Perhaps, but I wonder what the average per-capita effects would have been. For Australia’s GDP to have actually declined for one quarter while we had very high population growth, the average per-capita decline would have to have been very significant. And during those quarters with low GDP growth, the per-capita measure would have still been in the negative. So the average per-capita effects would have doubtfully been any less than in some other countries, and the indication that you are giving here Saul; that population growth helped alleviate the effects of the GFC in Australia is probably quite false at the personal level.

<< Population growth contributes directly to growth in the demand for a wide range of goods and services >>

Yes.

<< Population growth through immigration adds to the supply of labour, and … can be particularly helpful in alleviating shortages of skilled labour >>

So it is seen as good on both the demand and supply sides of the ledger. And so we are hooked in to the growth spiral. But of course this is whacko stuff in the longer term, as surely the baseline goal is to improve the quality of life for existing residents, rather than forever provide the same quality of life for ever-more people.

Quite frankly, it is high time to concentrate on ways of increasing supply without adding to the demand. THAT would be the sensible economic and political position to adopt, before our economic ability to supply the essentials to an ever-bigger population becomes very seriously stressed…which isn’t far away at all, in all probability.

<<…population growth through immigration also slows the rate at which the population ages...>>

It changes the ratio of young productive people to old dependent people to some extent. But there are better ways of dealing with the financial burden imposed by baby boomers going into retirement, especially when there are such huge and obvious downsides to the size of the population increase that would be needed to cater for it, all else being equal.

<<… faster GDP growth driven solely by faster population growth does not mean that people are becoming better off >>

Absolutely! We’ve basically been in boom times for a very long time now and have always had the strong growth ethic. And yet, we apparently desperately need to boost it. Even with Rudd’s record high immigration, now for three years, we aren’t seeing any sign of growth being wound back. In fact, there seems to be more pressure to forever grow faster…from the economic rationalists point of view.

Let’s face it; the continuous growth ethic hasn’t provided us with what has been purported by politicians and economists to provide for decades! Yes we were on a good thing back in the 50s and 60s, but no longer. We needed to gear towards stabilisation in the 80s. Now we need to do it with great urgency.

Saul, we need a better way – one that is predicated on a stable population and a steady-state economy, with all economic growth being provided by way of developing better efficencies, technologies and alternatives to current practices, and not at all by increasing the rate of resource exploitation or the scale of all manner of other economic activity!.

Intelligent economists such as yourself surely realise this. You’ve GOT to STOP espousing continuous rapid population growth on this continent as being a good thing.

<< Population growth also brings costs >>

It surely does!! And they are enormous!

continued

<< On balance, the problems associated with a growing population are more manageable than those associated with a stagnant or declining one. >>

This is CRAZY!

Surely it is the role of real economists to work out how we can best achieve a healthy economy and how it can translate into real improvements in quality of life, WITHOUT us being hooked into the absurdity of continuous rapid growth.

Continuous population growth and economic expansionism has got to stop. I dearly wish that our leading economists such you Saul would concentrate on this, instead of talking up the obviously critically flawed continuous-growth-with-no-end-in-sight economic paradigm, which WILL take us straight into a situation where we simply won’t be able to uphold our quality of life or anything like it, at which point the house of cards will come tumbling down.

“On balance, the problems associated with a growing population are more manageable than those associated with a stagnant or declining one”: A perspective beneficial to industries involving property, retail, advertising, etc. but not to society around them; and catering for the present at the expense of the future.
What is wrong with a stable population - one which is in harmony with its resources, intellectual and physical infrastructure. A stability which has achieved balance in relation to the demanding needs of its developing youth; and to the transient needs of the aged in the last few years of their lives? Referring to such stability as stagnant would suggest either ossification of the author’s mental processes, or a deliberate attempt at deluding his readers.
For how long do we need to grow, and what is the optimum rate? Saul Eslake’s inference is growth forever - though the current 2 per cent might be excessive. Other growth enthusiasts have suggested 1.4 per cent: This would take our present 22 million to 44 million in 2060, to 352 million by 2210, and continuing to double every fifty years.
What is the experience elsewhere in the world? Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Timor-Leste have population growth rates of about 3 per cent; Denmark, the Netherlands, Switzerland have a tragically(?) low rates of 0.3 per cent.

Good post, Colinsett,

Saul Eslake's argument reminds me of the joke about the Lone Ranger and his Indian companion Tonto being surrounded by a war party of hostile Indians. "Who is 'we', white man?" The corporate elite like high population growth and mass migration because they want bigger markets and more sales, easy profits from real estate speculation, and a cheap, compliant work force, with any skilled workers already fully trained at someone else's expense. They also like high 'diversity' because it tends to weaken social cohesion, enabling them to divide and rule, and undermines support for the welfare state. They thus have a motive for pretending that a "Big Australia" is good for all of us.

Numerous studies on mass migration, the main source of population growth in Australia, both here (such as the 2006 Productivity Commission Report) and overseas (such as the 1997 Academy of Sciences report in the US and the 2008 House of Lords report in the UK) have shown no significant benefit to the bulk of the existing population, even in narrowly economic terms. This doesn't even consider effects on the environment or amenity.

This graph from the US shows real incomes of different income groups over the past 50 years, indicating that virtually all of the gains from economic growth since the 1970s have gone to the folk at the top.

http://lanekenworthy.net/2008/03/09/the-best-inequality-graph/

This graph from Club Troppo shows the share of national income going to the top 1% of the population from 1900-2000 in Australia and 3 other countries, indicating a significant increase in inequality here too.

http://clubtroppo.com.au/2006/08/24/policy-and-perhaps-culture-matter-for-income-distribution/

Other factors are at work as well in rising inequality, but flooding the labour market with workers is certainly one of them. See the links in

http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/070129_nd.htm

"The 'we can't grow forever' thesis is code for 'I don't like capitalism' or, in some cases, the clarion call of the poorly educated lower middle classes who don't like immigration and who want Fortress Australia."

The usual invalid slurs of racism and communism from the coporatocracy......how predictable!

The coporatocracy's only interest is in building its collective wealth regardless of the cost to the 'peasants' or ordinary Australians.

Coporate culture has become fundamentally unAustralian, having no respect or regard for egalitarianism upon which the Australian way of life was founded.

Perhaps Australians need to rise up in a mini democratic revolution and put the corporatocracy back in its cage.

Remember......a vote for either major party is a vote for unsustainable population growth, and all the problems that go with it, and a vote for the interests of the corporatocracy.

At the next election send both major parties and their corporatocratic masters a lound and clear message. Vote Green, independant or Stable Population Party of Australia (h t t p ://w w w.populationparty.com/).