If you read my post, you would see that I dealt with your immigration "problem". I reminded you that our immigration was skill based and that Home Affairs actively change intake depending on workforce demands. Accordingly I am not adverse to the rate of immigration fluctuating from month to month or year to year depending on demand. That's how it works.
A toggle on immigration is not the economic panacea that you claim. There is no modeling that supports this and is just unnecessary dog whistling.
Whose 'demand' for immigration decides the numbers? Normally when there's an undersupply of labour it pushes wages up. Does globalisation mean this is no longer allowed to happen? Who benefits from this? Not every Australian, that's for sure.
Yes an undersupply of labour pushes wages up, but that does not deal with the problem at hand. Wonderful that you have wages growth for those who are in the workforce, however what happens to industry who cannot fill positions ?
If we have a shortage of nurses for example, industry can't wait for 4/5 years before we train a bunch. How do we solve this problem ? Skilled immigration.
Recently a new subclass 191 visa was introduced for skilled immigration to regional areas. These are the compromises that need to be encouraged.
Both of you have fair points and are right in your own ways but the one who is most right is Pou, in this instance.
You think immigration isn't being taken advantage of for low wages? If so, you're a fool.
Yes, we need some skilled immigration to fill gaps that require extended training. That, however, doesn't even come close to covering our immigration.
The point of contention of the tax cuts is stage 3. Stage 1 is now, Stage 2 is 2022 and Stage 3 is 2024. Albo has already said that he supports Stages 1 & 2 and has asked that they split it from Stage 3 or bring Stage 3 forward. Remind me again what the problem is ?
The problem was that he wasn't going to support it unless it was broken up, meaning none of it would have passed. That problem is now gone with CA and Lambie supporting the bill as a whole. So, I guess we didn't need Albo to do anything and we're good to just leave him to shoot himself in the foot and start his work losing the next election, now.
***
If we're not going to lower immigration to pressure the labour market then what other options are there?
The RBA and the cash rate? They just cut to 1.0%. They have 4 moves left and then we have to start printing money. Awesome. The RBA need to start keeping cards up its sleeve for emergencies. They can't go using the cash rate to try and spur employment (which is what the last 2 cuts were about) or they will be out of ammunition.
Government spending?
This merkin. Money is almost free. Go out and spend it FFS.
What a surprise - the RBA Gov. who can't hit his one target now expecting the government to do his job for him. Hey, guys, just keep running defecits...
Sure, if we need to. That's part of what the fiscal lever is for.
But, as already explained, reducing immigration would result in the following:
* Pressure the labour market;
* Reduce unemployment;
* Raise wage growth;
* Raise inflation;
* Mitigate, and possibly end, the per capita recession.
The fact that you call it "dog whistling" shows exactly why you are wrong, Gronk. You have no ability to think any other way other than how you have been told to think. You are Pavlov's Dog and nothing more.
It is an economic response, pure and simple. It would undoubtedly produce the above results, while leaving the cash rate and fiscal levers untouched and available for future use, where necessary.
But you can't see that because all you know how to do is cry Social Justice, which is proven beyond doubt by your "dog whistling" comment.
Well done, child.
