Funny how the population growth advocates vape whenever the subjects of house prices and infrastructure are mentioned, and no wonder. Take the example of two 25 year old couples, one in a stable population scenario, Couple A, the other in a pop growth zealot utopia, Couple B. They have each saved $70000, and have $2000 a month to put toward a loan. Couple A pay 150,000 for their home. Because of population growth, Couple B pay $350,000 for an identical home. In each case I will assume an identical interest rate, though in reality Couple A would pay a lower rate of interest due to the adverse effect population growth has on the balance of trade.

So how do they fare?

After four years, Couple A have pad off the loan and have saved about $3000. Couple B have a mortgage of ~$257,000. So Couple A now put their savings into a superannuation account, and earn %5 on their capital. Couple B will do the same when their loan is paid off. After 25 years, Couple A have $885,000 in superannuation, and Couple B have paid off the mortgage, and have $43,500 in super. After 40 years, Couple A have saved $2,370,000, or about $1,750,000 more than Couple B.

So who has the preferable retirement?

Couple B now live in a country with poor infrastructure and services, significant environmental degradation, large debt, and little money for pensions. Couple A inhabit a country with excellent infrastructure and services, and no debt. Further, it has used its surplus to further the education and training of the population.

I know which Australia I would rather live in.