272 replies to this topic

[Indy]

Za sve australijske teme, ukljucuv i noskich sagu. Inace pretimo da se smucimo svima :-)

Prebaceni postovi:

ne znam za australijance, ali amerikanci obozavaju takav attitude

Amerikanci se prilicno razlikuju od Australijanaca u odnosu prema imigrantima. To je (samo) jedan od velikih uzrocnika forumskih neslaganja na relaciji USA/Australia koje mozemo da vidimo na ovim stranicama. Ukratko, nigde u svetu nisam video tako pozitivan odnos prema imigraciji kao sto je to u USA; kakve god da su druge americke nepodobstine, u tom pogledu svi samo mogu da uce od njih. To je ono sto ih je napravilo velikima, a suprotnog smo svedoci sada upravo u Australiji, gde se u predizbornoj kampanji takmice medjusobno ko ce da napravi manju Australiju.

@ noskich

Probaj da ides u neke pubove sa zivom svirkom. (Newtown? Mora da ima nesto).

[Indy]

downe, predji ovamo, pliz

I odakle ti bre ideja da se u Tokiju i Seulu bolje zabavljaju, majke ti ?

Karaoke im je super, ludilo... ne zayebavam.

[Indy]

Lepo se ja ispricah na ovom topiku sa samim sobom

=== Nego, covek objasnio sve sto ima da se kaze na temu populacije Australije, predstojecih izbora, populizma, zapadnog Sidneja i prikljucenija - George Megalogenis, The Australian

(Tekst je poduzi, ali vredi procitati, koga zanima; udario sam bold gde mislim da su neke bitne informacije).

Spoiler! --Click here to view--

Planning, investment, people

THE jargon is so removed from the problem, it begs the question whether the main parties understand the population argument they started, and then tried to contain.

Julia Gillard focuses on the commuter suburbs that ring Sydney and Brisbane, because the polls tell her that’s where the grumpy voters are. But the happy voters are where the congestion is.

The Prime Minister’s politics is at odds with the nation’s demography, and its planning needs, because she can’t mention one of the solutions: further development of the inner cities.

The most densely populated electorate in Australia is also the wealthiest: Malcolm Turnbull’s Wentworth, in Sydney’s east.

Views, and services to kill for. That’s why the voters here don’t mind living on top of one another.

The other side of the congestion coin are the lower-income electorates with high population densities. Take Watson, in Sydney’s west held by Labor’s Population Minister Tony Burke.

It sits third on the population density ladder, but 131st on the income ladder. Yet the people here are also happy, and have no intention of voting out Labor because this an immigrant electorate. Watson is ranked 2nd for non-English speakers.

Wentworth and Watson, wealthy and woggy: two character traits that don’t apply to the sprawling, but less-densely populated commuter electorates which Labor and the Coalition are fighting over.

Wedged between Wentworth and Watson are Grayndler, ranked second overall for population density and held by Anthony Albanese, and Sydney, ranked fourth and held by Tanya Plibersek.

Burke, Albanese and Plibersek are students of the nation’s most destructive political school, the Sussex Street headquarters of NSW Labor. Interestingly, they hold the three most important bricks-and-mortar portfolios in the Gillard government: respectively, population, infrastructure and housing. The lessons in their backyard are never applied nationally because the commuter electorates are whiter, and less educated than the national average. Harsh, but this is the demographic reality that warps public debate even when unemployment is low.

Burke, Albanese and Plibersek have just one key ministry they can call on in a state government: planning. But it is a junior portfolio without status.

To understand the flaw in the model, think logically and then do the opposite.

If the rich and the newly arrived in the cities don’t mind living close together, surely a smart government—federal or state—would see population growth as a tool to build more vibrant cities by looking up, not further out? But state government planning codes are trip-wired to stop consolidation of the inner city because the next apartment and the next immigrant wave require someone to make room.

The forgotten ministry in the second-tier government can thwart national development because no one has yet figured out how to take planning seriously.

The farce at state level is aided and abetted by federal governments that play a form of reverse blame game with the outer suburbs.

The commuter electorates complain about infrastructure. Federal politicians reply that it’s the fault of the states, and those pesky Indian students who rort their visas and get bashed at unattended railway stations. When the bashings became world news earlier this year, the Victorian government ignored the victim to exonerate the person who wasn’t accused, the law-abiding swinging voter in the suburbs.

For a brief moment in January, the Victorian and federal Liberals were on the side of the underwog. Tony Abbott gave his version of the big Australia speech because the media cycle at the time was critical of Labor’s deafness to the need of the Indian students.

“Since 1970, an Australia that’s four times richer has more than coped with a population that’s two times greater,” the Opposition Leader said on January 24. “My instinct is to extend to as many people as possible the freedom and benefits of life in Australia. A larger population will bring that about provided that it’s also a more productive one.”

But the tail wagged the dog, and Abbott turned against his own publicly stated values to talk down population growth and to propose pre-emptive caps on the immigration program.

The commuter electorates fret about the boats, about the immigration scams and about infrastructure. Neither Labor nor Liberal can answer the third complaint with a straight face because both had been derelict in the boom years. So they pick on the underwog to buy time.

If neither side has a clear idea how to deal with population growth, it is because they don’t know how to take a flighty public into their confidence.

Pushing out the city limits to create space, without connection—a quarter-acre block without the school, the shopping centre, the office nearby—is rotten economics and even worse politics. Both sides realise this, yet they default to easy political mantras that defy economic common sense.

Abbott sees infrastructure as a problem of state government failure, which it is. But his slogan is to cut spending. Abbott’s politics are at odds with basic budget accounting. Here’s Abbott on Thursday, in full verbal assault mode:

“I certainly think that the state Labor governments have been utterly derelict at providing infrastructure,” he told Melbourne ABC radio.

“And I think that if we can get the debt and deficit under control then we can spend more money on economic assets, rather than blowing it in the sort of waste we’ve seen from the computers in schools program and the school halls program. If we can get that kind of waste under control, then we can invest more in economic infrastructure.”

This is the knee-jerk of a partisan spending minister: give me a surplus via cuts to the other side’s programs and I’ll spend it on my people. But infrastructure is a capital investment, not a regular budget item like the age pension. The only place where infrastructure meets the budget is the interest bill. Governments have to borrow to fund infrastructure, but Abbott doesn’t believe in debt because the polls tell him all debt is bad. But the polls also tell him voters want more spent on infrastructure.

What’s his solution: more private spending? The private operators have been all the rage for infrastructure development during the past 20 years. Yet even their pockets haven’t proved deep enough to keep up with demand.

Here’s where the toll company and the state planning minister serve the same anti-development end. Private operators love congestion because it drives up the value to their shareholders of the next project they build with taxpayer support.

The first leader that makes a credible connection between planning, investment and people will end the race to the bottom on population policy.

[zatoichi]

Lepo se ja ispricah na ovom topiku sa samim sobom

=== Nego, covek objasnio sve sto ima da se kaze na temu populacije Australije, predstojecih izbora, populizma, zapadnog Sidneja i prikljucenija - George Megalogenis, The Australian

(Tekst je poduzi, ali vredi procitati, koga zanima; udario sam bold gde mislim da su neke bitne informacije).

Spoiler! --Click here to view--

Planning, investment, people

THE jargon is so removed from the problem, it begs the question whether the main parties understand the population argument they started, and then tried to contain.

Julia Gillard focuses on the commuter suburbs that ring Sydney and Brisbane, because the polls tell her that’s where the grumpy voters are. But the happy voters are where the congestion is.

The Prime Minister’s politics is at odds with the nation’s demography, and its planning needs, because she can’t mention one of the solutions: further development of the inner cities.

The most densely populated electorate in Australia is also the wealthiest: Malcolm Turnbull’s Wentworth, in Sydney’s east.

Views, and services to kill for. That’s why the voters here don’t mind living on top of one another.

The other side of the congestion coin are the lower-income electorates with high population densities. Take Watson, in Sydney’s west held by Labor’s Population Minister Tony Burke.

It sits third on the population density ladder, but 131st on the income ladder. Yet the people here are also happy, and have no intention of voting out Labor because this an immigrant electorate. Watson is ranked 2nd for non-English speakers.

Wentworth and Watson, wealthy and woggy: two character traits that don’t apply to the sprawling, but less-densely populated commuter electorates which Labor and the Coalition are fighting over.

Wedged between Wentworth and Watson are Grayndler, ranked second overall for population density and held by Anthony Albanese, and Sydney, ranked fourth and held by Tanya Plibersek.

Burke, Albanese and Plibersek are students of the nation’s most destructive political school, the Sussex Street headquarters of NSW Labor. Interestingly, they hold the three most important bricks-and-mortar portfolios in the Gillard government: respectively, population, infrastructure and housing. The lessons in their backyard are never applied nationally because the commuter electorates are whiter, and less educated than the national average. Harsh, but this is the demographic reality that warps public debate even when unemployment is low.

Burke, Albanese and Plibersek have just one key ministry they can call on in a state government: planning. But it is a junior portfolio without status.

To understand the flaw in the model, think logically and then do the opposite.

If the rich and the newly arrived in the cities don’t mind living close together, surely a smart government—federal or state—would see population growth as a tool to build more vibrant cities by looking up, not further out? But state government planning codes are trip-wired to stop consolidation of the inner city because the next apartment and the next immigrant wave require someone to make room.

The forgotten ministry in the second-tier government can thwart national development because no one has yet figured out how to take planning seriously.

The farce at state level is aided and abetted by federal governments that play a form of reverse blame game with the outer suburbs.

The commuter electorates complain about infrastructure. Federal politicians reply that it’s the fault of the states, and those pesky Indian students who rort their visas and get bashed at unattended railway stations. When the bashings became world news earlier this year, the Victorian government ignored the victim to exonerate the person who wasn’t accused, the law-abiding swinging voter in the suburbs.

For a brief moment in January, the Victorian and federal Liberals were on the side of the underwog. Tony Abbott gave his version of the big Australia speech because the media cycle at the time was critical of Labor’s deafness to the need of the Indian students.

“Since 1970, an Australia that’s four times richer has more than coped with a population that’s two times greater,” the Opposition Leader said on January 24. “My instinct is to extend to as many people as possible the freedom and benefits of life in Australia. A larger population will bring that about provided that it’s also a more productive one.”

But the tail wagged the dog, and Abbott turned against his own publicly stated values to talk down population growth and to propose pre-emptive caps on the immigration program.

The commuter electorates fret about the boats, about the immigration scams and about infrastructure. Neither Labor nor Liberal can answer the third complaint with a straight face because both had been derelict in the boom years. So they pick on the underwog to buy time.

If neither side has a clear idea how to deal with population growth, it is because they don’t know how to take a flighty public into their confidence.

Pushing out the city limits to create space, without connection—a quarter-acre block without the school, the shopping centre, the office nearby—is rotten economics and even worse politics. Both sides realise this, yet they default to easy political mantras that defy economic common sense.

Abbott sees infrastructure as a problem of state government failure, which it is. But his slogan is to cut spending. Abbott’s politics are at odds with basic budget accounting. Here’s Abbott on Thursday, in full verbal assault mode:

“I certainly think that the state Labor governments have been utterly derelict at providing infrastructure,” he told Melbourne ABC radio.

“And I think that if we can get the debt and deficit under control then we can spend more money on economic assets, rather than blowing it in the sort of waste we’ve seen from the computers in schools program and the school halls program. If we can get that kind of waste under control, then we can invest more in economic infrastructure.”

This is the knee-jerk of a partisan spending minister: give me a surplus via cuts to the other side’s programs and I’ll spend it on my people. But infrastructure is a capital investment, not a regular budget item like the age pension. The only place where infrastructure meets the budget is the interest bill. Governments have to borrow to fund infrastructure, but Abbott doesn’t believe in debt because the polls tell him all debt is bad. But the polls also tell him voters want more spent on infrastructure.

What’s his solution: more private spending? The private operators have been all the rage for infrastructure development during the past 20 years. Yet even their pockets haven’t proved deep enough to keep up with demand.

Here’s where the toll company and the state planning minister serve the same anti-development end. Private operators love congestion because it drives up the value to their shareholders of the next project they build with taxpayer support.

The first leader that makes a credible connection between planning, investment and people will end the race to the bottom on population policy.

Mogu ja ako hoces da ti pravim drustvo na Topicu.

[iDemo]

Radio interview with Stuart white about Kurnell desalination plant, 27 Jan 2010

Liebmann says the $1.9b Kurnell desalination plant will be switched on this week and 1.5m residents in the city's east, inner west and Sutherland Shire will take water from it. Liebmann interviews Stuart White, Director, Institute of Sustainable Futures, UTS, who says the plant should only be used if dam levels fall to 15%. He says the capital expenditure has already been undertaken so the horse has bolted on a bad project but we still need to manage the costs of the plant going forward. He says the commissioning period is two years which seems too long; it would be better to mothball the plant until it is needed. Liebmann calls the plant a white elephant. White agrees. Liebmann says our Sydney water bills are going to rise because of it. White says the water bill will rise $100 per year because of the plant. He says it's not true supply and demand because the dams hold enough water as it is. He says the plant uses incredible energy intensity which will damage the environment. He says the wind farms should be being used for other purposes, and the plant is causing unnecessary greenhouse gas emissions. He says the water will taste normal.

Najsimpaticnije sto taj isti Stuart White nekako u to isto vremen kaze da ih nije ni trebalo graditi sve dok 'dam levels' ne padnu ispod 30%... Mora broj da bude ili deljiv sa 10 ili makar sa 5 da bi izgledao koliko toliko ozbiljno.

[iDemo]

Sydney's Water war is compounded by the local immigration issue. By Russ Grayson - posted Thursday, 13 November 2003

Sydneysiders will have to live with less water, Premier Bob Carr told the quarter of the country's population who make the city their home. His statement was lead story in the Sydney Morning Herald on 1-2 November and his message should have come as no surprise. Resource managers and conservationists have been saying as much for years and the notion of impending water shortage had seeped down even to the level of local government. Where once they were banned, councils have adopted policy and guidelines, even encouragement, for residents of their municipalities to install rainwater tanks. In the most populous city on the world's driest continent, this is common sense and it has created a market niche into which a number of metal and plastic-based fabricators have stepped. Roofwater tanks are now available in such a range of sizes, shapes and colours that they make the old, traditional, galvanised iron tank look very dowdy indeed.

By mid-year, the low level of water in the dams that feed the city was giving cause for alarm. Unless there was prolonged, substantial rain before the end of Spring, it became clear, water restrictions would have to be introduced.

To je tako potrajalo jos neko vreme, dam storage level je pao na nekih skoro 30%, pa su bile i restrikcije - pa je vlast resila da napravil desal da bi, nedugo potom, pala propisna kisha aka prolonged, substantial rain i - voila (obratiti paznju, ja znam i francuski) - dam storage level se, nicim izazvan, odjednom nasao na preko 60%...

[zatoichi]

Prvo, ne vidim po cemu se Amerikanci razlikuju u odnosu prema imigrantima?! osim toga, ne moze se posmatrati generalno - svaka osoba ima svoju vlastitu pricu koja zavisi od mnogo faktora: vrste posla, okruzenja, zemlje porekla itd. recimo,, sta ja da radim kada ne volim kriket ni ragbi a oni ne vole fudbal ?
Sto se emigracije tice, to je upravo ono o cemu sam nedavno pisao: nepitaju se lokalni politicari vec biznis - korporcije ! Njima trebaju radnici jer su veliki projekti u planu - prakticno od Geraldtona do Kununure u planu je izgradnja novih luka, rudnika, zeljeznice, naftnih postrojenja rudnika gvozdja zlata i baznih metala, a pocinje se i sa otkopavanjem uranijuma ! Pored toga tu su jos i poljoprivreda i turizam , da ne pominjemo usluge jer na svakog radnika u teskoj industriji dolaze bar jos 5-6 radika u usluznim delatnostima ( tzv. tercijalni sektor) !
Neko je izracunao da ce Australija 2050 imati 36 miliona stanovnika i to im je mnogo. A neko je to racunao linearno , jer Australija im istorijski priliv stanovnistva od 1.4% godisnje, dok je u poslednjih 4-5 pod Kevinom Ruddom imala 2 % ! Sada kazu da hoce ponovo da obore na 1.4 % ali ako pozovemo u pomoc matematiku - ako zadrze prirast od 1.4 % godisnje sa sadasnjih 22 miliona stanovnika u Australiji bi 2050 godine zivelo 38-39 miliona ljudi ! Dok ako bi zadrzilli ovu stopu pod Kevinom Ruddom od 2 % godisnje , dakle 2050 godine bi u Au zivelo skoro 50 miliona stanovnika a ne 36 kako politicari i mediji raspravljaju !!! A onih 1.4% je minimum kako bi Australija zadrala ekonomski rast i odrzivi razvoj inace preti stagnacija ! Dakle za realno je ocekivati da ce 2050 Australija imati najmanje 40 miliona a mozda i znatno vise !!! Ali ako bi to objavili pucanstvu ko zna kakve bi bile reakcije ! A racunica je prosta - svako moze da uzme kalkulator u ruke i da izracuna - ali malo ljudi zna to ovde da radi !!!

[iDemo]

Dakle za realno je ocekivati da ce 2050 Australija imati najmanje 40 miliona a mozda i znatno vise !!! Ali ako bi to objavili pucanstvu ko zna kakve bi bile reakcije ! A racunica je prosta - svako moze da uzme kalkulator u ruke i da izracuna - ali malo ljudi zna to ovde da radi !!!

Jasno. Ovde ce da fali mali milion kvazimedicinskog i medicinskog osoblja samo da odneguje sav taj narod koji ce da se penzionishe u sledecih 20ak godina i zaglavi po raznim starackim i slicnim domovima...

[zatoichi]

Jasno. Ovde ce da fali mali milion kvazimedicinskog i medicinskog osoblja samo da odneguje sav taj narod koji ce da se penzionishe u sledecih 20ak godina i zaglavi po raznim starackim i slicnim domovima...

Australija je prakticno po definiciji imigrantska zemlja, slicno kao i N.Zeland i Kanada. Obzirom da N.Zeland ima izvesnih ekonomskih problema u poslednje vreme, ostaju Australija i Kanada kao najpovoljnije destinacije. Dakle imaju jako dobro razvijenu imigrantsku politiku, upotrebljava se engleski jezik koji vecina ljudi koliko-toliko poznaje , posla ima, i sto ce ti vise? Mislim, ako nekom ne odgovaraju Kanada ili Australija, postavlja se pitanje gde bi im bilo bolje ?!?! Amerika i Engleska su vec prenaseljene, Z. Evropa takodje osim toga preovladjuju nacionalne drzave u kojima su imigranti manje dobrodoslli u odnosu na ove prethodno nabrojane.
Covek moze jako brzo da promeni profesiju preko TAFE skole - jedan semestar , pola godina , i kreces da radis nesto drugo! To noskich nikako da shvati - da ne moras da radis zasta si se skolovao - radis ono sto to donosi pare !
Imao sam prilike da vidim - Australijanac koji je zavrsio astrofiziku, voleo je to i bilo mu je zanimljivo , ali nema posla a i ako ga ima - pare nikakve ! sada zavrsava drugi fakultet - rudarski , jer je posao rudarskog inzenjera mnogo bolje placen! Takodje jos jedan momak iz Adelaide , takodje rodjeni Australijanac koji je zavrsio fiziku i radio je razne poslove- uglavnom u usluznim delatnostima, radio je svaki posao koji mu je u datom momentu bio dostupan ! Dakle, najvaznije je naci posao i raditi i zaradjivati novac ! Manje je vazno koji posao radis - najbolje bi bilo kad bi dobio 10k mesecno a da ne radim nista - ali toga nema , nema vise "leba bez motike" !!!!

[vilhelmina]

well, yes. ja recimo radim sa veoma dobro placenim i u londonu utemeljenim ljudima, i svako malo neko emigrira negde, prevenstveno zbog avanturizma, poneko zbog poreza, od nas 40-ak, u poslednje dve godine dvoje odose bas u au, jedna u cali, jedan bas prosle nedelje zapali za bahame (mislim, kupio kucu i odselio se, ne na odmor), i svi u 30-im i 40-im. i onaj ko je siromasan i u 20-im zapravo moze da zavidi nekom ko je u 40-im, ima porodicu, ima pare i ima karijeru u kojoj je competitive na svetskom trzistu, jer je tome zaista bolje. onaj ko zavidi, doduse, onda moze da se priseti da je i ovaj u 40-im nekad takodje bio na pocetku ali noskich je u pravu, imigracija je daleko najbolja za one koji su vec etablirani na nekom svetskom trzistu rada, vec imaju dobru karijeru iza sebe i znatnu ustedjevinu i mogu da dobiju dobro placen posao na daljinu, jos pre nego sto udju u zemlju.

Ti i Noskich upravo konstatovali da je bolje biti bogat nego siromasan.
Ja sam prethodno razumela Noskicha da je najbolje emigrantima u cedrdesetim s decom, koji su vec utemeljeni, bla-bla... Ako je mislio na to da treba imati dobru karijeru i znatnu ustedjevinu (kao sto si ti, izgleda, razumela), onda sto to nije i rekao? Kakve veze imaju godine i deca? Mislim, covek moze imati dovoljno respektabilne karijere iza sebe i u ranim tridesetim, a pare se mogu i naslediti, ne moraju se nuzno ustedeti. I eto dobre podloge za selidbu gde ti srce pozeli.
U tom slucaju se pitam odakle Noskichu ideja da se poredi s takvim ljudima. Sta sad, treba svi da se obesimo sto nismo Arnold Schwarzenegger? Tom emigrantu bas dobro ide
Da ne budem nejasna: Noskich je jedan mlad imigrant, i po godinama i po emigrantskom stazu, koji uz to dolazi iz Srbije, pa bi mu tom smislu bilo primerenije da se poredi s onim boat-people, nego s dobro utemeljenim cetrdesetogodsisnjacima s decom i karijerama. Mozda onda uspe da uvidi i neke sopstvene prednosti.

Nijedan posao ponudjen u zivotu nisam odbio. Problem je sto se vrlo malo toga nudi, od tih 5 poslova 4 su bila na univerzitetu, svi su bili ograniceni na mesec-2
i nisu bili u struci. Znaci nigde me ne vode, nikakvo iskustvo, tapkanje u mestu. Van univerziteta ni na intervju me ne pozivaju.

Ne znam kako su se tebi ponudili ovi poslovi. Meni nijedan nije hteo, sve sam morala sama da nadjem.
Ajd´ salu na stranu (ako je uopste sala ) . Dok god tebi ne silazi s pameti ta tvoja struka za koju si se skolovao, neces naci nikakav drugi posao, a nisi u prilici da biras. Poslodavci osete kad nameravas samo da otaljas posao za neku kintu ili da ti prodje vreme, a kada stvarno zelis da radis. Primaju samo u potonjem slucaju, tebe ili nekog drugog. Nikome ne treba neko ko ce u svakoj pauzi za kafu trcati da nadje bolji posao jer postojeci nije u skladu s njegovim zeljama i ocekivanjima. Sta god radio, pravi poslodavac s pravom ocekuje da se tome posvetis 100%, bilo da raznosis pice ili pronalazis lek protiv raka, a ti mi uopste ne izgledas spreman na to. S takvim stavom, ja te ne bih zaposlila.
U Koreju i Japan se ne razumem, bas kao ni ti, ali mislim da bi ti tek tamo mogucnosti bile krajnje ogranicene jer ne znas lokalni jezik, sve da je zivot tamo stvarno bolji nego u Australiji, u sta cisto sumnjam.

[iDemo]

U Koreju i Japan se ne razumem, bas kao ni ti, ali mislim da bi ti tek tamo mogucnosti bile krajnje ogranicene jer ne znas lokalni jezik, sve da je zivot tamo stvarno bolji nego u Australiji, u sta cisto sumnjam.

Cisto sumnjash??! StoCi MnjamSujesh... A taman nam kolega napravio poseban topik o AustralijU i ti tras - Japan - i to u ovom kontekstu - sad cemo morati da molimo moderatore da (na)dodaju u imenu - Australija i Japan... Koreju ne moraju da spominju. Mis'im kad nas dopadne obhasjnjenje kako nema sumnje...

[vilhelmina]

Cisto sumnjash??! StoCi MnjamSujesh... A taman nam kolega napravio poseban topik o AustralijU i ti tras - Japan - i to u ovom kontekstu - sad cemo morati da molimo moderatore da (na)dodaju u imenu - Australija i Japan... Koreju ne moraju da spominju. Mis'im kad nas dopadne obhasjnjenje kako nema sumnje...

Pa nisam ih ja uvela u pricu. Oni su tu cisto radi poredjenja s Australijom. Ali posto se ni u nju ne razumem, moguce da cu i odavde biti najurena .
Hocu reci, tamo na topicu o BG Prag rezi na svakog ko nije Beoooogradjanin. Sad i vi kenguri uvedite members only ovde, pa ostaje samo da si Cyber i ja otvorimo topic i site se napricamo

Edited by vilhelmina, 01 August 2010 - 16:32.

[angelia]

Da ne budem nejasna: Noskich je jedan mlad imigrant, i po godinama i po emigrantskom stazu, koji uz to dolazi iz Srbije, pa bi mu tom smislu bilo primerenije da se poredi s onim boat-people, nego s dobro utemeljenim cetrdesetogodsisnjacima s decom i karijerama. Mozda onda uspe da uvidi i neke sopstvene prednosti.

On nekako sebe shvata preozbiljno, ocekuje da svoju karijeru pocne u struci po mogucstvu dobro placeno kao neko ko je imao tu zivot 20-30 godina. Naravno nece raznositi pice ili uzeti lopatu u saku, to ne moze ili objasnjava sebi kako nije zato dosao..
Sve to verovatno dolazi od nacina na koji je dosao u AU, pozajmica, studiranje. Nema motivacije.

Ne znam kako su se tebi ponudili ovi poslovi. Meni nijedan nije hteo, sve sam morala sama da nadjem.
Ajd´ salu na stranu (ako je uopste sala ) . Dok god tebi ne silazi s pameti ta tvoja struka za koju si se skolovao, neces naci nikakav drugi posao, a nisi u prilici da biras. Poslodavci osete kad nameravas samo da otaljas posao za neku kintu ili da ti prodje vreme, a kada stvarno zelis da radis. Primaju samo u potonjem slucaju, tebe ili nekog drugog. Nikome ne treba neko ko ce u svakoj pauzi za kafu trcati da nadje bolji posao jer postojeci nije u skladu s njegovim zeljama i ocekivanjima. Sta god radio, pravi poslodavac s pravom ocekuje da se tome posvetis 100%, bilo da raznosis pice ili pronalazis lek protiv raka, a ti mi uopste ne izgledas spreman na to. S takvim stavom, ja te ne bih zaposlila.
U Koreju i Japan se ne razumem, bas kao ni ti, ali mislim da bi ti tek tamo mogucnosti bile krajnje ogranicene jer ne znas lokalni jezik, sve da je zivot tamo stvarno bolji nego u Australiji, u sta cisto sumnjam.

Sto je najgore nekako mi deluje da je tvoja sala istina. Sve ostalo mislim da je direktan pogodak.

Cisto sumnjash??! StoCi MnjamSujesh... A taman nam kolega napravio poseban topik o AustralijU i ti tras - Japan - i to u ovom kontekstu - sad cemo morati da molimo moderatore da (na)dodaju u imenu - Australija i Japan... Koreju ne moraju da spominju. Mis'im kad nas dopadne obhasjnjenje kako nema sumnje...

Ne prizivaj japance

[Lift Going Up..]

al je zdravstveno osiguranje jeftinije u au. za tretman imigranata, reci cu vam svoje utiske u poredjenju sa us (nakon sto odem), posto, koliko vidim niko od nas ovde jos nije ziveo u oba.

[iDemo]

Pa nisam ih ja uvela u pricu. Oni su tu cisto radi poredjenja s Australijom. Ali posto se ni u nju ne razumem, moguce da cu i odavde biti najurena .
Hocu reci, tamo na topicu o BG Prag rezi na svakog ko nije Beoooogradjanin. Sad i vi kenguri uvedite members only ovde, pa ostaje samo da si Cyber i ja otvorimo topic i site se napricamo

Ne morash ni da ih uvedesh - doci ce sami...
Inace - mi ovde nismo (nikad bili) members only, samo to da znash.