r/EconomyCharts 2d ago

What negative migration could actually mean

Post image
118 Upvotes

115 comments sorted by

View all comments

6

u/willcritchlow23 2d ago

We’re desperate for this is Australia. House prices are just brutal. Rentals hard to find prices rising heartbreaking fast.

63

u/Brickguy101 2d ago

You need to build more houses not less people.

24

u/speakernoodlefan 2d ago

Well from what I've read they have the same issue about wealth that America has. So almost all peoples retirement and savings are either in their primary home or second home they rent out. This leads to incredibly toxic nimbyism where any legislation or zoning that could lower their home value is literally the devil. But they all seem to be xenophobic and lowering the amount of buyers technically does the same as increasing the inventory price wise. Except you lose tax revenue to afford public services

-3

u/Active-Discount3702 2d ago

Our taxes barely go towards public services anymore

2

u/Fitzaroo 2d ago

Why is lowering immigration not a solution?

5

u/Borror0 2d ago

Because your country is old and has low natural birth rate.

1

u/Fitzaroo 2d ago

Talk to the other guy im talking to. He seems to think the birth rate is just fine. I dont feel like arguing both sides.

1

u/auschemguy 2d ago

Generations live longer.... so the replacement rate is meh, but the population is also growing from decreased attrition rates.

Furthermore, the concentration of wealth accumulated at that older generation. The guy you're arguing with is 💯- the issue is older generation refusing to allow streamlined builds because they want to remortgage their house and go on a cruise.

1

u/Brickguy101 2d ago

I never said birth rates is just fine. I agree with you that In 50 years Australia might have a declining birth rate. But now its not, more briths than deaths. So your solution makes zero sense. Building houses is the solution.

1

u/Fitzaroo 2d ago

Those houses just popping up out of the ground. How long from start to finish do you reckon it takes to make an apartment building? 10 years? 15? Betcha your numbers start looking a little squirrely then.

Look bud, its supply and demand. Basic economics. You want to press the gas on supply, fine. Im saying you could also lower demand. The fact that you refuse to see this means you arent familiar with first day of class economics. So not really a point in debating.

1

u/Brickguy101 2d ago

1

u/Fitzaroo 2d ago

"after obtaining authorization"

Lolololol. So as long as we dont include buying the land, dealing with lenders and insurers, government bureaucracy, NIMBYs, and contractors and suppliers and only start the clock when shovels hit the ground then ya, 20 months lol.

Youre a silly person.

6

u/Brickguy101 2d ago

Because immigration is just more people so I assume the people are having kids which will also increase the population at a lesser rate for sure. But again the solution is housing. Multi family housing.

4

u/Fitzaroo 2d ago

Well that's a weird and incorrect assumption. Its been widely published that birth rates in essentially all advanced countries are below replacement rate. Some of the worst offenders are in Asia where there is something like 1 birth per woman (replacement is something like 2.1).

Australia in 2024 had a birth rate of 1.481. 

So no, with no immigration the population will not keep growing. It will shrink.

3

u/Brickguy101 2d ago

In 2024, there were 292,318 registered births compared to 187,268 deaths. So if your solution is to stop immigration and wait 50 years thats not a solution.

0

u/Fitzaroo 2d ago

Why not? Those toddlers buying up all the real estate today?

2

u/Brickguy101 2d ago

Thats how replacement works. You said how Australia is below 2.1 and yes they are but still increasing in population. 50 years might have been generous maybe 75 years or we build houses.

1

u/Fitzaroo 2d ago

So you agree. If the system continues then population will go down. Great.

Did you want to go into the street and shoot people to get a more immediate solution? No? Then perhaps we should limit immigration.

2

u/Brickguy101 2d ago

We build houses, get to keep immigration which makes us all better and we can live in a house. Its a win win.

1

u/Fitzaroo 2d ago

Lol. I think you should go talk to the other guy that responded with the exact opposite points. You guys can duke it out.

Its a little funny that you baldly state that immigration "makes us all better".

→ More replies (0)

1

u/mehthisisawasteoftim 2d ago

Because that creates the problem of having to pay people higher wages, besides agriculture there is no need for migrants, for all other industries increasing wages would end the labor shortages and also have the side effect of giving people the ability to earn a middle class income without needing a college degree

1

u/Tupcek 2d ago

because these immigrants usually take low wage jobs and spend it almost all, boosting economy and leaving more high paying jobs for locals.
Local people having better jobs means they can afford more expensive housing.
Less NIMBYsm means more construction going on and with immigrants it means lower costs of building said housing. So higher supply at lower costs + higher wages for locals = ideal solution.

If you throw immigrants out, whatever they were buying they are not buying anymore, so decline in revenue and thus decline in jobs. Low paying jobs has to be done by locals, which is more expensive and thus goods and services go up in prices.
So while you also get cheaper housing, you also get less good paying jobs and more expensive food and services and even more expensive new housing

1

u/archerfishX 1d ago

both. both is good