@Rhian "sooner or later our natural population change must turn negative unless the birth rate rises"

If our population change ever turned negative it would give us capacity to take future environmental refugees while maintaining a stable population. But it won't while we keep running record immigration programs. Our TFR has been sub-replacement for the last 35 years, yet our population hasn't stabilised because we keep adding more women of child bearing age. Over one third of the "ageing population" 65+ was born overseas. How do you defend the Ponzi logic?

@Rhian "If a pure one-child policy were strictly enforced indefinitely it would result in a massive distortion of the demographic profile."

Who's advocating a one-child policy? Not even China strictly enforces it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy
Their fertility rate of 1.8 is sourced from: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN

We live in a world where one child is allowed to starve to death every six seconds. If you think a 4:2:1 structure massively distorts the demographic profile, what do you think a 4:8:16 structure does to their chances? What impact do you think high growth rates have in countries where unemployment is over 30%?

@Rhian "... in many countries where birth control is freely available birth rates are still above replacement."

Wrong. Wherever women have access to education and resources their average fertility is replacement rate or less - almost without exception. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TFR_vs_PPP_2009.svg

If a woman can't afford to put food on the table, how can she afford contraceptives? I've worked in a country where there were no pharmacies much less money to buy their products. The only contraception on offer was Depo-Provera (which most Western women would not touch with a barge pole). They had to travel long distances to the only hospital in the entire country to get their 3 monthly shot. Some choice.

Ruth1

Thanks for the data source. The US Census Bureau gives China’s fertility rate as 1.5. It doesn’t significantly affect our areas of disagreement though.

Your graph shows a strong correlation between poverty and fertility. I fully accept that, as my previous posts indicate. It says nothing about access to contraception. You presume that the women in poor countries with high fertility do not have access to contraception, but this is circular logic. A significant number of countries in your chart are poor with low fertility, while a number of middle income countries have fertility above replacement.

I was intrigued by you question about unemployment, so I went to the IMF database to look at the evidence. According to IMF data, five countries had unemployment rates over 20% in 2010. Of these, two had falling populations, two had population growth of well below the global average, and the fifth had population growth in line with the global average of 1.2%pa.

Macedonia, Former Yugoslav Republic of : Unemployment rate: Percent of total labor force- 32.2%, population growth - 0.2%
Bosnia and Herzegovina: Unemployment rate: Percent of total labor force- 27.2%, population growth - -0.2%
Swaziland: Unemployment rate: Percent of total labor force- 25%, population growth - -0.4%
South Africa: Unemployment rate: Percent of total labor force- 24.8%, population growth - 1.2%
Spain: Unemployment rate: Percent of total labor force- 20.1%, population growth - 0.4%

Positively Brimstone - The salt of Hell

You got a lotta nerve
Spruiking Rich-country
When your wives are breeding
Into Power from Obscurity

You got a lotta nerve
To say you got a new-Idea to lend
You just want to be on
The side that’s winning

You say Oldgen let you down
You know it’s not like that
If you’re so hurt
Why then don’t you stop breedin'

You say you lost your faith
But that’s not where it’s at
Thermodynamic's all it is
And despite your Testosterone you know it

I know the reason
You're selected by the crowd your in
They all agree its coal, oil & Cheap foreign Labour
You need for competin'

You see us on the street
You always act surprised
You say, “How are you?” “Good luck”
But you don’t mean it

When you know as well as me
You’d rather see us $paralyzed
In gridlock traffic, waitin' lists
fightin' foreigners for crumbs off your table

@Rhian "But growth in GDP per capita is faster in countries where population growth is high."

Your assertion is demonstrably false.

2000 POP(mil) - 2008 POP(mil) - % increase - 2000 GDP per capita U$ - 2008 GDP percapita U$ - % increase

AU - 19.15, 21.4, 11.7, 21.7, 48.4, 123

CAN - 30.7, 33.3, 8.4, 23.5, 45, 91

DEN - 5.3, 5.5, 3.7, 30, 62, 87

FIN - 5.17, 5.31, 2.7, 23.5, 50.9, 117

NOR - 4.5, 4.76, 5.7, 37.4, 94.5, 152

You can't argue that population growth leads to greater gdp per capita and that is a key argument of the proponents of Big Australia. That myth is busted. China's dramatic increase in gdp per capita correlates strongly with a dramatic decrease in its population growth rate. Coincidence? I don't think so.

I'd argue that Australia and Canada have had economic policies that revolve around construction and domestic consumption driven by immigration while the Europeans have created more mature economies that utilise intellectual capital. A classic case of the "quarry mentality" meets "clever countries".

Not only have we got a massive and crippling infrastructure deficit, the clever countries also manage to spend more per capita on health, education and transport.

In the end I think we'll find that the only people pushing Big Australia are those with a vested interest. If this noisy, bossy minority want to live in a crowded country so much, why don't they just emigrate to one of the many? Then the majority who want to keep living in one of the few uncrowded countries can do so.

Rhian

If women are too poor to buy food how can they afford contraception? Perhaps you assume that all countries have a Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme like Australia's? Perhaps you haven't worked in countries that don't provide life-saving drugs to their citizens, much less contraceptives?

If you check the chart: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/TFR_vs_PPP_2009.svg
you will see that only two countries with GDP per capita over $16k per year have fertility rates over replacement level - and only one of those allows female access to education and employment. Its true that some developing countries also have low fertility rates. Countries such as Thailand and Vietnam have successfully invested in birth control programs to reduce poverty. But there are also countries where famine and conflict reduce the fertility rate far more brutally than a one child policy.

Which IMF database says only five countries have unemployment rates of over 20%? It's a joke, right? But you haven't answered my question:
what impact do you think high growth rates would have in countries where unemployment is over 30%?

"One problem China does not have is denial of infrastructure."

The supply of infrastructure is China's greatest challenge, perhaps an impossible one. The reality is that only a small percentage of the population enjoy high living standards, and a large amount of environmental damage has been incurred as a result of providing them.

Similarly in India, there are huge infrastructure shortfalls and an even greater challenge.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_12/b4026001.htm

In light of this I find it very weird that growth zealots are would have you believe that Japan is about to disintegrate as a result of an ageing crisis. The excellent living standard and infrastructure, and the positive trade balance would suggest that this calamity is yet to be realised.