Australia's stalled migrant boom derails golden economic run

[simple1]

20 hours ago, Aussiepeter said:

<SNIP>

What relevance did your post have with the OP?

[GreasyFingers]

23 hours ago, simple1 said:

Australia's population growth would only be 0.5% which is unsustainable for economic growth.

Can you tell me why you need economic growth. To me that is just an academic economist thought to which i would not pay to listen to with your money. Sustainability is not part of their thinking.

This is not meant to be derisive but I think there was not a real problem with what Australia was 50 years ago.

[samran]

2 hours ago, GreasyFingers said:

Can you tell me why you need economic growth. To me that is just an academic economist thought to which i would not pay to listen to with your money. Sustainability is not part of their thinking.

This is not meant to be derisive but I think there was not a real problem with what Australia was 50 years ago.

The problem with GDP is that it doesn't measure well being. Its used as proxy, but as many acknowledged it isn't a great one.

 

There are a couple of reasons I can really think of why Australia 'needs' to grow GDP- geopolitical strength in a volatile region. We are the 10th - 12th largest economy in the world. Our dollar the 5th most traded currency in the world. These things are important for our national security - I'd argue, just as important as alliances. We will never be a super power, but we need to be economically strong. Getting bigger helps that. 

 

Related to this is population - having a largish population, with the economic backbone that gives you - helps you not get pushed around 'as much'. Making it economically important so that you have allies who will at least think about standing by your side is important. This one is simple politics.

 

Another reason for is a more basic one. We will never produce everything that we need. The closet socialist may dream of the workers paradise where everything we need is made and produce with our borders, but the reality is - if the late 60s and early 70s taught us anything, trying to do that just leads to the development of overpriced and cosseted protected industries. Moribund, un-competitive and frankly, expensive. 

 

So economic strength (growth) so that our exports and economy  can at least pay for our imports. This wasn't happening 50 years ago if you look at the trade balances, the current account deficit got progressively worse from the late 70's, and to use the Keating's term, if the financial markets didn't think you could pay for those imports, they'd hammer your currency and we'd really have to change the currency to be the 'Pacific Peso'.

 

My great concern is that we are simply too reliant on a couple of primary goods for our export income. Iron Ore and Coal basically are what we export. They are important (and may actually save us from a technical recession even now). But we need to do better than that. Further development of at least some of our primary products before should be a good place to start. Being a competitive, high tech, high wage manufacturer like Germany or Switzerland will also be a good aim.

 

 

Edited June 2, 2020 by samran

[johnpetersen]

50 minutes ago, samran said:

The problem with GDP is that it doesn't measure well being. Its used as proxy, but as many acknowledged it isn't a great one.

 

There are a couple of reasons I can really think of why Australia 'needs' to grow GDP- geopolitical strength in a volatile reason. We are the 10th - 12th largest economy in the world. Our dollar the 5th most traded currency in the world. These things are important for our national security - I'd argue, just as important as alliances. We will never be a super power, but we need to be economically strong. Getting bigger helps that. 

 

Related to this is population - having a largish population, with the economic backbone that gives you - helps you not get pushed around 'as much'. This one is simple politics.

 

Another reason for is a more basic one. We will never produce everything that we need. The closet socialist may dream of the workers paradise where everything we need is made and produce with our borders, but the reality is - if the late 60s and early 70s taught us anything, trying to do that just leads to the development of overpriced and cosseted protected industries. Moribund, un-competitive and frankly, expensive. 

 

So economic strength (growth) so that our exports and economy  can at least pay for our imports. This wasn't happening 50 years ago if you look at the trade balances, the current account deficit got progressively worse from the late 70's, and to use the Keating's term, if the financial markets didn't think you could pay for those imports, they'd hammer your currency and we'd really have to change the currency to be the 'Pacific Peso'.

 

My great concern is that we are simply too reliant on a couple of primary goods for our export income. Iron Ore and Coal basically are what we export. They are important (and may actually save us from a technical recession even now). But we need to do better than that. Further development of at least some of our primary products before should be a good place to start. Being a competitive, high tech, high wage manufacturer like Germany or Switzerland will also be a good aim.

 

 

Given the ongoing threat to Australia's water resources, more humans in Australia may outweigh any benefit that would otherwise accrue to the economy.

Australia’s Water Is Vanishing

Scorched by climate change and drained by industrial farms, the country’s most important river system is nearing collapse.

https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2020-australia-drought-water-crisis/

[Sujo]

On 6/1/2020 at 7:52 PM, Andrew65 said:

It's true what you say, but I think it's also the 'elephant in the room', the real problem that the world faces is population growth, a cause of, and more of a problem than climate change.

What population growth. The immigrants are already alive.

[Sujo]

24 minutes ago, johnpetersen said:

Given the ongoing threat to Australia's water resources, more humans in Australia may outweigh any benefit that would otherwise accrue to the economy.

Australia’s Water Is Vanishing

Scorched by climate change and drained by industrial farms, the country’s most important river system is nearing collapse.

https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2020-australia-drought-water-crisis/

Oz gets drought and floods, extremes of both. Just needs to learn how to hold the water.

[johnpetersen]

18 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Oz gets drought and floods, extremes of both. Just needs to learn how to hold the water.

Really? They've done virtually all that can be done in that river system. It's the most intensively managed system on the planet. There just isn't enough water.

[mfd101]

10 hours ago, johnpetersen said:

Really? They've done virtually all that can be done in that river system. It's the most intensively managed system on the planet. There just isn't enough water.

And massive floods in Qld & NSW about once every 5 or 6 years ...

[GreasyFingers]

12 hours ago, samran said:

The problem with GDP is that it doesn't measure well being. Its used as proxy, but as many acknowledged it isn't a great one.

 

There are a couple of reasons I can really think of why Australia 'needs' to grow GDP- geopolitical strength in a volatile region. We are the 10th - 12th largest economy in the world. Our dollar the 5th most traded currency in the world. These things are important for our national security - I'd argue, just as important as alliances. We will never be a super power, but we need to be economically strong. Getting bigger helps that. 

 

Related to this is population - having a largish population, with the economic backbone that gives you - helps you not get pushed around 'as much'. Making it economically important so that you have allies who will at least think about standing by your side is important. This one is simple politics.

 

Another reason for is a more basic one. We will never produce everything that we need. The closet socialist may dream of the workers paradise where everything we need is made and produce with our borders, but the reality is - if the late 60s and early 70s taught us anything, trying to do that just leads to the development of overpriced and cosseted protected industries. Moribund, un-competitive and frankly, expensive. 

 

So economic strength (growth) so that our exports and economy  can at least pay for our imports. This wasn't happening 50 years ago if you look at the trade balances, the current account deficit got progressively worse from the late 70's, and to use the Keating's term, if the financial markets didn't think you could pay for those imports, they'd hammer your currency and we'd really have to change the currency to be the 'Pacific Peso'.

 

My great concern is that we are simply too reliant on a couple of primary goods for our export income. Iron Ore and Coal basically are what we export. They are important (and may actually save us from a technical recession even now). But we need to do better than that. Further development of at least some of our primary products before should be a good place to start. Being a competitive, high tech, high wage manufacturer like Germany or Switzerland will also be a good aim.

 

 

I have no problems with your logic, but what you only talk about money so I will disagree with what is good or bad for Australia.

I grew up in a small village 50 miles from Sydney. Everyone knew who you were and you exchanged hellos where ever you walked. There were many migrants that worked in the coal mines or steel works so I am not talking about a race issue. I lived away from the village for 35 years before returning to my parents house. There were not many of the original people left and the ones that had moved in were totally different. I could walk down the street and not only would people not say hello but some would actually turn away so they did not have to acknowledge you.

That is not progress. Is money, growth or GDP the cause, I cannot say, but certainly expect that it is.

[Grumpy one]

On 6/1/2020 at 6:37 PM, gamini said:

I would have thought that Australia would be now letting in all those poor would-be immigrants who they have locked up in concentration camps in offshore islands.

Why let them in, does the USA or any other country allow these types in

OK the bleeding hearts in Europe do and how is that working out.

Anyone trying to come to a country without a proper visa deserves to be locked up then returned to where they come from.

And for your information these would be poor have a better quality of life with everything free than aged pensioners who worked all their lives have.

If you feel they are hard done by, go and give them your home

[mfd101]

Here are the international growth figures for real GDP growth in the March quarter (Jan-March), published today in the 'Australian' newspaper:

 

China minus 10%, Italy & France minus 5%, Germany & Canada & UK & OECD average minus 2%, US minus 1.8%, Korea & Japan minus 0.5%.

 

And Oz? Minus 0.3%.

 

Oh, come on, Oz! You can do better than that! Why aren't you keeping up with the rest of the world?

[Andrew65]

14 hours ago, johnpetersen said:

Really? They've done virtually all that can be done in that river system. It's the most intensively managed system on the planet. There just isn't enough water.

Too much industrial-scale agriculture. Same thing in California & South Africa in recent years.

Edited June 3, 2020 by Andrew65

[Bluetongue]

Too much of the migration is by default as mentioned in the story. Predominantly Asian people come on Education visa's to study various things. The visa usually allows them to work part time. I dont know what the courses are, it doesn't matter, but I think some of them have been found to be bogus. Anyway I know several Indians and a Thai guy who enrolled paid their money, got the visa arrived and started work, no one checks how many hours they do, they can work in the gig economy, taxis, cleaners etc. Their home countries diaspora will help them find work. After a while they get permanent residence etc and everyone is happy. 

 

So when the Government makes an announcement that next years skilled migration target will be 160,000 it does not include those who are already there on Ed visas who will end up staying. So I think the real figure is higher hence the higher Importance to GDP.

[simple1]

13 minutes ago, Bluetongue said:

Too much of the migration is by default as mentioned in the story. Predominantly Asian people come on Education visa's to study various things. The visa usually allows them to work part time. I dont know what the courses are, it doesn't matter, but I think some of them have been found to be bogus. Anyway I know several Indians and a Thai guy who enrolled paid their money, got the visa arrived and started work, no one checks how many hours they do, they can work in the gig economy, taxis, cleaners etc. Their home countries diaspora will help them find work. After a while they get permanent residence etc and everyone is happy. 

 

So when the Government makes an announcement that next years skilled migration target will be 160,000 it does not include those who are already there on Ed visas who will end up staying. So I think the real figure is higher hence the higher Importance to GDP.

Media reports government has identified a huge drop of incoming students and skilled migrant visas due to Covid. Current forecast for skilled migrants in coming year is approx 35,000. The education sector has forecast a shortfall of around S16 billion dollars and 21,000 job losses.

[nauseus]

The 'golden' bit ended a few years ago. Australia was shielded from the 2008 financial crisis by its robust export trade of raw materials and other goods to China. From 2011 the AUD/USD has declined from 1.10 to 0.69 ,now, and was as low as 0.58 very recently. Now the Aussies are finding how much of their "wealth" is actually foreign-owned. Nothing to do with the virus or immigrants.

[samran]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

The 'golden' bit ended a few years ago. Australia was shielded from the 2008 financial crisis by its robust export trade of raw materials and other goods to China. From 2011 the AUD/USD has declined from 1.10 to 0.69 ,now, and was as low as 0.58 very recently. Now the Aussies are finding how much of their "wealth" is actually foreign-owned. Nothing to do with the virus or immigrants.

It’s a tad more complicated if you look at the net situation.

 

Mainly via our superannuation, on a net basis, Australians own more of the rest of the world than the rest of the world owns us. Australians should be eternally grateful to Paul Keating’s superannuation guarantee for that. 
 

We have more liabilities to foreigners however. 
 

a good article which sums it up. 
 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-03/historic-current-account-surplus-banana-republic/11473366

[samran]

5 hours ago, GreasyFingers said:

I have no problems with your logic, but what you only talk about money so I will disagree with what is good or bad for Australia.

I grew up in a small village 50 miles from Sydney. Everyone knew who you were and you exchanged hellos where ever you walked. There were many migrants that worked in the coal mines or steel works so I am not talking about a race issue. I lived away from the village for 35 years before returning to my parents house. There were not many of the original people left and the ones that had moved in were totally different. I could walk down the street and not only would people not say hello but some would actually turn away so they did not have to acknowledge you.

That is not progress. Is money, growth or GDP the cause, I cannot say, but certainly expect that it is.

If it is anything like has happened in Melbourne, then where you grew up is now probably part of the commuter belt, where more affordable housing has forced younger families to move. That’s going to change things for sure. 

[GreasyFingers]

5 hours ago, Bluetongue said:

Too much of the migration is by default as mentioned in the story. Predominantly Asian people come on Education visa's to study various things. The visa usually allows them to work part time. I dont know what the courses are, it doesn't matter, but I think some of them have been found to be bogus. Anyway I know several Indians and a Thai guy who enrolled paid their money, got the visa arrived and started work, no one checks how many hours they do, they can work in the gig economy, taxis, cleaners etc. Their home countries diaspora will help them find work. After a while they get permanent residence etc and everyone is happy. 

 

So when the Government makes an announcement that next years skilled migration target will be 160,000 it does not include those who are already there on Ed visas who will end up staying. So I think the real figure is higher hence the higher Importance to GDP.

If they are working it is probably a good idea to let them in. Even the 2 pound poms were a help.

[nauseus]

3 hours ago, GreasyFingers said:

If they are working it is probably a good idea to let them in. Even the 2 pound poms were a help.

Please don't devalue us Pommies - we were quoted at a tenner.

[samran]

37 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Please don't devalue us Pommies - we were quoted at a tenner.

Literally deal of the century. Being able to move to gods country for a tenner! 

[impulse]

On 6/2/2020 at 8:03 AM, samran said:

The problem with GDP is that it doesn't measure well being. Its used as proxy, but as many acknowledged it isn't a great one.

 

There are a couple of reasons I can really think of why Australia 'needs' to grow GDP- geopolitical strength in a volatile region. We are the 10th - 12th largest economy in the world. Our dollar the 5th most traded currency in the world. These things are important for our national security - I'd argue, just as important as alliances. We will never be a super power, but we need to be economically strong. Getting bigger helps that. 

 

It's much simpler... 

 

GDP growth is required to perpetuate corporate profits, CEO bonuses and political contributions.  With a tiny bit trickling down to the 99% to give us the illusions of a better life and self determination with the vote.   So we don't pull out the pitchforks and start eating the 1% and the politicians they bought.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

On 6/3/2020 at 1:03 AM, samran said:

Another reason for is a more basic one. We will never produce everything that we need. The closet socialist may dream of the workers paradise where everything we need is made and produce with our borders, but the reality is - if the late 60s and early 70s taught us anything, trying to do that just leads to the development of overpriced and cosseted protected industries. Moribund, un-competitive and frankly, expensive. 

You can produce everything you need. You have iron ore and coal, so can have all the steel you need. What people don't want to do is pay for it to be made in Oz.

The move to export all industry to China and other low wage countries was all about GREED. You get cheap goods at the cost of OTHER PEOPLE's lives. You think all those factory slaves workers in China enjoy their lives making stuff so importers can get rich, rich, rich in western countries.

Frankly IMO we in the west should be ashamed of what we have done in the past 50 years, exploiting those in poor countries so we can have cheap clothes that get thrown away after a few times.

Having destroyed real work in OZ, you still bring in immigrants so the 1% can get even richer and <deleted> the workers.

[thaibeachlovers]

8 hours ago, impulse said:

 

It's much simpler... 

 

GDP growth is required to perpetuate corporate profits, CEO bonuses and political contributions.  With a tiny bit trickling down to the 99% to give us the illusions of a better life and self determination with the vote.   So we don't pull out the pitchforks and start eating the 1% and the politicians they bought.

 

I could not have said it better myself.

[samran]

9 hours ago, impulse said:

 

It's much simpler... 

 

GDP growth is required to perpetuate corporate profits, CEO bonuses and political contributions.  With a tiny bit trickling down to the 99% to give us the illusions of a better life and self determination with the vote.   So we don't pull out the pitchforks and start eating the 1% and the politicians they bought.

 

Its funny as I'm often targeted here on this web board as being some kind of communist/socialist/lefty snowflake, but i've never run the 1% line in Australia in particular. By any estimation Australians are materially much better off than they were a generation ago, and for me that is a good thing (on balance).

 

What is true is that economic inequality has increased in the past 50 years - it is part and parcel of economic liberalisation. As a result, what governments do is important, and that is there is a good and solid safety net - healthcare, education, welfare payments and pensions. Unfortunately the narrative has been to demonise those worse off than us as making it somehow 'their fault' for being poor. That for me needs to change.

 

47 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You can produce everything you need. You have iron ore and coal, so can have all the steel you need. What people don't want to do is pay for it to be made in Oz.

The move to export all industry to China and other low wage countries was all about GREED. You get cheap goods at the cost of OTHER PEOPLE's lives. You think all those factory slaves workers in China enjoy their lives making stuff so importers can get rich, rich, rich in western countries.

Frankly IMO we in the west should be ashamed of what we have done in the past 50 years, exploiting those in poor countries so we can have cheap clothes that get thrown away after a few times.

Having destroyed real work in OZ, you still bring in immigrants so the 1% can get even richer and <deleted> the workers.

 

We could produce everything we need? No we can't. We are too small to literally do everything, whether it is to innovate every single thing that is being developed around the world. We don't have our Elon Musks, Airbuses, Microsofts and googles.

 

For manufacturing and production...you are right, it will be expensive, but there is going to be an even bigger problem. Who's going to stump up the money to build those factories? Banks aren't as they know its a bad deal. Will you (via your super fund?) Or will you ask government to take a bet and do it on behalf of all of us?

 

As much as it sounds attractive, a country like Australia or NZ will never be a isolated nirvana. These places don't exist. We all rely on someone else. What we can do however is ensure food, water and energy security (as well as conventional defense capabilities) to ensure that we are at least masters of our own destinies in the global world.

[thaibeachlovers]

31 minutes ago, samran said:

As a result, what governments do is important, and that is there is a good and solid safety net - healthcare, education, welfare payments and pensions.

Even better would be if there were real jobs for people to do. Welfare is NEVER as good for the unemployed as having a job would be. As long as real jobs are exported to make the 1% richer, there will never be enough real jobs for the locals to do.

 

31 minutes ago, samran said:

We could produce everything we need? No we can't. We are too small to literally do everything, whether it is to innovate every single thing that is being developed around the world. We don't have our Elon Musks, Airbuses, Microsofts and googles.

Yes we can. They had everything they needed to have good productive lives in the 1950s. No personal computers, no mobile phones, not much in the way of tv, none of the garbage that we think we need to have a good life now.

Modern life is about being a consumer so the 1% can mint it. People are NOT happier than they were in the 50s. They are stressed, unhappy, obsessed with money and things that do nothing to enrich life.

Yes there was bad stuff in the 50s, but we could have better lives without greed and exploitation if we stopped being consumed by envy and greed and lust for money and went back to simpler lives with real jobs for all.

Edited June 4, 2020 by thaibeachlovers

[samran]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Even better would be if there were real jobs for people to do. Welfare is NEVER as good for the unemployed as having a job would be. As long as real jobs are exported to make the 1% richer, there will never be enough real jobs for the locals to do.

 

Yes we can. They had everything they needed to have good productive lives in the 1950s. No personal computers, no mobile phones, not much in the way of tv, none of the garbage that we think we need to have a good life now.

Modern life is about being a consumer so the 1% can mint it. People are NOT happier than they were in the 50s. They are stressed, unhappy, obsessed with money and things that do nothing to enrich life.

Yes there was bad stuff in the 50s, but we could have better lives without greed and exploitation if we stopped being consumed by envy and greed and lust for money and went back to simpler lives with real jobs for all.

I agree that welfare is never as good as a job, but that was only one of the four things I outlined. But we need welfare and I for one aren't going to demonise people for needing it.

 

As for what is a 'real job'? Tell me what that might be. The job I have now didn't exist in the 1950's. The job my kids have don't exist now. We can't live in a static state.

 

You are essentially saying, if I read it correctly, 'having a job is better - but only certain jobs'.

 

As for going back to the future? Not for me, thanks. I also don't think that the 50s was some sort of golden age. No doubt though when I'm retired, I'll be saying the same thing about the 80s.

[johnpetersen]

37 minutes ago, samran said:

Its funny as I'm often targeted here on this web board as being some kind of communist/socialist/lefty snowflake, but i've never run the 1% line in Australia in particular. By any estimation Australians are materially much better off than they were a generation ago, and for me that is a good thing (on balance).

 

What is true is that economic inequality has increased in the past 50 years - it is part and parcel of economic liberalisation. As a result, what governments do is important, and that is there is a good and solid safety net - healthcare, education, welfare payments and pensions. Unfortunately the narrative has been to demonise those worse off than us as making it somehow 'their fault' for being poor. That for me needs to change.

 

 

We could produce everything we need? No we can't. We are too small to literally do everything, whether it is to innovate every single thing that is being developed around the world. We don't have our Elon Musks, Airbuses, Microsofts and googles.

 

For manufacturing and production...you are right, it will be expensive, but there is going to be an even bigger problem. Who's going to stump up the money to build those factories? Banks aren't as they know its a bad deal. Will you (via your super fund?) Or will you ask government to take a bet and do it on behalf of all of us?

 

As much as it sounds attractive, a country like Australia or NZ will never be a isolated nirvana. These places don't exist. We all rely on someone else. What we can do however is ensure food, water and energy security (as well as conventional defense capabilities) to ensure that we are at least masters of our own destinies in the global world.

You've got it exactly right. All this talk about bringing back jobs is just a distraction. It's the fraying of the social safety net that's the real issue. And what's odd is that the so many of the same people who call for bringing back economically unfeasible jobs support politicians who have slashed taxes on the 1%.

[Bluetongue]

Well anyway the happiness index should count for something but not everything, as unhappiness can be down to other factors than the economy. And many in Australia missed the bus and they should be propped up. And are as far as I know they are. 

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, samran said:

I agree that welfare is never as good as a job, but that was only one of the four things I outlined. But we need welfare and I for one aren't going to demonise people for needing it.

 

As for what is a 'real job'? Tell me what that might be. The job I have now didn't exist in the 1950's. The job my kids have don't exist now. We can't live in a static state.

 

You are essentially saying, if I read it correctly, 'having a job is better - but only certain jobs'.

 

As for going back to the future? Not for me, thanks. I also don't think that the 50s was some sort of golden age. No doubt though when I'm retired, I'll be saying the same thing about the 80s.

I'm not "demonising" people that really need welfare ( many now won't do work they think is below them, or can't get a job because they use drugs- but that's another topic ).

 

A real job is something that does something actually needed, that produces something that creates wealth. Too many people now working that produce nothing that benefits society, such as financial sector where people move money around to make more money, exploit those least able to afford it, and make huge amounts of money but benefit society not a jot. A few other suchlike jobs but I won't get too deep now.

 

I'm not saying return to the 50's, but a return to the values of the 50's where money was not god and people cared about others and society was valued more than the latest mobile phone, where children played outside instead of on a machine, and music could be danced to.

IMO modern society has sold it's soul for mammon.

It's not going to end well, IMO.

[samran]

11 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'm not "demonising" people that really need welfare ( many now won't do work they think is below them, or can't get a job because they use drugs- but that's another topic ).

 

A real job is something that does something actually needed, that produces something that creates wealth. Too many people now working that produce nothing that benefits society, such as financial sector where people move money around to make more money, exploit those least able to afford it, and make huge amounts of money but benefit society not a jot. A few other suchlike jobs but I won't get too deep now.

 

I'm not saying return to the 50's, but a return to the values of the 50's where money was not god and people cared about others and society was valued more than the latest mobile phone, where children played outside instead of on a machine, and music could be danced to.

IMO modern society has sold it's soul for mammon.

It's not going to end well, IMO.

To the extent that marketing has produced the whole FOMO cycle which drives ever more consumption for consumptions sake I agree.
 

I hope (maybe too optimistically) that the recent shut down has reminded people that they don’t need as much as they think (I say this typing on an iPhone 11 - 555). 
 

Having said that, we can’t dictate where economies go and what they do. The soviets tried it, and it didn’t work out too well. 

 

I also don’t agree on the jobs bit. Every job has value but we aren’t necessarily good at remunerating those jobs properly or fairly. 
 

Id argue (and I’m not one) that the finance industry helps money find where it needs to go most effectively. It’s needed and I’d rather be a small business man looking for finance these days that back in the 50s and 60s. 

 

But is the remuneration of those people, particularly at the top end,  obscene? Largely.

 

Equally, coming out of this covid thing, there is going to be a whole new generation of parents quite happy if their kids teachers are paid six figures from here on in after having to deal with educating their own darlings for the past two months.