Interestingly, this comment supports what Prof. Bartlett has always said in his famous lecture on exponential growth:

"There is no clear employment benefit shown from faster growth. There may be new jobs created as a result of growth, but apparently there are more newcomers and job seekers moving in than there are new jobs being created. The result is that local unemployment rates remain more or less the same, but the number of unemployed people increases with growth."

It all sounded a little too - convenient, to me.

So I had a look at the source document http://www.fodorandassociates.com/Reports/Growth_&_Prosperity_in_US_MSAs.pdf

Statistics are of course wonderfully manipulable - and manipulative - so a good signal as to the manipulator's intention is always what they do not mention, as opposed to what they do.

In this case, they used as a base the hundred largest MSAs (U.S. Metropolitan Statistical Areas).

The city with the lowest "growth" over the period was (prepare to be amazed) New Orleans.

A massive natural disaster being, of course, a fine example of how to reduce the population, particularly those in the lowest income bracket, in order to boost your statistical averages.

I'm not sure that's the way residents viewed it, but that's statisticians for you. Just telling you like it is

Meanwhile, the city with the highest population growth, was Provo-Orem, in Utah. Obviously - unlike New Orleans - a place to be shunned.

a) it is a predominantly (90%) white neighbourhood;

b) Provo was rated 1st amongst cities for "volunteerism" in 2008, 2nd for business/careers in 2010, and 4th in health/well-being in 2010

c) In 2009, Provo was listed in "Where to Retire" magazine as an "enticing city for new careers", and in National Geographic Adventure Magazine's "where to live and play" as a cultural hub.

d) In 2010 Forbes Magazine rated Provo one of the top 10 places to raise a family

(Thank you Wikipedia for pulling together these factoids for me)

Sounds a truly awful place. All that population growth, and it still rates tops on the liveability scales.

So how come the report tells us exactly the opposite?

Probably because its author, Eben Fodor, makes his living from "community planning and land use with an emphasis on growth management and environmentally sustainable solutions."

Which will not, of course, be of much value in Provo, Utah.

Nor, come to think of it, in New Orleans.

Pericles. Could it be that we have a chicken-egg situation here?
ie. The reason your 1 exception city is growing is *because* it is such a nice place to live? Could it be that stable community led to this situation?
The thrust of the article is valid: The myth that high growth is a Perfectly Good Thing and necessary for improvement is false. Very few benefit, and the big picture result is often poor. In the long run big growth is a major risk to longevity as resources run out earlier and scale factors kick in.

Another myth, sorry *lie* that needs countering: Economic Growth for 5% of the population can be averaged out so that the statistics suggest the entire economy is growing is a valid form of accounting.
The last decade has seen "good times" for very few due to increasing debt, selling off public assets and selective inflation. Overall the situation has worsened for most but the economic wizards still are able to sell this period as good for Australia!
Disparity, the difference between the poorest and the wealthiest is approaching the obscenity of the US and feudal Europe. We would do well to learn the lessons from a Banking economy and go back to paying each sector of the economy according to it's contribution.
Accountants don't deserve 30% of companies income...nor should the finance sector take 30% of GDP.

More than likely, Ozandy.

>>"[perhaps] the reason your 1 exception city is growing is *because* it is such a nice place to live"<<

Indeed. And "perhaps" the reason New Orleans is not growing is because it is still a disaster zone.

Obviously, any quantitative analysis that includes these two data points, and still is able to reach a conclusion contrary to empirical evidence, is totally meaningless.

Especially as they lie at each extreme - highest and lowest growth - where you would logically expect any impact to be greatest.

You may choose to believe that:

>>The thrust of the article is valid: The myth that high growth is a Perfectly Good Thing and necessary for improvement is false<<

But the "thrust", as you call it, is completely unsubstantiated by the evidence.

The only conclusion that may be drawn from the data presented is that "neither population growth nor decline are in themselves necessary or sufficient conditions to determine a specific economic outcome".

The report that formed the basis of this piece was nothing more than self-serving boosterism, cobbled together by someone with deeply vested financial interest in getting people to agree with him.

Great salesmanship. Lousy science.

Pericles, check out this little down home community a little closer. Utah is ground zero for the fundamentalists who believe it is their religious duty to breed their particular cult to world domination. Just the kind of lucid thinking the world needs now....like a hole in the head. Oh so community oriented!

<The only conclusion that may be drawn from the data presented is that "neither population growth nor decline are in themselves necessary or sufficient conditions to determine a specific economic outcome".>

But aren't you and Cheryl claiming that Australia faces economic catastrophe unless it maintains high immigration? Isn't the conclusion you draw in conflict with this view?

Perhaps with some more detective work you might discover some covert funding for Eben's research by the Bearded Gnomes Association? Apparently they have been out for revenge since their Adelaide Hills headquarters was teed up for a permanent close encounter with an immigration detention centre. Is it not an amazing coincidence that the article appears so close to the arrival of the first asylum seekers?