The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Economic arguments against population growth > Comments

Economic arguments against population growth : Comments

By Cameron Murray, published 7/5/2010

While Population Minister Tony Burke may be new to the debate, the population debate itself is certainly not new to politics.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. All
Excellent article and some very good comments, especially from Fester and stevenlmeyer.

If high population growth is as beneficial as Curmudgeon and Cheryl would like us to believe, then they need to explain why there is no link between a developed country's population size, density, or growth rate and its GNP per capita. (There is a link between population growth and prosperity among the poorer countries, but it is negative.)

The top 10 countries on the World Economic Forum Competitiveness Index are Switzerland,the US, Singapore, Swededn, Denmark, Finland, Japan, Germany, Canada, and the Netherlands. Note the absence of Australia. None of these countries have even half our rate of population growth. Switzerland, the leader, has a 0.276% growth rate (CIA World Factbook) compared to our 2.1%. Germany and Japan, numbers 7 and 8, are actually declining in population. These ten countries all need skilled labour as much as or more than we do. Since many of them have little immigration or population growth, they must be training their own. Why aren't they going bankrupt?

It is unreasonable to consider economies of scale but not diseconomies of scale. stevenlmeyer mentioned some. Another very important one happens when a city outgrows its natural water supply. Desalinated water is 4-6 times as expensive as dam water, as city dwellers have been progressively finding out from their water and electricity bills.

We currently export about two thirds of our agricultural production, but it is easy to imagine the combination of a doubled population and a long, severe drought leading to serious problems, even if we don't consider peak oil, peak phosphorus, permament water shortages due to climate change, etc. All of the recently reported international investments in agricultural land in Third World countries, aka "land grabs", by developed countries that are not self-sufficient in food are good evidence of lack of confidence that the world market will be able to supply enough.
Posted by Divergence, Saturday, 8 May 2010 4:10:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hahaha you are so wrong.

The reason China is experiencing a economic boom despite strict birthing policies is because of the structure of its economy. China's labour prior to the market liberalisation reforms was largely idle or put to poorly productive use.

The introduction of capitalism allowed for a more efficient allocation of capital among the Chinese labour force and thus lead to China's recent economic growth. The main point is that prior to the liberalisation reform China had many terribly inefficient workers because of the capital deficiency.

Australia's economy faces exactly the opposite situation to China's. Australia over the past decade has suffered declining returns from capital investment because of tight labour constraints. Purchasing a new industrial washing machine is not so great if you cannot find a person to operate it.

Australia introducing an exceptionally liberal immigration programme and appropriate workplace relations laws would provide an economic nirvana for producers. Australia has a wonderfully stable and efficient governmental sector and a deep respect for property rights. If our capital to labour imbalance could be solved through increased immigration flows our GDP per a capita would increase substantially.

This analysis is supported by the government's Intergenerational Report, which found through sensitivity analysis that the higher immigration path (300,000) allowed for increased GPD (Per a capita) and decreased public spending as a proportion of GDP across all major areas. Thus it can be concluded you are completely wrong!
Posted by DLC, Saturday, 8 May 2010 8:04:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Divergence raises a good analytical problem. Population is only one variable when looking at a countries economic performance.

A critical factor is there historical development. One could make a compelling case for America's rise due to three factors in the 1800s - technological development, manifest destiny and floods of people from Europe. Winning the Civil War against the basically agrarian south helped too.

Population is only one aspect. Capital accumulation, access to markets, governance, minimal corruption, geopolitical proximity, etc, are all important factors to national performance. The Scandanavian economies are a curio but here, the vital link is access to oil for heating and nuclear power.

Japan is in serious trouble, but not due (as yet) to its declining population. In some of its key manufacturing sectors, espc cars, others markets have beaten them - the Koreans and the Chinese are two. They have failed to be competitive. There have also been financial scandals, the GFC, etc.

I'm mindful that if we sum the populations of all those nations mentioned, you'd get about half a billion people. Not an inconsiderable amount of muscle, trading and purchasing power. But it's probably not a key or leading indicator of performance.
Posted by Cheryl, Sunday, 9 May 2010 9:02:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Responding to DLC

What an unintelligent response. Instead of solving the existing problem through the use of productivity and participation. You solve the problem with an exceptionally liberal immigration programme, and regressive workplace relations laws. These tentative solutions are implemented without any consideration being given to the consquent set of societial problems that will emerge as a result. Therefore reducing everybody quality, and increasing everybody's quantity of problems.
Posted by tet, Sunday, 9 May 2010 4:09:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DLC,

No one disputes that population growth and mass migration are good for the folk at the top. They benefit from bigger markets and more sales, easy profits from real estate speculation, and a cheap, compliant work force, with a large proportion of their skilled workers already fully trained at someone else's expense. Furthermore, the additional social inequality and diversity undermine support for the welfare state, reducing their tax burden.

This quote from the 2006 Australian Productivity Commission Report on Immigration makes it clear that mass migration makes ordinary people worse off, without even considering negative effects on the environment or amenity. Note that the estimated growth in average hours worked per capita is greater than the increase in GNP per capita.

"The effect of a 50 per cent increase in the level of skilled migration on productivity
and living standards has been simulated. Compared with the base case:
– population is higher by 3.3 per cent by 2024-25
– the size of the economy (GDP) is 4.6 per cent larger by 2024-25
– national income (GNP) increases by 4.0 per cent by 2024-25
– income per capita is higher by about 0.71 per cent or $383 by 2024-25
– average hours worked per capita are higher by 1.18 per cent by 2024-25.
• The distribution of these benefits varies across the population, with gains mostly
accrued to the skilled migrants and capital owners. The incomes of existing resident
workers grows more slowly than would otherwise be the case."

This is consistent with a number of studies from around the world, such as the 2008 House of Lords Report in the UK. As Robert Rowthorn, Professor Emeritus of Economics (Cambridge) puts it (column in [UK] Sunday Telegraph 2/7/2006):

"As an academic economist, I have examined many serious studies that have analysed the economic effects of immigration.

There is no evidence from any of them that large-scale immigration generates large-scale economic benefits for the existing population as a whole. On the contrary, all the research suggests that the benefits are either close to zero, or negative."
Posted by Divergence, Sunday, 9 May 2010 5:16:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DLC

You claim immigration to carry a benefit, but how much and for whom? Is the benefit for the immigrants or the existing residents? You must also offset the benefit by costs such as increased rents and house prices, increased service and infrastructure costs, environmental costs such as the destruction of koala habitats for new housing estates, and lifestyle costs like traffic congestion.

Against this you might compare the benefit to be had by training the existing population. How would the economics of this approach compare? Obviously there isn't the opportunity to destroy farmland and bushland and erect shoddy housing. Nor is there the opportunity to toll roads and provide public infrastructure at at least six fold the cost of government. Nor is there the opportunity to build desalination plants. So some wouldn't benefit, but would the average outcome be a better one with this approach? Many growth advocates think that the sky would fall with this approach: Would it fall?
Posted by Fester, Sunday, 9 May 2010 7:18:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy