Australia has a lot of foreign businesses and it has a lot of immigrants. Both earn Australian dollars and huge amounts would be sent back their country of origin.
His does Australia balance its books on something like this? How do the economics of it work? Would it lower Australian inflation but shortening the money supply, and raise inflation of the destination country as it prints more money to exchange the Australian dollar?
Well, I don’t know. Let’s say a Bangladeshi guy earns $1,000 AUD and sends $500 home each week, then lives off the remainder.
He’s only contributing to the Australian economy $500 per week instead of the full $1,000 in bank-invested savings or other purchases. Meanwhile the other $500, minus an exchange rate, sits in another country’s bank or contributes to purchases there, fuelling that economy.
I mean, I’m guessing here. My economics knowledge is fairly limited.
That 500AUD doesn’t just sit in an account and magically contribute to anything.
Currency exchange doesn’t actually happen in a vacuum. The only reason your Bangladeshi example is able to send 500AUD to his family, is that someone who has Bangladeshi Taka wants 500AUD to buy goods or services from somewhere that accepts AUD. And there’s a very short list of countries that spend AUD.
So that 500 doesn’t disappear to never return. That 500 is sold to someone who wants to use it to purchase australian exports.
He also contributes his labour, he is frequently underpaid because of his noncitizen status and because he is from Bangladesh he has to have his own medical insurance until he jumps visa hoops. Those visa hoops are also expensive and people from countries like England don’t have to jump some of them because they have a Medicare reciprocity agreement in place. There are other challenges too.
Make no mistake, Australia scrapes every cent it can from foreign workers and still complains about them sending their families remittance.
Plus he is contributing to the workforce without having cost a penny for his/her upbringing.
We need to consider that educating and taking care of children up to working age costs money and resources. Having trained workers join your country for free is always a boon (unless other costs add up).
Great point. Plus he has been screened to exclude people with disabilities. Only the people least likely to use future resources are allowed in at all.
If you didn’t have that guy working in Australia, your economy either would’ve shrunk by more than 1000 AUD or you would’ve imported goods or services costing a lot more than 1000 AUD. That guy’s employer pays him 1000 AUD because it is profitable compared to the alternatives.
If you had locals capable of doing the same work, that employer or the government wouldn’t have sponsored a foreign worker. They would’ve employed a local instead.
Isn’t it the same as having to import whatever the person was paid $1000 to make, but you have the benefit of it being produced locally, you don’t import the item you import the labor to build it.
Yes, but he’s actually producing wealth in Australia. The things he does serve Australians, the products he makes wind up in Australian homes, and when they don’t, when they get exported, that same amount of capital he exported and then much more winds up flowing back into Australia.
Remember, money isn’t wealth. Money doesn’t fuel an economy, production does. And it does more than fuel an economy, it is the economy.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community space dedicated to being helpful and answering each others’ questions on various topics.
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All posts titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That’s it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it’s in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content. Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.
Partnered Communities
You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.
Community Moderation
For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.
Matrix Chat Room
To find & join our chat room, log into fluffychat.im(or any other matrix client) and put #nostupidquestions:matrix.org on the search bar.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
Would the immigrants not be a net positive, for the country, as long as they earn the money?
Well, I don’t know. Let’s say a Bangladeshi guy earns $1,000 AUD and sends $500 home each week, then lives off the remainder.
He’s only contributing to the Australian economy $500 per week instead of the full $1,000 in bank-invested savings or other purchases. Meanwhile the other $500, minus an exchange rate, sits in another country’s bank or contributes to purchases there, fuelling that economy.
I mean, I’m guessing here. My economics knowledge is fairly limited.
Just a nit-pick. The immigrant in this case is probably contributing more to the economy than the $1,000 he gets paid to do it.
That 500AUD doesn’t just sit in an account and magically contribute to anything.
Currency exchange doesn’t actually happen in a vacuum. The only reason your Bangladeshi example is able to send 500AUD to his family, is that someone who has Bangladeshi Taka wants 500AUD to buy goods or services from somewhere that accepts AUD. And there’s a very short list of countries that spend AUD.
So that 500 doesn’t disappear to never return. That 500 is sold to someone who wants to use it to purchase australian exports.
He also contributes his labour, he is frequently underpaid because of his noncitizen status and because he is from Bangladesh he has to have his own medical insurance until he jumps visa hoops. Those visa hoops are also expensive and people from countries like England don’t have to jump some of them because they have a Medicare reciprocity agreement in place. There are other challenges too.
Make no mistake, Australia scrapes every cent it can from foreign workers and still complains about them sending their families remittance.
Plus he is contributing to the workforce without having cost a penny for his/her upbringing.
We need to consider that educating and taking care of children up to working age costs money and resources. Having trained workers join your country for free is always a boon (unless other costs add up).
Great point. Plus he has been screened to exclude people with disabilities. Only the people least likely to use future resources are allowed in at all.
If you didn’t have that guy working in Australia, your economy either would’ve shrunk by more than 1000 AUD or you would’ve imported goods or services costing a lot more than 1000 AUD. That guy’s employer pays him 1000 AUD because it is profitable compared to the alternatives.
If you had locals capable of doing the same work, that employer or the government wouldn’t have sponsored a foreign worker. They would’ve employed a local instead.
Isn’t it the same as having to import whatever the person was paid $1000 to make, but you have the benefit of it being produced locally, you don’t import the item you import the labor to build it.
Yes, but he’s actually producing wealth in Australia. The things he does serve Australians, the products he makes wind up in Australian homes, and when they don’t, when they get exported, that same amount of capital he exported and then much more winds up flowing back into Australia.
Remember, money isn’t wealth. Money doesn’t fuel an economy, production does. And it does more than fuel an economy, it is the economy.