jh, the thread is about ACC. It is a long bow to extend it to immigration, even though the policy advice for both comes from the Department of Labour.

A couple of other regular commenters earlier today were given a polite reminder on a different thread about threadjacking. Please keep on topic. There are always General Debate threads if you want to start your own discussion on an issue.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I think the report would see the infill housing situation a$ twice a$ good a$ a single dwelling with a garden. What annoys me is that it is clear that some groups benefit directly and we see their houses in Home and Garden but it means the (for example) the Property Council call for the lifting of height restrictions (as in increased shading of existing properties), so what is in it for others? We need a tunnel under Auckland Harbour but high immigration is seen as a “great opportunity” (there is no link). Immigration is like a ponzi scheme we will never see the day when someone rings a bell and says: “ah now we have just the right amount of people!”

Like or Dislike: 2  1 (+1)

Don’t you mean IMmigration, jh? Although, emigration does indeed have its merits also, me thinks. It’s just that the report on high that you refer to would in no way support such a heresy!
Well, the measuring criteria are very narrow aren’t they? For example, there’s little reference to the impact on the local environment. Indeed, the analysis seems to be wedged in the narrow concepts of economic growth and GDP. It appears to have scant regard for the quality of life outside of pure (monetary) wealth.
But of most concern is that it also seems to assume that inter alia growth – population and export – can go on indefinitely. It really should be taking heed of ‘external’ factors, such as the likely huge increase in transport costs, a world shortage of water and other fundamental resources.
Regardless of the merits (or otherwise) of increasing the population via immigration to improve our overall standard of living in the short term, more consideration has to be given to what this country sees as a population limit. To do this we need to weigh up our conservation/preservation desires against our social/consumerist wishes. Of course, within limits, a more natural environment need not be incompatible with a healthy and well educated society. That is to say that, whereas a simple consideration of pros and cons would be a good start, more thought would need to be given to how they might interact – that is, the modelling of various scenarios. But that’s another story.

Like or Dislike: 3  1 (+2)

NZCTU economist Bill Rosenberg has [allegedly] debunked the supposed “financial crisis” facing ACC that Nick Smith is relying on to gut cover and entitlements to set it up for privatisation.

can we trust economists with an axe to grind?

For example:
http://www.dol.govt.nz/publications/research/cge/cge_01.asp

The minister rubs his hands and concludes “migration is good for everyone“

Like or Dislike: 0  1 (-1)

Hmmm, I’ll buy a paper tomorrow and see what the MSM says about this development…

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

This should be in the papers and Nick Smith is the obvious scapegoat to have to take a fall.

Hide and Brownlee next – ducks in a row!

Like or Dislike: 1  1 (0)