The Real Reason For Mass Immigration
Mass immigration during a housing crisis obviously makes no sense whatsoever. So, why do it?
Apart from causing the housing crisis, mass immigration also supresses wages by flooding the labour market, has a massive impact on the environment, increases demand for limited resources like power and water and overwhelms already stretched public services. It also costs taxpayers over $40 billion a year for the infrastructure needed to keep up with population growth. You’d think the supposed benefits would be overwhelming to justify all this—but none of the usual vague excuses for immigration hold up to serious scrutiny.
Economic growth is not a good reason. Immigration does increase GDP – but if all you want is a bigger GDP, you should consider moving to India. Their GDP is double ours, so you should be very happy there. Increasing GDP by increasing the population obviously doesn’t increase per capita GDP. In fact, we recently experienced the longest per capita recession on record.
If immigration is “good for the economy”, then when exactly do the good times start? After 20+ years of mass immigration, we’ve never been worse off.
An ageing population is not a good reason. At best it’s just kicking the can down the road. Migrants get old too. At worst, we end up with a bigger problem. The current population bubble caused by mass immigration dwarfs the baby boomers. The generally accepted solution to an aging population is to (sensibly) increase workforce participation in the over 65s. We are living longer/healthier lives, so unfortunately, we need to work longer.
The labour/skills shortage is not a good reason. Firstly, increasing the supply of labour also increases the demand for labour. Imagine if for some reason New Zealand became part of Australia. Australia’s population would suddenly increase by around 5 million people. Would that solve our “labour shortage”? Of course not. It wouldn’t make any difference. If you think that’s not the same thing as immigration, imagine then if everyone in New Zealand migrated to Australia. Other than adding to the housing crisis here, how is that any different to the first scenario in terms of labour supply? Same increase in the supply of labour and the same increase in the demand for labour. This is why we don’t find an oversupply of labour in countries with large populations like the US and massive labour shortages in countries with small populations like New Zealand. Size doesn’t matter.
In fact, there’s no such thing as a “labour shortage”. Labour is a resource. The labour market is governed by supply and demand just like every other market. If demand for labour was greater than supply, what should happen is the price of labour (wages) would increase until supply and demand reached equilibrium. If somebody can’t afford to hire more labour, that doesn’t mean there’s a labour shortage – just like how not being able to afford a Ferrari, doesn’t mean there’s a Ferrari shortage.
There’s no set number of job vacancies that need to be filled. The most fundamental concept of economics revolves around “scarcity”. The fundamental problem of having unlimited wants with finite resources. There is an unlimited number of job vacancies that could be filled. Would you like to have someone mow your lawns for $5/hr? The fact you can’t get someone to mow your lawns for $5/hr doesn’t mean there’s a labour shortage. It’s not some sort of national emergency that requires government intervention.
Increasing the supply of labour decreases the price of labour. Telling the country that we need immigration because of a “labour shortage” is in fact telling them that we need immigration to prevent their wages rising.
“But” - they will say – “we need a more selective intake of migrants. We have a skills shortage. We need immigration because we don’t have enough tradies to build houses for all the migrants coming here!”. OK, apart from the fact that if we didn’t have immigration, we wouldn’t need to build ANY new houses, immigration doesn’t add to the skills base in Australia. It replaces it. It’s much cheaper for corporations to hire a skilled migrant than to train an Aussie. Also, immigration reduces the wages of skilled workers which disincentivises Aussies to undertake training.
If demand for a particular skill was greater than supply, what SHOULD happen is that wages for people with that skill would increase – which would then incentivise more people to learn that skill. It’s basic market forces. It’s how the labour market should work. It’s how the labour market has worked since the beginning of civilisation.
Some suggest governments ramp up immigration to inflate GDP and avoid recessions — a short-term trick that makes them look competent and helps them win elections. But the reality is the costs of mass immigration far outweigh the benefits for most Australians, making it a poor and unsustainable strategy.
Lately, many have argued the Albanese government is importing Labor voters — but that theory falls apart when you realise immigration levels under the LNP were almost as high as they are now under Labor.
Sure, many will argue that we all benefit from the cultural diversity and “Australia was built on the back of migrants”, but these are not arguments for MASS immigration. There’s nothing I enjoy more than a feed of momos and sekuwa, washed down with a bottle or two of Everest Premium Lager, but our current record high levels of immigration are not due to a shortage of Nepalese restaurants.
If you want to know the real reason for mass immigration, you just have to “follow the money”.
Mass immigration over the last 20+ years has increased the population by around 8 million people. Each of those people spends around $100 per week on groceries. That’s an additional $800 million of additional revenue for the big supermarkets each week – or a staggering $41.6 billion per year. Same goes for every other corporation in the country. 8 million new customers for the banks, insurance companies, property developers, airlines, phone companies, electricity companies… all of them.
Mass immigration is due to corporate influence over the government to increase revenues and – as outlined above – reduce wages.
Sure, property developers have an obvious vested interest in immigration – but what everyone is missing is that EVERY CORPORATION IN THE COUNTRY has a vested interest in immigration. In fact – corporations are the ONLY beneficiaries of mass immigration. This includes the universities that are acting like corporations.
We can confirm this by looking at who exactly has been consistently calling for an increase in immigration. The peak lobby group for corporate chief executives in Australia is the Business Council of Australia (BCA). If you do a google search for 'Business Council of Australia immigration', you get results like:
Which is pretty compelling, but it doesn't give us the full picture. A better way is to just ask ChatGPT:
Which can be summarised as:
1. Corporations
2. Their paid shills
3. The politicians under their control
4. Useful idiots
It’s a population ponzi. They have to keep it going or the whole scheme falls apart. Governments increase Immigration which increases corporate revenues and cuts costs – which leads to bigger profits – which leads to increased share prices – which leads to happy shareholders – which leads to CEOs getting bigger bonuses and getting to keep their overpaid jobs – which leads to CEOs influencing the government to increase immigration.
Increasing the population doesn’t increase per capita GDP, but it does increase per corporation GDP. Australia is being governed by the corporations for the corporations. Democracy is dead. Australia is now a corporatocracy.