Ruth1

I didn’t say China has a 4:2:1 demographic profile, but that because of the one-child policy this is a common dependency structure. If you disagree, please explain how a one-child policy could be enacted WITHOUT producing lots of 4:2:1 families?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/906114.stm

Of course I don’t want high mortality in developing countries – that’s a much more common position among anti-population growth advocates who prefer high death rates to high population growth rates. Nor do I want to deny women control of their own fertility. For example, I’d be happy for Australian aid money to be used to improve access to birth control in poor countries, if people do not have access to services they want. But I would strongly oppose coercive measures such as the one child policy or forced abortions.

My point was that it is meaningless to compare demographic outcomes of high-fertility high-mortality third world countries with low-fertility low-mortality developed ones, when their causal factors are utterly different.

And, as I have already indicated, I do not believe “massive migration” will solve the aging population problem, only that reasonable migration will help temper it.

Rstuart

The rise in aged dependency is projected to more than offset the decline in child dependency.

I’d guess supporting a child is less expensive that supporting a retiree. Children don’t own and operate their own homes or cars and have little discretionary income. And while sick elderly often don’t live long, they’re expensive, and as they die off there are plenty of baby boomers behind to take their place, so numbers in this age group will grow rapidly even if there’s a high attrition rate.

Rising GDP is fine, but its growth per capita will slow if productivity growth slows, while the proportion of that GDP used by people who don’t produce it will also grow, and that could be an allocative and equity problem.

Curmudgeon
You’re right about labour force participation rates for older workers increasing, but I wonder if that will continue enough to unwind the lower participation rates typical beyond age 55

The pensionable age will be increased to 67 by the 2020's perhaps the labouring age range should be shifting to the 16-67 age group instead.

"In 2002 there were more than five people of working age to support every person aged over 65. By 2042, there will only be 2.5 people of working age supporting each person aged over 65.

"http://demographics.treasury.gov.au/content/_download/australias_demographic_challenges/html/adc-04.asp

Maybe someone should tell the treasury that the aging of our population isn't a problem.

I don't have a problem with the sustainability argument that more migrants ultimately makes it tougher to be sustainable in the long run.

What I do have an issue with, is the claim that more migrants leads to things like congestion and makes our cities worse. That is a parochial attitude that misses a few key fundamental points.

I often spend time in Beijing, a city with a population comparable to Australia (lets say for argument's sake, a very conservative estimate of 17 million).

Their subway system is cheap (even by local standards), clean and easy to use. Same goes for the bus system. Congestion can get frustrating at times, but not as bad as the media reports tend to make out, and frankly I've had more issues with congestion in Brisbane.

Sure, the government subsidizes it a great deal, but such a project becomes practical due to economies of scale. With this many users, projects like advanced subway systems become feasible.

Blaming migrants is an easy out, when the blame lies with city planners, or politicians focused on the short term who don't implement those plans.

Do I support high immigration? No. I don't particularly want Australia to become a high-density nation, and I enjoy the luxuries and open spaces afforded by a low population. (Though I still think there's room for expansion. I don't fear an Australia with 36 million people, but I wouldn't consider that densely populated - and it would be on the proviso that we get our act together in terms of city planning.

What I would like in this debate is a little more honesty from both sides, rather than the partisan rancor and refusal to admit that the other side makes some good points too.

@Rhian: "I didn’t say China has a 4:2:1 demographic profile, but that because of the one-child policy this is a common dependency structure. If you disagree, please explain how a one-child policy could be enacted WITHOUT producing lots of 4:2:1 families?"

Simple: the one-child policy reduced China's fertility rate from over 3 to 1.8 births per woman. It hasn't "wreaked havoc" with China's demographic profile, but produced on average 2:2:2 families. Thanks for the BBC link - I've read it and I understand how you were misled.

You may also have been misled about the policies of sustainable population advocates. We do not advocate high death rates or coercive birth control, but the reverse. The reality is that once women are allowed to control their own fertility they choose overwhelmingly to have, on average, two children. Some may have more or less, but collectively we get it right: not just for ourselves and our families, but for the planet. Of course, this is all very threatening for those whose profits depend on generating more factory fodder and consumers.

<By 2042, there will only be 2.5 people of working age supporting each person aged over 65.>

2042? That is 31 years into the future. Shouldn't we be more concerned with the massive infrastructure debt currently being incurred as a result of high immigration than an economic speculation of what will be a challenge in 31 years? It seems an absurdity to be concerned with something so far into the future, and basic mathematics would suggest that immigration makes little change in the ageing profile anyway.

<I often spend time in Beijing, a city with a population comparable to Australia (lets say for argument's sake, a very conservative estimate of 17 million).

Their subway system is cheap (even by local standards), clean and easy to use. Same goes for the bus system. Congestion can get frustrating at times, but not as bad as the media reports tend to make out, and frankly I've had more issues with congestion in Brisbane.>

700 million Chinese dont even have access to basic health care, let alone public transport. I guess that you dont get a queue of people waiting for a bus when there is no bus, do you? I think if Brisbane were to provide services to 1% of the population and deny them to the other 99%, it too could have a fantastic public transport system to showcase to the tourists.