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?

I obviously cannot speak for Cheryl, Fester.

>>But aren't you and Cheryl claiming that Australia faces economic catastrophe unless it maintains high immigration?<<

But no, I have never once made that claim.

Having to ask the question, though, is an admission that you haven't understood a word I have written on the topic.

In a similar vein...

>>Perhaps with some more detective work you might discover some covert funding for Eben's research by the Bearded Gnomes Association?<<

Resorting to ridicule is nothing more than a realization that you have nothing of interest to say.

<"would you like more people in Australia, or suffer a slow but steady decline in your standard of living, and that of your children">

Yes Pericles, maybe I exaggerate, but isn't it your opinion that cutting immigration is economically harmful? That would seem to conflict with the conclusion you drew from the data that Eben used.

As for for bearded gnomes from the Adelaide Hills, I thought I might as well mention them before Cheryl did. Cheryl always has an amazing amount of character insight to contribute, arguably bordering on clairvoyance. In that vein, perhaps you would like to remind all the anti-pops that they are really motivated by xenophobia?

Personally, I want more immigrants to live here. I would strongly consider giving those with excellent business ideas tax breaks. The great infrastructure building era in Australia was done by 'new Australians' post WW2. They should be given a medal.

Lets look at stable pop cities - there's no such term. Cities are only as stable as their reach to markets. You'd think the anti-pops with their systems thinking would know that. Not an economic geographer amongst them!

Markets make cities and nations. The anti-pops are living in some futuristic anti-capitalist fantasy where every flat will have a bio-fuel helicopter and will grow wheat grass on their roofs for their morning breakfast gruel.

The anti-pops seem to have an incredibly bizarre take on Marx (get rid of the proletariat - there's too many of them), of major capital returns through technological development in trade goods, benefits accrued of economies of scale, to name just a few.

Indeed, even economics is the 'science' of minimising resources yet selling them at the maximum (or sustainable) market price.

If you have as your central tenet the firm belief that the world will end - which it will one day - and no other social science, no other branch of mathematics or critical analysis except population is needed to explain phenomena, then there's not much use talking further.

I have rather enjoyed these discussions but the bottom line is that I'm worried about our education system. If we are producing people who are so dogmatic, yet so shallow in their thinking, so locked in to clearly biased sources, then I fear the problem is not the anti-pops but a fundamental flaw in how we teach logic, process and critical thinking.

But people do think critically, and that is why they question the growth mantra. They see the ballooning infrastructure debt from population growth. They see the housing crisis. They question whether growth is delivering an economic benefit to all. They look at vibrant economies with static populations. They question the predicted doom from an ageing population or a cut in immigration. They see the abuse and belittlement for their difference as a weakness of argument, not a strength.

So perhaps the pop growth cargo cultists should instead be lobbying for the removal of critical thinking from the syllabus. And perhaps they might like to improve their own standard of logical presentation: If the argument for growth is so good a story, then it is being presented in a very slap dash fashion.

Great article Dave.

It is all just so eminently sensible. I mean; how utterly stupid is it to have a system that is based on never-ending expansionism, where continuous growth is purported to be vitally important and that if we were to stop growing or even slow down a little, we’d all be in deep poo?

What a mindless croc of crap! How on earth did we ever get to this stage of absurdity??

<< This takes the wind out of the sails of many local economic development bodies who do the bidding of growth profiteers (real estate developers, homebuilders, construction industry, mortgage banking, etc.). >>

Well it does in terms of logical debate. But unfortunately it doesn’t help much in the real world, because the vested-interest big-business lobby will continue to espouse the false virtues of rapid growth, and governments will continue to do their bidding, and any arguments in favour of a stable population and a steady-state economy will be ridiculed or just ignored by our decision-makers.

Unfortunately, good old common sense and logical argument don’t count for a lot while this very cosy relationship exists, which it does at all levels of government throughout western democracies (or pseudodemocracies) the world over.

THIS really is the big problem, not the logical analysis of continuous growth versus limits to growth.

However, having said that, I wish you well with your documentary: ‘Growth-busters: hooked on growth’, and I hope to goodness that it counts for something in our efforts to wean our society off of our growth addiction.

That's just classic, Fester.

You make an accusation:

>>But aren't you and Cheryl claiming that Australia faces economic catastrophe unless it maintains high immigration?<<

And when I call you on it, you come up with this excerpt from one of my posts:

<"would you like more people in Australia, or suffer a slow but steady decline in your standard of living, and that of your children">

Let me remind you of its full context.

I made the point that:

"If you ask people the question "would you like more people in Australia", the majority would indeed answer "of course not". But that is only half the question. If you completed it by saying "or suffer a slow but steady decline in your standard of living, and that of your children", you might get a somewhat different response."

Only a thoroughly warped perception could manage to turn this into "Australia faces economic catastrophe"?

No wonder it is impossible to maintain a civilized discussion. You simply invent stuff.

And then, to cap it all, you have the thoroughgoing chutzpah to lecture us:

>>...perhaps they might like to improve their own standard of logical presentation<<

Pffft.

Pericles

There is nothing to stop you presenting arguments in support of strong population growth. You might even start by answering my question as to why you would offer this comment on Eben's research,

"neither population growth nor decline are in themselves necessary or sufficient conditions to determine a specific economic outcome",

after making the comment in a previous thread

"would you like more people in Australia, or suffer a slow but steady decline in your standard of living, and that of your children".

Now if you liken "slow but steady" to the effort of Aesop's tortoise, you might conclude that the result can be quite substantial, as I did. Did I "invent stuff"? Well, if you do not present your arguments precisely, then dont get offended if people dont follow them. Perhaps this is one reason for the poor comprehension you frequently observe in others?

Of course there isn't, individual.

>>Pericles There is nothing to stop you presenting arguments in support of strong population growth<<

The fact that I don't do so, should tell you something.

>>You might even start by answering my question as to why you would offer this comment on Eben's research, "neither population growth nor decline are in themselves necessary or sufficient conditions to determine a specific economic outcome"<<

Well, basically because it is true. Do you disagree?

http://www.sfu.ca/~swartz/conditions1.htm

I also gave two examples that illustrated the point.

And once more - although I sometimes wonder why I bother - I offered "would you like more people in Australia, or suffer a slow but steady decline in your standard of living, and that of your children" as a potential qualifier to your somewhat one-eyed "If you ask people the question 'would you like more people in Australia', the majority would indeed answer 'of course not'."

It is true that I share the view of many, that our demographic makeup will become painfully skewed in the next couple of decades, if we do not maintain a reasonably substantial base of income taxpayers.

That does not qualify me for inclusion in any group described as "pop growth cargo cultists", who favour "never-ending expansionism, where continuous growth is purported to be vitally important"

But it is clear from this thread alone that intelligent debate is not possible, if you refuse to listen to anything that even vaguely suggests that we have not yet, by a very long way, fulfilled our potential as a Nation.

Apologies, that was a response to Fester

Pericles

I agree with you that there are implications for an ageing Australia, but is increasing immigration an answer?

For one thing, the problem Australia now faces is in part because of post WW II migration. I mention this to emphasise that while immigration might buy you a few years, it leaves you with a bigger problem to deal with subsequently.

In addition, the current high rate of immigration is causing massive public sector debt, which will make the impact of declining tax revenue from fewer taxpayers far more calamitous.

I look at the flood disaster in Queensland and think how much worse is the financial burden because of the many tens of billions of dollars borrowed to pay for the infrastructure for a rapidly growing population. How much more difficult will it be to deal with the consequences of an ageing population if governments are still burdened with this debt?

My own view is that every effort should be made to make ageing Australians as healthy as possible. Preventive health programs and public health initiatives, such as compulsory reductions in the fat and salt content of processed foods, would be a start. And despite Cheryl's claim that antipops dont consider technology, I am very optimistic of the potential of technology to improve things. The successful treatment of tuberculosis had a tremendously positive economic impact. There is every reason to believe that further advances in medicine could also make a substantial difference.

Are you sure, Fester?

>>In addition, the current high rate of immigration is causing massive public sector debt<<

I'd like to see some evidence of that, if you have some.

And just one small point.

>>...which will make the impact of declining tax revenue from fewer taxpayers far more calamitous.<<

Tax revenues are unlikely to decline in the future. On the contrary, they are more likely to increase as demands upon the public purse grow.

I obviously like your idea that we should keep our ageing population healthy, but this doesn't simply happen, free of cost. It requires health programmes and their associated health workers, plus, don't forget, willing participants. Who, if they work hard at it, are going to live even longer...

So we will continue to need to extract more - not less - in taxes. From a diminishing base.

It is not enough to talk of population growth in terms of slogans ("Ponzi schemes"). We need to apply some serious thought to what we want, and how we achieve it. Simply saying "we're full. No more", doesn't help.

<I'd like to see some evidence of that, if you have some.>

I would have thought it obvious that the Australian living standard is underpinned by a per capita infrastructure cost. So when you increase the population, you must provide new infrastructure as well as maintain or upgrade existing infrastructure. I have heard that the infrastructure cost for a stable population typically amounts to about an eighth of the budget, based on a fifty year average lifespan for the infrastructure. With two percent population growth the cost amounts to about a quarter of Government expenditure, so it is unsurprising that governments in Australia have gone heavily into the red in recent years. And despite this there is still a national infrastructure shortfall of some 700 billion dollars.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/careers/engineers-slam-lack-of-investment-the-nation-needs-new-infrastructure-spending/story-fn717l4s-1225987412246

Without pursuing high population growth, you do not have the high cost of providing infrastructure, which greatly eases the financial burden on government.

<I obviously like your idea that we should keep our ageing population healthy, but this doesn't simply happen, free of cost.>

I think of it in terms of the net benefit, Pericles. Water fluoridation is another example of a public health measure which delivers a benefit far in excess of its cost. Salt reduction is another measure which could deliver a very substantial public health benefit.

http://www.suite101.com/content/salt-reduction-improves-health-a194393

The big unknown is what will technology deliver and when, but I think it unreasonable to think that the advance of medicine will stop.

But I think you might also take another look at Provo, Utah. You have spoken of us needing to grow in order to reach our potential, yet Provo seems to offer much with a population of about 120,000.

I guess that's a "no", Fester.

>>I would have thought it obvious that the Australian living standard is underpinned by a per capita infrastructure cost.<<

I'm not sure that you will find "I would have thought it obvious..." counts as evidence, pretty much anywhere. Except, perhaps, amongst new-earth creationists.

Nor, in fact, is the assertion "I have heard that..."

>>I have heard that the infrastructure cost for a stable population typically amounts to about an eighth of the budget<<

That's around $40 billion. Can you support that with any evidence?

"I thought it was obvious the government spends $40 billion a year on infrastructure" is not quite what I have in mind, by the way.

>>With two percent population growth the cost amounts to about a quarter of Government expenditure...<<

I'll pass over the dodgy arithmetic for a moment, and ask "how much additional tax revenue does the two percent population growth deliver each year?"

And please, don't tell me "I thought it was obvious".

>>Salt reduction is another measure which could deliver a very substantial public health benefit.<<

Implementing that might be fun, I would think. How would you go about that?

>>I think it unreasonable to think that the advance of medicine will stop.<<

Me too. It will not come, though, without cost. Ask your local hospital how much more they would like to spend on diagnostic tools, if they were given the opportunity. That will give you an idea of the scale of the investment.

Whether it will lower overall health costs, or simply add to the tax burden of those in work, is unknown.

>>But I think you might also take another look at Provo, Utah [it] seems to offer much with a population of about 120,000<<

Absolutely. And the Provo-Orem MSA is projected to have the greatest population increase in the 2010 United States Census, 47%.

What is your point, again?

Pericles

I thought that as an advocate of growth you would have some idea of the cost of infrastructure? It seems that you have little idea, despite the regular mention of infrastructure costs and spending in the press. Where have you been, Pericles? Under a rock? In a museums collection of Greek antiquities gathering dust? Maybe you were attending a pop growth cargo cult service with your eyes and ears covered? For the 2011 Queensland budget, revenue is about 40 billion and infrastructure spending is about 18 billion. That is substantially more than 25%, but on average it is about 12% of the budget for a stable population.

As you have pointed out, you have to consider the evidence. Ignoring infrastructure cost and its implications does little to support your case for growth, and only seems to substantiate my epithet.

The mining boom provides a good opportunity to move away from a growth based economy. By retraining the workforce instead of relying on importing labour, there is a substantial infrastructure saving. This would also initially allow a greater development of Australia's export infrastructure, which would improve the trade balance.

And while I'm at it I may as well talk a bit more about health and the relevance of cost and benefit, of which you demonstrate little understanding.

<Implementing that might be fun, I would think. How would you go about that?>

To make such flippant comment on something that could have a profound impact on peoples health suggests immaturity. There is currently substantial investigation as to what measures could effectively reduce salt intake. The researchers have the intelligence to see their efforts as a bit more than "fun".

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE7045Y320110105

"Me too. It will not come, though, without cost."

Is that so? What if you compare the cost of managing a polio victim with the cost of giving a polio vaccination? I have often seen this claim made that health costs will just increase. But this makes little sense, both because it ignores the profound impact of things like antibiotics and vaccinations, and because it does not consider the economic contribution of people who have their illnesses treated. As an example, HIV infection is managed with an expensive cocktail of drugs, but it allows those infected to live productive lives. Balance this against the cost of not offering treatment, where you have miserable people who are unable to work and require frequent hospitalisation and emergency care.

Similarly, if successful treatments were developed for things like spinal injuries, the initial cost of treatment might be great, but I suspect that the cost would be far less than that of today's lifetime health costs and lost productivity.

Fair enough, Fester, you have made the point about Queensland's infrastructure costs. I had forgotten the effect of your major industries on the need for road and rail infrastructure. I am pleased to have given you the opportunity for a few gratuitious insults too, I hope you enjoyed them.

But the point you are missing in all this is the linkage between population growth and economic growth. Remember the article under discussion?

Since we're talking about Queensland, here are their numbers for the last ten years.

1999-00 Pop. Growth 1.7% GDP Growth 6.6%
2000-01 Pop. Growth 1.9% GDP Growth 2.8%
2001-02 Pop. Growth 2.4% GDP Growth 5.4%
2002-03 Pop. Growth 2.5% GDP Growth 5.7%
2003-04 Pop. Growth 2.4% GDP Growth 4.6%
2004-05 Pop. Growth 2.4% GDP Growth 6.2%
2005-06 Pop. Growth 2.4% GDP Growth 3.7%
2006-07 Pop. Growth 2.6% GDP Growth 5.5%
2007-08 Pop. Growth 2.7% GDP Growth 4.0%
2008-09 Pop. Growth 2.8% GDP Growth 1.1%
2009-10 Pop. Growth 2.0% GDP Growth 2.3%
(prelim)

According to my trusty calculator, that's a 29% increase in population, delivering a whopping 59.6% economic benefit. Per capita GDP up by 23.6%.

Any thoughts?

Incidentally, I think your idea of a cost-free health-care programme is a little optimistic. But let's stick to population and economic growth, just for the moment.

<Any thoughts?>

Well, aside from there being no apparent correlation between population growth and gdp growth, your data sheds no light on the question "What would have happened without the population growth?". This is the question that the research attempted to shed light on.

Having looked at Eben's research though, my criticism would be that its conclusion might follow from the fact that affluence and education tend to have a negative correlation with fertility. Provo might be an exception either because of the Mormon creed to have large families (?), or because you are looking at a successful city at a time before the increased affluence and education has had enough time to reduce fertility.

Would it be a bad thing if population growth were shown not to have a benefit? I think it would be better to determine its effect, be it positive, negative, or neutral. That way we can all benefit from planning measures which have supporting evidence, rather than be subjected to well intentioned but unsubstantiated measures which may cause harm.

That doesn't take us very far, does it Fester?

>>Well, aside from there being no apparent correlation between population growth and gdp growth, your data sheds no light on the question "What would have happened without the population growth?". This is the question that the research attempted to shed light on.<<

The article uses statistics to support a case maintaining that "cities with stable population outperform fast growing cities"

As I have shown, neither the statistics the author himself employs, nor data covering our own State of Queensland, support this conclusion.

Now you appear to agree that there is "no apparent correlation".

Furthermore, you seem to expect this data, which has already failed to support the premise as intended, to illuminate the question "what would have happened without the population growth?"

Frankly, that's not a useful line of questioning, for many reasons.

It is impossible, first of all, to determine with any degree of credibility, "what might have happened" in different circumstances. That can only ever be guesswork, given the number of - competing - assumptions that would need to be made.

"What would Europe look like if WWI hadn't happened?" would be an equally valid, and equally unanswerable question, regardless of which set of numbers you choose.

Pericles

I thought that the method to try to measure the effect of population growth made sense. The problem was that other variables are probably at play, preventing a reliable call.

What the research does support is the hypothesis that population growth is not a major driver of prosperity, which is a contrast to the frequent claims of growth advocates.

<It is impossible, first of all, to determine with any degree of credibility, "what might have happened" in different circumstances.>

On this point I disagree with you. Your claim, if true, would make much statistical analysis impossible. For example, what is the risk from smoking? By looking at one person you will learn little, but by following many smokers and non smokers you start to see differences. Similarly, by measuring a number of parameters and comparing them with the prosperity of many cities, you might expect to see correlations.

The fact that population growth had a negative correlation with prosperity from the data gathered would at least suggest that there is no benefit.

Are you suggesting that population growth increases prosperity, but that this effect cannot be measured? I think this would be a hard sell.

That would not be my conclusion, Fester.

>>Are you suggesting that population growth increases prosperity, but that this effect cannot be measured? I think this would be a hard sell<<

And I thought we had agreed that the evidence provided was inconclusive on this point:

>>The fact that population growth had a negative correlation with prosperity from the data gathered would at least suggest that there is no benefit<<

I am rather inclined to agree with your earlier suggestion, that...

>>The problem was that other variables are probably at play, preventing a reliable call.<<

In many cases, I suspect, timing is a key variable. No-one predicted ahead of time the depth of the Japanese recession, for example. In fact, most of the "business" literature at the time was pointing to the Japanese economy as being exemplary - one that the West should learn from.

Hindsight tells us that the economy was insufficiently robust to withstand the bursting of their property bubble. Now, all the talk is about the damaging effects of a declining tax base, and a growing cohort of retirees.

South Korea faces a similar challenge.

In my view, drawing simplistic conclusions about the future of an economy from a single variable - population - leads to nothing more than pointless sloganeering.

It deserves much more thought and consideration than can be encapsulated in a populist soundbite, such as "stop immigration", or "stop this mad dash for growth at all costs".

Reducing a complex topic to such a banal level tends to encourage lazy thinking. Which our politicians depend upon, but which ultimately impoverishes us all.