https://www.pbo.gov.au/publications-and-data/data-and-tools/…
After first releasing this for the 2022-23 October Budget the latest version is up, as it mentions it's missing a lot of things that are actually in the budget but fun to play around with anyway and pretend you can solve the nation's finances even though changes would have after impacts.
You're being a bit optimistic with your economics there. Everyone is expecting a global slowdown so no one will invest in capital investment. Lower immigration is highly unlikely to remove price pressures because most immigrants are helping boost productivity.
Participation rate can only go so high, unless we open up child labour or make fruit picking wheelchair accessible for the oldies.
You also missed why all the parties support immigration, it's not to sell out the country, it's to support their donors (the corporate ones). Increase population means the ability to make higher profits each year, it keeps GDP growing even though it's really not and it gives into corporate demands for more workers. We'd be either importing all our food or paying $20 for a tomato if it wasn't for immigrant workers.
4th biggest party, One Nation, support immigration???
That’s like being the 4th largest manufacturer of cola. They don’t count.
A bit too much pro-immigration kool aid there I think. For one, the economic movements I indicated would be agreed as directionally correct at a minimum by any professor of economics, so all we are left with is the size of the movement.
And while I may have indicated something like "higher" here I was referring to the language used in the file itself, whereby "higher" refers to a lift in the participation rate of 1%, not like an outsized shift at all (we had a similar sized shift from pre-covid to Jun '22 before the migration floodgates had really opened to return downwards pressure on it).
Unemployment is forecast to rise under conditions of mass immigration, so it is fair enough to take the opposite tact with restriction.
And the idea we'd pay $20 for tomatoes is preposterous. This is the very thing that drives capital investment which increases productivity completing the picture.
You can be a "dumb" economy importing people, or a "smart" economy utilising capital to maximise the utility of the labour you have.
Our politicians choose "dumb" as you say for "no genuine GDP benefit in real terms" and a NEGATIVE GDP result in PER CAPITA terms because they are beholden to other interests. But it is not just corporate interests. Ideologically the left favours replacing the population and disenfranchising those here. To not do so is racist in their minds. They are ideologically driven to harm the existing population to make up for "past wrongs" and make the world "more equal". That it does the very opposite doesn't matter, it makes them FEEL they are working toward that outcome, and so good about themselves and morally superior.
Using the budgetary offices' own document, and very defensible assumptions, any person not wedded to selling out the nation, can run better numbers that would actually improve the lives of Australians over what we get.
With the number one negative impact of mass migration not even factored into it (as it mostly falls on state budgets), the massive infrastructure cost of building out a society to double in size, rather than stay at a steady population level across the next century.
Good to see that you basically covered the two main parties in your comment supporting immigration. Both parties like immigration a bit too much IMO.
So it's just a game to these people?
People have long said that the budget is better being an electronic spreadsheet than a book, with all the parameters used available to be edited since they'll never forecast them perfectly.
If I could influence just one budget I'd build high quality low cost high density housing everywhere to destroy the rental/property investor market, and also give myself 10 billion dollars tax free.
Makes no difference with the forecast business as usual immigration numbers. What you build will be swallowed by imported demand.
Yeah true. My budget could make two million apartments across the country and the next government will just import six million more people to fill them. Property investment is a sickness without a cure because our politicians are super spreaders who have millions to gain by inflating the bubble.
Who would want to live in slums though?
they don't have to be slums. if anything they could be nicer than the average "affordbable" rental home today for the same price because people wouldn't be paying for gardens they don't use. i'd rather have a share of a building gym and sauna than a front and back yard.
Low cost and high density will generally mean slums.
@brendanm: If people are paying average weekly rents they pay today then building and ongoing costs won’t exactly be low. But it’ll be insulated from the property market if it’s owned by the state.
@AustriaBargain: Yeah but by being built/owned by the government the price tag from the builder to the government will also be ~50% higher than it would to private business. Add another ~50% if the builder is a mate of someone in parliament (which is more than likely, since that will be why they win the tender)…
@AustriaBargain: Average weekly rents for a shoebox apartment, with walls made of paper, 50mm from a bunch of other people? Sounds swell.
@brendanm: My mate got an apartment in a tall tower and they are basically soundproof. The apartment isn't very big though, just one bedroom, but you could easily kill someone and no one would ever know.
You'd hope there's a reason they made the choices they did that isn't apparent in the model. As it is pretty easy to increase the tax free threshold to $30k, eliminate GST on petrol, energy, healthcare, education and recreation activities, increase defence spending significantly, and welfare payments by $50 per fortnight, and still have Australians significantly better off with very modest tax increases on higher incomes, and lower overall migration numbers. Yes this is fundamentally what we forgo by running a high immigration environment! Government better off to the tune of close to $790b based on their own modelling with my input choices, and those popular changes listed above.
(only other change was capping NDIS and Hospital growth to inflation rather than letting it run rampant above it) and if one really wanted to take issue with that I am sure the $790b positive difference could take of it.
I wonder how much it cost to develop that spreadsheet hmmmm
oh I thought it would be a webtool, not a excel nerdtool
Already improved the budget bottom on the first page by $420b by reducing net foreign migration to 40,000 persons per year.
Net effects:
* drives up participation rate (higher) as employers increase offers to obtain scarcer staff
* drives unemployment rate much lower
* makes productivity growth much higher (high wages feeds investment into capital to offset increased waged costs, driving productivity)
* leaving inflation unchanged (lower immigration removes many price pressures in economy, but lower unemployment raises wage pressure.. netting out)
The right formula if you want to deliver for Australia and its workers, families and students.
Obviously the wrong formula if you want to sell Australia out to foreigners though.. the number one ideological driver for leftist politicians, centre right politicians, and the hard left, and their supporters (by their observed actions, not platitudes they speak to themselves and others on such matters).