- luv-talk - luv.asn.au

Re: [luv-talk] Refugees
by Tim Josling 12 Feb '14

12 Feb '14

> From: "Trent W. Buck" > [I'm not actually sure what position you were taking, Tim, so > apologies if I'm violently agreeing with you ;-)] As background I acknowledge that we have a moral obligation to help underprivileged people. I question whether policies that encourage refugee or quasi-refugee arrivals by boat are the best way to do this. I also claim that the demand for places in Australia exceeds our reasonable capacity to accept refugees without seriously impacting our own well-being. I noted that in this area there is a chronic lack of specificity in the proposals being put forward. And little or no analysis of the impact of the suggestions being made. Surely, I thought to myself, if people are serious they would have a specific proposal in mind? When you look at global warming, there are plenty of specific proposals about how to respond to the issue. So why not here? I asked for specific proposals and for an analysis of the impact of those policies. Or a link to them. In general the response has been far more heat than light. The list of questions I posted was an attempt to smoke out an actual policy proposal. It is not a rhetorical list of the problems with refugee intake, but a list of questions anyone who is actually serious about proposing a policy would need to answer. In fact, that they should have at hand already. I am not interested in another rant about the moral inferiority of the bogans in the western suburbs, John Howard, Tony Abbott or other politicians, and the moral superiority of the author of said rant. But by and large that - and some nit picking - is all I have gotten. >> 1. What measures would you put in place to discourage people >> arriving by boat or plane, if any? > That seems to presuppose that immigration is undesirable. No. That is why I said "if any". If you can't tell me if you will have any measures to discourage people from arriving, it becomes very hard to analyse the implications of your policy. Similarly with the other questions. Would you still have a refugee quota? How big? Etc. I am not presupposing answers here. Just asking "What is your policy?" and :"What are the implications?" My own view if anyone is interested: I am for increasing the refugee quota to about 100,000 (a massive increase from current numbers) at the expense of other categories of migration. I would overall reduce migration substantially and apart from refugees I would strongly focus on the benefits the proposed refugee brings to the table for people already here. I would continue strong measures to discourage unsolicited arrivals. I acknowledge that this falls short of many views of the moral imperative. If we value others' welfare as much as our own, we should do much more to help the poor and suffering. Foreign aid should be perhaps 30% of GDP rather than the current value of approximately zero. But it is evident that we vastly value our own welfare over that of others. I do not exclude myself from this. I enquired if anyone on the list donated such an amount (30%+ of income) to the betterment of the poor and to date no-one has come forward (though such people do exist). The suspicion arises that all the beating of chests, the long verbal rants, etc, are a cheap way to signal moral stature without actually paying a price. > Tim Josling wrote: >> In general except for underpopulated countries around 100% of the >> benefits of immigration go to the immigrants. >Citation needed. I was basing this on an IAC report from some years back. I don't have the citation. Good research is rare in this area because of the influence of vested interests (such as the housing industry) and the politicisation of the area. As a matter of common sense, if there is no labour shortage then increasing the labour supply will have mainly distributional effects to the detriment of the existing labour force. This is of course one reason why employers like high immigration. There are also specific industries like housing that benefit from immigration. from As Kevin Rudd put it, the idea is to "reduce pressure on the labour market". Amazing to hear this from a Labor politician. Tim

1 0

Re: [luv-talk] Refugees (was Re: Vale Nelson Mandela) (Lev Lafayette)
by Tim Josling 12 Feb '14

12 Feb '14

> > From: "Lev Lafayette" > Subject: Re: [luv-talk] Refugees (was Re: Vale Nelson Mandela) > To: luv-talk(a)lists.luv.asn.au > > On Sun, January 19, 2014 10:55 pm, Peter wrote: > > > > If you like, browse through the refugee statistics as provided by the > > UNHCR, e.g. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_refugee_population > > > > Interesting table. > > For starters it suggests that the world refugee population is 10 million, > not the 20 million previously cited, and half of those are Palestinians. > > The numbers do bounce around depending on the level of conflict at various times. As you perhaps also suggested, there is also a question of definition. I have heard it said (not by you) for example that there is really no such thing as Palestine as a country. Therefore "Palestinians" in Jordan or Syria or Lebanon or Egypt are really in most cases in their own country and therefore do not fit with some legal definitions of refugees. Similar arguments are made about other refugees in other places, that they are merely criminals or economic migrants etc. After studying law for a while, before giving it away in disgust (I was in Malcolm Turnbull's class at Sydney University), I concluded that legal definitions are not a reliable guide to moral issues. So I don't put much store on the UN's legal definition. In a moral sense is there much difference between a person fleeing persecution and a person fleeing hunger, disease, starvation or lack of opportunity? There is also the issue of latent refugee supply. Imagine for example if Australia brought in a policy that any <member of ethnic group X> from <country Y> who arrived in Australia was to be counted as a refugee from persecution. It would not be a big surprise to see a rapid increase in people of ethnic group X from country Y arriving and claiming to be refugees. We currently do a lot to make being a refugee very unappealing, and this no doubt reduces their numbers - not to zero but below what it would be if we made it very appealing. In any case, whether the number is 10,000,000 or 20,000,000 or 40,000,000, it vastly exceeds Australia's capacity reasonably to accept them. Some limitation is in my opinion going to be required. According to my calculations already 15% of our GDP is spent catering for population growth (eg the desalination plants). In the Green senator's speech previously discussed, it was claimed that very few people would leave their country of origin, except in cases of the most dire need. This is simply not the case. Immigration to Australia is already in the range of 300,000 per year and many more are knocked back. Over 13,000,000 people apply annually for the US green card lottery - one measure of the demand for alife in a wealthy first world country. Tim

2 1

Re: [luv-talk] Refugees (was Re: Vale Nelson Mandela)
by Trent W. Buck 11 Feb '14

11 Feb '14

Petros wrote: > The system slowly slides down into one which is governing for the > "popular vote" - while showing less and less consideration for > people outside their "tolerance zone". Apropos: http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2013/02/political-failure-modes… Yanking a inflammatory quote at random: The range of choices available at the democratic buffet table have therefore narrowed until they're indistinguishable. ("You can have Chicken Kiev, Chicken Chasseur, or Chicken Korma." "But I'm vegan!") Indeed, we have about as much choice as citizens in any one-party state used to have.

1 0

Re: [luv-talk] Refugees (was Re: Vale Nelson Mandela)
by Tim Josling 11 Feb '14

11 Feb '14

On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 11:24 PM, Peter wrote: > On Sat, 18 Jan 2014, Tim Josling wrote: > > There are better ways of dealing with it. Some of them are even discussed > in parliament (e.g. by Melissa Parkes who I mentioned before). > > Refugees for regional development: > > We have skilled migration programs. People who do not qualify can apply to > get a visa excluding wortk in Metroplotean areas for the first years. We > have regional shortages in some regions - and a need to decentralize our > population. Camps help local communities. They are job providers and welcome there. > > Instead of locking up people (please explain what we will do with them in > Nauru or PNG?) infinitely, we can establish a routine and timeframe which > is balanced on needs to run security checks, as well as helping refugees to > adapt and train to fit into our society. Running the internal affairs while > in the camp (e.g. cook for themself, build houses etc.) helps them - and > maks it cheaper for us too. The camps in PNG and Nauru are ridiculous > expensive and absolutely useless. > > Studies show that immigration is an economical long term win for developed > countries. > > It depends. You have to look at it on a case-by-case basis. It depends on the quality of the immigrants, the state of the labour market, natural resources etc. In general except for underpopulated countries around 100% of the benefits of immigration go to the immigrants. Some benefits also to employers due to lower wages and to industries that are population driven (eg housing). The pre-existing population is faced with more competition in the labour market and housing market, higher infrastructure costs, etc. > Another means is the establishment of a "wealth belt" which makes it less > likely people want to go "all the way" to Australia. People take the risk > of the boats even if they end up in Nauru now (they know it now), it is > better than dying in a war zone after all. > We see our neighbours still like a colonial power and are interested in > mining and plantation exploits only - our contribution to establish > sustainable growth in PNG (e.g.) is small. > > The European Union has spread material wealth significantly since > foundation in the 50ies. People stop coming in troves when their home > countries are stable societies and offer hope. > ... Well, I mentioned some of the suggstions before. To ignore them is > convenient. It is as I would play peek-a-boo wih a three years old;-) > > Regards > Peter > I spent some time going through the archives for your policy proposal and did not find it. The best I could find was random half thought out ideas like those above. An actual policy proposal would straightforwardly answer these questions: 1. What measures would you put in place to discourage people arriving by boat or plane, if any? 2. What change would you make to the refugee quota? Would there still be a limit? 3. Would the arrivals get work permits? How would they be supported if they did not get work? 4. To what degree would you vet arrivals to see if a) they are 'genuine' refugees b) They are criminals, terrorists, or fanatics of one sort or another c) They have communicable illnesses? What level of appeals would be possible? Would we pay for legal aid throughout a long-drawn-out legal process? 5. When people arrive would they be detained or monitored? Describe these arrangements. Would this depend on the answers to the previous question? 6. What would you do with people who are not 'genuine' refugees, or who are otherwise undesirable? Would you deport or detain them? 7. What do you do with people whose status is uncertain? People arrive without documentation, they may lie or exaggerate their predicament. You cannot exactly ask, say, the Iranian government "It is true that if this person were returned then you would persecute them?" and expect a useful answer. 8, Would you limit where people could live and what work they could do? How would you enforce this? 9. Would you devote any extra resources to projects such as solving world hunger (as suggested above) as part of the solution? Then you should be able to have a chance of estimating the impact on the existing occupants of Australia. In particular, impacts on government finances, the job market, funding requirements for infrastructure, and social impacts. As any aboriginal person would tell you (some have certainly told me in no uncertain terms) people arriving in boats do not necessarily benefit those who were already here. I would suggest that you policy proposals are well short of what is needed, in the sense that a hill of beans is short of the Himalayas. Again I ask if people are serious - as opposed to moral posturing - why don't they come up with a specific proposal and show us the analysis of its impact? Tim

2 1

Re: [luv-talk] Refugees (was Re: Vale Nelson Mandela)
by Tim Josling 11 Feb '14

11 Feb '14

> From: Petros > Melissa Parkes is from the Labor Party, MP for Fremantle, not for the Greens. I stand corrected. I was misled by all that greenness on her web site. This (not being a Green) would explain why there was some specificity to her policy proposals. Tim

1 0

Re: [luv-talk] Refugees (was Re: Vale Nelson Mandela)
by Tim Josling 11 Feb '14

11 Feb '14

>From: Petros >> In the absence of a clearly articulated and worked out alternate policy, >First, there must be a problem that requires drastic measurements as >infinite detention and violation of International obligations? >Can you explain this problem to me first? You may recall that Labour came to power in a blaze of moral righteousness, saying they would have a humane refugee policy. Numbers increased dramatically with no end in sight to exponential growth. [By the way, the Greens ridiculed the notion that the policy change would increase the numbers of boat people markedly. They were proven utterly wrong.] So they tightened policy. It seemed to me that they eventually muddled into an incompetently executed version of the Howard/Abbott policies. Now why would they do this? Some people argue that they listened to the polls and, being cynical uncaring fiends, decided to sacrifice the refugees in order to buy votes. Personally, while I was no fan of Rudd or Gullard, I do not think they are that heartless. I just think they were mugged by reality. What reality? That there are about *20,000,000* refugees around the world, many of whom would come to Australia if they could. There are *billions* of people who live in very poor countries, and polls suggest that a *third( or more of them would move to a rich country if they could. As one indication, in 2008 there were over 13,000,000 applicants for the green card lottery to get into the USA - even though the odds are very low. So the problem is that unrestricted immigration implies huge numbers of people coming to Australia. The implications can be enormous: housing shortages, unemployment, breakdown of our ability to fund the welfare state, etc. OK you may not accept this scenario. Fine, but where is a solid analysis that shows it is wrong. As far as I can see, all the evidence suggests it is basically correct. Or you may say that this is acceptable, because the need of these people is so great. The need of these people outweighs the harm to the locals. I think that is a very defensible view. Why should we in Australia have such a high standard of living while millions of people die of starvation and hunger each year? Should we not be prepared to accept a big cut in our standard of living to help those people? What I have been asking for is this: What is your specific policy proposal for immigration, including refugees? Where is your analysis of the implications of your policy? And a statement that the implications are X and I accept those implications for these reasons. I accept the cogency of the arguments that we should do far more for poor people (whether increasing immigration is the right way to do this I am unsure). But I find I am not prepared to drastically reduce my own standard of living to implement this insight. I find few people are. Anyone on the mailing list who donates more than say 40% of their income to such causes is welcome to speak up at this point, but there are very few such people. This is embarrassing. We know what we should do if we value other people's welfare as much as our own. But we don't do it. The obvious conclusion is that we don't value other people's welfare as much as our own. I would also suggest that anyone who wants to demand that the Australian people accept a large cut in their living standard, should demonstrate their bona fides by, for example, showing that they currently donate a large slab of their income to such causes. Otherwise people can rightly say that talk is cheap. When you look at other contentious issue, such as global warming, there are plenty of resources that analyze the issue and possible solutions in detail. This issue is different, which is very interesting. Google searches uncover much moral posturing, but little else.

3 6

Re: [luv-talk] Refugees (was Re: Vale Nelson Mandela)
by Petros 11 Feb '14

11 Feb '14

Quoting "Tim Josling" <tim.josling(a)gmail.com> > As Melissa Parke from the Greens pointed out in her speech, we make > it difficult for refugees to come here by airplane. According to the > same Ms Parke, the Greens' policy is to increase the quota and to > accept every refugee who arrives here by boat. Impediments to > arriving by air would apparently be retained (not stated, but > implied). As we saw when the ALP liberalized policy, this would > result in a massive increase in arrivals by boat. Melissa Parkes is from the Labor Party, MP for Fremantle, not for the Greens. Regards Peter

1 0

Re: [luv-talk] Refugees (was Re: Vale Nelson Mandela)
by Tim Josling 11 Feb '14

11 Feb '14

On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 9:13 AM, Nathan Bailey wrote: > If I gave 100% of my salary, I could not stop world poverty. This is not a valid excuse. To me it sounds in fact like a mere rationalization. The marginal benefit of a dollar is no less in this case for the first dollar than the last dollar. So if you actually believe what you are saying, you would give a substantial portion, eg 40-50%, of your salary to such causes. The fact that precisely no-one has stepped up with evidence that they do so is telling. As I said before, it is easy to be generous with other people's money. Verbal pronouncements of one's moral virtue are cheap which is why they are so common. Tim

1 0

IEEE CS: Free Course: SWEBOK Version 3.0 Best Practices for Software Development
by rdbrown＠pacific.net.au 11 Feb '14

11 Feb '14

http://news.computer.org/ef1/preview_campaign.php?lf1=618725459d92931457103… ... The three-week online course, "Stop Writing Embarrassing Software Code: SWEBOK Version 3.0 Best Practices for Software Development," will be taught by Don Shafer, IEEE Computer Society Vice President of Professional Activities and a distinguished global expert in the practice of software engineering. The course will begin on 17 February 2014, and meet from 10-11 a.m. PST each Tuesday and Thursday for 3 weeks. Presentations will be followed by an open discussion forum, a quiz, and a review of comments raise during the discussion. ...

1 0

Re: [luv-talk] Primary and Secondary Education
by Tim Josling 09 Feb '14

09 Feb '14

> From: "Trent W. Buck" > > Russell Coker wrote: > > There are real benefits to private schools. School sucks generally, > > but if you are going to send kids to a school and can afford it then > > a good private school should be better than most government schools. > > That's a very Melburnian mindset. > In WA, the only people that go to private schools are religious wonks. > In VIC, the entire middle class goes to private schools. > I went to private and public schools and my daughter also attended both forms. In both cases the public schools were superior, with one exception I will mention later. The reason in both cases that the public schools were better was not better teachers or smaller class sizes, but the peer group at the public school. In my case there was only one high school in the town and no private school. so the only private alternative was boarding school. This meant everyone from doctors' children, children of academics (local CSIRO research station), and children of successful businessmen all went to the same school. So it was a very vibrant and diverse peer group and the level of academic competition was high. My parents then sent me to a private school which was largely full of the sons of farmers. The largest clique proudly called themselves "the animals" and behaved accordingly. Doing your homework or doing well in exams was regarded as an act of treason to be punished by bashings. My daughter went from year 9 to Mac.Robertson Girls which is a selective high school, having previously attended various private schools. I did not find the peer group at the private schools very inspiring. There was a very strong culture of entitlement. Once in year 8, two girls were having a chair fight at the back of the class, when the teacher asked them how they would earn a good living if they did not do well at school. The reply was that they would marry a rich guy like their mothers and spend their time playing tennis and shopping, duhhh. In contrast, at Mac.Rob, my daughter was pleasantly surprised to find that you were not regarded as a loser geek if you actually paid attention in class. When parents talk about "good schools" this is often code for a good peer group. The book "The Nurture Assumption" by judith Harris is a fascinating exploration of the importance of the peer group and of the surprising lack of importance of parents in terms of the development of personality and intelligence. As far as I can tell the research on schools suggests that class sizes don't make much difference within wide bounds. Fancy facilities don't either. Having capable teachers really does seem to make a difference (eg high IQ). Financial incentives for teachers have failed everywhere they have been tried - if people were primarily motivated my money they would not be going into teaching. As discussed above the peer group is very important. Efforts to redress social disadvantage by pouring more resources into education of disadvantaged children have produced very disappointing results. Unfortunately there are elements of the zero sum game with the peer group. Arguably the talented students at Mac.Rob benefited from being with their peers, but the children they left behind probably suffered from the loss of the Mac.Rob girls. Streaming had similar issues. The exception: My impression is that my daughter's time early on at a Montessori school did make a big difference to her ability to concentrate and to stick to a hard task. This seems to be a result of the way the Montessori method works, by way of progressive small increases in difficulty, which always rewards effort. As an aside, after 12 months of apparently useless swimming lessons, I employed the Montessori method to teach her to swim in a couple of weeks. I started her with an inflated vest and flippers and got her comfortable moving around. I gradually deflated the vest until she was just using the flippers. Then some smaller flippers and then no flippers. In two weeks, with no tears, she could swim. Amazing. Tim Josling

2 1