Who would have thought a few years ago that the racist Guardian would be the leading purveyor of propaganda in the national media?
Patrick Commins is a journalist journeyman happy to write anything for any paper’s point of view, and today he has committed spectacular hara-kiri for the racist Guardian.
In an ageing society with a productivity problem, migrants are typically younger and better educated, and they bring new skills and ideas.
As a thought experiment, Guardian Australia asked Rynne to model the impact of reducing population growth to just births minus deaths over the coming decade.
In this scenario, the population would grow at about 0.4% a year, instead of the predicted rate of 1.3% with migration.
As a result of this change, there would be 29 million residents by 2035, instead of 31.2 million.
That’s 2.2 million fewer people in this “no migration” scenario.
Unsurprisingly, the economy with closed borders is 2.4% smaller in a decade’s time than one with migration, the model shows.
That means wages would be 7.5% higher after 10 years of no migration, and the unemployment rate would be 0.2 percentage points lower than the base case.
Instead of approaching a balanced budget by the mid-2030s (as is the current projection), the deficit widens to $87bn, according to the Parliamentary Budget Office’s build-your-own-budget tool.
So, based on Commins own numbers, per capita GDP, which is what matters for standards of living, will be significantly higher if there is no immigration. That is, the population would be smaller by 7.6% (i.e., 29.0m instead of 31.2m), whereas GDP would only be 2.4% smaller, resulting in a per capita GDP gain of around 5.2%.
Unsurprisingly, this matches higher wages.
And it would be even better because the racist Guardian doesn’t include productivity. This would lift from today’s zero to around 1.5% as government spending fell away and was replaced by private investment.
This means that headline GDP is unlikely to be as low as The Guardian racists suggest, and also that inflation would be roughly the same, indicating that better wage gains were real, not nominal.
Higher profits, wages, and productivity would fill most of the budget gap and lower spending would take care of the rest, especially at the state level.
I hate to tell the racist Guardian, but the mass immigration model already has us competing with Japan and Italy on falling living standards.
As for housing, I suspect capital values would still be high. To lower those, we’d need both zero immigration and tax reform.
But rents would be much lower, so the war on youth would be half mitigated.
It’s a much better outcome for all, including the racist Guardian that is too ignorant to know better.
