In their responses to the global financial crisis, most world leaders — our own Kevin Rudd among them — have stressed the need to avoid lapsing into protectionism. Earlier this month, the head of the World Trade Organisation complimented Australia for having “been at the forefront of lobbying against protectionism measures over recent months.”
That’s not to say their practice has always followed suit; there’s been some tinkering with things like purchasing policy to appease protectionist sentiment. But in general, politicians have accepted the need to keep the world trading system open, and to avoid measures like the Smoot-Hawley tariff that helped prolong the great depression.
So observe the double standard that says we can let in foreigners’ goods, but keep out their labor — as seen in the government’s announcement yesterday of a 14% reduction in skilled migration.
Immigration Minister Chris Evans said he was just being “responsive to the economy”, even though study after study has shown immigration to have a positive or neutral effect on employment. The unions, of course, supported him strongly, while the opposition’s only complaint was that the government should have acted sooner.
James Jupp, in this morning’s Age, explains the economic facts but says that “economic argument here is less important than the political response to public opinion, which has never been very enthusiastic about bringing in potential rivals for jobs.”
He omits to point out, however, that public opinion has been consistently pandered to in that direction by politicians. Former Immigration Minister Philip Ruddock was a particular offender, but neither side of politics has been blameless. Indeed, the Howard government, despite its xenophobic rhetoric of “border protection”, boosted the skilled migrant intake considerably in response to the long period of economic expansion.
The idea that immigration adversely affects employment is the “big lie” of Australian politics: the statement that is never argued for directly, but treated as an uncontroversial certainty (compare “Iraq has weapons of mass destruction”), to the extent that most people never even think of questioning it. Yet the logic of it is every bit as fallacious as the corresponding argument for tariff barriers.
Over recent decades, the tariff debate has been revolutionised: whatever the prejudices of the electorate, and whatever their private feelings, our elected representatives evidently feel obliged to at least pay lip service to free trade.
But when it comes to keeping out actual human beings, protectionism suddenly becomes respectable. It’s a sad comment on our humanitarianism, our economic literacy, and our politicians’ backbone.
Even if one were to accept all of the assertions and arguments put by Charles Richardson, he avoids the question: Does immigration result in a net benefit to existing residents? Suppose that total economic activity is increased, and that that translates into more employment for all (a doubtful inference). Does this compensate for all the negatives, such as traffic density, pollution, demand for land, housing and water, and so on? I think that in all our major cities, the quality of life has diminished as population has increased.
Interesting that people make comments without attending to the article or what may be the data on which it is based. Janet’s comment seems to be one such. Does she not recognise that people had to be employed to build those houses for 1950s migrants? And so on? That is not to say that all migration is positive, far from it. Just consider how beneficial to employment of existing residents it would be if we brought in more illiterate, psychologically ill refugees who speak no English instead of choosing, out of the millions of the world’s refugees those least likely to require permanent assistance from social workers and most likely never to pay taxes. As Marx pointed out the criminal provides for employment of police, lawyers and judges. So far the pathetic gestures we make to helping the world’s refugees seem designed to by someone with that in mind.
With the economy contracting and unemployment rising continuing to increase the labour supply at a level required by boom time skills shortages is counter productive. Given that wages are relatively inelastic, increasing the labour supply would result in higher structural unemployment. Draw the graph yourself, this is macro economics 101.
Trying to paint this as protectionism is a fallacious straw man argument. It has nothing to do with trade barriers or the restriction of another economy to function. You pointed out yourself that even whilst pushing a xenophobic public line, the Howard government increased skilled migration. You’re poking holes in your own argument.
I notice that the CFMEU has successfully stopped skilled migration for the construction industry. Skilled migrants can still get 457 Visas to work in IT. What jobs do you think the 500 people retrenched when ANZ offshores 500 IT positions to India will get? This is a graphic illustration of the power of a union to lobby on behalf of its members. It’s time IT personnel unionised.
There are many studies that show migration adversely effects the people already living here. About 5 years ago a study showed that migration meant that Sydneysiders took an additional 21 minutes to commute to work and had to work an additional 41 minutes a week to maintain their standard.
Migration in the 1950s provided workers for the Ford and Holden car plants who were housed in Ministry of Housing dwellings paid for by the existing citizens.
We know that increased population has exacerbated Melbourne’s water shortage. Melbourne’s water system was designed for 2 million inhabitants and it strains to provide water for 4 million people.