an economy is not an index of prosperity. The focus of analysis should rather be on the effects of immigration on income per head of the resident population. Both theory and the available empirical evidence indicate that these effects are small, especially in the long run when the economy fully adjusts to the increased supply of labour. In the long run, the main economic effect of immigration is to enlarge the economy, with relatively small costs and benefits for the incomes of the resident population.

    And to back track to the ills of high immigration in Sweden:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/05/ma...05muslims.html

    Still convinced of your argument magictorch?
    Last edited by trist : 14-Jul-08 at 07:28am.
  • magictorch
  • We have done this before.

    I haven't had the time to read much of the House of Lords, hopefully will do soon.
  • nettsu
  • freedom - its LABOUR not labor

    L
    A
    B
    O
    U
    R

    maybe thats why you can't get a job - you can't spell
  • Carte Blanche
  • Quote:

    Originally Posted by nettsu

    freedom - its LABOUR not labor

    L
    A
    B
    O
    U
    R

    maybe thats why you can't get a job - you can't spell

    It's not its. That's not thats.

    It's called an omissive apostrophe, a fairly basic concept that all those who lecture others about the English language ought to be familiar with lest they come across as a hypocrite. Punctuation might be another.
  • nettsu
  • Quote:

    Originally Posted by Carte Blanche

    It's not its. That's not thats.

    It's called an omissive apostrophe, a fairly basic concept that all those who lecture others about the English language ought to be familiar with lest they come across as a hypocrite. Punctuation might be another.

    i'm lazy about punctuation i always have been but english isn't my native tongue
    and I think spelling is bit more of an issue that punctuation especially considering how anti-america freedom has been at times
  • custaro
  • I think you mean than punctuation.
  • freedom74
  • Hijacks.

    Back to topic, are we heading for the same kind of unemployment and economic problems, as well as civil disorder and ethnic crime, plaguing the Netherlands, British Midlands, Johannesburg, Brussels, Paris etc. Even in Britain there has been big incidents of civil disorder in large council estates that have a high population of both unemployed persons and immigrants.

    Semi-skilled and unskilled labor wages are failing to keep pace with average earnings in countries where there is high immigration.

    Immigration is an anti-inflationary tool, the aim being to rein in labor costs by having consistent oversupply of people. The aim IS to have LOTS of unemployment, so business can get labor costs lower and have a more fearful labor force that may put up with things like workplace bullying, OHS breaches, oppressive conditions etc.
  • freedom74
  • Immigration from less developed countries also drives surges in greenhouse emissions. When the people, once contented with mass transit, hardly any power at home, bathing infrequently, riding bicycles, motorbikes, maybe a tiny microcar, high density housing, linen on balcony decide to come here they go for:

    big high powered 4wds, powerful sports and muscle cars, big brick veneer monoliths with over 20kW of airconditioning, using the dryer all the time, big plasma tvs [high power consumption], up to 3 or 4 gas guzzlers at home if they have adult children still there and so on.

    When the people stay back in the old country, their original lifestyles have less impact on the earth. Look, the whole world cannot have big houses, gas guzzlers, or use over 30-40kWh [meter figures] electricity a day. Something's got to give, and unless many of us are to downsize our lifestyles, we need to curtail the numbers of people settling here to do the same as us. Imagine the global pollution from all the extra coal burnt, steel produced, cars made, oversized 600 litre fridges, 6 feet plasma tvs etc.
  • SpaceMonkey
  • ^^^ Translated:

    Immigration is bad for the environment because they'll come here, make money, build big wog palaces and drive around in fully sick gas guzzling wogmobiles.

    It would be much better for the environment making them stay in the third world and keeping them too poor to afford modern technology. A wasteful life of luxury should be the sole preserve of white Anglo Saxons because we're just better than those shifty darkies.
  • Emphasyst
  • Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

    ^^^ Translated:

    Immigration is bad for the environment because they'll come here, make money, build big wog palaces and drive around in fully sick gas guzzling wogmobiles.

    It would be much better for the environment making them stay in the third world and keeping them too poor to afford modern technology. A wasteful life of luxury should be the sole preserve of white Anglo Saxons because we're just better than those shifty darkies.



    Where'd you get your F74 dictionary?
  • SpaceMonkey
  • Quote:

    Originally Posted by Emphasyst



    Where'd you get your F74 dictionary?

    Aisle 3 at the Toolshed, between the amyl and the buttplugs.
  • freedom74
  • Its our country. If the people have a view about immigration, thats their right. We have no obligation, legally or morally to open the gates to what Emma Lazarus once described, the poor tired huddled masses of the globe.

    The globe's poor tired huddled masses are waiting to work here for lower than the market wage in many occupations if they get in, it already happens many times the market wage is two-tiered, there's a lower rate for overseas arrivals, and a higher one for long-established local workers, and employers are keen as hell to access the lower rate more often, hence a need to boost labor supply.

    Many such workers also work "under-the-table" to supplement welfare benefits at under-award rates, making it harder for regular workers and law-abiding businesses to compete. Many also contrive an operation as a contractor in order to bid below-the-award for jobs and also because many smaller home-run businesses can escape regulatory oversight.

    Thats as simple as it is, its about boosting labor supply, and we don't need to boost labor supply.

    We don't need the extra greenhouse emissions either nor does the world when people upgrade to oversized homes, cars and extravagant throwaway lifestyles.

    Legitimate refugees can continue to qualify under strict guidelines, with failed asylum seekers detained pending removal from Australia.

    The barriers to entry must be raised for other entrants. This would, while not saying you can't come in full stop, would have the effect of reducing inflows. Like increasing the fees for PR visa applications, increasing wait time for matrimonial PR to 4 or 5 years etc as well as putting fees up etc.

    Its not like we should have no immigration, but it must be heavily curtailed. Put on a few more regional-only working visas and send half the inflows to places [NSW examples] such as Griffith, Albury, Cowra, Wagga, Dubbo, Coonabarabran, Young, Batlow, Leeton, Port Macquarie etc. There are no genuine metropolitan labor shortages, so we don't need to swell our metropolitan workforces.

    Maybe some will not like the regional visas and decide Australia's not for them. That will also reduce numbers.
  • freedom74
  • Perhaps the labor cost question gets ignored as there are many who can use the lower labor costs to boost their business profits. Of course, any beneficiary of the status quo would not seek to challenge it.
  • SpaceMonkey
  • Quote:

    Originally Posted by freedom74

    We don't need the extra greenhouse emissions either nor does the world when people upgrade to oversized homes, cars and extravagant throwaway lifestyles.

    Says she who thinks a lifestyle of luxury cars and fossil fuel guzzling international air travel is hers by right (unlike those immigrants who work for it.... nowe there's a novel concept). Shame the courts don't agree with you huh?
  • weekender
  • Your repeated assertion that the British Midlands is somehow like a warzone intrigues me.... care to share how you managed to gain such insight?
  • dandharma
  • Quote:

    Originally Posted by freedom74

    Thats as simple as it is, its about boosting labor supply, and we don't need to boost labor supply.

    says who?
    I work in an industry where we can't recruit skilled labour.

    what's your point Dude?







    * that rug really tied the room together...
  • freedom74
  • ^^^ I would have become the only person in my family to not have a gas guzzler, was lined up ready to pick up a smaller VW, Honda or Subaru. Probably a bike carrier, bicycle, ski trunk on top.

    Luxury? Your batshit mate, I still wouldn't have been in that class unless later I was able to p/u good work, something the market sought to deny me in my case. As for the medical treatment, thats not luxury, I thought in a society like Australia that should be my right actually.

    As for the air travel, well it wouldn't have been that much really. Its quite normal actually based upon my culture and my origins, not extravagant at all. Not especially seats in economy, again an exception to the family trend.

    A home of modest proportions, not a mcmansion, and take it easy for a while, then contemplate the future. The home locations canvassed by me were those at higher elevation and inland, so thats certainly not extravagant, no waterfront apartment or mcmansion in a stepford wives village. Anything within a couple of hours or less by car from Sydney, Parramatta or Canberra.

    What a shame that somebody else other than society could have provided for me, and then my use of government services/money/housing could have been stopped [by me not needing them] and then made available to another poor person, thus saving society money on many of my needs.
  • SpaceMonkey
  • Quote:

    Originally Posted by freedom74

    As for the air travel, well it wouldn't have been that much really. Its quite normal actually based upon my culture and my origins, not extravagant at all. Not especially seats in economy, again an exception to the family trend.

    WTF has your culture and origin got to do with how much air travel is reasonable for you?
  • gravyishot
  • One measure of greenhouse emissions or energy waste that is popular with 1st world countries, and makes those foreigner 3rd world countries look bad, is the emissions (or energy usage) per $ of GDP (PPP). This makes places like us, the US and the UK (Anglo good guys) look better than India and China (funny looking bad guys).

    Unfortunately if this measure was applied to you (poisonous gas emitted per dollar of output) we'd be looking at something heading towards the infinite. I think we'd have to fit you in the apt category of "funny looking bad guys" (guys is a tentative title at the moment).

    So, can we deport you?
  • magictorch
  • Freedom, you actually have real issues in my opinion. You already have a home and an income to support most of your immediate basic needs - no-one owes you anything else. It'd be nice if you could have it but at the moment you can't so if you really want to get ahead in life, you're going to have to work at it. Write a book. Start an internet business or something.

    Failing that, I really think that finding a rich sugar daddy would offer the lifestyle that most closely resembles what you seem to want out of life.

    In the meantime, maybe you should stop attacking hard-working immigrants at every given opportunity? I'm a hard-working immigrant and my taxes contribute to your the welfare system that supports you. I'm not eligible for welfare support myself.
    Last edited by magictorch : 15-Jul-08 at 04:30pm.
  • nettsu
  • Quote:

    Originally Posted by freedom74

    Its our country.

    oh I think there's some people who would dispute this

    namely the indigenous people because realistically it's their country

    AND IT'S LABOUR!!!!

    FFS - labor = Rudd and his cronies

    LABOUR = work
  • magictorch
  • Quote:

    Originally Posted by nettsu

    its their country

    You did the its thing again.

    EDIT: And then you corrected yourself. Good work!
  • nettsu
  • Quote:

    Originally Posted by magictorch

    EDIT: And then you corrected yourself. Good work!

    thanks
  • freedom74
  • It is MY country too. I was BORN here.

    That, whether you all like it or not means that a person BORN here deserves a lot more. I have paid taxes during previously held employment, that entitles me to live on the government if I am unable to work and/or society is unwilling to make suitable work available to me. That sorry guys, is the law, and if recent arrivals cannot get that help, well thats the way it is huh, don't like it here, they can always go back anytime.

    Although, having been unable for many years to pick up a decent job, even in my youth, I did feel at times very much an outsider, missing out because of my sexuality while recent arrivals and tourists got a walk-up-start because they seemed "normal" or would work under market rates.

    Anyway, why is everybody skirting around the point about labour market oversupply and its impact on lower labour costs for industry. Perhaps you all know I'm right and don't want to concede the point.
  • eidde gib
  • They get a start because they don't consider 99% of jobs beneath them and are willing to flog their guts out to get ahead, often supporting family members overseas in addition to their own living expenses.

    I'd rather 10 hard working immigrants than one lazy fucking leech that just so happened to fall out of their unfortunate mother here.
  • freedom74
  • Because they're cheaper labour, employers with them cut corners on OHS, don't pay proper entitlements.

    The Holy Grail at Canberra was prosecuted recently for underpaying many of its staff.

    Wonder how many jobs you or the people here on these forums would consider "beneath" you?

    Or of those "beneath" jobs, are they to be set aside for the likes of me, recent arrivals and select minorities so that desirable jobs can be kept for snobby youth who are "normal".

    Why should some things be good enough for me but not for a lot of others? Because I'm not anatomically correct? Because I'm poor? No car paid by my folks as lots of spoiled suburban kids've got? Because I don't have flawless teeth and a large rack?

    And what does that mean for me and others who are incapable of physically onerous occupations, eg incapable of sustained periods standing, incapable of high-paced manual or repetitive manual tasks, incapable of also non-repetitive occupational physical activity, jobs primarily consisting of physical or manual activity, working in heat.

    Are those lacking such capabilities physically meant to miss out on the stuff they can do [other physically undemanding tasks] because you're jealous about having had to do some crap job once in your life and that you think everybody should have to serve their time as one of industry's beasts of burden.
  • freedom74
  • Quote:

    Originally Posted by eidde gib

    They get a start because they don't consider 99% of jobs beneath them and are willing to flog their guts out to get ahead, often supporting family members overseas in addition to their own living expenses.

    I'd rather 10 hard working immigrants than one lazy fucking leech that just so happened to fall out of their unfortunate mother here.

    Aren't there lots of such employers also paying them cash under-the-table so they can illegally supplement their student benefits or dole with untaxed and undeclared earnings?

    Plus the numerous ones who came here on student or tourist visas, but didn't go to school in the former case and in both cases, just absconded and disappeared into society, living on the lam. There's plenty of overstayers who are not detained, even though the Migration Act requires the Secretary [or delegate] of immigration to ensure their placement into detention and staying in there pending removal from Australia.

    Jobs like service station attendants, convenience store workers, kitchenhands, cleaners, helping out in small industrial sites, labourers, even plenty passing themselves off as tradies when they're not licensed here---plenty of builders will cut corners to save a buck especially home builders where the unions are not around as much.

    Also these 'earnings' are often below the award and are cheating society because its harder for workers seeking a proper job on the books or other businesses to compete on a level playing field.
  • eidde gib
  • /me sings Because suicide is painless
  • freedom74
  • ^ you attack me but have no intelligent responses to my points. I've been around enough to have met many kinds of people and seen many things, a lot of that includes what I'm saying above. Its illuminating, isn't it, about how intelligent you are/aren't.
  • esoteric31
  • Quote:

    Originally Posted by freedom74

    Why should some things be good enough for me but not for a lot of others? Because I'm not anatomically correct? Because I'm poor? No car paid by my folks as lots of spoiled suburban kids've got? Because I don't have flawless teeth and a large rack?

    No, because you (by your own admissions) have meagre qualifications, little experience and have been out of the workforce for the better part of your adult life.

    Me? Naturally any job/education achievement that I have attained is 'cos I am a brown immigrant, innit?.

    edit: not to mention an attitude problem.
    Last edited by esoteric31 : 15-Jul-08 at 07:12pm.
  • eidde gib
  • Large corporates can't get away with paying cash in hand. Some students may work cash in hand and claim benefits, but that is hardly limited to immigrants and I'd say its a relatively small section of the market as whole.

    I think you are deluding yourself if you think there is that much cash working happening.

    With the market the way it is at the moment there is no supply side power as workers are too in demand. I'm pretty sure I could quit my job tomorrow and have a choice of 4 more by the end of next week.

    You just get the shits because there are people who come from poorer circumstance than you who are willing to work to make a go of it.
  • freedom74
  • I hadn't said my qualifications were meagre. I don't have much recent experience, but recall that wasn't really a barrier for those that usually got jobs similar to what I as going for. My lack of experience is a product of the strong degree of prejudice I encountered in society and that most people just look at me and decided "no way".

    I recall many people with limited experience getting jobs similar to those I formerly applied for.

    I kid you not, experience wasn't the real issue, and when I was once called for many interviews [in my youth] I'm sure it was not then, they would have seen my CV before ringing. Experience became the excuse in the end, well how it works is they raise the bar generally, but selectively lower it if you come from the right sort of home, have right sort of appearance or SES, etc. In my case its not selectively lowered, so I hit a more rigorous screening process than the others have.

    I also encountered during working life, as I'm sure we all have, many experienced but mediocre people. Its strange, but there are occasions and certain sorts of recruiters who actually don't seek to hire the best, they prefer to hire according to other hidden, unwritten criteria.

    So why not show a little empathy about the persecution I endured from recruiters, why doesn't anybody, ironically others reckon we should let in people who claim "persecution" overseas but what, is it alright that I be persecuted as I was?
  • freedom74
  • Quote:

    Originally Posted by eidde gib

    Large corporates can't get away with paying cash in hand. Some students may work cash in hand and claim benefits, but that is hardly limited to immigrants and I'd say its a relatively small section of the market as whole.

    I think you are deluding yourself if you think there is that much cash working happening.

    With the market the way it is at the moment there is no supply side power as workers are too in demand. I'm pretty sure I could quit my job tomorrow and have a choice of 4 more by the end of next week.

    You just get the shits because there are people who come from poorer circumstance than you who are willing to work to make a go of it.

    There may be no huge oversupplies for a few skilled or specialist positions, but for the majority of menial and semi-skilled roles, there is a huge oversupply, making it an employers market so if thats the spot one's after, you usually get raped by your paycheck and conditions.
  • freedom74
  • ^ as to the cash in hand stuff, the majority of such jobs are in small and medium size businesses, where there is less oversight, no union, sometimes dodgy stuff going on.

    The Holy Grail at Canberra was prosecuted for underpaying many staff, the Courts found them a most unremorseful and arrogant defendant too.
  • eidde gib
  • Bullshit, you're not in some regional area where the mine/saw mill etc just shut down. You're in Sydney. Where the only reason to not work is due to bone idleness.
  • freedom74
  • A friend of mine, I kid you not, said to me I could live in his country for a long time, on [what back here is a meagre payment] the money I get I could live like very well off indeed.

    He said that not many, many people do it, but that there are some folks originating from his country who qualified for Australian pensions etc, who go there for ages to live so live on and off here and there. I'd imagine "some" means a not insubstantial number, but not heaps either.

    It enables them to enjoy a materially higher standard of living, as approx. AUD1100 a month is worth a fortune over there [its an Asian country].

    By way of background, various Australian pensions are payable even if the claimant resides, temporarily or permanently, outside of Australia.

    Once in an old thread of mine I brought up that dual nationals were qualifying here for various benefits then living on them offshore, and I was cut down as "racist" yet I hear from the horses mouth that its actually happening, not only that, but also that I could do it too, what do you reckon guys?
  • eidde gib
  • Please list these government benefits which are payable to those living permanently outside of Australia.

    I know you can live pretty well in Vietnam on the french dole, but i would be very interested to know which Australian benefits are payable to non residents.
  • freedom74
  • ^ Age pensions, veterans pensions, disability pensions to start with are payable to the claimant anywhere.

    However to get unemployment, what is commonly known as "dole" you have to be personally present in Australia and actively seeking employment.

    Those in the first paragraph are generally the ones who can live outside our borders, but with Canberra paying for it.
  • eidde gib
  • "The age pension is paid to Australian residents, that is, a person whose normal place of residence is Australia and who is an Australian citizen or has permanent resident status. Except for refugees, a person must have been an Australian resident for a total of 10 years before the age pension is payable. This rule can be modified under shared responsibility social security agreements with specific countries."

    Source: http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/...g/oag-c20.html

    In 10 minutes of googling I haven't been able to find anything on any government website to substantiate your claim that non-residents are entitled to benefits.
  • SpaceMonkey
  • Quote:

    Originally Posted by freedom74

    It is MY country too. I was BORN here.

    That, whether you all like it or not means that a person BORN here deserves a lot more.

    According to who, you and Pauline Hanson? Shame for you the law doesn't agree with you and treats ALL Australian citizens as equals. Just because you slopped out of a vagina then spent the last 32 years whingeing doesn't give you any more rights than someone who moved here and worked hard.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by freedom74

    I have paid taxes during previously held employment, that entitles me to live on the government if I am unable to work and/or society is unwilling to make suitable work available to me.

    So what? I've proibably paid more taxes in my 6 years here than you have in your whole life. And guess what? For the last 4 of those years I've been entitled to every single benefit that you are. Although unlike you I've never felt the need to suckle greedily at the state tit.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by freedom74

    That sorry guys, is the law, and if recent arrivals cannot get that help, well thats the way it is huh, don't like it here, they can always go back anytime.

    And if YOU don't like it here, there's places you can go too. Hint- The Gap is nice.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by freedom74

    Although, having been unable for many years to pick up a decent job, even in my youth, I did feel at times very much an outsider, missing out because of my sexuality while recent arrivals and tourists got a walk-up-start because they seemed "normal" or would work under market rates.

    Guess what? If Australia had ho immigrants, you'd still feel the same way. Its not the fault of recent arrivals that society treats you like shit, so stop picking on them.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by freedom74

    Anyway, why is everybody skirting around the point about labour market oversupply and its impact on lower labour costs for industry. Perhaps you all know I'm right and don't want to concede the point.

    Maybe if they were hordes of desperate unemployed in this country youd have a point, but the fact is most of the unemployed are that way because they're unemployable, not cause some immigrant took their job. There's reasonably gainful emplyment there for most who want it right now.
    Last edited by SpaceMonkey : 15-Jul-08 at 07:52pm.
  • nettsu
  • Quote:

    Originally Posted by freedom74

    It is MY country too. I was BORN here.

    see the indigenous folks would argue otherwise


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by freedom74

    That, whether you all like it or not means that a person BORN here deserves a lot more. I have paid taxes during previously held employment, that entitles me to live on the government if I am unable to work and/or society is unwilling to make suitable work available to me. That sorry guys, is the law, and if recent arrivals cannot get that help, well thats the way it is huh, don't like it here, they can always go back anytime.

    lets be honest - you worked for what maybe 2-3 years?
    for what 30k?
    you're a fucking drain on society and you have been for years.
    I think your cost to society which includes immigrants like myself has been higher than your contribution to society.

    Oh and PS - I wasn't born here but I am a citizen - I just can't pickup and return to the Netherlands - It's not that easy... It's really not.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by freedom74

    Anyway, why is everybody skirting around the point about labour market oversupply and its impact on lower labour costs for industry. Perhaps you all know I'm right and don't want to concede the point.

    what impact?
    awards still apply
    so the cost of labour with immigrants hasn't become cheaper - its still the same. Unfortunately some of these people take the jobs that noone else will. Like you - you're perfectly capable of working but you won't because anything "menial" or "physical" is beneath you...
  • nettsu
  • Quote:

    Originally Posted by freedom74

    By way of background, various Australian pensions are payable even if the claimant resides, temporarily or permanently, outside of Australia.

    you're on a disability pension

    you leave the country - your gravy train ends - because lets face you're not disabled... and weren't people on disability pensions who weren't physically incapacitated meant to look for some form of employment?
  • freedom74
  • The requirement of Australian residency for various pensioners does not mean that they must, after the grant, continuously be present in Australia. Some individuals, and its happening already with various countries of origin, choose to spend long periods outside of Australia. Perhaps offshore living costs are lower, or they just decided they prefer the lifestyle "back home". They continue to be legally considered Australian residents because they are free to re-enter, without visas, on their Australian passport [with the foreign one in their bag] anytime and can stay as long as they like.

    Some tell the government this, and arrange for the pension to be paid via the overseas authorities, others just let it roll into the bank account, and with international ATM networks, online banking etc, the funds are accessible anywhere, borders don't stop them accessing their funds.

    They have to in some cases have been a continuous resident here for a long time, like 10 years as somebody above correctly pointed out through a link, but by the time somebody is able to qualify for a pension as opposed to merely the "dole" they are likely to have been here for many years.

    Many are also older former factory workers [or people in other physical jobs] who have been injured or impaired with things like musculoskeletal diseases, OOS, etc who qualified after a long period of time breaking their bodies on hard menial work, the kind of stuff that others are suggesting I go and do. They got the pension legally, I'm not begrudging that in case anybody's thinking I am.
Page 1 of 2

Forum Jump