Moving to Oz?

Sometimes I come across with questions about living conditions in Australia: the kind of questions people thinking about moving to Australia make (the economy, lifestyle, weather, racism/xenophobia...).

It's easy to imagine why: the SMH reported about this last March, 11 (if you are in that situation, you should read it: here).

This puts me in a rather uncomfortable situation. Whatever I say, people listening to it might be negatively affected; and people are bound to take exception. But it is a legitimate question.

In spite of my reluctance, I've finally decided to broach this subject.

The first thing to bear in mind: I can only give personal opinions, without any guarantee. I'm neither a professional in this area (which changes often), nor I am writing this for money: the final decision and responsibility for the outcome falls entirely on the readers.

With this caveat in place, I'd say Australia is not a bad place to live. It's no paradise, either.

The second thing to realize is that things in Australia are bound to be different, to a larger or lesser degree, from your experience back home. If this had no other effect, it puts you at a disadvantage when dealing with local employers: you don't know the local labour market and laws, and what the usual working conditions are; your English may not be up to scratch.

Trust me here: local employers know this and many are willing to bank on it.

The third thing to keep in mind is that presently unemployment is lower in Australia than in pretty much all European or Latin American countries, which is good. But that isn't the whole story: chances are you will be initially unemployed and needing a job badly.

As the lack of local labour market knowledge mentioned before, this also puts you at a serious disadvantage.

A fourth thing to have in mind is that there are different paths to arrive legally to Australia, each with its own unique legal implications, but not all available to all possible migrants (some, like working-holiday tourists are open only to nationals of countries with special arrangements with Australia). Broadly speaking, you can arrive

1. at your sole initiative (as a migrant, tourist or student);
2. to work directly for an employer (457 visa).

Let's leave the second category (457 temporary work visa) for a future opportunity.

In what follows, I am referring to the first category: migrants, tourists and students (those arriving at their sole initiative).

However, even if you are planning to come to Australia under a 457 temporary work visa, you might still find some of the following discussion relevant. So, I invite you to read on.


Independent Skilled Migrants, Students and Working-Holiday Tourists

As an independent skilled migrant, student or working-holiday tourist, you start off unemployed. Unlike students and tourists, migrants have permanent residence. But, as a migrant, you'll probably need to have your educational qualifications recognized, too, and this takes time.

Regardless of whether you are a migrant, tourist or student, I believe you'll receive no financial help from the Government for a number of years. So, no dole for you: you are unemployed and alone in a foreign country.

This is where the unemployment figures become misleading. Migrant graduates (or similar level foreign job-seekers) often find a catch-22 condition, explicit or implicit, in job openings: "local experience" or "local work history" are required:

Click on the ad for a larger image.

But if this frequently happens with top tier job openings, as the one above, one can also find it much lower down the food chain:

Click on the ad for a larger image.

This means that, no matter how qualified "on paper", or how "on demand" your occupation is, it's likely you won't get the job, unless you already had a similar job in Australia.

You see the problem, don't you?

This leaves you in a situation where you'll probably have to take on any job you find. And I do mean any job. That's how I've met Iranian 747 pilots driving buses and Latin American engineers flipping burgers.

If you are already in Australia, ask any cleaners, taxi drivers, or check-out chicks their nationality, occupation and education level, and ask yourself why this person is doing that kind of work.

Put yourself in their shoes. You are a newbie and in serious need of a job: a potential patsy. The second thing to have in mind mentioned above applies to you.

This means that there is a good chance that you will be underpaid and made to work under conditions that locals, more knowledgeable and less pressed, would not tolerate.

You won't find many people talking about the experience of being a lower-class Aussie. But there's a good chance you'll find out, at least temporarily: wages in Australia can be low, given the local cost of living.

There are legal ways around, of course. It would make the post too long to go into them (I may touch this in another occasion). I have in mind things like "unpaid work experiences" (mostly for graduate migrants), temporary jobs (tourists), and getting a local vocational qualification (popular among young Asian and Latin American students).

For instance, this is what "unpaid work experiences" are: you work for a limited time for a local employer in your field, but are not paid for that. You get the "local experience", they get your work for free.

Normally, local employers are not obliged to hire you after finishing the "work experience": their obligation is to provide you with a reference (hopefully written), so that you can say in job interviews with other employers: "Yes, I do have local work experience; here's the paper to prove it".

If you can afford that, then, realistically, that's an option. Note that I am not talking about fairness, or how this affects the local jobs market; about how feasible it is to get these "work experiences" (I suspect they are not that abundant) or even how effective they are as a means to solve your problem: naturally, it's always a potential employer's prerogative to accept or reject your particular "local work experience".

Note also that the reference involves an assessment of your performance. And this assessment is up to the employer offering you the unpaid work experience.

So, in short, many new arrivals in this category (migrants, tourists, students) will not get a permanent job in their field from the get go. Some of them will, no doubt, never get one; some might get one relatively fast. I have no figures about how prevalent these conditions are, or how long "relatively fast" is.

To make things more confusing, the relative ease to get a job might depend on things like ethnicity and religion (see here). On top, the jobs market place may be changing, too (see here).



Conclusion

It's a difficult decision and it's not for me to tell you what to do.

But I will take the liberty to give you a free advice. Probably the best thing for you would be to assess realistically what your expectations are and how bad things are back home. In economic matters, in Australia things are probably better for now; how much better, it's impossible for me to say, as it's impossible for me to say if things here will remain better much longer.

Your personal circumstances should also be considered: the younger and less committed you are, the more options you have. If I were you, I'd try to discuss this matter with other people and I'd try to hear other points of view.

I'm afraid that's about the extent of the advice I can offer on employment matters, for potential migrants, students and tourists.

Although what I discussed here refers mainly to migrants, students and tourists, obviously it may have implications to 457 visa holders, which were not directly considered.

Conversely, if you are a potential migrant, student or tourist, you should keep an eye open for a following post on the 457 Visa, as it could contain material relevant to you.

There are other subjects I am often asked (racism, personal security, lifestyle, etc). I will leave them for a future opportunity.

You could also check at the Fairfax Media job site or the official Australian Job Search site. Over the years, the Fairfax Media/SMH has also published lots of stories about migrants/"new arrivals" (as sometimes they are called). Search their archive using keywords like "backpacker", "fruit picker", "Visa 457", "Indian Student".

Update:
02-04-2012. Searching for a job, I found this much more candid ad. Note that the 2 positions are urgently needed, but the need, evidently, is not so great as to make overseas applicants welcome. Overseas readers can draw their own conclusions.

Click on the ad for a larger image.

20-04-2012.
The Fair Work Ombudsman, Nicholas Wilson, published an article yesterday about the so-called internships or "work experiences".

If you are thinking about getting one of those, you must read it. This passage is copied verbatim from the article:

"Yet, it can also be drawn that arrangements which take only labour and give nothing but a vague promise of experience or a future role, will probably not be legitimate." (See here)

Waiting for Rajoy.

"Waiting for Godot set"
by KlickingKarl. [A]

Where the fuck is Mariano Rajoy?

"Aquí hay un presidente del Gobierno que va a dar la cara y no se va a esconder" ("here is a president of the Government [Prime Minister] who will face the people and not run away", my translation, see here in Spanish), Mariano Rajoy reportedly said in interview with EFE news agency boss, Alex Grijelmo in January 10, 2012.

Ever since, Soraya Sáenz de Santamaría, Rajoy's second in command, has had to face the people and make the official announcements.

So, for a change, the "Rajoy austerity package" had to be announced by Sáenz de Santamaría.

In a nutshell:

1. 27bn euros (AU$ 35bn) budget cuts: 2.3% to 2.5% of estimated 2011 GDP.
2. Average ministerial budget cuts: 16.9%. But public works cuts to reach 34%.
3. Public sector wages and salaries frozen.
4. Electricity and gas, increase by 7% and 5%.
5. Housing subsidies and employment policy cuts: 2bn euros (AU$ 2.6bn).
6. 12.3bn euros (AU$15.9bn) tax increases, supposedly from big corporations but including fiscal fraud amnesty fees (10% of the fiscal debt!); personal income tax (1.9% increase) (See here. Spanish)

VAT remains unchanged, unemployment benefits frozen, age pensions indexed by CPI.

----------

While in opposition, Mariano Rajoy rejected changes in industrial relations laws and personal income tax increases.

María Dolores de Cospedal, general secretary of the ironically called People's Party, had called fiscal fraud amnesty "unthinkable", "unfair" and "anti-social". (See here. Spanish)

Incidentally, for readers whose Spanish is a bit rusty: the adjective "anti-social", in Spanish, has the connotation of "criminal".

Clearly, Rojoy's "mandate" exempts him from delivering his and his party's electoral promises.

----------

Together with the labour market reforms already announced and previously rejected by Rajoy, these measures prompted the BBC's Gavin Hewitt to write:

"Privately some in government accept these calculations involve a risk.
"The economy is in recession and some predict it will shrink by around 2% this year - even before these savings are made.
"The fear is that Spain could be tipped into a downward spiral.
"It is also unclear how the public will react to more austerity. The unions held a general strike yesterday and are threatening further disruption." (See here)

In plain English: that's just the beginning.

----------

With views like the above in mind, the El País op-ed page, often a reliably moderate voice, sounds pathetically confused, almost to a grotesque extreme:

"Más allá de los incidentes y de los que pronostican finales apocalípticos, la cuestión de fondo es que ni la economía ni la confianza de los inversores necesitaban este paro. Menos aún otras posibles huelgas venideras."("Beyond the incidents and the apocalyptic prognostications, the underlying issue is that neither the economy, nor the investors' confidence, needed this strike. Even less other future strikes"). (See here. Spanish. My translation)

No, estimados señores, lo que está fuera de lugar es vuestra preocupación con los sentimientos de los inversores y las necesidades de "la economía", cuando España, enferma de severa anemia, es obligada a desangrarse.

No es el pataleo lo que está matando a España. Es la hemorragia.

La muerte del paciente no tranquilizará a los inversores, ni les dará "confianza", porque no recuperarán sus préstamos. Y una muerte lenta, como la de Grecia, es lo que le espera. Los inversores lo saben, aún si vosotros os negáis a reconocerlo.

Pero, aún si el sacrificio de España sirviera para apaciguar al demonio de "la economía",  y devolviera a los inversores su preciosa "confianza", de vosotros, yo me preocuparía primero por España.


Image Credit:
[A] "Waiting for Godot set. Theatre Royal Haymarket 2009", by KlickingKarl. Wikipedia. My use of the photo does not imply KlickingKarl endorses me or my use of it. It doesn't imply the opposite, either!

Magpie's Law.

I'm sure you have already come across "Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies". Mike Godwin, who named the law, first made reference to it in an article in Wired in 1994.

This is how Godwin defined it: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one". (See here)

Under a logical perspective, these gratuitous comparisons are considered fallacies and are called humorously "reductio ad Hitlerum", inspired in the reductio ad absurdum: "Reductio ad Hitlerum is no more than guilt by association, a form of association fallacy. The fallacy claims that a policy leads to-or is the same as-one advocated or implemented by Adolf Hitler or the Third Reich, and so 'proves' that the original policy is undesirable".

With this, Godwin's Law is re-stated thus: as an online discussion grows longer, someone is bound to fall in the reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy.

I ain't no Mike Godwin, but I think I have identified a similar phenomenon in economics. It goes like this: the probability of using the mysticism/metaphysics charge increases as a discussant is challenged by views he/she dislikes but doesn't understand. And I call it: Magpie's Law!


Eeny, meeny, miny, moe.

Steve Keen. [A]

Here are two excellent examples: Paul Krugman replies to Steve Keen (Keen's first post, and reply to Krugman).

Paul Krugman states that, as a working economist, the reason he reads "old books is for insight, not authority". Here Krugman is professing to be a logical thinker (therefore, immune to appeals to authority) and a pragmatist. Fair enough.

If something in those old books "helps crystallize an idea in your mind (...) that’s really good". He goes on to say: "but if where you take the idea is very different from what the great man said somewhere else in his book, so what?"

Krugman goes further: "my basic reaction to discussions about what Minsky really meant (...) is, I don't care".

So, if there are two different views, what to do then? Just pick the one you like?

Paul Krugman. [B]

Let's think about it. What if the two views aren't very different at all, only you didn't understand them in the first place and that's why you think they are different? What if they are indeed very different and you picked the wrong one? What if you picked the right one, and those opposing you picked the wrong one. Couldn't you use that to strengthen your case?

What kind of insight can one get from an old book, if one is not sure one actually understands what the great man who wrote it really meant?

That's not Talmudic scholarship or banking mysticism, Prof. Krugman. It's plain common sense.

And by the looks of it, Krugman didn't understand what the great man said:

"In particular, he [Steve Keen] asserts that putting banks in the story is essential. Now, I'm all for including the banking sector in stories where it's relevant; but why is it so crucial to a story about debt and leverage?"

A story about debt and leverage... without banks (!?). I rest my case.

----------

For another great way to cover one's ass when one is losing an argument, see Circular Reasoning!

Image Credits:
[A] Steve Keen. Wikipedia.
[B] Paul Krugman. Wikipedia.

Spanish Patriotism.

The Countess of Murillo. [A]

The Most Excellent Esperanza Aguirre y Gil de Biedma, The Countess of Murillo, Grandee of Spain, Honorary Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire, and lastly, President of the Madrid Community, called the "trade-unionists anti-patriots, willing to transform Spain into Greece" due to the general strike. (See here, My translation from Spanish).

It is ironic that the Spanish people are being charged with being anti-patriots willing to transform Spain into Greece, when it is the so-called People's Party the one applying in Spain the same economic shock policies applied in Greece, to benefit foreign bankers in Frankfurt, Amsterdam, Paris, Brussels and London.

If I may, I would remind Her Excellency that Spaniards are not bound by loyalty to those foreign elites. If Her Excellency is confused on that, perhaps she should reconsider where her loyalties lie.

[B]

I would also remind Her Excellency that her salary is paid by the Spanish taxpayer. Therefore, while this may be unsavory to Her Excellency, the Spanish people, even though commoners, are her employer.

If Her Excellency finds it burdensome to loyally satisfy her employer, or finds it in her interests to serve another master, perhaps Her Excellency should resign.

Alternatively, the Rajoy Government should legislate to make it easier for the Spanish people to sack their public employees, even Grandees of Spain.

Image Credits:
[A] The Countess of Murillo. Wikipedia.
[B] The Spanish flag. Wikipedia.