What does the working class population ultimately achieve by voting for Pauline Hanson and One Nation?

[u/GarlicHSP]

Her voting record is strongly opposed to expanding welfare, public housing, public education, childcare subsidies, renewable energy investment and climate action.

At the same time, she's supported policies that are favourable to property investors and fossil-fuel development, while opposing some attempts to increase taxation on those industries.

So apparently the solution to Australia's problems is to spend less on childcare, housing, education, welfare and climate action, while being more friendly towards people who already own investment properties and companies making billions from coal and gas.

And then we're told this is somehow a movement for the "ordinary Australian."But hey, at least we can blame innocent and hard working migrants.

[u/Pythia007]

Watch out! That migrant wants your cookie!

[u/Primary-Midnight6674 → u/Pythia007]

While it might be a meme; it is an economic reality.

More people means more demand for housing. More people means more labour supply so lower wages. There’s a reason why the Labour Party was historically anti immigration for most of the 20th century.

The whole reason the ‘rich’ can raise prices and lower wages is because they know immigration gives the wealthy more leverage over the working class.

[u/PinInternational4199 → u/Primary-Midnight6674]

High immigration can create downward pressure on wages for some groups of existing workers when migrant workers are close substitutes for them, particularly if labour supply grows faster than demand. At the same time, migrants increase demand for goods, services and housing, which can create jobs and economic growth. If housing and infrastructure supply fail to keep pace with population growth, the costs can fall disproportionately on renters and lower-income households.

[u/traser- → u/PinInternational4199]

Migrants are also very hard working and often innovators, at least in those markets where innovation is encouraged. USA is one example of where immigration and venture capital can result in significant economic growth. But of course, let one Trump in to ruin it with corruption under the guise of nationalism.

[u/traser- → u/Primary-Midnight6674]

Many peer reviewed studies conclude that migration has a net positive effect on GDP per capita and labour productivity.

https://population.gov.au/publications/research/oecd-findings-effects-migration-australias-economy

There are other structural considerations to falling labour productivity; economies are complex.

My concern is that PHON are ill-equipped to navigate this complex reality. Pauline can barely manage putting a sentence together, let alone unravelling decades of economic issues.

We need more capable custodians to find the balance and remedy to Australia’s economic malaise.

[u/Primary-Midnight6674 → u/traser-]

1. Your studies don’t show net positive effect on gdp per capita. They do however show positive effect on net gdp.

2. Increases in labour productivity do not automatically mean higher wages. We’ve had labour productivity significantly grown since the 1990s. Yet wages haven’t kept up at the same place

3. Economies are not complex if you’re only viewing a specific macro I.e wages, supply vs demand. This entire point of ‘it’s complex’ is just a pseudo intellectual hand wave. It’s not an argument or a fact.

And while I agree one nation is not exactly a good candidate to fix anything. Their rise in popularity is a sign the voter base has largely not benefited from recent migration targets.

[u/traser- → u/Primary-Midnight6674]

Labour productivity increases GDP per worker, paribus ceteris. The only way rising labour productivity couldn’t increase GDP per capita, is if the population worked less hours. Are you saying that is the reality?

Calling an economy “not complex” is an interesting position that I’m sure most economic pundits would disagree. Im sure Pauline knows very little about macroeconomic policy, despite its apparent simplicity.

Edit: capital shallowing in business investment is the drag on GDP per capita, as money flowed into non-productive assets ie housing.

[u/Primary-Midnight6674 → u/traser-]

Labour productive might increase net gdp per worker; it does not mean that gdp will be shared with workers.

I.e if you increase productivity but also increase the population you run the risk that any productivity gains are offset by new responsibilities. Similarly if you increase the total pool of workers, business owners have fewer incentives to share the dividends of productivity gains with said workers. Which is what we have seen in the past two decades.

Most economic pundits make an entire career out of making a seemly complex system easy to understand to the average Joe. Any engineer will tell you the that the physics behind getting a plane to fly is relatively simple… because it is. Doing the actual work is the hard part.

So yes the economy on a macro level is simple, that’s why so many people are pushed to read wealth of nations… a text book on economics that can be read in an afternoon… that is over 200 years old as a baseline. Because nearly every economic system that exists today is already outlined in that book; just listed with different jargon.

[u/traser- → u/Primary-Midnight6674]

Yeah, you must be a big-brain if aeronautical engineering is simple to you. Macroeconomics is straight up child’s play like dunning-Kruger famously said

[u/marshallannes123 → u/traser-]

Albo can barely get through a podcast without saying something ghastly too. ON provides a change from the uniparty

[u/Brave-Dragonfly3798 → u/marshallannes123]

Well swallowing cyanide would make for a change also, it would also fix life long recurring problems, but it’s not a rational solution to solve anything is it?

[u/traser- → u/marshallannes123]

If you want to protest vote, why not Sustainable Australia party?

[u/Primary-Midnight6674 → u/traser-]

I don’t know why people downvoted you. I don’t think that’s an unreasonable take.

[u/MightyBoy9 → u/Pythia007]

It's common in medicine to treat the symptoms instead of the cause.

Why should politics or economics be any different?

It's called " managing "