Getting a Uni degree

[bob246810]

I'd say national immigration statistics (no matter how flawed) are probably more accurate than glancing at a few people in a few suburbs (out of the thousands of suburbs across Australia).

Also, "loads" isn't really definable...you'd have to give exact figures and compare with the existing population, stats from other countries, etc.

Simply saying "loads and loads" doesn't mean much - I personally find 50 people to be "loads".

 

[mumbai]

So, for the last 10-15 years, all the Vietnamese, Indian, Sri-Lankan, Chinese, Sudanese, and many others have been hiding in other parts of Aus, and all of a sudden decided to descend on "the Noble Parks" of the Country as their preferred place to live? Gimmee a break.

Please reread my posts.

#93 is the most relevant one to your argument here.

I'm not here to argue that this is true - it is.

I used these areas to show that immigration is not limited as someone else suggested that it is.

We take immigrants from all races and education levels here.

Fact.

You are stating 'facts' as if you own it. I said 'for arguments' sake to start with. That was an example.

Coming to your point re immigration, it IS limited. Australia has a long and strict screening policy for legal immigrants. Just because you see a lot of 'coloured' people in Noble park, it does not mean anything.

This would give you some idea on where Australia stands on international immigration:

"About half of all international migrants reside in ten countries. In 2013, the United States of America hosted the largest number of international migrants (45.8 million or 20% of the global total), followed by the Russian Federation (11 million), Germany (9.8 million), Saudi Arabia (9.1 million), the United Arab Emirates and the United Kingdom (7.8 million each), France (7.5 million), Canada (7.3 million), Australia and Spain (6.5 million each). "
Source: http://www.oecd.org/

 

[cimbom]

The bulk of migration to Australia is from the UK and NZ. I'd hardly even call those groups migrants TBH.
The population of Noble Park is 28,000. Of these, about a third have ancestry in Australia or the UK and these are the top two most represented ancestries in the suburb. The top five places of birth outside of Australia together make up only ~28% of the suburb's population. You can see this here: http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/ce...11/quickstat/SSC21022?opendocument&navpos=220

You know a country has limited migration when the best example people give of a suburb with lots of migrants is one where they represented about half of the population. When you say immigration is "not limited" what exactly are you comparing it to?

 

[cimbom]

These are the figures for Australia overall:

The most common ancestries in Australia were English 25.9%, Australian 25.4%, Irish 7.5%, Scottish 6.4% and Italian 3.3%.

...

In Australia 69.8% of people were born in Australia. The most common countries of birth were England 4.2%, New Zealand 2.2%, China (excludes SARs and Taiwan) 1.5%, India 1.4% and Italy 0.9%.

http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/ce...nsus/2011/quickstat/0?opendocument&navpos=220


Wow, such huge numbers there.

 

[BayView]

Also, "loads" isn't really definable...you'd have to give exact figures and compare with the existing population, stats from other countries, etc.

Don't have to give exact figures at all for this argument.

There are such things as trends and observation.

The country of origin and race is not the issue.

The issue - for my argument - is the degree of limited or unlimited immigration.

By that; the inference was originally on the education and professional training level of the immigrant. The poster decided that we are limiting immigration in Aus based on training and education etc. I disagreed.

It is reasonable to assume (and I know for fact) that lower educated immigrants live in lower end suburbs....no differnet to 6th generation Aussies.

"The Pines" in Frangers is not full of WASP doctors - or any race of doctor/lawyer/other - highly trained/educated/high income earner.

Higher educated and professionally trained immigrants (or 6th Gen Aussies) do not live in these areas.

Given this; and given the volume of immigrants in lower-end suburbs such as I've mentioned; the point is proven that immigration is not limited.

I've already explained that theses suburbs have a very high representation of immigrants...the suburbs are lower-end. You may think that this can only be proved by looking up some stat that there are immigrants living there. Watching a demographic shift in an area over a few decades will also give you a fair bit of accurate info. Talking to a local who has lived in the same place for several decades also will tell you...no Govt stat required on that.

I can go to r/e.com and look up their stats, and I can go to the local r/e agents and ask them for their take on a suburb for real estate; the local agent can have a different view than the official ABS stat. Are they wrong? No.

Tell me it's not fair to assume that the immigration level is not limited based on education and training?

 

[LoneWolf]

The bulk of migration to Australia is from the UK and NZ. I'd hardly even call those groups migrants TBH.
The population of Noble Park is 28,000. Of these, about a third have ancestry in Australia or the UK and these are the top two most represented ancestries in the suburb. The top five places of birth outside of Australia together make up only ~28% of the suburb's population. You can see this here: http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/ce...11/quickstat/SSC21022?opendocument&navpos=220

You know a country has limited migration when the best example people give of a suburb with lots of migrants is one where they represented about half of the population. When you say immigration is "not limited" what exactly are you comparing it to?

I agree with the above statements / fact.

From a psychology prospective, we see what we choose to see, and this often generates perceptions of just about anything and everything.
Perceptions are hard to change.

Your perception are formed for the area based on seeing a few Sudanese in the area
But the fact is, their % relative to the nation / area is rather small proportion.

In AU, by far, the largest migration groups are from UK / NZ, general population do not acknowledge this migration group, mainly because of skin colour, social back grounds or other obvious factors?

 

[BayView]

These are the figures for Australia overall:

The most common ancestries in Australia were English 25.9%, Australian 25.4%, Irish 7.5%, Scottish 6.4% and Italian 3.3%.

...

In Australia 69.8% of people were born in Australia. The most common countries of birth were England 4.2%, New Zealand 2.2%, China (excludes SARs and Taiwan) 1.5%, India 1.4% and Italy 0.9%.

http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/ce...nsus/2011/quickstat/0?opendocument&navpos=220


Wow, such huge numbers there.

We are not arguing breakdowns of race/country, or even volumes..

We are arguing limited or unlimited immigration based on education and/or training.....

I mentioned a largish number of immigrants in a lower-end suburb; which illustrates a decent level of less-educated and non-professionally trained folk - illustrates that immigration is not limited..

(sound of skull cracking against wall)

 

[nhg]

This would give you some idea on where Australia stands on international immigration:

"About half of all international migrants reside in ten countries. In 2013, the United States of America hosted the largest number of international migrants (45.8 million or 20% of the global total), followed by the Russian Federation (11 million), Germany (9.8 million), Saudi Arabia (9.1 million), the United Arab Emirates and the United Kingdom (7.8 million each), France (7.5 million), Canada (7.3 million), Australia and Spain (6.5 million each). "
Source: http://www.oecd.org/

Those figures are misleading in that:
- USA: 2014 estimate 318,349,000 population.
- AUS: 2014 estimate 23,545,776 population.

I'm not the best mathematician, but 45.9M immigrants for a population of 318M+ is less than 6.5M immigrants for a population of 23.5M+.

 

[cimbom]

I've already explained that theses suburbs have a very high representation of immigrants...the suburbs are lower-end. You may think that this can only be proved by looking up some stat that there are immigrants living there. Watching a demographic shift in an area over a few decades will also give you a fair bit of accurate info. Talking to a local who has lived in the same place for several decades also will tell you...no Govt stat required on that.

I can go to r/e.com and look up their stats, and I can go to the local r/e agents and ask them for their take on a suburb for real estate; the local agent can have a different view than the official ABS stat. Are they wrong? No.

Tell me it's not fair to assume that the immigration level is not limited based on education and training?

How funny for this to be posted in a thread (or initial post) arguing that further studies are not worthwhile. The opinion of one real estate agent or random guy living in Noble Park holds more weight for you than a survey that includes 28,000 people or 100% of the people that live there?

If you looked at the first link I posted, you'll find that 4 out of 10 people in Noble Park were actually born in Australia.

 

[nhg]

It is reasonable to assume (and I know for fact) that lower educated immigrants live in lower end suburbs....no differnet to 6th generation Aussies.

This is a fallacy.

There is a huge financial burden in moving countries, it takes time (decades) for a family to move from a lower to higher end demographic (especially when moving to a significantly more prosperous country). Also many nationalities prefer to cluster around suburbs which cater for their particular background/needs, or their family lives there and that is the only place they know when they first get off the plane.

What has changed, is the speed of social mobility. A family can now move up to a more prosperous area within 1 generation as opposed to 3 in the past. (Still googling like mad to find the statistics I read on this in the past).

And... when did this go so off topic?

 

[cimbom]

Those figures are misleading in that:
- USA: 2014 estimate 318,349,000 population.
- AUS: 2014 estimate 23,545,776 population.

I'm not the best mathematician, but 45.9M immigrants for a population of 318M+ is less than 6.5M immigrants for a population of 23.5M+.

What is the definition of "immigrant" though? That could alter the numbers significantly.

 

[BayView]

Your perception are formed for the area based on seeing a few Sudanese in the area

No, it is not.

And; the Sudanese are spread around the Country - someone else has also posted this as verification.

Re-read my posts.

The Sudanese were mentioned as just the latest group in that area that has been observed.

An observation of an area spanning 3 decades or more. I have been living in Melb for over 2/3 of my 53 years.

Again; it's not about volumes of immigrants or where they came from.

It's where they live which provides the snapshot of their education and training levels.

The postcode and the representation of immigrants in it illustrate the level of training and/or education of those immigrants.

Does Toorak have Sudanese/Vietnamese/Indian/Pakistani etc doctors/lawyers etc?

Yes - but not many, I'll wager. That's not the point though.

The point is - immigration is not limited.

(BANG; ouch, BANG; ouch, BANG; ouch)

 

[BayView]

What is the definition of "immigrant" though? That could alter the numbers significantly.

I don't know; ask the bloke who said "immigration is limited".

To me; immigration means someone who moved here to live from their Original Country of Birth.

Or; have we PC'd the hell out of that one too these days?

Don't mention the "I" word.

 

[abbyfresh]

Going to UNI is a brain bend / stretch like many experiences in life. For people that don't go - statistically the odds are stacked against you (from average earning capacity purely) - however you can still do well either well.

Those that I know that are still drifting didn't go to UNI, but didn't really do any course of substance. When you start out just by sticking to anything of substance for a reasonable amount of time will be the springboard to new and greater things. If you can't focus and pass through a basic course even like a 3 month one, how can you last in the workforce?

 

[mumbai]

It's where they live which provides the snapshot of their education and training levels.

The postcode and the representation of immigrants in it illustrate the level of training and/or education of those immigrants.

I re-read your posts but fail to understand how you link the area one lives with the training/education levels? How did you find that 'these' people posses lower (compared to what?) level of education and training?

Western Sydney is Sydney's lower end suburb. And, I bet you will find a lot of immigrant doctors/lawyers/engineers there.

Have you factored in the location of employment options? You would not find lot of miners living in Sydney, will you? These educated immigrants need to move to places that offer more employment opportunities.

 

[BayView]

This is a fallacy.

There is a huge financial burden in moving countries, it takes time (decades) for a family to move from a lower to higher end demographic (especially when moving to a significantly more prosperous country). Also many nationalities prefer to cluster around suburbs which cater for their particular background/needs, or their family lives there and that is the only place they know when they first get off the plane.

What has changed, is the speed of social mobility. A family can now move up to a more prosperous area within 1 generation as opposed to 3 in the past. (Still googling like mad to find the statistics I read on this in the past).

Correct.

You have proved my point; thanks.

If they are higher educated and/or trained; they move to a different suburb before too long.

Why would they choose to rattle around "the Noble Parks" of Australia when they can move to Camberwell?

What is the point of coming half way across the world to improve your life, and when you have the opportunity to do so; you choose to settle down and live out your days in a cr@p suburb?

You wouldn't, and they don't - noone does. Sheet; I wouldn't.

Isn't it great that we let folks of all education levels, training levels, races and Countries into Aus?

"Limited immigration" indeed.

Have you factored in the location of employment options?

Now I really am laughing. Really.

From my observation of humans for over 53 years on this planet - in Aus and other Countries around the world; it is human nature to want to better oneself; to wear better clothes, to drive a better car, to live in a better house, a better neighborhood, a better country, send the kids to a better school, ride a better bike, the newest X-box, the better restaurants, even a better silk tie, for god's sake.

Noone chooses to live a life of less (unless they are a loony conservation type who has to live in a tree or something).

We ultimately only live where we can afford.

If everyone on this site worked in the CBD (and most do I think), then why don't they all live in a penthouse a block from work?

Why do folks whine about their commute to work everyday? Because they can't afford the penthouse, or the $800k apartment a few blocks away.

Notwithstanding parents and grandparents who will move to be near their kids/grandkids.

People only live in a lower-end suburb for a long time because they can't afford to move to a better area.

Here's a question for all of you; if money was unlimited for you; would you live in the exact same property you are now - for the rest of your life?

 

[nhg]

It's where they live which provides the snapshot of their education and training levels.

The postcode and the representation of immigrants in it illustrate the level of training and/or education of those immigrants.

All that is, is a snapshot of how much wealth they had before they came to Australia.

A chartered accountant from Indonesia with 20 year experience will be highly unlikely to have the funds to move to Vaucluse upon arrival unless his grandad happened to have founded the largest palm oil plantation 100 years ago.

Just like how many poorly educated Australians live in wealthy suburbs in crappy houses because their great great grandad happened to buy a block of land 'really really out of town' for 50c 200 years ago.

 

[cimbom]

I don't know; ask the bloke who said "immigration is limited".

To me; immigration means someone who moved here to live from their Original Country of Birth.

Or; have we PC'd the hell out of that one too these days?

Don't mention the "I" word.

Many people I've spoken to in Australia consider even 2nd or 3rd generation Australians to be "immigrants" which is why I asked.

Back on topic, if it's just people that were born overseas themselves, then obviously Australia would have a higher rate as we've been accepting migrants for a shorter time period (especially those from outside of northern Europe). Other countries had quite established populations by the time Europeans started to migrate to Australia in high numbers.

 

[nhg]

Correct.

You have proved my point; thanks.

If they are higher educated and/or trained; they move to a different suburb before too long.

Why would they choose to rattle around "the Noble Parks" of Australia when they can move to Camberwell?

What is the point of coming half way across the world to improve your life, and when you have the opportunity to do so; you choose to settle down and live out your days in a cr@p suburb?

You wouldn't, and they don't - noone does.

Not quite my point. Many Chineese and Taiwanese like to stay around Eastwood, and even if they had $10M will prefer to stay there than move to say Mosman.

Iranians stay around Castle Hill, English around Bondi, etc.

 

[BayView]

Not quite my point. Many Chineese and Taiwanese like to stay around Eastwood, and even if they had $10M will prefer to stay there than move to say Mosman.

Yes; but would they move to Blacktown?

No, of course not.

The wealth gives you choice.