3 ms·

They should just replace the whole shebang with 'pay us $x to get a visa, $y for PR, $z for citizenship'. Company wants to hire from overseas? Fine, they can

by yakult 9y ago

They should just replace the whole shebang with 'pay us $x to get a visa, $y for PR, $z for citizenship'. Company wants to hire from overseas? Fine, they can figure out how to split the cost between company and employee, with zero government involvement. Rich people from the US seeking doomsday shelter? A few million dollars, a clean criminal record and less than 48 hours in the queue. Much easier than the current system.

catmanjan 9y ago
You'll end up with a monoculture of uber rich foreigners - a problem that Australia already has. Maybe it would work when we introduce death taxes?
- yakult 9y ago
  Almost all social problems created from this change in immigration policy can be fixed with money. And we'll be swimming in money. And we can use it to fix problems unrelated to this policy.
  - catmanjan 9y ago
    Yes money makes things easier. I think our biggest problems now are housing and the future of employment (aka the youth), unfortunately neither of these issues needs more money involved.
    - yakult 9y ago
      Do you seriously think those problems can't be fixed with money? Increasing housing supply costs money. Upgrading the education system costs money. UBI and other social services for people replaced by automation costs money. Investment in innovation and basic scientific research costs money. In the same way, preventing monoculture is a simple case of directly subsidizing people's visas/PR/citizenship on various grounds, humanitarian or otherwise, under my scheme. The only difference is that by attaching a firm market value per document, we'll finally get a clear sense on the opportunity cost of immigration policy by fiat. The current system is a mess of inefficiency and hidden cross-subsidies that can mostly be much better spent on other, more urgent problems.
      - catmanjan 9y ago
        Yes I do. Increasing the supply should fix the problem but there are so many other factors at play in the Australian housing market. Tax concessions, foreign investment, wage stagnation, youth unemployment make it a very hostile market for many people. It's all too big to fail and prices need to go up to keep everyone's super from devaluing. Investment in the education system won't lead to big change without deregulation of university either, something which is very unpopular. UBI plus the policy you suggest would lead to a system where people can pay once and never have to work. As Atlassian said, the problem with innovation isn't the money, it's the government which is only now just catching up with the new way business is happening. >In the same way, preventing monoculture is a simple case of directly subsidizing people's visas/PR/citizenship on various grounds, humanitarian or otherwise, under my scheme. If we still can't even select uni entrants based on those holistic measures what chance do we have of selecting migrants?
        yakult 9y ago
        Let's look at this from another perspective: do you see an improvement to any of these large complex problems if we remove money from it? Do you see ways to marginally improve things with marginally more money? Just so you know, my answers are no and yes. >If we still can't even select uni entrants based on those holistic measures what chance do we have of selecting migrants? And yet migrants still get selected on a yearly basis. Sucks, I know. There are no magic solutions that let you pick with 100% accuracy, but I sure can come up with things that still have problems but better than what happens currently. The current system is arbitrary, slow, and with large cross subsidies being flung around with no oversight. Simply putting a dollar value on each document would give the policy makers plenty more incentive to make sure the subsidies at least go to the right place. edit: I suspect your argument boils down to "we shouldn't do this thing that gives us huge amounts of money, because we don't need money." Am I being uncharitable?
        catmanjan 9y ago
        I think your comments are coming off as sassy hence the downvotes, but I don't mind. My argument is more that I believe large injections of money were the original cause of a lot of the problems we have, adding more is perhaps a band-aid solution. I personally believe we need to suffer the short term pain of looking out for our own citizens above all else, most of which would mean popping the bubble and removing the interventionist policies. I am worried that this will happen along with the visa changes causing a greater loss of sovereignty than was ever intended...
sanswork 9y ago
Lots of countries already have that including the US.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
mkj 9y ago
A business investment visa already is that.
- cdsx 9y ago
  Yep. I believe you can also become an Australian permanent resident and then citizen through that visa. You just need a spare 5 to 15 million dollars AUD to invest, depending :). IIRC Steve Wozniak went for it or at least was considering it. Details here: https://www.border.gov.au/Lega/Lega/Form/Immi-FAQs/what-is-the-significant-investor-visa https://www.border.gov.au/Lega/Lega/Form/Immi-FAQs/what-is-t...
- yakult 9y ago
  No, a business investment visa is an invitation to come over and set up a minimum viable, likely-not-profitable 'business' for the duration it takes to satisfy requirements. The government gets peanuts out of it, the 'investors' waste years of their lives playing pretend. It's a shit show. Much better to just charge cash, speed up the processing and let in those who actually think they can make money despite the steep cost of entry. And if they fail anyway - reserve a small portion of the ticket price to put them on the dole.

by yakult 9y ago

catmanjan 9y ago

You'll end up with a monoculture of uber rich foreigners - a problem that Australia already has. Maybe it would work when we introduce death taxes?

yakult 9y ago
Almost all social problems created from this change in immigration policy can be fixed with money. And we'll be swimming in money. And we can use it to fix problems unrelated to this policy.
- catmanjan 9y ago
  Yes money makes things easier. I think our biggest problems now are housing and the future of employment (aka the youth), unfortunately neither of these issues needs more money involved.
  - yakult 9y ago
    Do you seriously think those problems can't be fixed with money? Increasing housing supply costs money. Upgrading the education system costs money. UBI and other social services for people replaced by automation costs money. Investment in innovation and basic scientific research costs money. In the same way, preventing monoculture is a simple case of directly subsidizing people's visas/PR/citizenship on various grounds, humanitarian or otherwise, under my scheme. The only difference is that by attaching a firm market value per document, we'll finally get a clear sense on the opportunity cost of immigration policy by fiat. The current system is a mess of inefficiency and hidden cross-subsidies that can mostly be much better spent on other, more urgent problems.
    - catmanjan 9y ago
      Yes I do. Increasing the supply should fix the problem but there are so many other factors at play in the Australian housing market. Tax concessions, foreign investment, wage stagnation, youth unemployment make it a very hostile market for many people. It's all too big to fail and prices need to go up to keep everyone's super from devaluing. Investment in the education system won't lead to big change without deregulation of university either, something which is very unpopular. UBI plus the policy you suggest would lead to a system where people can pay once and never have to work. As Atlassian said, the problem with innovation isn't the money, it's the government which is only now just catching up with the new way business is happening. >In the same way, preventing monoculture is a simple case of directly subsidizing people's visas/PR/citizenship on various grounds, humanitarian or otherwise, under my scheme. If we still can't even select uni entrants based on those holistic measures what chance do we have of selecting migrants?
      - yakult 9y ago
        Let's look at this from another perspective: do you see an improvement to any of these large complex problems if we remove money from it? Do you see ways to marginally improve things with marginally more money? Just so you know, my answers are no and yes. >If we still can't even select uni entrants based on those holistic measures what chance do we have of selecting migrants? And yet migrants still get selected on a yearly basis. Sucks, I know. There are no magic solutions that let you pick with 100% accuracy, but I sure can come up with things that still have problems but better than what happens currently. The current system is arbitrary, slow, and with large cross subsidies being flung around with no oversight. Simply putting a dollar value on each document would give the policy makers plenty more incentive to make sure the subsidies at least go to the right place. edit: I suspect your argument boils down to "we shouldn't do this thing that gives us huge amounts of money, because we don't need money." Am I being uncharitable?
        catmanjan 9y ago
        I think your comments are coming off as sassy hence the downvotes, but I don't mind. My argument is more that I believe large injections of money were the original cause of a lot of the problems we have, adding more is perhaps a band-aid solution. I personally believe we need to suffer the short term pain of looking out for our own citizens above all else, most of which would mean popping the bubble and removing the interventionist policies. I am worried that this will happen along with the visa changes causing a greater loss of sovereignty than was ever intended...

sanswork 9y ago

Lots of countries already have that including the US.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

mkj 9y ago

A business investment visa already is that.

cdsx 9y ago
Yep. I believe you can also become an Australian permanent resident and then citizen through that visa. You just need a spare 5 to 15 million dollars AUD to invest, depending :). IIRC Steve Wozniak went for it or at least was considering it. Details here: https://www.border.gov.au/Lega/Lega/Form/Immi-FAQs/what-is-the-significant-investor-visa https://www.border.gov.au/Lega/Lega/Form/Immi-FAQs/what-is-t...
yakult 9y ago
No, a business investment visa is an invitation to come over and set up a minimum viable, likely-not-profitable 'business' for the duration it takes to satisfy requirements. The government gets peanuts out of it, the 'investors' waste years of their lives playing pretend. It's a shit show. Much better to just charge cash, speed up the processing and let in those who actually think they can make money despite the steep cost of entry. And if they fail anyway - reserve a small portion of the ticket price to put them on the dole.