Divergence,
How pre-industrial Italy provides a model for 21st century Australia eludes me. Before the industrial revolution growth in most societies around the world was far lower than today - almost zero. With output static, rising population could lower real wages. But that’s not how modern economies work. Indeed, both population and real wages pick up in the later part of of Figure 10 that you cite.

Australia sustained medium term real wage growth for most of the post-war period except the late 1980s and early 1990s, and that dip had nothing to do with population growth.

You cherry pick the productivity commission report to find the few points that support your position. The report concludes that “Migration has a neutral to mildly positive effect on overall living standards.” The effects are small because migration only adds a small amount to the population. It found that “positive contributions arise from the increase in labour supply, the changing skill composition due to migration, and a consumption price effect.” And, “offsetting negative effects arise from decreased labour productivity, a decline in the terms of trade, and an increase in interest paid to foreigners.”

Popnperish
You’ll find most studies show an increase in migration leads to an increase in per capita GDP as well as absolute GDP – for example, the PC study cited by divergence predicts a 50% increase in skilled migration will raise population by 3.3% and GDP by 4.6%. Overall income per capita raises by 0.71%.

This has certainly been the case in Australia. If the past 10 years the states with the highest population growth have also had the highest per capita GSP growth. We can argue the direction of cuasation here - I believe it works both ways - but the data flatly contradict any assertion that higher population growth is associated with lower per capita GSP growth.

The two states with the fastest population growth in the past 20 years (WA and Qld) have also have the faster growth in per capita GSP. Victoria and NSW were below average in population and per capita GSP growth.

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/5220.02009-10?OpenDocument

@ Mr Windy
Herewith an abridged CV for your information:
4 years of Environmental studies at ANU
5th year honours; studying growth of Eucalyptus
Post grad diploma in economics
11years work experience in both a GTO & private firm.
Currently live in a regional area of NSW.

So I think I'm well positioned to make comment here.

My opinion is that the environmental arguments against population growth are nothing more than irrational fear, supported by selective quoting of unrelated statistics.

Environmentalism these days isn't about science or land management, it is about incitement of irrational fears about other people’s motives and pessimism about society in general.

I think that this is a pity.
i think that Disk Smith and his tribe need to have a good hard look in the mirror.

Ludwig,
Like you I am thoughly enjoying this debate.

Makes a change from the likes of you and i having to hold our end up.

Your reasons are basicly on enviromental grounds, I think, wheras mine are more on social well being and living standards.

I love it.

Rhian

There is, in fact, no statistical relationship between population growth and GSP per capita. If you go to http://www.treasury.act.gov.au/snapshot/GSP.pdf
you will find he following:
"In 2009–10, all jurisdictions recorded positive real growth in GSP with the highest growth recorded by Western Australia (up 4.3%), followed by Victoria (up 2.0%) and New South Wales (up 1.7%).
Most jurisdictions recorded negative real growth in GSP in per capita terms in 2009-10, with the Northern Territory and ACT recording the lowest per capita growth (both down 0.9%). The three jurisdictions recording positive per capita growth were Western Australia (up 1.6%), South Australia (up 0.2%) and New South Wales (up 0.1%)"

Looking at the three states with positive per capita growth, WA population growth was 2.1% (higher than GSP per capita growth of 1.6%); NSW had a population growth rate of 1.3% (higher than the GSP per capita growth of 0.1%); and SA had a population growth rate of 1.1% (higher than its GSP per capita growth rate of 0.2%). The states with negative GSP per capita growth (they got poorer) had positive population growth.

At an international level, there is no correlation either at the top of the wealth table between population growth and GDP per capita (wealth)but there is a strong correlation between high population growth rates and low GDP per capita (poverty).

popnperish

Short term movements in GSP are mainly driven by cyclical factors. That's especially true for the data you have chosen, which are for the year following the GFC.

That's why any serious analysis of the relationship between population and output growth loooks at growth over a number of years, preferably at least a business cycle. my data were for 20 years, which will have ironed out any short-term fluctuations.

I accept that poor countries tend to have faster population growth rates that rich ones. Our economic circumstances and needs are quite different.

*This comfy unsustainable world has been driven my male innovation from the start of the Industrial Revolution.*

Err hang on there Poirot. You as a single swallow, don't make
a summer.

I actually noted Jefferson's wifes immortal quote, as he posted
it on OLO. "There is nothing like money to lubricate a woman's
vagina".

She makes a valid point. Its the blokes with the resources getting
all the sex. When women flock to chasing impoverished, low income
males, I'll take you more seriously.