Proof Australia’s visa system undercuts workers

Ever since Kristina Keneally suggested lowering immigration to put “Australian workers first”, there has been a procession of commentators claiming that Australia’s mass immigration program does not disadvantage workers.

Today I want to provide evidence from the latest Department of Home Affairs’ Continuous Survey of Australia’s Migrants, which proves unambiguously that Australia’s immigration program is undercutting Australian workers.

The next table summaries the story (the key pieces are highlighted in the red boxes):

As you can see, migrants have significantly worse labour market outcomes than the general population. In particular:

  • The median annual full-time earnings of migrants was $16,500 (22%) below the general population in 2017;
  • The median annual earnings of migrants was $5,900 (10.2%) below the general population in 2017; and
  • The unemployment rate of surveyed migrants (12.6%) was more than double the general population (5.5%) in 2017.

Even if we focus on the skilled stream only, both median earnings and unemployment is far worse than the general population:

These are shocking results. The skilled stream accounts for 60% of Australia’s permanent migration program. They are purported to be highly qualified and brought into Australia to overcome so-called ‘skills shortages’.

These ‘skilled’ migrants should, therefore, be paid well above the general population, which comprises both skilled and unskilled workers.

The fact that migrants are paid so poorly, and experience higher unemployment, suggests that Australia’s “skilled” visa system is really a low-paid, low-skilled program used by employers to undercut Australian workers.

To restore integrity to the visa system, all skilled migrants (both temporary and permanent) should be required to be employer-sponsored (given their far better employment outcomes – see above charts) and paid at least at the 75th percentile of earnings (preferably higher):

Reforms along these lines would ensure that Australia’s skilled visa system is used sparingly to import only the ‘best of the best’, not as a general labour market tool to undercut local workers.

Unconventional Economist
Latest posts by Unconventional Economist (see all)

Comments

  1. adelaide_economistMEMBER

    Great post Leith. It’s funny what sits in government statistical publications when you look (and know what to look for). Relying on the MSM to report this stuff is pointless. I’m not sure they even know what they are looking at even if they had any interest (and they don’t, or their bosses don’t) in reporting it. Skilled migration needs to mean skilled, it’s just that simple.

    • “Relying on the MSM to report this stuff is pointless.”

      Exactly.

      It requires a political party with competence and testicles to pick up this sort of issue and keep it on track – flogging the naysayers to death with data. It’s a bazooka brought to a gun fight with the usual apologists and spruikers. The problem is that the rot within ACTU and ALP mean that they will fall over each other to squib the debate and betray Australia in the process. The Greens? Don’t bother.

      Our political parties are lock step with the endless BS that props up the hyper-exploitation of immigrants and OS students. Take a look at how the corporate crooks at Uni Adelaide use tissue thin and cringy propaganda to keep the degree mills running hot:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0BphbEAoP0

      This sort of pap is the copybook of our media too, here delivered with Sir Les Patterson dental work, a million dollar salary and more oiliness than a oil platform roughneck. It’s nasty exploitation of vulnerable people dressed up as the work of humanitarians and concerned “academics” turned CEOs- it’s sick.

      So how come parties like Sustainable Australia would rather bleat facile slogans than go for the jugular with this sort of data? I’m beginning to think that the lack of an alternative vision is the problem.

      • +1

        Have said this before but SAP are a Gen X Nimby party without the stones for a real fight on immigration. They’re too afraid of the r and x labels being thrown at them.

        The reality is, if you debate immigration then everything has to be on the table and that includes a sobering debate on multiculturalism and social cohesion issues. Thats what they and others are really afraid of. The debate has to be done regardless or the attitudes won’t change much.

        The fact that it has become an absolute taboo topic of something that really shouldn’t be shows you how potent the 30 year gaslighting campaign has been.

      • Whites are not allowed to be racist (and by extension to be allowed any resistance to their nations being made non-White post hast – regardless of the consequences) because muh holocaust.

        That is the reality of the West today, Australia, UK, USA, France, Germany.. all White nations.

        When it comes down to it, a factual position that mass immigration harms us, and our nation, is not equal in argument to “muh holocaust, Whites not allowed self-determination or sovereignty on any place on Earth”.

        That is just a simple fact.
        The people that oppose White self-determination will not accept facts (or fairness) swaying the argument.
        It can only be gotten past when enough realise that anti-racism = the death of your genes, phenotype, race, culture, civilisation and nation (and that such a thing is bad, and wrong to allow). Reality not hyperbole.

        That racism is in fact necessary and “good”. The issue is not racism good/bad, that is used to deliver the most harmful racist action possible.. dispossessing people of their nation. The issue is, (bad) racism used to harm others (taking their nation, genociding them), vs (good) racism – used to preserve what is rightful & fair to be preserved, whilst still being friendly and respectful to all, and not desiring to harm others.

        There is a reason Sustainable Australia and blogs like this are not a threat (as much as I very much respect and appreciate both).. the second you are a threat you will be portrayed as IDENTICAL to the propaganda caricatures of Nazism. Your protestations although valid, and factual and 100% correct will count for nothing.

        Preventing White dispossession IS racism. Regardless if it is a consequence of your view, rather than its intent. (According to the people that set the agenda).

        • And just to be absolutely clear here, the above should not be read as endorsing hate, retribution or any deleterious action against any group. I do not endorse mass non-Tibetan migration to Tibet because it removes the sovereignty of Tibetans over Tibet, and removes Tibetan self-determination. That does not mean I endorse a total end to non-Tibetan migration to Tibet, and the expulsion of every non-Tibetan from Tibet. Balance is in order. Allowing Tibet to be handed over to people without serious longstanding local connection to the nation is a human rights crime. Ditto for here.

          We are in a political frame where us resisting our dispossession is a human rights crime. When the opposite is true.
          It is the ideological view that drives the issue more than economics. Nothing of economics remains if increased supply cannot be held to reduce prices (migrant labour) and increased demand to increase prices (migrant housing needs).
          The fact that we feel we have to “win” that debate shows that is not where the debate really is. It is a smokescreen.

        • A blogger on this site a while back (Stewie Griffin i think) gave the best explanation of defending being ‘racist’. Something along the lines of it being an innate default and survival instinct.

        • Just wondering why the Nordic countries have been let off relatively scot free in the racism attacks and gaslighting. Sweden had a population of around 8 million at the end of WW11 and only has 10 million now. We also had around 8 million at the end of WW11, and look at us now – heading towards a totally unsustainable 50 million. Not that we’ll get there as we’ll collapse well before then.

        • Stewie GriffinMEMBER

          Here we have Daniel Ziffer explaining that being Australian is basically being anything other than being born in Australia:

          “Our national anthem might greet “those who’ve come across the sea” — our society and economy does too — but we’re in a cycle of kvetching* about who should come, where they should live, what they should do and how they’re changing our lives.”

          *A Yiddish word meaning, essentially, ‘nagging complaint’. One of the over 300 languages spoken in Australia. More than one-fifth of us speak a language other than English at home.

          Trust a J3w to use double speak to define Australianness as anything other than what it really is. You want to know the cultural origins behind the double think and lies that “Diversity makes us stronger and more united” or that “Australian is Multicultural.” then you should start learning Yiddish.

          Anything to weaken a culture or society that could stand united in opposition to invasion immigration or demand assimilation and intergration as a condition of immigration.

          When you see the whole world as your oyster, then any barriers or conditions on moving to any part of it is intolerable.

          https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-05-09/immigration-cut-calls-often-ignore-economic-and-social-reality/12228562

          • I wonder how a similar argument will go down in Israel? It works only if you ethnically cleanse your nation and selectively import only those who share a common religion and put your diversity into a concentration camp. Israel is diverse in language and an apartheid state. How about Australia being a secular state that works to kick out those who want to undermine it for their own tribal, religious and foreign national interests? We can start with removing duel citizenship from those member nations that interfere in our domestic politics using state backed institutions. It’s a crusade I could become fired up about as I am sick to death of people undermining secular governance whilst hiding their true allegiance and motivations.

          • Stewie GriffinMEMBER

            Abolishing duel citizenship should be the first step our nation takes building a truly stronger and more united society by reclaiming its sovereignty.

            No man can serve two masters, and there is no hypen in any Australians identity.

      • bolstroodMEMBER

        Is SAP a party created by the preference whisperer Glenn Druery ?
        Druery is noted for his creation of fake political parties.

        • the everything issue

          No need to smear Sustainable Australia Party.
          Perversely, Sustainable Australia Party is attacked by both the far left and far right of politics.
          It takes enormous determination and courage in forming a political party.
          Population is one of the key sustainability issues we face, but it is not being addressed by any major party.
          What are you doing to help transition Australia to a sustainable future?
          https://www.sustainableaustralia.org.au/our_party

          • drsmithyMEMBER

            As far as (vaguely mainstream) Australian politics goes, SAP *is* the “far left”.

            Objectively, they are left: economically protectionist and interventionist (possibly even more so than the Greens), strongly democratic (ditto), socially liberal (maybe not so much).

      • the everything issue

        Sustainable Australia Party are afraid of nothing.
        For those armchair moaners who criticise SAP, perhaps take at look at their social media pages, sign up to the eNewsletter and get informed. Until we all pull together we achieve nothing.

        • Really? The strategy of using slogans like ‘stop overdevelopment’ was explained to me at a SAP meeting as a way to avoid confronting issues of sustainability and battling with The Green’s identity politics and obsession with viewing sustainability issues through the lens of race. Key to this was an unwillingness to take on the fake-Green ideology and offer an alternative to the high-density urban hell. But this IS the acid test of SAP’s willingness to stand up for ‘sustainability’ and the defence of amenity and it has so far been squibbed.

          Moreover, where has SAP stood up for cultural security or sought to represent issues that relate to the dilution of secular Australian values and the nation state, countering a globalist vision that involved mass immigration and Big Australia upheld as a moral virtue by the ALP and Greens? I have not seen anything but some motherhood statements in that space either.

          How about this – give people a reason to believe that SAP has the stones and people will join.

          From what I have observed to date there is only a tepid commitment to leading the debate over wider economic, cultural, environmental and ethical issues. Until there is something substantial and unapologetic I will not use faith an hope as a substitute. Overall, unless SAP is able to invite and field controversy in debate associated with unsustainable population growth and lead the discussion over mass immigration, mass exploitation and insane Far-Left ideology they have a cheek asking people to spend their time supporting the party simply because it is not supporting them and their concerns. Why isn’t that clear?

          The population debate is nasty and divisive and there is no way around that given the vested interests. A party trying to plot a path of least resistance to effect a major political and social change fails to understand the nature of politics and what wins arguments and votes. The politically meek inherit only disillusionment.

  2. It’s staggering you even have to do this Leith. Like arguing, earnestly, that water is truly wet.

    But it highlights the depths of self-interest of all those lined up against you.

    They don’t care about people.

    My personal belief is they’ll do anything to prevent unemployment from falling to levels that would spur wages rising and lead to better & more secure working conditions for working people.

      • The90kwbeastMEMBER

        +1 This. In addition to the economic argument, there is a certain air of superiority and success gained by capitalists when you import an underclass of workers mostly from Asia. Without a group of permanently impoverished, desperate people willing to work for less, the rich cannot sustainably stay AS rich as they are. Living standards of the rest of us be damned, it’s an externality and not their problem. The war of capital and employees rages on.

    • I’ve said this incessantly but another time won’t hurt: businesses are wedged between high property prices / lease rates and a wilting, over-indebted consumer. The next biggest cost to property costs is staff costs — which is why importation of cheap labor.

      The whole scam is deliberate as most can see, so arguing the point with these people makes little difference – they need it to continue.

      The way to deal with the issue is a systemic reset in which property prices (and therefore costs) reset to tenable levels, but from a policy perspective, pumping property prices ever higher is at the top of the agenda so, until the reset happens, expect more pressure for more ‘coolies’ as Leith calls them.

      • fitzroyMEMBER

        Exactly. They provide the consumers for the rent seekers so that asset prices can remain high and cheap labour so that expenses are low. The big end of town needs them to maintain their power. Formidable opponents indeed. More useful idiots please. There is always the ABC.

  3. https://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/david-koch-unloads-over-mick-malthouses-comments-in-regards-to-china-game/news-story/3d7feb75257fe7dd04ba703fcf7ca295

    As you can see if you dont support the wealthy sucking up and being apologists for the china autocratic dictatorship you are automatically a racialist.

    Collingwood legend Tony Shaw has blasted David Koch after the Port Adelaide chairman reinforced his club’s commitment to the AFL’s push into China and issued a scathing response to Mick Malthouse’s criticism of the arrangement.
    Gold Coast and Port first played in China in 2017 but Malthouse said going there again was “the last thing” the AFL should do because of the country’s handling of the coronavirus crisis.

    But Koch defended the China deal and branded Malthouse a “dinosaur”.
    “Mick Malthouse has zero expertise and so zero relevance in any of this,” Koch said.
    “If Mick Malthouse made a comment on footy I’d give it a glancing look (but) when it comes to China, absolutely zero relevance whatsoever.

    ——>>>>>>>>>> Using football as a way to build a bridge with China has been very important … Mick Malthouse doesn’t know what he’s talking about. If it was up to Mick Malthouse, he’d bring back the White Australia policy in the ’50s.”

    Magpies premiership captain Shaw slammed Koch on Twitter this morning.
    “What a gutless slur David Koch regards ‘white Australia policy’ and Mick Malthouse. He was talking about a (one) football game not endorsing a racist policy akin to apartheid,” Shaw tweeted.

    BECAUSE ??????
    He said the only basis for Koch’s decision to play games in China was financial and now was the time to discontinue the fixture. Malthouse continued his criticism of the Chinese regime and their handling of the coronavirus pandemic which is believed to have originated in the Chinese city of Wuhan.

    • Koch is just a teleprompter reader for Kerry Stokes business interests, which as we’ve seen, are balls deep between Chinese cheeks.

      Koch is the tv version of Stephen Kouokoulas and about as punchable.

      • The90kwbeastMEMBER

        Koch truly is the epitomy of a smug and arrogant millionaire working for billionaires.

  4. “it’s what you think you know that just ain’t so”

    But it doesn’t help as a three to six years tenured politician to have a couple of care-free billionaires like Gerry Harvey and Harry Triguboff propagandising for “Big Australia” through every available channel to keep their own books stacked.

  5. Wouldn’t scraping offshore applications for PR in favor of PR for those currently sponsored here doing genuinely high skilled / skill shortage roles, be better?

    Current offshore PR granting is either quasi-low skilled migration, based on outcomes or a naive ‘fingers-crossed’ the foreign qualifications and experience will translate.

  6. Leith I have a better answer (I think) to paying migrants as you say here:
    “To restore integrity to the visa system, all skilled migrants should be required to be employer-sponsored and paid at least at the 75th percentile of earnings”.

    Let them be paid at any legal wage the employer wishes, but with the requirement that every single dollar spent on their salaries, wages and bonuses be matched in a “migrant employment tax” paid to the federal government.
    And if that still allows rorting raise it to double their payments in taxation.

    Pretty sure you’d see an end to any migrant labour that was not genuinely required, without delivering migrants unfair windfalls against local labour.. which also occurs. High paid migrants also should not take jobs from high paid Australians, but that DOES happen. Nepotism is also a factor not just reducing business costs. Make nepotism pay too.

  7. – Agree. (Increased) immigration puts “downward pressure” on wages.
    – But one also have to think “rising levels of debt”. Then households,.companies, SMEs have to dedicate a rising amount of their income to servicing debt, leaving a decreased amount of income available to be spent on a whole range of products. (= less demand).
    – Employers still want to make a profit and then “import” cheap(er) foreign workers.
    – Steve Keen has a model in which he has shown that it’s the workers are the ones who are paying for the rising level of debt in an economy.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8fCmUbjDtg (From 41:00 onwards).

    • Jumping jack flash

      Very interesting thanks.

      One only needs to perform a quick projection on some of the house price and wage graphs to see how this is going to end up, and what must be done to try and keep it working for as long as possible.

      I have a theory that these foreign “skilled” workers were originally brought with the understanding they could be paid a fair skilled wage and then take on the debt that is required like everyone else. There was such a dire skills shortage, after all.

      The problem was that the businesses lied. They did not need skilled workers in that sense at all, there was no skills shortage. Businesses needed cheap workers to steal wages from to enable themselves to obtain more of the necessary debt.

  8. I confidently predict Albanese’s big statement today on train velocity and (wait for it, folks!) “decentralisation” will sideline Keneally’s Big Australia issue. Pretend it’s not there. Just like the Emerson-Weatherill post mortem.

    LibLab mass migration for “jobs n growth” isn’t the answer to floundering productivity and wages. It’s the cause. On past form, Driver Albanese will always align with Morrison’s bunkum of “decentralisation” and “congestion busting”.

  9. Has Joe Hildebrand changed his mind or is he off the leash?

    22 hours ago

    ALP is slowly rebecoming the party of real people with real problems

    fringe parties will no longer be able to pick off the disenfranchised. The lost tribes of voters from the golden age of Hawke and Keating will finally return.

    Joe on 18th Mar 2018:

    Which of them would the anti-immigrationists like to ban from Australia? The medical diagnostic radiographer? Suzie from Sussex you proposed to last night at Icebergs? The old digger who just wants to come home?

  10. A rather naive understanding of the opportunities available to Migrants vs Aussie born workers.
    To begin with there’s no shortage of BS jobs available to Aussies that are simply not available to migrants and guess what these BS jobs pay above the Median wage.
    Compare this with an engineering contractor say engaged in Mine development, they all know that if they want the job they need to price competitively or it will be 100% constructed in China and shipped in. To price competitively they need access to labour at a somewhat similar cost to foreign competition (i.e significantly less than the Aussie Median)
    So if we force businesses to pay above the Median (for migrant labour) we’ll kill off any ability that Aussie companies might have to claw back some manufacturing jobs
    Unfortunately it’s no longer a simple problem because Capital flows have such an overwhelming impact on the Exchange rate and prevent it from functioning as an economic equalizer. As a result of this currency overvaluation, Unproductive jobs pay better than Productive jobs but guess which category the skill labour falls primarily into?

    • fitzroyMEMBER

      There is a need to stop Chinese Mercantilism Bobby, and prevent the import of wages an conditions that may be OK in China but undermine living standards here. The table that is extracted above proves this beyond doubt. I would also stop the purchase of housing stock by people who have not contributed to this country as it undermines both housing affordability here and the tax system that so many have paid into over the years.

      • If your approach were even theoretically possible I’d be all over it, but in reality it’s just wishful thinking.
        the truth is that we inhabit a world where our collective “skills” no longer enable our workers to enjoy a standard of living which is significantly better then these Chinese Mercantilists..
        There are only two solutions to this problem
        1) We become more skilled and use these skills (whatever they may be) to create things that the rest of the world simply can’t live without.
        2) we shut the door on the rest of the world and die a slow death, but hopefully we’re entertained by our own foolish incompetence and the ensuing fiasco.

        Personally I’d like to see us try option 1) now because option 2) will always remain available whereas option 1) has a limited shelf life and to be honest it is already beginning to smell a little like it might be past its use-by date.

        • Rubbish.
          Give a fair share of natural resources to all citizens and then work becomes less important and the pay rate becomes less critical.

          Under the current system elites claim the lions share of natural resources such as land, minerals, radio spectrum for themselves. They claim to own it fair and square. The elite then force plebs to work jobs to earn money to buy back a small portion of the natural resources from the elite – a form of slavery.

          If the plebs were given a fair share of land, etc. They could choose to work for themselves on their own land, or perform fair trade with elites. Come to think of it, without an outsized portion of property, the elites would no longer be so elite.

          • Yeah I have no problem with that solution but it does somewhat suggest that we first need to dramatically rewrite or re-engineer our concept of Personal property and along with it our concept of savings.
            My super makes me a part owner in many businesses that profit from this inequitable distribution of assets. My savings are a sort of claim on this collective property.
            If my claim on our assets does not exceed your claim on these assets then there is also no real reason for me to attempt to increase my savings.
            See what I’m saying
            Come to think of it, without an outsized portion of property, the elites would no longer be so elite.
            This is correct but what’s much more important to the growth of any society is the concept that my savings give me greater claim to our future collective earnings then those without savings. Minus this legal right, savings is a meaningless concept and wealth is hoarded rather then used productively.

          • Marx describes in detail how in the colonisations of the USA and Australia, what you describe:
            If the plebs were given a fair share of land, etc. They could choose to work for themselves on their own land, Was deliberately avoided, as it undermined capitalism, and the capitalist class.

          • drsmithyMEMBER

            If the plebs were given a fair share of land, etc. They could choose to work for themselves on their own land, Was deliberately avoided, as it undermined capitalism, and the capitalist class.

            Only until the next capitalist class derived crisis, when all the poors would have to sell of their patches of dirt and other assets at rock bottom prices to buy food (like what’s happening now with people pulling money out of super).

          • @Peachy
            I’m pretty sure it is in Marx, In some of the acts of British Parliament where the decision is made to put a price on land in Australia from the get go as opposed to this idea of simply staking whatever you want to claim as your farm (as was the frontier American way).
            If my memory serves me correctly the price for land was set at that which a workman could reasonably earn in 5 years. The reason behind this was that initially in America there was a huge shortage of workers to plant crops because everyone figured they were better off staking claims than working for someone else. This gave raise to a local american economy which lacked exports and often could barely feed itself. The colony therefore needed to be rescued on several occasions. (probably a reference to Jamestown Va)

      • Poochie the Rockin DogMEMBER

        Definitely management jobs that immigrants are locked out of. When IT gets insourced, all the workers are imported from India to work under Australian bosses. I blame the Indian workers far less than I blame the useless Australian managers who see anyone with practical skills as a threat and they could all be replaced by magic 8 balls, for better outcomes

        • Jumping jack flash

          There’s plenty of Indian IT managers who only hire Indians and then pay them next to nothing.
          The IT managers’ bosses love it and the manager is patted on the bank and praised for their shrewd management skills.

          When I was an IT team leader drone this happened all the time.

          In one instance I interviewed a stack of applicants for my team, made my recommendations to my Indian IT manager for final interviews, then the next day some Indian guy I’d never seen before was introduced to me. Don’t know where they found this guy but he was terrible. Must have been cheap as.

          Another instance I had a team that was pretty good, but one Indonesian lady in the team started asking me whether she could be considered for a payrise. Her skills were sound and as good as anyone else’s so I said I’d see what I could do. I asked my boss, and he told me what her rate was. 38K pa including super… I was whaat? 38K in Sydney. Seriously?

          She got a payrise. Went to 39.5 including super.

          It was at about that time I realised that IT was dead and rotting so I reskilled.

      • Do you really need to ask this question?
        If so then I suspect your observational skills are somewhat clouded by your prejudices, but you’re not alone i this because we all tend to see what we want to see. The whole field of Behavioural Economics would be nothing but worthless wanking, were it not for our collective blindness and our social needs.

          • I think you might be hearing me say that there is Aussie born prejudice in the availability of jobs, but that is not what I’m saying at all.
            Take a simple example
            Aussie born couple number 1 decides to buy a as big a home as they can find and get good jobs that pay a wage sufficient for them to qualify for a mega mortgage. Their lifestyle choices shape their choice of jobs
            Foreign born couple number 2 decides to rent a small apartment and build a business, maybe they have a job that pays the rent but over and above that they invest their labour and their time in their business.
            The first couple needs to see a thick wage packet, whereas the second couple needs to see that they are growing a future which is somewhat under their control and maybe even somewhat moveable, should they choose to return.
            The differing desires of the two groups shape the median wages of the two groups.

          • Soooo…. real Australians generally refuse to participate in a race to the bottom. But imported coolies compel them to, basically.

            Moreover, the smarter coolies pretend to operate a business, but buying a 7-11 franchise and importing further coolies to steal wages from.

            Right?

          • I think you’re missing the point.
            Established immigrants often do not trust the institutions of their new country (often for good reason given what may have happened to them in their old country)
            If I don’t trust your institutions than I don’t want to invest in them, but I trust myself so I invest in myself.
            Because the goal is different the paths forward are also different.
            Another part of the equation is the ability to get a job doing something that you see as worthless. The Aussie born does not see many things as worthless that the Immigrant views as worthless, now with this in mind imagine just how wrong the job interview goes when the immigrant applies for the worthless job.
            Value is always a matter of perception, the employer values the worker that has drank the koolaid more then the worker that is simply putting in the hours.

        • Behavioural Economics would be nothing but worthless wanking, were it not for our collective blindness

          Err, I’ve got news for you.
          That linkage has been thoroughly debunked.

  11. Kristina Keneally is proof that you can argue for reduced immigration without coming off like a total nutcase xenophobe like this website frequently does. 🤣

    Follow her on twitter and support her anyway you can. I had some nice interactions with her on twitter.

    • “coming off like a total nutcase xenophobe like this website frequently does.”

      Give specific examples of me being a “total nutcase xenophobe” Mav? Please enlighten me.

  12. I’m pretty sure almost the entire staff of my local Woolies are recent Indian immigrants. And those shelf-stackers and check out operators don’t have special skills and aren’t highly paid.

    “Hurr durr they took our jerbs” is absolutely right. Low paid immigrants use services, take jobs and smash conditions for locals. Any fcukwit can see that.

    • truthisfashionable

      Don’t leave out one of the coolest jobs you can have as a teenager, Trolley boy!.. Unless you now need a license to drive the tractor through a private property car park.

  13. macaroni jewelerMEMBER

    A FACT- Racial discrimination, over time, leads cultural diversity.
    It’s a strange irony that the biggest immigration and multicultural Australia spruikers, totally fail to see themselves as supporting entrenched discrimination.
    Fringe group thinking and lack of insight are these dullards trademark.

  14. Jumping jack flash

    “…Australia’s “skilled” visa system is really a low-paid, low-skilled program used by employers to undercut Australian workers.”

    Well of course it is and it must be that way.

    How else can anyone hope to meet the debt eligibility criteria and afford the ponzi buy-in cost as these constantly increase?

    By 2050 the median house price will be around 10 million and buy in cost will be 500K. Who can possibly afford this on the average income of 78K? Maybe a tiny bit higher but not much.

    The solution is slaves.

    The system would quickly reach its limit if not for the introduction of slaves which can be used to steal wages from to be paid up the line so the top people can afford to obtain and service the debt that is required.

    Prices can’t rise therefore wages can’t rise, but if you lower the bottom wages to basically $0 then that will free up capacity that can be shifted to the top so the debt required is within reach.