@partTimeParent

Thank you for your comments. I assume from these Comments , that you are an Member of the MeMe Generation, whose contribution to Society consists , mainly, of whinging, generally at those nasty Baby Boomers.

When , we were raising children, you have used terms , that as a then Parent, I don't recognize. Could you explain then to a Baby Boomer Parent ,Please ?

They are contained in this quote.."huge bureaucracy which administers the stupidly complex payments system (Family tax A and B, Family tax bonus, baby bonus, maternity leave, child care benefit, childcare rebate, health-care cards... etc etc)"

Thank You.

Thanks Valerie for a rational assessment of Homo sapiens’ parlous condition in the twentyfirst century.

One more important thread could have been teased out: the net cost to “western” society is much less from the 65-and-above age cohort to the costs from the 0-15 age group.

At some stage, regardless of such costs, human society will have to come to grips with stabilizing their numbers in cohesion with their resources. There is nothing new in that. It was recognized in 1994 at the International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo.
Only when fundamentalist thinking, from all quarters, cease having traction on national governments against implementing the 1994 Cairo development accord will there be any hope for progress.

Seventeen years have passed since that accord. World population has increased by about 1.3 billion, and continues to increase by about 1.1 per cent - and most sadly, women in less-developed places like Somalia continue to have an estimated average of more than six children.

Not convinced.

"The story of Easter Island is like a microcosm of what we can see elsewhere in the world today"

Only if you believe Jared Diamond. Or if you think we're still vulnerable to slave traders and smallpox.

"Many developed, as well as developing countries, show problems that are increasing by growing population further."

Ok, I'll bite. Which ones are they?

"There are alternative advantages for profits and employment in a stable or even declining society. A look around any country shows significant qualitative improvement."

Some examples would be nice. From "any country".

"Over the last fifty years the proportion of Australians aged under fifteen has shrunk to 20 per cent while those aged over 65 has increased to 12 per cent, with no noticeable difficulties"

Ummm... maybe it's just me, but aren't both those categories non-working? So they might just offset each other? Just saying.

"The total dependency of old people in nursing homes is only on average 7 months for men and 2 years for women."

And this number is expected to a) rise, b) fall? With the consequence that...?

"Fewer children and more elderly would be less burden on the 'workers' in between."

Perhaps. For a while. Then... what?

"The greatest contributions to civilisation have been made by small cities no bigger than an outback country town."

Eh? What possible relevance has this factoid? Even if it is true - which "greatest contributions to civilisation" might they be?

In a previous article on this Forum, the author raised concerns over the escalating cost of meals-on-wheels and home care. I notice these do not get an airing here, despite the fact that they are a significant cost associated with caring for the elderly. Given that both the numbers and the cost are certain to rise, I would have thought that they would warrant at least a passing mention.

partTime Parent,

Our fertility rate is slightly below replacement level, as it has been since 1976, but the population is continuing to grow by natural increase, i.e., the population would be growing even if we had zero net immigration. This natural growth was by more than 150,000 last year.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3101.0

The paradox exists because of demographic momentum from past high fertility. If the young adult generation is big enough compared to older generations, it doesn't matter if they don't have many children, as births will still outnumber deaths. Natural increase is only likely to end at some time in the 2030s, after which the population (absent net immigration) will very slowly decrease, unless we encourage people to have a few more babies. The overall population growth rate last year, including immigration, was 1.5%, perhaps the highest in the developed world. We are hardly running out of people.

The Baby Boom generation is actually smaller than Generation X, which in turn is smaller than Generation Y. See

http://markoconnor-australianpoet.blogspot.com/2011/06/bernard-salt-abandons-his-baby-bust.html

As Mark O'Connor explains in the above link, life is getting harder for ordinary people from a number of aspects, and this is largely due to government policies, especially government sponsored population growth. The politicians, business leaders, and media are trying to turn a class issue into a generational issue, so that you blame the Baby Boomers and not them. As with every other generation, most Baby Boomers have worked hard for modest rewards and had very little say in anything. Furthermore, most of them had no access to superannuation for much of their working lives, although they were taxed to pay for the (non-means-tested) pensions of their predecessors, as well as the infrastructure you resent them using. The aged pension is hardly generous compared to most other developed countries. It is "flat, frugal, and heavily means tested". The cost of dying is an issue, but it is just as great when people die young.

Whoa, can we back up a minute here?, whilst I am not a paragon of
knowledge, or 100% well versed in the vagaries of population growth, I would at least like to add a thought or two.
Watching Q&A a few months ago, a young uni student put his hand up and spewed forth a selfish diatribe as to why he, a graduate at uni, should be funding the old people out of his hard earned money...well, for all of those people out there who opine in a similar vein, who do you think funded your Grandparents' pensions?, their off spring, that is who.
Similarly, my generation funded my parents retirement pension.We have to remember, that for some of us, when Superannuation came in to play, were closer to the end of our working career than just starting it. When in our forties, to accumulate enough money to support this ageing couple in their dotage was nigh on impossible. Child support was a pittance, no-one handed us thousands of dollars just to have a child, nor did the Government of the day pay either Parental leave or,
child care subsidy, let alone get your job back if you needed to return to the workplace. We had and raised only three children, our family allowance was a gripping $18 ($6 per child).
I wish today's generation could drop the Me Me Me attitude for a change. Now, for those who really resent the need for supporting our elders in the Community, My husband and myself have been volunteering in Marine Safety for 10years, and also at the Aged Care Home, and Aged Care Day Centre, we earned our pension whilst we were working, and we still do by volunteering.

I can't recall exactly where in the ABS data I found a particular link, but it clearly demonstrated that the Baby Bommers were not in fact going to be a burden as Gen X numbers were sufficient to support the boomers into retirement, the same data clearly showed that Gen Y and current birth rates would support Gen x numbers into their retirement. Not sure if the burden argument can be used as in this case.