Comment by BiteCode_dev | Hacker News Reader

Comment by BiteCode_dev | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

You don't because you are living in a period where everything is wonderul for Australia.

You know what they say: everybody is a genius in a bull market.

So you have sun, good food, plenty of money and little immigration.

Life is good (if you are not living in the desert naked).

Unfortunatly, there is nowhere in the world where things stay nice and easy. The run ended in europe after 1970, it ended in the US after 1990 and it will end in Autralia.

Now, when things are getting hard, having weak democratic institutions, no political awareness and corporate medling is going to hit hard.

But I wouldn't be too cocky because it's not like we didn't mess up loads of things in our own countries, even if we have strong political commitment.

Besides, if I could enjoy your life style, I would probably be way less sensitive to privacy issues.

So don't take what I said as the words of someone who has the ethical upper hand, because I certainly don't.

And Australia is damn comfy.

Also my partner will probably convince me to go back live there with her at one point, so I'll enjoy it as much as I can.

'So you have sun, good food, plenty of money and little immigration.'

Australia has one of the highest rates of inbound immigration in the world. Number 2 in the OECD actually, right after Luxembourg.

And I, like the overwhelming majority of Australians, consider high immigration intakes to be a good thing.

Check your sources.

[1] https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/migratio...

[2] https://data.oecd.org/migration/foreign-born-population.htm

[3] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1133441/australia-attitu...

Australian have temporary immigration, becomming permanent is actually quite hard compared to europe where you can basically just walk in there.

Also, I consider it a chance to be able to go to school as well, it doesn't mean exams are easy.

Immigration is the same. It gives, and it takes.

Because australia is an island with a pretty good legal filter for immigrants, they get less social tensions.

Also because they have plenty of space and money, right now they can welcome immigrants way more easily.

And finally because immigration from asia is a good part of the immigration source, which also makes things easier culturally.

The situations is different in every part of the world.

Immigration is not a single variable universal phenomenom.

Today if you talk about the challenge that diversity can bring, you are labelled with pretty harshed words. But nothing is free.

Source: I've been an immigrant a lot.

Based on what I've heard/read a lot of us would fail our own immigration test on Australian knowledge.

I grew up here in our system and was only vaguely aware there was even a second verse in our national anthem. The people trying to become citizens here and have only been here for a short time knew _all_ the words.

I'm planning on using the c word a lot at the exam to sound more native

Skilled immigration is neocolonialism. I truly can't believe how many (supposedly enlightened) people I've had try to tell me with a straight face how wonderful it is to have all these doctors/engineers/etc coming to their country, and how great it is for their economy and healthcare system etc.

Like, you don't think all the people in India or The Philippines or Chad need doctors or economic advancement?? It's just incredibly greedy and selfish. Can you imagine what a person who has just lost their child due to a preventable illness from being unable to see a doctor think when they hear some privileged person from an unimaginably wealthy country that already has an order of magnitude more doctors per capita and whose children will never see the suffering theirs routinely do -- boasting how wonderful it is that they are harvesting all the best healthcare workers from their country. Makes you shudder to think about it really.

These same people will bemoan a corporation from their country going to another one to conduct a resource extraction business (exploitation!) and yet when it comes to their own interests, they are quite happy to take and exploit a less well off country's most valuable resource which is its human capital.

Is it neocolonialism, or is it more like letting people vote with their feet? In a perfect world, we'd all be able to choose where we live.

Most of the people I talk to in Australia are more concerned about all the people that DON'T get let in.

Another lens is that countries are in the business of providing defence, governance, economic opportunity and lifestyle services. Immigrants are customers.

Yes, yes it is neocolonialism. And it's easy to justify by saying "in a perfect world", but we don't live in a perfect world do we so that logic is just completely flawed. "In a perfect world we would do X" does not mean that doing X in the imperfect world we live in results in a better world.

It is neocolonialism because it is extracting the most valuable and profitable resources of less well off countries for your own benefit. Sure they can't compete with the massive incentives offered by the uber wealthy countries. Probably because those wealthy countries have been exploiting their resources including human capital in the past which keeps them poor and dependent.

But they should be thankful that their children get to sew shoes for us for a few cents a day.

Let's take doctors as a specific example.

Suppose we take the Phillipines and Malaysia, they (together) have about 6x the population of Australia. They have the capacity to train a lot of doctors - and a doctor can have a great life in either of those countries.

They can both also produce doctors more efficiently than Australia, partly due to living costs / ppp and population size, and partly due to Baumol's disease hitting education costs harder in AU.

But let's be honest, no country is talent-limited on doctor production. What's limited are training slots, and that is partly a practical concern... but also licensing restrictions - which tend to be regulated by doctors who have a strong interest in avoiding the oversupply of doctors.

What I am trying to say with all this is that there are many reasons someone might not be getting good medical care in say, the Phillipines but those reasons are not primarily due to doctors emigrating.

What you write doesn't refute the problem which is that countries like this generally have worse health outcomes, healthcare systems, they have fewer skilled workers to build their economies.

Skimming their best resources off the top can't be justified by some dry economic formula (if it happens to be correct) that just by pure coincidence results in a worse outcome for that poorer country and a better outcome for the wealthier one. Colonialists had all sorts of economic arguments too.

You might enjoy this article from a Malaysian doctor (ok, Cambridge educated but fine) who is arguing that Malaysia is over-producing doctors: https://www.thestar.com.my/opinion/columnists/vital-signs/20...

I would agree that the Phillipines are under-supplied according to OECD ratios but again, I don't think the problem is emigration.

Personally I think your mental model of these countries is out-of-date. They are sophisticated and industrialised but do have high inequality and some governance problems. As usual, it's a distribution problem. I think you are under-estimating their capacity and they are not at all lacking in talent, education or human resources. Australia is lucky to get skilled migrants but is by no means "draining" them. I think I'd want to see a more quantitative argument before I was willing to accept that.

I'm not saying some individual's story or a particular situation in a particular country is neocolonialism. It's the entire system of siphoning resources from disadvantaged regions to wealthy ones.

As an expat, I go there where I get treated best. Why wouldn’t I? Do I owe my country of birth anything?

Are these rhetorical questions? I'm not quite sure how they address my comment.

There is a difference between that and the systemic concerted efforts by wealthy countries to poach and take the most valuable, skilled, educated of the human capital from poorer countries who are in positions of weakness and far less bargaining power.

I understand that the narrative is that it's about "helping the unfortunates", but really it's not. If a country wanted to help people you wouldn't "help" mainly the ones who can give them something (they are actually helping you), leaving the many more less fortunate ones in an even worse state.

I understand what you mean, but it’s not exclusive to wealthy countries poaching people from developing countries either right.

In Germany(already a wealthy country) doctors move to Switzerland for better pay and better working conditions too.

It’s also very expensive to move internationally. Visas can cost up to $10,000 alone, so I doubt that so many people actually leave developing countries for developed ones.

There are also tons of people who would never move countries because their family and social circle is in that particular place or they want to make their country a better place.

I also think many people move back home from overseas to their home country, bringing their improved skillset with them.

I didn't intend to imply that's the only situation where skilled migration occurs, but that is what I wrote so I should correct myself. When there is a relatively fair and level competition to compete for resources then there's less room for exploitative behavior of course. That applies not just to labor but really anywhere.

I think you're rationalizing or painting yourself a reality that you wish was true. Brain drain from disadvantaged countries on an industrial scale is a serious problem. Not for the wealthy privileged countries who benefit of course, which is why nobody says much about it and those who do get attacked.

for a collectivist mentality you owe everithing to the community thats own you

People from less fortunate countries wanting to better themselves in more developed countries is somehow whitey's fault. I...wow. I never thought I would see such backwards retarded thinking on HN, but here we are.

If that's true, then neocolonialism is meaningless as a pejorative. I associate neocolonialism with economic hit men and predatory loans, not private citizens having the option to leave often abusive governments. By your definition, neocolonialism is simply the absence of serfdom.

> If that's true, then neocolonialism is meaningless as a pejorative. I associate neocolonialism with economic hit men and predatory loans,

Now that is meaningless. There are a whole vast range of ways to be exploitative and wealthy and powerful taking from poor and powerless.

> not private citizens having the option to leave often abusive governments.

I'm talking about the aggregate outcome for the people. The greater good. It's funny the disconnect some people have here between being so fast to denounce "individualism" greed, selfishness etc., in their own countries when they see it is a detriment to them. And yet they go completely the other way when it's a benefit to them and a detriment to people of other countries. That's the height of selfishness and hypocrisy as I see it.

> By your definition, neocolonialism is simply the absence of serfdom.

No it's not.

yes, it is. Serfdom is when a peasant has no right to leave his lord's land. If neocolonialism includes recognition of the right to emigrate when another country wants to accept you as an immigrant, it's too broad a definition to be any kind of useful pejorative.

The collective outcome may be bad for the country from which people emigrate, but the individual outcome is very good for the people who emigrate. And at a higher level of organisation, the importance of retaining one's best and brightest creates incentives for all governments to behave better than they would if it was accepted the people born in a country belonged to the rulers like some kind of global slavery system.

I don't know what you want me to respond with, what you're writing is a strawman, it's not what I wrote anywhere.

What I'd like is for you to either narrow your category of 'Neocolonialism' in the future or explain you have a minority view about it. The term as it's used today implies the speaker is arguing against it. If your use of the term neocolonialism applies to people 'voting with their feet', then you are either rehabilitating the term or implicitly arguing for serfdom. Neither of which I think were your intent.

I have explained my view on it. Of course it's a minority view because few are willing to admit they willingly and knowingly benefit on the exploitation of those who have less than they do to begin with, but that's exactly what they do.

Trying to say it's either the industrial harvesting of the most skilled people from less advantaged countries, or it's "serfdom" is just outlandish. I don't even know where to start with that!

Talk to some immigrants here in Australia and you’ll find that a lot don’t end up in the industry they were in from their home country. We have some pretty strict rules around qualifications for doctors, engineers etc and a lot of other countries educations doesn’t cut it for our standards. So most end up becoming taxi drivers or cleaners. When you speak with some of them, it’s almost tragic to have a talented individual unable to contribute to the field they’re qualified in. But no one forced them to come. No one forces them to stay. Is that still neocolonialism?

Yes it is. I'm not saying some individual's story or an anecdote is neocolonialism. It's the entire system of siphoning resources from disadvantaged regions to wealthy ones.

"Do you think Australia needs more people?

Graduates: 58% yes

Non-Graduates: 24% yes"

https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2020/10/72-of-aussies-do-no...

Not overwhelming.

Also there are some people who are happy with immigration, but only from other culturally-compatible regions, and as long as diversity (eg. max 10% from any one country) and equality (eg. max 49% males from any one country) is part of the intake.

Australia's economy is pretty dependent on Coal, Aluminum and Gas. Two of these a hopefully going away soon but the Government is so In bed with mining and they throw more money at elections than every other sector put together that nothing will done about it until it collapses.

Do you understand what you're actually wishing for when you cheer on the destruction of a large percentage of the economy? What comes after will not be so comfortable.

The thing that gets me is not when people advocate for economically shooting themselves in the foot on principal, it's fine to have principals and stick to them even when it hurts you. What does infuriates me is that most of these people then apply a double standard for the other tribe and call them stupid when they advocate for sticking to their principals even when it hurts them.

I suspect the OP is wishing for Coal and Gas to go away soon in the hope it can spare the world from the upcoming catastrophe that is climate change.

What is stupid, with Europe and the USA both planning a tax on carbon, in just a few decades the OP's wish will most likely come true, yet Australia keeps wishing for a different future.

OP's way of life has been made possible by cheap energy. Wishing it away before renewables are able to provide baseload power in an advanced economy (and the storage problem is, at best, decades away from being solved) is unwise.

Australia has the most abundant uranium reserves in the world. We have exactly 1 nuclear reactor we don't use for making power (yet is actually regionally vital for supplying medical isotopes to hospitals in SE-asia as well).

Every side of politics has acted like complete cowards on this issue, with the Liberals the worst offenders - they pay it lip service every election then do nothing while handing out cash to the coal miners.

Agree 100%. Nuclear power will likely never happen in Australia now though, too many Karens terrified of it.

If Australia and the rest of the world continues to rely on coal as it's main source of baseload power then I suspect we are all doomed.

No amount of economic wealth is going to help once the environment has been damaged beyond repair.

South Australia has been doing pretty well with a renewables-backed grid.

There was a smear campaign in 2016 regarding a state-wide blackout, caused by severe weather affecting the distribution & transmission infrastructure. [see #1] The incumbant political party used this as an opportunity to blame the renewable generators (and state government, from the "opposite side" of politics). [see #2]

The same severe weather event would have affected any power generator.

[1] https://www.aer.gov.au/wholesale-markets/compliance-reportin... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_South_Australian_blackout...

that wealth enable chronism, it could be better long term for the australian people (or most resource-based countries) if it dissipated tomorrow

More and more Australians are putting environmental issues ahead of economic, and are aware that this will make things less comfortable in the short term. Making personal sacrifices for the greater good is generally considered a positive trait in civil society. Many are hopeful that things will be better in the long term, and are hopeful an alternative source of income can be found before the inevitable collapse happens.

A forward-thinking government would be incentivising a diverse economy, subsidised by the windfall from the currently profitable industries.

Instead, the incumbant governments just subsidise the inumbant industries; or rather, the existing "winners". (E.g. subsidising Murdoch media, mining companies, all pulling in millions/billions in profit.)

Australia has one of the lowest rankings in terms of economic complexity [see #1]. Until the government can subsidise emerging markets, there's no reason for businesses to take risks - the low population can't support it.

Propping up existing industries will eventually be a failing strategy. When Australia's "luck" (exploitable resources) runs out, "what comes after will not be so comfortable". But there's still time to steer away from that discomfort. (Unlike the imminent ecology collapse...)

[1] https://www.aumanufacturing.com.au/astralias-low-economic-co...

>>Now, when things are getting hard, having weak democratic institutions, no political awareness and corporate medling is going to hit hard.

Many living in democracies will find this true for their country.

Hence my last paragraphes. I'm pretty sure we are not heading in the right direction either.

> The run ended in europe after 1970, it ended in the US after 1990 and it will end in Autralia.

I wouldn't be so sure that they'll ever need to abandon their crutch of geological resources. There's nothing particularly industrious or forward-looking about Australia, precisely because they can dig up dirt and sell it at a premium.

The world is complex. Climate change, pollution, water shortage, demographic fluctuation, power grabbing, economical crisis, etc. So many things can happen and change the rules of the game entirely. Not to mention all what we don't know.

The book anti-fragile have a very good bit on that.

The point is everything moves, nothing stays the same, good and bad runs go hand in hand.

But imagine if a dictator of the last century had access to Facebook social graph...

You gotta be careful when it's good, to not have it too bad when it's getting bad later

Yeah, I really think that having diverse and plentiful raw materials on mostly unused land is always going to be valuable. Off-earth mining is where disruption will eventually come from, but that's going to take a long while yet to become competitive with on-earth mining.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com