"If you are accusing those who seek a stable and sustainable population racist, you should at least have a shred of evidence, rather than suggesting ill-educated caucasians need to be saved by more numerate migrants."

Well if there are two sources of population growth and you choose to cut off the one made up mainly of non-whites and do nothing about the other which is made up mostly of whites, then what conclusions are we allowed to draw? Or are we not allowed to say anything that you don't want to hear?

"If you applied your numerousy rather than ideology, you could have worked out that the costs of providing infrastructure and training for a much bigger population are massively greater than those needed to provide for a slightly older population, and far greater than the extra taxes added people provide."

Well actually we have to revamp our infrastructure anyway. Who's going to pay for that? We need more trains and more rail lines? Also Do you actually have any numbers to back your statement up? Perhaps you can tell us about the economics of public goods?

"We are paying more in interest payments to overseas financiers for our population-fueled housing bubble, than we are paying for pensions and aged care."

Whoa .... really? Again have you got some figures to back that assertion

Jjplug,

You don’t address your comments to me, but as you quote part of my post in your second post, I assume that you are talking about me.

I’m not interested in increasing Australian births, but it is not the natural birth rate that is the problem; two thirds of our population increase comes from unnecessary immigration. The proof of that is easy enough for you to find.

I’m not bugged by ARTICLES submitted by anyone to OLO. But, as they are trying PERSUADE (otherwise they wouldn’t submit the articles) it is my right to advise that they haven’t persuaded me to their way of thinking, just as it is your right to do the same with articles you disagree with.

Toohs,

I don’t agree with ‘leadership’ in politicians, except in foreign policy and the few areas where it is against our security to allow us ‘plebs’ to know too much. But in all other areas, immigration and population included, politicians must start taking notice of, and acting on, what we – their employers- demand.

Australia is NOT underpopulated in any “terms”. It is the driest continent on earth; two thirds of it is uninhabitable.

We have already well exceeded our sustainable population.

The author's second point has a problem.
By asserting that an aging population requires more service workers and taxpayers to attend their needs, what happens when those service workers themselves become elderly.

This just shifts the problem and expands it without resolution.

Dear jiplug,
Firstly, I don't know anyone who advocates a stable, sustainable population and supports the baby bonus, or any other pro-natalist policy. The fertility-boosters are the real xenophobes. And I don't know any population stabilizers who begrudge the 13,750 places for refugees - most would willingly see this doubled - and refugees are far more likely to be non-white than other immigrants.
Secondly, on the costs of infrastructure, see my OLO article #10137.
Thirdly, the 2010 Intergenerational Report says we spend 3.5% of GDP on pensions and aged care. Bob Birrel's article yesterday says we spend 4% of GDP in overseas interest. Not all of this would go away if we stabilized population, but conversely, this amount is likely to grow more by 2050 under a high growth scenario than the pensions and aged care that this growth would merely postpone.

We have enough property developers corrupting our democracy, where 70-80 % of the population want stablisation of numbers. A democratic wish not reflected in Parliament.

The stupidty of loading the place up with more of our species is a "no brainer" on every aspect. In brief :

1. Our birthrate is double our deathrate....refer ABS stats
2. Every Australian on average is consuming more than they producing.
We import 2 billion dollars a month more than we export.
We have to borrow for every extra person.
It is an economic disaster.
3. WE are covering-up our best farmland with housing and ruining the habitats of the other species that inhabit Australia.
4. The aging argument doesn't pass the first test. When this "boom" of people age, what happens then ? Do you want a raft of 200 million people to come in to "help". Laughable PR rubbish.
5. Investing capital in more people and housing is an investment in pollution. This capital should be invested in emerging export technologies, education, health, research and population stablisation foreign aid.

Get a reality check. Have 2 children at around 30 years of age and have immigration equal to emmigration.........currently around 80,000 people......LOOK AFTER AND TREASURE THE WORLD. DONT TRASH IT WITH YOUR SELFISH GROWTH PUSH.

Cheers,
Ralph

Dilan you mention some facts which are uncomfortable to you.
You note that Australia has only four cities which are over-crowded, expensive, and with problems addressing infrastructure for . Uncomfortable indeed that these cities contain more than half of Australia’s population and are growing at almost twice the rate of the rest of the nation – are magnets for the increasing numbers wherever their origins.
Perhaps most uncomfortable is the demographic time-bomb, which must explode some time. We have a choice – deal with it now when it is bad, or later when it is exponentially worse. Currently we seem unable to afford the cost of educating our own children and training our skilled work force. Undoubtedly that is bad now, but it is a time bomb - increasingly destructive as our population increases.

We can’t afford it, so we cheat on nations even more needy than ourselves by importing those skills form them: at discount rates at the expense of their own economies and social needs. Why should their children be devalued in relation to our own? We are an affluent country, having trouble dealing with 19% of our population under the age of 15. Why should we rob those who have greater proportions of children under that age – India 30%, Vietnam 26%, Sri Lanka 24%?? If anyone is playing the racism card, perhaps it is the author of this article.

The lesser-charged bomb, the one which gets all the attention, is the unproductive aged – which in actuality is during the last ten years of life, and would be represented largely by the over 75s. They are under 12% of Australia’s population, and of much less cost than the under 15s.

Both ends of the age spectrum need attention, and need balancing. Acknowledgment of that would be by all - excepting those mathematically and reality challenged, and believing in perpetual growth. The sooner demographic transition is gently brought to an end by stable population – for Australia, for the world – the better, and genuine progress for society might have hope.