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 > Australia's population > Comments

Australia's population : Comments

By Peter Curson, published 29/10/2013

Increasing longevity and low fertility, not to mention totally unacceptable obesity and diabetes rates, will pose countless challenges for policymakers in the future.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. All
The death bust (80 years after the baby boom) must be factored into any demographic arguments and our natural growth is downhill from here on in.

http://tinyurl.com/k3c6jsc

http://tinyurl.com/kv3wthx

http://tinyurl.com/lupr2sv

http://tinyurl.com/kl6dcj9
Posted by dempografix, Tuesday, 5 November 2013 9:54:10 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhian,

It is clear from the charts that I linked to that net migration to the US was far lower between 1921 and 1965 than it was earlier or later, even if it only actually went negative during the 1930s. Yes, there were positive numbers otherwise, but whether they were significant compared to the US population at the time is debatable.

If you look at your list on housing affordability, you have given the immediate, but not the ultimate causes, primarily population growth. For example, why would the government want to "restrict land supply as a means to encourage higher density and consolidation of population" if the population weren't growing rapidly?

<Increases in taxes and charges
- Substantial increases in infrastructure charges>

In her Economic Affairs paper, Jane O'Sullivan estimated that approximately $200,000 is required in infrastructure costs for each new resident.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-0270.2011.02125.x/pdf

She has since said that $100,000 - $120,000 is for public infrastructure, but from the average person's point of view, it doesn't matter, for example, whether his electricity is supplied by the government or a private company. He will still have to pay higher charges for expansion of the network.

Most migrants will eventually contribute enough over perhaps 20 years to pay for what they use, but they need all of the infrastructure immediately and don't pay for it up front.

Household size hasn't decreased since 2006, in fact it has gone up a bit, but house prices are higher.

http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2013/05/the-history-of-australian-property-values-part-2/

While houses are bigger than they used to be, the value of the land component in an average house-land package has gone from around 30% in the 1970s to around 70%. See

http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2013/11/residential-land-values-reflate-across-australia/

Houses are so expensive primarily because of the cost of the land they sit on, even though block sizes are much smaller. Why would the cost of the land go up without population growth? Compare the situation in Germany and Japan (scroll down to the graphs)

http://www.oecd.org/finance/monetary/35756053.pdf
Posted by Divergence, Tuesday, 5 November 2013 4:13:14 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
Dempografix,

If you are concerned with below replacement level fertility, you ought to be concerned with the trend towards cramming people in at high densities and other aspects of our economy. Desired family size is high enough to stabilise the population, even without net immigration.

http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/resreport11/aspirations.html

Economic insecurity, overcrowding, and high housing costs are poison for fertility rates. See

http://www.joelkotkin.com/content/00806-city-leaders-are-love-density-most-city-dwellers-disagree

I suspect that if we cut back on mass migration, more people will be willing to have another child or two, once the labour market is tighter, housing is cheaper in real terms, and people have more room to spread out. So long as Australia remains a nice place to live, we would have no trouble attracting a modest rate of net immigration in any case.
Posted by Divergence, Tuesday, 5 November 2013 4:25:06 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
agree 100%. I support a peak/decline in our population for the exact reasons you detail.
Posted by dempografix, Tuesday, 5 November 2013 4:29:03 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage 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. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. All

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