Ms Tranter is entitled to talk her own book, or that of her interest group, just as the rest of us are entitled to ignore her, or start talking about our own problems.

A few reality checks. Ms Tranter massaged the ABS data to prove that youth employment here is higher than the official figure, which is fair enough. Everyone does it. But for proper comparison she should do the same to the other countries she compares us with. Then she might find her cherised comparisons vanish.

In any case, there have been higher rates of youth unemployment ever since I was a youth, which is a long time ago. The simple reason for this that those starting out in the workforce take time to become established. However, the vast bulk eventually do get jobs and stay in employment. As they usually have no family commitments, their time out of work is not as great a tragedy as it could have been.

The real problem is those over 50 or 55 may be who are tossed out of work, through no fault of their own, and cannot get back in. Employers simply do not hire people past their mid-50s, unless they are coming from another job. If Ms Trantor would stop using dubious comparisons to beat us up over youth unemployment and check the stats on long term old person unemployment, she might then discover some real problems.

Curmudgeon, while it is indeed a waste when the over 50's are unemployable, this is a fairly self centred view to take. By this stage in life people have had a chance to accrue assets, be a part of the community, establish a sense of self worth.
For a young person who is never able to find a job - or not one that lasts longer than a few months here or there - there are no such positives.
The longer this persists, the more unemployable they become. They have no money behind them, no friendships that are established through work and socialising (which costs money!), no confidence to meet a partner or raise a family. It is very different.

Thanks Kellie Tranter for a thoughtful consideration of the London riots and the Occupy Wall Street movement, the "problem of juvenile delinquency", and for a sober take on the current global crises, without the "shades" or rose-tinted glasses or rational optimism.
Young people in the West are equivalent to canary's in mine shafts, emergent as they are from their long formative stages of innocence, naivety, conditioning and regulation; hapless with the idealism, disingenuous or cynical, lavished upon them by their doting parents--half of whom, long-since consumed themselves with disillusionment, recommend their sons and daughters to the world as though the one they've prepared them for was ever more than a figment of their imaginations, or the bald lies their parents told them.
Though in defence of canny parents; they know of no other world and only want their kids to make the best of it.
Nevertheless, life does indeed suck for young people generally nurtured on instant gratification and over-consumption, and taught to aspire to their own petty empires by the gloating generations that made the most of the postwar boom; or worse, by their own contemporaries lucky enough to have won a place at the table and so to assume their own condescending-gaze over the "losers" and "malcontents" and marginalia of the system.
I'm an over-50, Curmudgeon, and I agree with NaomiMelb, that the over-50's with decades of lucrative remuneration behind them ought to be retired and their jobs inherited by the young.
We have a system wherein the real wealth is held by corporate and family dynasties. Or otherwise by affluent seniors, or the elderly--increasingly squandered away on extending their lives, ad nauseam, and making futile gestures at enhancing their often useless and wretched existence beyond all reason or decency, or sustainability, or consideration of the social renewal they eat-up and turn to dust.
There comes a point when the older generation is "justly" a hated burden to its sons (Montaigne new this, even if Russell didn't), and resentment is building.

NaomiMelb - of course its self-centred, just as the article is ridiculously self-centred, that was the point..

As for the accusation itself you are assuming that one problem is worse than the other. So how many youths never get into the workforce? In Greece that would certainly be a problem but then unemployment at all ages would be a problem there. But how many hard-core long term unemployed are there in Australia?

Once you answer that question, you have the problem that the over-50s long term unemployed, a much larger group, usually still have family commitments. In addition, the long-term youth unemployment issue can be fixed by intervention (mostly). The long-term older person unemployment problem is intractable..

Squeers - I agree we should surrender our jobs to young people, who would do it so much better, and we should go off and be old somewhere with no money.. simple really..

With true national unemployment in Australia running at 10.3% instead of the fabricated ABS result of 5.1% perhaps the reality of our 'Strong economy' will be exposed for what it really is, 'In serious trouble'.

With real unemployment at or above 10% it goes a long way to explain why consumer spending, poor stock market activity and almost zero credit growth and continuing corporate lay-offs are occurring.

The RBA board should have their heads read, they need a swift kick up the proverbial as should the ABS and Government officials who spruik these false figures.

Most importantly the media should be taken to task over its pitiful journalistic integrity, a little investigation often goes a long way.

"I agree we should surrender our jobs to young people, who would do it so much better, and we should go off and be old somewhere with no money.. simple really.."
Ironic I presume, Curmudgeon? but I'm deadly serious. And it's not just about the elderly, it's also a problem of celebrity, for instance all the cricket and football heroes of the past who made their squillions but still get life-time jobs commentating or doing the weather or otherwise taking jobs they're not even trained for from young people who have useless university degrees. Instead of still rewarding and lauding dear old Richie Benaud in his dotage, we should be telling him to move over, while Wally shouldn't have got Weather Man in the first place!
In a society and a world of limited means the over fifties should be living modestly, not setting a standard of profligate behaviour many young people can only covet and dream about! I'm content with a modest life and don't want for more. One of the things that comes with age and wisdom (they don't always come together alas) is the realisation that the trappings of wealth are more a burden than anything else, and that the simple pleasures of life, and being able to enjoy them unmolested and without guilt, are worth any number of face-lifts or round-the-world cruises. There's an "economy of life" too that's been long since neglected and lost. While contemplating the inevitability of death with equanimity, even as a blessed release, is far more dignified than seeking to prolong life immoderately, or worse, pretending, prolonging and parodying youth.

It's called communism Squeers, & it has failed. Yes your ideas are communistic, & proven failures in the real world.

If I want to hire kids, or oldies that is my business, & no one else's. That goes double for twits who think they know it all, & want to dictate to the rest of us.

I wonder how anyone could get the facts of life across to such as you.

First is if someone studies a useless course at university, discuss it with the fool student, & perhaps the institution promoting useless courses.

Secondly a few facts about job availability. My 21 year old daughter moved to Darwin recently. She had the choice of 4 jobs in the first week, & she has only a couple of diplomas to her name.

A neighbours son, age 19, on my sons suggestion, signed up with the navy. He will be trained as a marine engineer, & power house operator. He dropped the boat builder apprenticeship he had found wanting.

In the 2 months he was waiting to start navy training, he was offered 4 full time jobs, & was earning over $1000 a week with a plastering company. They begged him to stay. I could go on, but the story is always the same.

Meanwhile a couple of the same age neighbourhood kids are still unemployed & bitching about having to attend "useless" training courses.

So get rid of that bleeding heart violin, & start using the steel cap work boot, it will do more good getting work shy yobbos into work, degreed on not.

Australia has exactly the same problem as America. Too many
qualified as little then burger flippers, whilst those with skills
need to be brought in from overseas, to meet the demand.

Perhaps parents should get serious about helping their kids gain
some useful qualifications, like mechanics, truck drivers, accountants,
chefs, electricians, welders and all the rest.

No Squeers, we don't need more philosophers lol, I meant real
jobs with real qualifications.

Even farming today relies largely on backpackers and 457 workers,
as Aussies don't want the jobs. Parents are to blame, they have
brought up a bunch of spoiled brats with expectations so high,
that they simply don't want to bother with alot of jobs.

I popped into my local farm supply store the other day. They
have 6 branches, 5 of them are looking for staff.
Oops, if jobs are not 20 minutes from where we live, best not
to bother.

Hasbeen,
I think I'm as entitled to an opinion as you are? I'm not dictating to anyone, and I make my point with argument rather than name-calling

Yabby:
<Parents are to blame, they have
brought up a bunch of spoiled brats with expectations so high,
that they simply don't want to bother with alot of jobs>

Gees, Yabby, where have I heard that before? The older generation has been projecting onto their kids forever! You mean the spoiled brats who man the take away stores and do all the other menial labour the spoiled middle classes take for granted and wouldn't do themselves? How dare young people aspire to something better than fruit-picking or checkout operators, or something more stimulating or idealistic than raking in the doe working underground--ingrates and dreamers! They should pull emselves up by the bootstraps like we did, eh?
I tell you what, why don't we teach them a real lesson and the over fifties give up their six figure salaries and company cars and all the other perks and show them how to be fulfilled assembling Big Macs and putting-up with condescending customers? And the kids can take their jobs and see how they cope with the awful pressures and working conditions the well-healed workers put up with? At least if it turns out we're the spoiled brats we can quit and enjoy our superannuation packages and share portfolios.
I don't deny ours is a spoiled country, utterly decadent in fact, but the youngens have got nothing on their "betters" when it comes to that!

Yabby, to take a case in point. Electricians. On the skills shortage list for years. Guess what? You can go to trade school, you can do a pre-apprenticeship, but there are only a handful of apprenticeships. In the meantime we continue to import qualified electricians, year after year. Sure, kids should do whatever they can to be working, we've all done crappy jobs to get started. But if there is no hope they will ever do anything but crappy jobs because they are locked out of the trades, what are we supposed to tell them? Go overseas and get qualified? Businesses that consistently import skills should also have a responsibility to train up the next generation. Or we should change the training methodology so they don't need an apprenticeship that doesn't exist. It is a sad day when we make our own kids the lowest paid workers for life (if they are lucky enough to get a job - the older they get the more difficult it is) and import highly paid people from overseas to fill vacancies. Not everyone is cut out to be an accountant.

*How dare young people aspire to something better than fruit-picking or checkout operators, or something more stimulating or idealistic than raking in the doe working underground*

No Squeers, its about learning life experiences, starting at the
bottom and working your way up. You might have gotten life on a plate
but I certainly did not. I still remember when a builder put a shovel
in my hand, when I was a teenager and said " here sonny, get moving"
It taught me heaps and was character building.

Some time ago I did the same to a 16 year old lout, whose mother
claimed that he wanted some work. I got him to help a group of
us mixing concrete, he did half of what everyone else did. That
afternoon his mother rang me. "What have you done to my baby?" Err
for the first time in his life, he learnt what a shovel was.

You might earn 6 figures, I don't. As a matter of fact I'm nearly
60 and was still mixing a bit of concrete this morning, it does you
no harm.

*Or we should change the training methodology*

Absolutaly the methodology needs changing. If parents don't
insist on it, it won't happen. Your kids are your responsibility and
the best thing that you can do for them, is make sure that they
learn something beyond burger flipping. If you don't, I hope that
they hold you to account, when they later realise that you failed
as a parent.

Squeers,
From my viewpoint I'd say that many of those who go to man those menial positions as you say, only a handful think further ahead then next payday. many do that work because they find it below them to do an apprenticeship for a lot less money then at Macca's.
Then, when those who finally completed an apprenticeship & start making a dollar then those who ave been working at Macca's whine about not getting any opportunities. The defence force has literally thousands of positions in hundreds of fields but how many take up the offer ? Or how many are suited to take up the offer ? That's the question we should be asking.
We all want to do better but are we prepared to put in the hard yards ? No, of course not.
Then there is always the question of luck in getting a top job. No-one thinks about that because people who achieve are lucky & those who don't aren't. Quite often it's just plain & simple luck & we can't legislate against bad luck or can we ?

Hi Kellie,

Just a bit of background.

We are selling assets, borrowing and allowing massive environmental damage to occur with mining.......all because Australia is panicking for income to support our growing population's appetite for infrastructure and jobs.

Our manufacturing is collapsing, our World rankings of our universities and school leavers academic standards, are falling.

As Paul Keating said, " population growth will lead to unemployment, if you don't grow the economy ". The opposite is also true, that you can have full employment if you don't grow the economy........if you stabilise population growth.

Denmark with a basically stable population of 5 million , export all over the world. How ? Because they invest in education, technology and efficient, high end capital intensive manufacturing.

Australia can't, because we invest in more people.........which is an investment in more pollution.

The billions spent on growth infrastructure and services, must be spent alternatively on education, health and emerging technology.

Forget "bank" and Business Council economists pushing for more population growth.........this is the last thing we need.

Stabilisation designs out youth unemployment.

(happy to chat further, if you have any queries)

Cheers,

Ralph

rpbennett@optusnet.com.au

Perhaps the first problem is those parents who continue to bring all those kids into the world; the second problem upheaval in the Third World generating immigration exodus; the third problem unbalanced free-trade competition; the fourth, a lack of focus on internal balance and self-sufficiency; and the fifth, unrealistic expectations.

I started losing hope when Aus lost its major woollen mills and ship building; now we look like losing steel and aluminium mills/smelters, and possibly an automotive industry; and we've never had a significant leather industry. In the world of specialisation we excel, as a generalist we are a dismal failure - grabbing every cheap import with nary a thought for local impacts; selling our soul for trade agreements; inviting multinationals to exploit our natural resources because we lack capital, backbone and foresight; ever the follower and never the leader.

Trade unions and Labor seek ever higher wages and conditions, and job security for the few - but what of the yet to be employed? Industy is forced to streamline and automate, go offshore, or close down - and out go the jobs. Had contact with a call-centre lately?

Education and job/skills training is great - but there have to be the jobs at the end of it. It is time to reclaim the playing field - much to the dismay of those who hate protectionism. Tourism and overseas student education is not going to do it for us, we need industry.

Remember when we were all going to be able to retire at 55-60? Now they want to roll it back to 70. Great for the unemployed! Olds going to be a burden on the young? If the young have no jobs?

Sunshine to burn, and we lost our solar panel manufacture because of cheap (Chinese) imports. We've got to build something, or we die. Jobs, innovate - whatever the cost - or we die.

It's easy to blame corporate largesse, but we all have to relearn about sharing - the wealth, and the pain.

Yabby,
Luxury! Bloody luxury...!"

I were a brickie's labourer at 15 (and that wasn't my first job) but knew how to use a shovel long before that, and I'd be willing to bet I've done it tougher than you have, but thanks for illustrating my point that the older guys love to romanticise themselves as self-made men: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe1a1wHxTyo

THe fact is it's overwhelmingly the older generation that's the most decadent and taking the lion's share of national wealth: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/07/us-wealth-gap-young-old_n_1079372.html
And they go on squandering it unto senility, which is now of course big business: http://www.uq.edu.au/news/index.html?article=3775 and at the expense of the younger generation.
And I'm not just talking about personal wealth, which is of course highly variable; the West also spends far too much money on innovation devoted to extending decrepit life, to eking it out till the money's spent, when the money should be used to secure the viability of emergent generations. But that's the free market; it doesn't give a toss about sustainability or the future or anything else, only about drawing of profit--and the smelter's always near the ore.

Ralph Bennett,
economic growth is dependent on the growth of infrastructure, which is dependent on population growth or growing living standards. An economy can't grow in a vacuum. Economic growth and stable population at home just means it's being exported, i.e. population/infrastructure growth abroad. I agree with the Denmark model in the current dispensation as the best of all possible worlds. But the reality is that a profligate dispensation dependent on endless economic growth, in a finite system, cannot be viable in the median to long term. I'm horse from saying it but no one wants to face reality.

*I were a brickie's labourer at 15*

Well there you go Squeers. As matter of fact we still need brickie's
labourers today. So why shouldn't our youth work their way up as
we did?

Yes, things were tougher some 40 years ago. People used to move
around to find work. Thats how it should be.

Our meatworks today largely depend on 457 workers, our fruit is
picked by backpackers, because you parents have brought up a heap
of brats. They stand to inherit more money then any generation before
then, when you fall off the old perch.

"...because you parents have brought up a heap of brats..."

It's interesting that the "brats" participating in the Occupy Movement don't seem to really know which way forward. They know something is diabolically awry with "the system" but, for some reason, they appear to be suffering inertia - as if they're waiting for someone to tell them what to do.

Former decorated teacher, John Taylor Gatto, wrote a book titled "Dumbing Us Down". In it he tells of the "seven lessons" he was required to instill in his charges:

1. Confusion -
"...Everything I teach is out of context. I teach the un-relating of everything. I teach too much..."

2. Class Position -
"I teach that students must stay in the class where they belong. I don't know who decides my kids belong there but it's not my business..."

3. Indifference
"I teach children not to care too much about anything even though they want to make it appear that they do. How I do this is very subtle. I do it by demanding that they become totally involved in my lessons, jumping up and down in their seats with anticipation, competing vigourously with each other for my favour..."

4. Emotional Dependency
"By stars and red checks, smiles and frowns, prizes and disgraces, I teach kids to surrender their will to the predestined chain of command...."

5. Intellectual Dependency
"Good students wait for a teacher to tell them what to do. this is the most important lesson of them all, we must wait for other people, better trained than ourselves to make the meanings in our lives..."

6. Provisional Self-Esteem
"..... you'll know how impossible it is to make the confident conform. My kids are constantly evaluated and judged..."

7.One Can't Hide
"I teach students that they are always watched, that each is under constant surveillance by me and my colleagues. There are no private places for children, there is no private time..."

I wonder why our youth is revolting?....we're the "brats" for perpetuating the dysfunction.

.because you parents have brought up a heap of brats..."
Poirot,
Yes & no. I'd say many parents didn't fail at all. The system failed them. The system dreamed up by ignorant academic sociological experts & the like.
Those who enforced the "no slap' policy & those who got rid of National service are the ones at fault & yet still policy makers still listen to these morons.
It used to be that 1 in 4 Australians wasn't born here but now it's 3 in 4 are devoid of foresight.

individual,

Did you read Gatto's points above?

The object of the system is to create automatons - people who are unable to exercise, for the most part, autonomy, or to utilise their potential and capacity for creativity.

"National Service' and a "pro-slap policy" are merely extensions of the same model. Conformity and compulsion are the guiding principles - without a guiding context.

The system has failed in its ability to even recognise the intrinsic humanity of its youth...but the system wasn't designed to respect those things we claim to value - it was designed to create obedient workers and enthusiastic consumers.

Poirot, oh its so easy just to blame "the system".

If it was just "the system", you would not have the massive
variation in outcomes, which is what we can see.

There are young people today who are absolutaly thriving
and taking the opportunities which they have, making
their dreams happen.

Then we have another bunch blaming "the system".

One of the interesting things for me, living in the
same place for a fairly long time, is observing families,
how they raised their kids and how those kids are turning out.

Those kids who were spoiled rotten and given everything,
protected from any kind of trauma etc, are the ones that
have turned into duds.

Those who were given lots of love, but also lots of
discipline, not given life on a plate by their parents,
are the ones who are thriving.

The problem is the expectations of the spoiled brats,
and I can only blame their parents for that.

If you teach kids that life comes on a plate, that is
what they will expect from the world and then be amazed,
when it simply ain't like that.

Yabby,

I agree with you.

Bur it's the powers that be - the reigning system that encourages parents to shower their kids with goodies, just as it encourages people to submit to their own vanity and constantly reward themselves with "stuff".

Look no further than the "system" for the reasons behind the materialistic perversion of youth and its potential..."life on a plate" is the result of fortunate society which exercises very little discrimination when it comes to human nature.

Poirot,

Surely modern education is almost the total inverse of your quoted Gatto's 7 lessons? (At least here in Aus, if not univerally in the West?) If not, the 'Occupy' participants must have failed to be 'cloned'? (Or should we consider them the latest equivalent of the 'free love' or 'flower power' movements, and latent tree-huggers - custodians of the social conscience, moved by an irresistible 'natural' guiding compass perhaps?)

Education (or a lack of it) has failed to deter the multitude of demonstrators in Athens, London and the middle east - so awakening to the deceit and irresponsibilities of national leadership can produce explosive repercussions. (And sheep become wolves.)

We should not be blaming youth, or any lack of their adequate preparation to face the challenges of the modern world, but rather the failure of governments and leaders to provide a stable and constructive employment and career environment - from cradle to grave. Free market politics and industry has much to answer for - and China has found its measure. We need to find a better way to foster our national interests, to harness and laud the potentials and exuberance of current and future generations of youth. Theirs IS our future - as a free, vibrant and successful society. We do owe them a future, for on their shoulders rests the future of the world.

Saltpetre,

I'm "not" blaming our youth.

The inverse of Gatto's "lessons"?
Did you read them?
Do they ring true?
Gatto was an "award winning" teacher because he adhered to these lessons.

But it's useless to ramble on here. It's so unusual for anyone nurtured in and saturated by the status quo to think outside the square.

"..to harness and laud the potentials and exuberance of current and future generations of youth..."

The last word from Gatto:

"With lessons like the ones I teach day after day it should be little wonder we have a real national crisis, the nature of which is very different from that proclaimed by national media. Young people are indifferent to the adult world and to the future, indifferent to almost everything except the diversion of toys and violence. Rich or poor, school children who face the twenty-first century cannot concentrate on anything for very long; they have a poor sense of time past and time to come. They are mistrustful of intimacy like the children of divorce they really are (for we have divorced them from significant parental attention); they hate solitude, are cruel, materialistic, dependent, passive, violent, timid in the face of the unexpected, addicted to distraction....all the peripheral tendencies of childhood are nourished and magnified....."

I read and understood Gatto's points, Poirot. Excellent.
But as you say, "it's useless to ramble on here. It's so unusual for anyone nurtured in and saturated by the status quo to think outside the square".
Ain't that the truth!

And here I was naively thinking that education was there to aid natural intelligence & ability.
I thought it was there for young people to learn & build upon the previous generation's findings & discoveries.
Now you're saying we must keep the young in the dark so they won't out-smart us.
Strange, very strange indeed.

individual,

Likewise.

Poirot and Squeers,

If what you and Gatto contend is really true (and I have no reason to doubt you) then I am truly dismayed. (That last word from Gatto is frightening to contemplate.) Or, can Gatto's view be restricted to his American experience? For truly, I find his preferred philosophy a bit hard to swallow. Horse riding to build character and confidence? Home schooling to ensure relevance and rebuild family and community values, and confidence with intimacy - great aspirations, but is his the only, or best way to infuse such qualities? And, is our Aus school environment directly comparable?

TV and internet may well be a disconnect from immediate society, but mandatory school attendance would then appear to be the only training kids/youth receive for later having to put in the hours to hold down a job. And school has been effective in the past in providing the necessary foundation for work and career - so what's changed? And, kids still seem to find time for personal interraction, and still seek it where the family environment is conducive.

Home schooling may also be fine if the parents are up to it; and some alternative schools may provide a better environment for learning and curiosity - but I would have thought our private schools would be reasonably equivalent. (Still some work to do in the public system, but they don't all seem to be abject failures.)

Is government responsible? Or, are WE truly "the "brats" for perpetuating the dysfunction"? (No one consulted me, but again I'm still unsure if the American experience is fully reflective of our educational institutions and our society at large.)

Families should be directly involved in their kid's education, both formal and societal, but failure to overcome our endemic addiction to mammon and materialism is surely a family and societal problem, and not one originated or propagated by our school system.

Total family school attendance and participation may however be efficacious in our remote communities, perhaps?

*Bur it's the powers that be - the reigning system that encourages parents to shower their kids with goodies*

Oh that is just an easy cop out excuse, Poirot. If Poirot drags
little Johnny to the shops and buys every chocolate bar that the
kid wants, pleads for and demands, then Poirot is to blame, not
the shop.

Fact is that the only qualification required to be a parent is to
enjoy a bit of sex. It shows, if you look around. Its much harder
to be a good parent, say no when you mean it, set kids boundaries etc.

Some of today's parents think that they are being good parents by
jut giving kids what they want. So they land up with brats who
learn to expect everything and even demand it, for that is what they
have been taught.

My old man was pretty tough on me, but now I can view it more objectively,
he taught me many things by being so. Other kids got
pocket money. He told me that if I wanted something, I'd have to
work for it. Wash the car, weed the garden, mow the lawn, etc.
Then he'd pay me (not much lol), but its still that kind of stuff
that teaches values, not just giving kids everything and blaming
the system.

If your claim about the education system being all at fault, we would
have not have so many great people coming out the other end, they
would nearly all be duds. That is not the case, so you will have
to rethink your claim, it seems.

Yes, people like to accumulate things. Have you ever considered how
squirrels store food to survive the winter? White man did the same to survive the snow.
Those that did not, would have soon gone extinct. So I think that there is a genetic component there, to be
considered.

.

Dear Squeers, ( from your post )

"Ralph Bennett,
economic growth is dependent on the growth of infrastructure, which is dependent on population growth or growing living standards. An economy can't grow in a vacuum. Economic growth and stable population at home just means it's being exported, i.e. population/infrastructure growth abroad. I agree with the Denmark model in the current dispensation as the best of all possible worlds. But the reality is that a profligate dispensation dependent on endless economic growth, in a finite system, cannot be viable in the median to long term. I'm horse from saying it but no one wants to face reality."

Squeers,

You dont need economic growth for full employment with stabilisation.

Stabilisation leads to labour becoming more scarce.

With scarcity ( as in any commodity ) labour becomes more valuable, treasured as a resource..........suddenly, there is money for re-training and with labour "worth something", it finally gives an incentive to get of the dole or disability pension.

Cheers,

Ralph

it finally gives an incentive to get of the dole or disability pension.
Ralph Bennett,
not to mention the tens of thousands of bureaucrats on very high pay who don't even know what they're doing all day for the money they get.

<You dont need economic growth for full employment with stabilisation.

Stabilisation leads to labour becoming more scarce.

With scarcity ( as in any commodity ) labour becomes more valuable, treasured as a resource..........suddenly, there is money for re-training and with labour "worth something", it finally gives an incentive to get of the dole or disability pension.>

Ralph Bennett,
I'm sceptical. I can see that the premises bear thinking about, but the argument's academic since we live in a world that is dependent on economic growth. Even so-called stable nations like Denmark require it in the context of the rest of the world. To not grow in this world is to fall behind, which entails many other consequences. But in any case, can you point to a prosperous and "stable" nation (population growth) that isn't growing economically?
Then there's the problem of what you call "full employment", by which presumably you mean more than the minimal hours of employment required to meet the designation in Australia, for instance? I think it more likely "full employment" would mean "shared employment" rather than a section "enjoying" a monopoly. I don't see how any stable nation, given modern manufacturing and technology etc., would require full full-time employment, though maybe full part-time workers. But once again the argument's moot because labour's never going to be scarce within a competitive "global" resource and employment base. The value of labour in a stable country is not based on domestic scarcity, but on the cost of labour elsewhere. Where labour is valued "and" scarce, such as in Denmark, the value is maintained by exports and economic growth, and not by scarcity per se.
The only way that I can see your formula working, in the current dispensation, is in an insular and self-sufficient nation, or artificially via tariffs, and these would invoke pariah status and security threats.
tbc

...
I do believe your scenario could work globally, or between a coalition of powerful nations--supposing such a thing could ever be negotiated--but the real sticking point is once again economic growth. You appear to forget the profit motive, which drives all else before it. You can't have high-yield full employment and a stable population in a modern state that doesn't require external stimulus, let alone make a profit. Once again, insularity is required to make something approaching a perpetual-motion machine, and such a state could not be progressive but would have to be so efficient as to be effectively dormant, rather than a consumer-culture--such as Australia was before colonisation--which obviates the need for full employment.
What we need is a paradigm shift, but that's not going to happen while the profit-takers run the world.
We can make society more fair by sharing employment fully--and we should--but that would take the economic energy out of the system and seriously impair both the paradigm of conspicuous consumption and the economic dynamic--though I'm all for that!

Saltpetre,

You say these things are "surely a family and societal problem".

I don't think you can separate "schooling" from societal anything. It's a central plank in our societal arrangements. In any case, I'm merely critiquing the way it works. I don't for a minute suggest that you can do away with part of our system and leave the rest in place - it's all interconnected and mutually supportive.

I suppose I like to look at things from an anthropological point of view. We've only been doing it this way for what amounts to the blink of an eye in relation to all of human development.

Here's what Alvin Toffler had to say on the formulation of mass education in industrial society:

"Mass education was the ingenious machine constructed by industrialisation to produce the adults it needed. The problem was inordinately complex. How to pre-adapt children for a new world.....the solution was an education system that in its very structure, simulated this new world...The whole idea of assembling masses of students (raw material) to be processed by teachers (workers) in a centrally located school (factory) was a stroke of genius. The whole administrative hierarchy of education as it grew up followed the model of industrial bureaucracy. The very organisation of knowledge into disciplines was grounded on industrial assumptions. Children marched from place to place and sat in assigned stations. Bells rang to announce changes of time. The inner life of school thus became an anticipatory mirror, a perfect introduction to industrial society."

Hi Squeers,

The main reason for economic growth is to provide an increased number of jobs, so that population growth, doesn't lead to increased levels of unemployment.

The Opportunity Cost of spending capital on population growth infrastructure. means that a huge opportunity to spend that capital on productive investment in education, health and emerging technologies; is lost.

A vibrant, research and development orientated society is designed in by the mechanism, of diverting forgone growth infrastructure expenditure and taking this money for R & D.

New products, from this R & D investment and capitalism will drive change and vibrancy.

The ultimate restraint of the environment is also addressed by population stabilisation.

Cheers,

Ralph

Ralph Bennett:
<The main reason for economic growth is to provide an increased number of jobs, so that population growth, doesn't lead to increased levels of unemployment.>
I'm afraid this is naive. You think Economic growth is considerate and philanthropic?
Economic growth is driven by entrepreneurialism and concomitant material expansion/consumption, domestically and abroad. Population growth is pegged to ambition and enterprise and spiked with the advent of mechanisation and capitalism (reinvestment rather than husbanding of surplus): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Population_curve.svg
We engineered and continue to drive a human plague.

<The Opportunity Cost of spending capital on population growth infrastructure. means that a huge opportunity to spend that capital on productive investment in education, health and emerging technologies; is lost.>
There would be no capital without population/material expansion somewhere? "Investment in education, health and emerging technologies" is prospective (as Poirot illustrates above) and entrepreneurial, not philanthropic.

<A vibrant, research and development orientated society is designed in by the mechanism, of diverting forgone growth infrastructure expenditure and taking this money for R & D.

New products, from this R & D investment and capitalism will drive change and vibrancy.

The ultimate restraint of the environment is also addressed by population stabilisation>

I've no wish to give offence but this is magic pudding talk.

Apologies for being a little off topic in my last. To tie it in; this is the reason no government would advocate job share, or seniors relinquishing their positions to the young. Our system requires gross disparities to drive envy, to fire ambition, to reward "success", and so to renew the dynamic. Young people are idealistic (they've been taught to be; lied to by their parents and their education. And btw Yabby, imo the vast majority of today's youth are as fine, in potentia, as they ever were; it's the system that ruins them) and get angry, but most of them give in and join the rat race. They are part of the cycle.
Egalitarianism is not possible at the high end--that is without perpetual economic growth/material expansion. Systemic egalitarianism is possible only in a state of mutual poverty. True prosperity is the reward for the careful husbandry of finite resources and self-management. And in such a dispensation modest and "directed" progressivism is still possible.
Youth has no hope of changing the world while money and power is held by cynical vested interests.

Squeers,

<Egalitarianism is not possible at the high end--that is without perpetual economic growth/material expansion.>

If you mean there will always be a ruling/elite class, you're right - but a better deal for the masses would be possible under Ralph's proposal for self-regulated population control (and reduction).

<Systemic egalitarianism is possible only in a state of mutual poverty.>

Ditto my above response.

<True prosperity is the reward for the careful husbandry of finite resources and self-management.>

Ralph also proposed this.

<And in such a dispensation modest and "directed" progressivism is still possible.>

You said it.

<Youth has no hope of changing the world while money and power is held by cynical vested interests.>

Maybe so, unless those vested interests change their vision for world progress (or are forced-to/deposed - Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, ..) in realisation of the futility and dysfunctionality of the current world system. A very big ask - for governments, for nations, for humanity - but it is ultimately these which must wrest control away from capital, and return power and dignity to humanity as a whole. A paradigm shift (as you previously mentioned). Possible? Let us hope so, for the sake of humanity.

The swords should be sheathed, hatreds and animosities forgotten, differences accepted and lauded - in a spirit of brotherhood, in quest of Eden. (But it ain't just around the corner - not yet, but hopefully before there is nothing left worth saving.)

in a spirit of brotherhood, in quest of Eden.
Saltpetre,
Yeah, but how can we get rid of the hangers-on ?

*And btw Yabby, imo the vast majority of today's youth are as fine, in potentia, as they ever were; it's the system that ruins them) and get angry*

Squeers, our society is probably more diversified then it's ever been,
with young people having more choices then they ever had. When I
was in my 20s, just borrowing money to start your own business was
a huge drama, not anymore. Sourcing information was a huge problem,
not anymore.

We have youth of all types. Some thrive and grab the many opportunities
around them. Others just blame it on the system, when
their unrealistic expectations are not met.

My point is, forget blaming the system, start to blame the parents.
As we can see, within the same system we have a huge variation of
results. Trace that back and it comes down to the variation in
genetics and the variation in environment, ie how the parents raised
their kids.

There is more to raising kids then just popping them out and then
blaming the system, if they didn't turn out as parents expected.
But of course its easy to just rationalise away parents own failings
at the job that they have done and blame everyone else.

Its a human foible, I know.

Hi Squeers,

"We engineered and continue to drive a human plague."

We designed it in and we can design it out by balanced migration ( 70,000 out, 70,000 in ) and get rid of the baby bonus (ABS: our birthrate is double our deathrate ).
That is a saving of 1.2 million people every 3-4 years and a saving of our best farmland , bushland (read unappreciated ancient forest) and billions of dollars that would have been spent on, polluting growth infrastructure.

"There would be no capital without population/material expansion somewhere? Education etc, is a prospective investment (as Poirot illustrates above) and entrepreneurial, not philanthropic."

Capital can be recycled between institutions and individuals, in a population stable Australia. The design of modified capitalism is always changing and the prospective investment can be funded from "me" not spending my existing capital on say providing more housing stock and instead investing that capital in prospective investment in education, health and emerging technologies.

"I've no wish to give offence but this is magic pudding talk."

Yep.....point taken. Wishfull thinking and reality checks ! The Magic Pudding of endless growth at the expense of reality checking that peak oil is yet to wreak havoc on the planet by making food so expensive that maybe a quarter of the worlds population may starve to death. There is no substitute for cheap oil which has allowed us to breed-up because of cheap food and medicine.

Better to stabilise now , while there is something left to save and use all our foreign aid to do the same for other countries.

I appreciate the testing.

Cheers,

Ralph

Posted by Squeers, Saturday, 25 February 2012 6:59:04 AM

Saltpetre,
I despair. Just when I think I've imparted a water-tight argument, easy to follow and hard to refute, as economically and unequivocally as may be, given the constraints, you throw salad in my face and it's clear you haven't understood my argument or your criticism of it. But I have a deadline and if I’m to rephrase again, it’ll have to wait a few days.
One of the things I've noticed on OLO is that most of both the reformist and conservative argument is divorced from reality; that is idealistic rather than pragmatic--Ralph Bennett you’re case in point, dreaming up fanciful ideas that not only don’t bear scrutiny, but have no hope of being attempted in a world addicted to economic growth.
Lesson number one is idealism is worse than useless in that it creates the illusion, a comforting diversion, the phantasm of something real at play in the world. Hope. Whereas idealism remote from action is nothing but the denial of reality and so much temporising--ask Hamlet.
Philip Adams is fond of saying “the situation is hopeless. Let’s take the next step”, as if it was an aphorism or hope was a virtue. As if positive steps were being taken to confront or mitigate the hopeless situation! As if endless “compliant agonising” had leverage in the real world. One should stop at sober criticism, facing reality, and not take refuge in flights of fancy that have no substance--no hope of being enacted--and amount to a denial of reality, a cosy retreat rather than resistance.
By “magic pudding talk” I wasn’t referring to peak oil, but pie in the sky:
<A vibrant, research and development orientated society is designed in by the mechanism, of diverting forgone growth infrastructure expenditure and taking this money for R & D. New products, from this R & D investment and capitalism will drive change and vibrancy. The ultimate restraint of the environment is also addressed by population stabilisation>
Growth infrastructure and capital are not independent, but proceed from each other.
I’m not testing your position, I’m popping your balloon!

Squeers,

Go figure? You put forward cogent argument that the status quo is all that is possible - though you wish it were not so, and suggest a paradigm shift is needed - despite also recognising the unsustainability of exponential growth within the constraints of finite resources and finite space. You say we olds should all top ourselves or otherwise make way for the young (and argue that they are as good as ever, though angry, disillusioned and brought up with unreaslistic expectations by doting parents and a mechanistic education system) - but it is arguably the young, led by unscrupulous bankers who have been enthusiastic co-conspirators and engineers of the GFC. The young are indeed maleable. So we have the usual dichotomy - the enthusiastic chasers of instant gratification, against the Occupy Movement protesting for economic responsibility; the tree-huggers vs the rapers and pillagers; the 'idealists' vs the 'opportunists' (or those who have simply given up trying or caring).

You criticise idealism as fantastic, yet the current capitalist expansionary profit-driven grow-or-die system is the real idealism, the 'ideal illusion'.

Mankind is complex, malleable, and prone to accept direction - for good, or for ill - so where are the sages, those whose wisdom and judgement may sway mankind towards a better and sustainable future? In White House or Kremlin or China? Who is going to talk sanity to the Taliban? Is our only future to be in keeping the Third World depressed and repressed and exploited to keep the First World in clover - or is a war to end all wars just over the horizon?

The world is a mess, and I don't have an answer. Do you?

Hi Squeers,
You wrote:

"idealism remote from action is nothing but the denial of reality and so much temporising--ask Hamlet."

The action is you can join the federally listed for the next Senate Election ; STABLE POPULATION PARTY AND THE NON-POLITICAL "SUSTAINABLE POPULATION AUSTRALIA (google both).

You will feel much better because not only will you be putting in place sustainable economic, social and environmental design, but it gives you a positive platform to exlain how change will deliver the outcomes society craves.

We all agree that business as usual is not smart.

All the best,

Ralph

Saltpetre,

I don't suggest "we olds should all top ourselves", though I am for voluntary euthanasia and modest lifestyles. I've tried to explain why, imo, nothing changes despite the awareness of many, on many issues, that matters are unfair and unsustainable and must change. We have to come to the realisation that we currently have no control over our "progress", and that despite all the talk (idealism), economic growth is prioritised and prevails over all else. The trouble with idealism and reformism is they continue to foster the delusion that we can continue in the growth paradigm, pulling rabbits out of hats. The worst effect, in a popular democracy, is that a majority is sufficiently heartened by the false optimism of an influential few (AGW is another example) and the ideological centre continues to hold.
I don't say "that the status quo is all that is possible", but that it can only be successfully undermined when influential people see that it is fundamentally untenable, publically table their uncompromising criticisms, and call for radical change.
Ralph Bennett, you illustrate this argument in that you recommend a halt to population growth "within" the current dispensation, failing to see the symbiotic relationship between economic and material growth--a global addiction. Failing to see that a stable population on this vast continent, within a global growth paradigm, however desirable, is geo-political suicide. Failing to take cognisance too that despite all the talk on the fringes about population stabilisation, it's government policy and a projected fact that Australia's population will nearly double in a few decades. And indeed the prevailing logic (based on prevailing dynamics) is correctly that it "must"!
No I don't have a solution, Saltpetre, apart from seeing through the idealism and telling it how it is. We have plenty of gurus spinning lies, we need a few telling the truth!

Squeers,

You are just recycling "yellow peril" arguments. Modern states are defended (at least from external enemies) by technology, not numbers. Just consider the case of Israel, which has survived for more than 60 years, despite being vastly outnumbered by hostile neighbours. On the other hand, densely populated countries have still been invaded, even big densely populated countries such as China and Indonesia. If we came under any real threat, I suspect that we would be able to have nuclear weapons (or some horrific chemical and biological weapons) in a few months. This begs the point of why other countries would want to invade us when it is easier and cheaper to just trade for what they want. A small, rich united population is in a far better position to defend itself than a large, poor divided one.

High population growth is being pushed, not by far-sighted statesmen trying to defend us, but by tools of the corporate elite. There is no question that it is good for the folk at the top. They get bigger domestic markets, easy profits from real estate speculation and control of other vital resources, and a cheap, compliant work force. If the growth is coming from immigration, they can also avoid having to train their skilled workets. Furthermore, they are insulated by their wealth from most of the downside. They can afford to live in green, pleasant, and uncrowded gated communities, and to pay for private healthcare, education, etc. If the population growth is great for ordinary people, then why has the median wage in the US been stagnant since 1973? Why did the 2006 Productivity Commission report here indicate that any per capita economic benefits are trivial?

(cont'd)

cont'd

The 2011 Productivity Commission annual report also says:

"Two benefits that are sometimes attributed to immigration, despite
mixed or poor evidence to support them, are that:
* immigration is an important driver of per capita economic growth
* immigration could alleviate the problem of population ageing"

http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/113410/02-annual-report-2010-11-chapter-1.pdf

The effects on the environment, housing costs, and amenity from high population growth are almost uniformly negative, not to mention our future security in the light of resource shortages, such as phosphate rock (on which China has an export tariff of more than 100% to keep it at home), and a possible hit from climate change. I second Ralph Bennett's advice to vote for the Stable Population Party and would add some advice to put the incumbent member last, unless he/she is one of the very few who understand the real issues and are on our side, such as Kelvin Thomson.

Divergence,
that's amusing that I'm invoking the yellow peril : )
You clearly haven't followed my argument, according to which stable population means economic stagnation, unless you export population growth (sell stuff overseas, which is precisely what modern neo-fascism, deluded as ever, is all about. The nationalists want to preserve their earthly paradise and get rich providing the resources for expansion elsewhere. That's why I've said above that it would only be ethically supportable (but impracticable) if we became self-sufficient (closed), and only pragmatically viable if a coalition of powerful countries supported each other in the resolution, or it was global (and that would be the end of capitalism).
Economic growth feeds off material/population/infrastructure/consumption growth "somewhere", and it's all the same planet. It's the height of hypocrisy expecting to get rich off the back of material degradation elsewhere--exporting pollution, overpopulation etc. Even if we are unscrupulous enough to fund our Brigadoon in this way (and clearly we are), it shares the same atmosphere and oceans and we'd just be polluting it vicariously, via surrogate nations. Australia's wealth is the product of domestic consumption and international trade--cut back on either of those and we couldn't afford to defend ourselves. Western lifestyles are unsupportable without economic growth that far exceeds our ability to generate domestically.
I agree completely with your second paragraph, and indeed I'm absolutely for the "idea" of stable and sustainable populations. But I'm wearing realist glasses, as opposed to idealistic ones, and it can't happen under the current global dispensation, any more than a duck can lay golden eggs
Propagating this nonsense is an idealistic diversion for the credulous, while the real world gets on with the business of perpetual development and grooming of new markets.
Idealism is the heedlessness of ruin.

Dear Squeers,

If you look over my previous posts to you, I have replied to every query of how things will change and the kindest way of organising this change so that the greater good is acheived by all. Including the other species which "share" the planet with us.

You state that "stable population means economic stagnation". That has been previously answered.

It may be easier to comprehend two families or individuals trading between themselves from different parts of the world. They will still buy and sell, even though they may have two children and their family or individual unit, is stabilised in numbers of members.

Now The World is made up of of all these small units joined together.

It is just that market share "fights", are contained within a stable population, rather than in an increasing, unsustainable one.
You can have new products and vibrancy with stable numbers.

In fact the investment capital for innovative products is increased with a stable population, as it is diverted away from providing growth infrastucture.

Cheers,

Ralph

Oh dear, Ralph, that's a bit shabby; how about quoting the whole sentence. I said "stable population means economic stagnation, unless you export population growth (sell stuff overseas...", So you go on to lecture me over a position I don't take. In fact I'm agreeing with you in spirit, except the party is spoiled by the profit motive and the reality that capitalism is geared to maximum profit based on superfluity rather than dedicated commodity production or efficiency.
But I don't propose to argue any longer; it's you who is uncomprehending.
Even supposing we grant your idea has merit (though I maintain it would have to be based on productive surplus rather than the profit motive--which is indiscriminate and insatiable), there is absolutely no indication in the real world of it's being implemented, or even being taken seriously. Every country on the planet remains, as ever, desperate for the panacea of economic growth. And material growth, resource depletion and environmental degradation naturally entail.
I'm inspired by the dream, but meanwhile the nightmare (reality) continues.

A steady state society can still have growth, but only by working smarter, not by using up more stuff or blowing out the population, which may make the folk at the top richer, but is bad news for everyone else.

You say that prosperous countries with stable populations are depending on growth elsewhere, but if you keep your population within your biocapacity, you don't need a lot of big markets overseas, and you still have a surplus to invest in defence. All this trade with India and China is a very recent phenomenon of globalisation. Before the era of globalisation, the US, for example, did most of its trading with other developed countries, and this trade was far less important than the domestic market. The American people managed to live without foreign trade altogether during World Wars I and II. They were able to defend themselves very nicely as well.

Even if you were correct, your reasoning implies that we are doomed in any case, because unending growth is not sustainable on a finite earth, so we might as well make life better for ourselves in the short run by resisting the population growth and trying to change the current capitalist model. If enough people put the growthists' candidates last on every ballot paper, they would be faced with a choice of moderating their greed or peeling off the veneer of democracy and keeping the lid on with torture and disappearances. As we have discussed before, the elites in developed countries backed off from globalisation after WWI when their people made it sufficiently hot for them, leading to the Great Compression in wealth and incomes.

I've just returned from a meet the candidates forum for the QLD state election and in answer to questions about State debt, the aging population and shrinking tax base, the "desperate" need for improving infrastructure and living standards etc., all three candidates, from LNP, Labor and Catter's Australia Party were committed to baby-booming "strong Immigration policies" and development in general to support economic growth. (interestingly, one of the candidates condemned abortions in Australia, not because of the sanctity of life, but for denying us all those thousands of workers and consumers
No one, but no one, was interested in staying within our "bio-capacity". God, we have to get within our bio-capacity before we can stay there!
And before free market ideology regained ascendency, the US and the West in general derived its wealth from consumerism, a permanent war economy, a golden economic period and tariff walls.
You don't seem to realise that I'm not defending our system, I'm attacking it in absolutely uncompromising terms! As long as you believe capitalism can be redeemed, you're supporting it!
I would love to get behind the Stable Population Party, but it's pie in the sky. Reformism is grease for the wheels of the growth juggernaut. And if the SPP had had a candidate at the forum tonight they'd have been whistling the same tune, or else been boo'd out of the place. Idealism is the quaint stuff of nascent, unrepresentative parties and dreamers. Why do you think the Green's support base is stagnant? And they've masked their idealism with pragmatical rhetoric to a large extent.
Sorry to be the spoiler. And I'd love to be proven wrong!

Squeers is right - things will have to become far more dire before major change becomes unavoidable. (In the meantime everyone will be scrounging as much as they can for a nest egg.)

One possible scenario may be workable in longer term, and could possibly be introduced progressively if and when governments become aware of the inevitability of major reform. That scenario would entail a reduction in the working base (induced by higher living standards enabled through improved efficiencies/productivity via innovation and mechanisation); a reduction in the higher eschalon through natural attrition (death duties) and the application of massive tax increases; and shrinkage of the middle class, partly by tax increases and partly by the elevation of the working base.

To eke out natural resource exploitation there will have to be extensive and highly efficient recycling, substantial extension of nuclear power, and the tapping of all viable sources of renewable energy. (However, improvements in technology and reductions in population will reduce overall energy demand.)

Travel will become extremely expensive, and all but limited to essential commodity shipment; rail will be far more extensive and road transport largely restricted to commodities movement (with private use subject to heavy tarrifs, and limited to solar-powered vehicles - though cycling will become extensive). Holidays will be at home or at an affordable railstop. Food will be rationed (but you can have as many high-tech home appliances as your work credits will permit). Household rainwater use will be mandatory, town water rationed, storm water recycled and household effluent treated to recycle bio-waste and to redeploy grey-water. Home gardens will be mandatory, and dedicated almost exclusively to food production, with rural families being required to be largely self sufficient.

In Aus, meat will be strictly rationed, with most going for export, and household diet will be largely vegetarian. Communes will proliferate, welfare and unemployment eliminated (except for the disabled), with free universal education and healthcare.

Sailing will become more extensive, though expensive, and immigration will be reciprocal or subject to heavy restrictions.

No Eden, just existence and high-tech toys. Century 22? Forget tourism; invest in rollerskates.

Our political elite are overwhelmingly growthists, but there is good evidence that a great many people in the general public disagree with them. Look at how Kevin Rudd's support finally collapsed when he announced that he was in favour of a "Big Australia". The very first thing that Julia Gillard did was to repudiate it. Of course, she was only trying to soothe the punters, but soothing can only go on so long in the absence of substance. See Ross Gittins' account of this (he is the economics editor of the Sydney Morning Herald):

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/stop-beating-about-the-bush-and-talk-about-big-australia-20100803-115bg.html

Many people are also unhappy about crowding, congestion, deterioration of the natural environment, high housing costs (due to exorbitant costs for urban residential land), shrinking block sizes, permanent water restrictions and skyrocketing utility bills as cities outgrow their natural water supply, and overstretched and underfunded infrastructure and public services, essentially due to the enormous costs of growth infrastructure. (According to Labor MP Kelvin Thomson, each new migrant immediately requires $200,000 to $400,000 in infrastructure, mostly from the public purse.) Why else is opposition to growth so great that the state politicians have to take development approvals away from democratic scrutiny at the local level? It is one thing to accept permanent water restrictions to protect the environment, as Saltpetre suggests, but quite another thing to accept them if their purpose is to enable the cramming in of more people.

In the case of the Greens, the party was essentially infiltrated by the Far Left, which has a very different agenda from the environmentalists. The Stable Population Party is not at all the same.

http://www.populationparty.org.au/

Oh Squeers............it is realistic to be depressed, but not very helpful.

You wrote: "As long as you believe capitalism can be redeemed, you're supporting it! I would love to get behind the Stable Population Party, but it's pie in the sky."

It is a self defeating prophesy not to get behind a rational, caring, stable population political party.

in that sense, you are part of the problem. It reminds me of a friend who was offered a real estate bargain. He dithered and was upset he missed out.

You have nothing to lose in real terms and you joining SPP is a positive step in implementing equality for the poor and a design for appropriate modified capitalism , which brings us in line with living within our bio-capacity.

All the best,

Ralph

Ralph Bennett,
Thanks for your sympathy but I've never been depressed in my life to any morbid degree. I'm too busy and have no time for wallowing.

<It is a self defeating prophesy not to get behind a rational, caring, stable population political party>

The rationality of your position is precisely what's been in question and I seem to have signally failed to alert you to the incongruity of dreams of a stable capitalist population. You can't attain to stable population via a virtually unregulated system, insatiably dedicated to profit and fundamentally dependent on expansion to extract it. Nor is there any real support for living within our bio-capacity; many well-meaning people support the Greens and movements like yours for the kudos, or to expiate guilt, but they would take to their heels if it came to living within their bio-capacity. Nor "should" anyone adopt such frugality while plutocrats and the rump generally continues profligate and indifferent. I'm also wary because stable population movements are often fronts for xenophobia, nationalism and protectionism--fascism, in a word, or the socialism of fools.

<in that sense, you are part of the problem...>

I could say the same to you, since your idealism leads you to neglect the real problem and cavort about in a manner of innocent diversion.

<You have nothing to lose in real terms ...>

On the contrary; by prevaricating with this wishful thinking, while the villain continues unmolested, you're shepherding us all towards the cliff (I do like a good mixed metaphor occasionally).

<a design for appropriate modified capitalism>

You can't modify capitalism, you can only dress it up (in sheep's clothing); it is fundamentally greedy, rapacious, unfair and indifferent, and stable population can never keep it fed.

I appreciate the good intentions and I'll check out your SPP, but from what I've heard so far I'm afraid it's misguided and pollyannaish.

Squeers,

You are assuming, like many on the Left, that it is all about reducing consumption. I don't pretend that wasteful consumption isn't part of the problem, but it is hardly the only problem or even the main problem. The Global Footprint Network thinktank has actually done the math, rather than just making assertions. Here is a link to their 2010 Atlas

http://issuu.com/globalfootprintnetwork/docs/ecological-footprint-atlas-2010/1?mode=a_p

If you look at the consumption footprint in the tables for the different regions, you can easily work out that the top billion people in the richest countries are collectively responsible for about 38% of the consumption, while that arch-devil the United States is responsible for about 15%, i.e. most of the consumption is going on in poor countries, not because they are living high on the hog, but because there are so many people in them. The only way to completely avoid consumption is to be dead. The Atlas also contains graphs showing the relationship between a country's environmental footprint (i.e. consumption) and its rank on the UN Human Development Index. It takes quite a high footprint to be a high human development country, and it would take the resources of about three Earths to give everyone in even the existing global population a decent quality of life.

Screaming about evil capitalists and people consuming more than you are, while pussyfooting on population, is the socialism of fools. I am frankly far less concerned about xenophobes who want to do the right thing for the wrong reasons than about folk on the left who want to do the wrong thing out of some misguided sense of moral purity or what Americans call liberal guilt.

Divergence,

your shrill and broad-spread attack tells me I've hit the nail right on the head with the suggestion of neo-fascism, especially when you now defend conspicuous consumption and imagine we can maintain it while blaming our problems on impoverished countries! Just imagine the impact those massive populations are going to have as we "lift them out of poverty"--euphemistic jargon for carpet-bagging! The wealth and high consumption in developed nations is "derived" from exporting growth and exploiting poor nations. A main theme I've tried to urge above is that everything is connected; you can't measure "consumption footprints" as contained within national borders. The West's consumption footprint is global. National borders are convenient abstractions. Our problems are global and all one: political economy.
I am not screaming at evil capitalists, I am offering sober and sustained critique, rather than digressing into paranoia and fantasy.
Of course I realise I'm pissing in the wind.

Squeers,

If you actually look at the tables in the Atlas, you will see separate columns for production and consumption footprints. You get the consumption footprint of a country by multiplying the average individual consumption in that country by the population. I suggest you read the Atlas before declaring that the method isn't valid and then explain why it isn't valid.

There is no way that the whole global population can be lifted out of poverty, because the Earth just doesn't have the resources. I expect collapse in a lot of these places, such as we are seeing now in Somalia.

Where exactly do I say that excessive consumption is OK? I just don't think it is the main problem. So far as exploitation is concerned, has it occurred to you that people might have set themselves up for it by excessive procreation? Poor and desperate people are vulnerable to exploitation by local elites and their partners in crime in the developed world, although I would agree that we have an obligation to try to stop the collusion.

The international community had a policy of tough love during the Rwanda genocide, that is, they let them get on with it, although they did help refugees afterwards. The Guardian has had a number of articles detailing the efforts of the current Kagame government to raise the status of women, find alternatives to subsistence farming, and make contraception available to the whole population, including injectible ones that women can access in secret. They have cut childhood mortality in half, but malnutrition has greatly increased, according to an article in last week's issue. People have accepted better child survival, but the poorer and less educated ones are refusing to take up family planning, so the same food has to be shared among more children, as land holdings are tiny. How exactly is this the fault of the West or even the Kagame government? Folk on the Left would say that poor brown people can do no wrong, so it has to be our fault somehow.

Divergence,
I tried to look at your link but it refuses to load correctly. I'll try again later. And btw I'm also critical of the left, and unionism generally, hence my use of the phrase "socialism of fools".
Your intellectual caricatures would be more usefully directed self-reflexively.

Squeers,

Of course, calling me a neo-fascist and accusing me of condoning wasteful consumption, essentially because I presented some facts that you don't like, is not an intellectual caricature.

Divergence,

I haven't seen any facts. I told you the link didn't work.
When it comes to fascism, there's plenty of suggestive material in you're last posts. You're the one defending indefensible Western consumption and disparaging "poor brown people"--what's their colour got to do with it btw?--while you condemn their population growth. I'll back a call for cutting population growth oversees when we cut consumption at home. Here's a link to our ecological footprints that does work:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Human_welfare_and_ecological_footprint.jpg
As long as we're prepared to do "nothing" to reduce our consumption (of course I know we can't, indeed we're bent on increasing it, at home and abroad; we have to) I'm blowed if I know where you get the effrontery to expect the wretches of the Earth to make cuts of any kind!
Well you'd better get used to our reality. If you look at the graph you'll notice the poor brown people are virtually the only ones living within their bio-capacity. There is some hope for us in that they'll no doubt continue having cyclical famines in the aftermath of the colonial era. On the other hand most of the other countries will keep moving ponderously to the right--capitalism dictates it--until there's a general collapse.

Squeers,

I checked the link and it worked. Try this link without the page view option (you can choose it later)

http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/ecological_footprint_atlas_2010

or do a search on Global Footprint Network and find the atlas on their site. This is a more reliable source than Wikipedia. Look at the About Us and their methodology. You don't seem to understand that it doesn't matter if per capita consumption is low if there are a great many people. Those poor people, in aggregate, are in fact doing most of the world's consumption. Nor do I condone wasteful consumption in developed countries or the way it is encouraged. Both are problems. The truth is, though, that the 'wretches' on their own are capable of wrecking the planet even if all the developed countries disappear. China is now the biggest greenhouse gas emitter in the world, and according to a recent newspaper report, is still the biggest even if you exclude consumption for export.

It is actually the folk on the Left who are racist towards the poor brown people by denying them agency and responsibility for their decisions, just as we are responsible for ours. Succeeding has nothing to do with colour. Barbados, a black country, is on the high human development list.

Divergence,

I've noted that people who direct blame away from high levels of development, consumption and industialisation and toward the impact of "brown/black" people in their hordes, seem to include China as proof of their argument - as if that country isn't massively industrialised in the cause of supplying the West's fix of a never-ending river of stuff.

Poirot,

I agree that the current method of accounting for greenhouse gas emissions is unfair. All emissions should be attributed to the final consumer. However, the newspaper article I referred to was talking about a calculation that did exclude greenhouse gas emissions in the cause of production for export. Average consumption per person is still low in China, although they have been very good at improving living standards and lifting people out of poverty. Multiplying quite a modest number by more than a billion gives you a very large number. Why is this so difficult for you and Squeers to understand?

Nature only cares about the total impact, not about per capita. I have referred you (and Squeers) to the Global Footprint Network Atlas, which shows that 38% of the consumption is collectively contributed by the top billion people in the richest countries (23% not counting the US), i.e. 62% of the consumption takes place in the poorer countries. This is stated as a fact, within a reasonable uncertainty, not just someone's opinion or assertion. Statements of fact can only be true or false. You haven't made any attempt to show that it is false.

Frankly, I am more interested in the truth than in being politically correct. Our current model of capitalism is very destructive, but people have been outbreeding their resources, overexploiting their environment, and trying to drive off or kill their neighbours to take what they have since long before capitalism was ever thought of. I recommend the books "War Before Civilization" by Prof. Lawrence Keeley (Archaeology, University of Chicago) and "Constant Battles" by Prof. Steven LeBlanc (Archaeology, Harvard). Admitting that human numbers are the biggest problem doesn't mean ignoring consumerism and the harm done by our capitalist model. Heart disease kills more people than cancer, but cancer is still a terrible problem.

(cont'd)

(cont'd)

If we want to fix appalling poverty and our environmental problems, we can't just ignore the issue of numbers. It is racist (classist) to give people a free pass in terms of immunity from criticism just because they are poor or non-white (take your pick). It is saying that nothing better can be expected of them. If Squeers remonstrated with an Australian suburbanite who had a "Toorak Tractor" (without having any need for it) and was told that big four-wheel drives were part of Australian culture, I doubt if Squeers would be impressed. Why would a similar excuse be acceptable if a poor Rwandan has hordes of children that he can't feed properly, despite the availability of family planning and better child survival through a responsible government?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/19/rwanda-malnutrition-children?INTCMP=SRCH

Divergence,

I admire your persistence but I fear that no amount of evidence or reasoning is going to sway the old firm of Squeers,Poirot & one or two absent others.

How many times have you presented the evidence to Poirot without it even denting her mindset!

And this is what worries me, Divergence, they are your allies in the AGW debate --holly molly!
Boy I am glad that I am sitting on the other side of the table with all of the open-minded, goodnatured skeptics.

Divergence,

you seem to think you've said something original and we don't get it; I imagine like me Poirot is well versed on our parlous population and progress. This discussion has gone way off topic and ought to be resumed in a dedicated thread. However, one more time. Overpopulation is not the problem that needs to be addressed, our economic system is; indeed our economic system is not viable without population growth and/or material development. Profit is fundamental and does not stick at environmental issues or even doomsday scenarios. I've written about all this before. Population stabilisation should be concomitant with cuts in consumption. Foreign aid should be conditional on population stabalisation/reduction commitments. Lifestyles cuts in the West should inversely match increases elsewhere until parity is reached and all are doing their bit to address the global ecological footprint.
However this is all pie in the sky; if these measures were enacted the world economy would collapse--which might be for the best in the long term.
Whatever nature "cares" about total impact, it is ethically deplorable to defend the West and attack the third world. You think it's defensible that 38% of the world's footprint is made by 12% of the worlds population--and that doesn't take everything into account and the inequity is far greater and more tangible on the ground.
Of course I agree unsustainable population growth has to be stopped! But so does unsustainable consumption, and it's hypocritical expecting action from the third world while we do "nothing" to reduce our footprint, which is global.
Beyond that I've argued that our system is dependent on economic growth, which is dependant on consumption. The world is threatened by and advanced and virulent economic cancer.
Again, show me one prosperous Western country that's not manic for economic growth and doesn't derive it's wealth from material growth/development/consumption "somewhere".
The argument is academic and the plunder goes on while the dreamers dream.

Thank you, Squeers, You put it so well, there's nothing I can add.

*Beyond that I've argued that our system is dependent on economic growth, which is dependant on consumption*

What you seem to forget Squeers is that alot of it is consumption
of services, as distinct from goods. I did read somewhere that
petroleum use per head in the US, is actually stable to decreasing.
Yanks tanks are becoming more efficient, smaller, etc.

Where we've seen the big growth is not in consumption of goods, but
in consumption of services. Nothing wrong with that.

Yabby,

Americans have downsized somewhat from the glory days of the decades following the war (in size, not in quantity), but part of the reason nowadays is because of the decimation of their manufacturing sector. They are so reliant these days on cheap Chinese imports which not only flood the market, but are also helping to keep the American economy from going completely under.
Service industries have increased in the West, not in small part because countries like Australia and America have been content to let manufacturing decline or seek cheaper venues overseas - and service industries are reliant on product consumption as well.

Our whole social paradigm revolves around conspicuous consumption - I'm not noticing any reduction in the goods available or a corresponding rise in their cost. On the contrary, China keeps pumping them out cheaply to an extremely receptive market in the West.

*I'm not noticing any reduction in the goods available or a corresponding rise in their cost*

Well I should hope not. There would be no good reason. But people
can only buy so much stuff. In Australia, housing blocks are getting
dramatically smaller, people don't have the space to put more stuff
anyhow. This is why Harvey Norman is complaining. Once people
have their flat screen tv, there is no real reason to buy another
one, so he's going backwards.

Fact is that people are going for smaller cars, solar hot water,
insulated homes etc. 30 years ago, nearly every car on our roads
was a Holden or Falcon 6 or 8 cylinder. They are down to 1000cc now.

China makes 2 million tonnes of steel a day, but only a small amount
goes into making trinkets. Mostly they use it for construction of
buildings, roads, railways, houses, as their peasants move to the
cities.

But the fact remains that most of our economic growth comes from
more services, not the consumption of more goods.

Where you globally have an issue now is that its no longer a few
hundred million leading the Western lifestyle, but another 4 billion
or so, trying to do the same. So if you look at the big picture,
your Balmain tractor simply ain't gonna matter and will be recycled
anyhow.

Feel guilt if you please, but even if we quit every single Balmain
tractor in Australia's cities, it would hardly matter, other then
make Squeers feel better. Divergence sees that big picture but
I get the feeling that you guys don't

Yabby,
I'm aware that services keep the money in circulation, but I'm sure you know as well as I do that there has to be growth, or money coming "into" the economy (growth elsewhere), to drive real prosperity, indeed to fund the service industry.
A better example of economic growth that "apparently" relies much less on material growth is what's been called the "spacial dialectical" phase of capitalism (silly jargon I know), or the communication age. A great deal of money is being derived from software, virtual entertainment, social media etc. and it would be an interesting study to see how much money is being made from thin air, i.e. without concomitant material growth and expanding markets. Not much I suspect if we take into account the detrimental health effects of sedentaryness alone, and of course the IT revolution still drives huge markets for innovative hardware, both with built-in obsolescence and a short shelf life driven by fashion--a massive and artificial driver of consumption and waste in wealthy countries. The internet's also becoming much more commercialised and drives growth in myriad other areas vicariously.
On the whole, consumerism has never been so rampant--you know that from your own life experience as well as I do Yabby; almost nothing is made to last, repaired or worn-out these days, and as Poirot says, this is largely driven by the developing, industrialising giants that both import our raw materials, on an incomprehensible scale, develop themselves exponentially, and requite the squandering of our resources on cheap, short-term consumables and baubles. The whole thing is a giant economic/ecologically-catastrophic bubble, waiting to burst, that couldn't be calculatedly made more precarious.
How anyone can deny that our system is patently devoted to massive short-term profit to a few, at the heedless expense of a viable future, is beyond me.
This is the essence of capitalism--intensive human farming--and dreams of reform are bovine.

*almost nothing is made to last*

Nonsense Squeers. That is purely a question of choice. You can
choose between cheap or even higher quality that does last.
I have a soft spot for products that are well designed and do
last, unlike the rubbish we used to be forced to buy, when it
was all Australian made, expensive and poorly designed.

I'll give you a couple of examples. I recently bought a set of
knives, made by Global in Japan. They sit on my kitchen bench
in a stand, as a well thought out set. I am just blown away by
those knives, every time I use them. They will be here long after
I am gone. I bought a Thermomix for the kitchen too. Amazing
quality, far too expensive, but designed to last for decades.

You seem to ignore the huge savings that the IT revolution is actually
creating. No need to get lost anymore, wasting huge amounts of fuel,
an electronic gizmo gets you to exactly where you want to go.
No need to buy albums and cds anymore, its all stored on 300g
of electronics. No need to go to meetings anymore, you can go
electonically. No need to chop down huge forests for all those books,
no need for bookshelves, no need for printing tonnes of newspapers
each day. You can store the frigging lot on 800g of resources.

I don't even need to go to Perth shopping anymore, I can do it
all electronically, saving 50 litres of diesel each time.

The list goes on and on

That's pure denialism Yabby.
Read some of the information in the link below, from where I've taken the following quote, Or show me some contrary evidence. The big picture is precisely what I do see. But I'm done with the Mr Magoo here.

"“If the consumption aspirations of the wealthiest of nations cannot be satiated, the prospects for corralling consumption everywhere before it strips and degrades our planet beyond recognition would appear to be bleak.”

"Despite rising consumption in the developing world, industrial countries remain responsible for the bulk of the world’s resource consumption—as well as the associated global environmental degradation. Yet there is little evidence that the consumption locomotive is braking, even in the United States, where most people are amply supplied with the goods and services needed to lead a dignified life".
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/810

*Despite rising consumption in the developing world, industrial countries remain responsible for the bulk of the world’s resource consumption*

Well indeed its industrial countries, Squeers. As around the world
they move from the farms to the cities, industries develop and
grow. Industries use resources, be that in China, India, Brazil,
Singapore, South Korea and all the other nations moving to have
a larger consumer class. Globally the consumer class is massively
growing. Even in Russia, where people used to queue up to buy
bread, they are now living it up.

Add up those billions of people moving upwards and you have a
problem, not because Europe, the USA and Australia are consuming
more. In fact as technology develops, their per head consumption
is not rising at all or hardly.

But whilst we are adding a quarter of a million a day to the global
population, the whole discussion is pointless. Don't talk to me
about poverty and hunger, whilst they pop out 6-10 babies and then
we send boatloads of food to feed them all, only to see the problem
double. Thats more like human feedlotting.

Yabby,
I meant to use the term Mr Magoo in the plural above.
Thanks anyway for illustrating the point that there's no objectivity here at all. You condemn those who "pop out 6-10 babies" and defend those who consume just as disproportionately.

so long as we are setting the gold standard of consumption, showing total disregard for sustainability, emerging industrial nations are entitled to aspire to the same. Of course it's an impossibility, and they'll pull us over the cliff with them. There's a certain poetic justice to it, I think.
"we send boatloads of food to feed them all, only to see the problem
double".

We send the food to try and make ourselves look respectable, but it won't last.

"Thats more like human feedlotting".

No it's not. They know a lot more about the real of life and death than we do.

Yabby,

You are spot on, this will be the root cause of most of our future woes:
<<the developing countries are adding over 80 million to the population every year and the poorest of those countries are adding 20 million, exacerbating poverty and threatening the environment.>>
http://www.prb.org/Publications/Datasheets/2010/2010wpds.aspx

I think the non-growth new world envisaged by Squeers' might look something like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXmrxWmbHCU&feature=related

Well yeah, Yabby, you can buy top quality and you can buy stuff online but, judging, from my visit to Perth today, people are still thronging in their hordes just for the sake of consuming. My first visit to IKEA, which apparently is a small nation state in Osbourne Park. It's so big I suspect it has its own climate, in any case, there are arrows painted on the floor to to guide you as you glide effortlessly through its galaxy (Just so you don't get lost, weighed down by your purchases, and never find your way to the check-out). I was spun out by the sheer number of people, the amount of shiny cars all hustling for a position in the car park, the air of manic single-mindedness on the faces...fascinating.
It didn't seem to me that anyone was saving fuel or cutting back on consumption - more like they were inclined to buy anything that might be remotely useful - or not. As far as paper savings goes, there were big bumper catalogues for free to augment the acres of junk mail that is deposited in suburban mailboxes everyday.

But, like you say, why should we cease our gluttony when we can sit back and blame it on the breeders in the third world, instead of putting our very clever homo sapiens brains to work to find a solution to both problems.

(Btw - the only thing I purchased was a new mouse pad because I needed it - but the education from the visit was priceless)

Inspired as I am by Poirot’s story of a day at the markets, where she satisfied her consumer lust by buying a mouse, but had her envy pricked by her neighbors shiny new cars (I hope she push-biked to the shopping centre!) here’s one from a different perspective.

Picture this scene from a poor developing nation:
A luckless family man and his de facto live in a run down shack with earthen floor & no running water. Despite neither having jobs they manage to produce six children.They are supported in part from contributions of the grandmother who works as a maid in Hong Kong, and what the grandmother can beg from an Australian she has befriended.After a time, and many fights, the family man leaves his wife and starts a new family with a new wife, with whom he has a further two kids (so far!). He still has no job.

But far be it for me to leave you feeling depressed ( as Poirot has unkindly done) my story has a ending, one that will leave you feeling all fuzzy and warm inside.The deserted wife and her six kids are not forlorn ,far from it.They have great expectations. They hold it as an article of faith that the grandmother will soon marry her Australian boyfriend and thereafter arrange to sponsor them all to OZ . Where ,empowered by their newly received Centrelink payments, they will all join the shopping throng in a crowed centre near you.

SPQR,

Contrary to popular notions around here, I'm not against civilisation. Nor am I against commerce or per se - its just the sheer abandoned scale of it. I won't deny that the things on offer yesterday made me want to buy them, but as a spectacle it was more of an eye-opener than anything. The whole edifice came across to me as some gigantic machine that processes consumers and the crowning glory was a sort of conveyor belt type escalator that glided you out of the building and dumped you back in the manic car park. People stuffing their cars full of purchases and then continuing on out to the equally manic highways.....I found the whole thing both fascinating and stressful - but it's no wonder some of us choose not to live in the capital cities.

Poirot,

Just a thought (and I don't pretend know the answer): Could we have had the technological advances we have today if we had NOT had a
<<gigantic machine that processes consumers>> driving it?

See here:
<<Nothing dates the 1987 movie Wall Street like the $4000 cellphone clutched by financier Gordon Gekko. It was the size of a brick and he could only talk for 30 minutes before having to recharge it.

In the 1980s, it was difficult to imagine the capabilities of today's smartphones...>>

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228341.600-they-said-it-couldnt-be-done-7-impossible-inventions.html

If we are able to plug-in recycling, and renewable energy, will consumerism remain such a blight?

Great point SPQR, I think that Squeers would fit in wonderfully with
the Amish, although I don't know if they bother to feed philosophers :)
He'd have to do real work there, I suspect.

Squeers, sorry, but if people pop out 6-10 kids, some saying that they
are gifts from god, well don't expect me to help them. They would
only have even more. Its not me going into Africa's rainforests, shooting
anything that moves for meat, as its easier then farming.
So I'm not about to get on your guilt trip. If you don't realise how Africa's
growing hordes are sending species extinct, well so be it.

Poirot, in terms of IT, I am talking about where we are heading, no we
are not there yet. Globally Ikea prints something like 190 million
catalogues. But their websites also have 470 million visitors, so
as people become internet savvy, they won't need to print all those
catalogues anymore. Bookshops and CD shops still exist, but less and
less.

If Ikea's 12000 products were divided amongst a number of quaint
little shops in Freo, would that make you feel better about buying
them?

You could always have ordered online and saved all that fuel and
hassle driving there and putting up with city madness. But people
need to buy furniture somewhere, after all. Trading goods and
services with each other, is what city people do. Otherwise living
in the human zoo would be pretty boring. So I don't think that is
going to change.

SPQR and Yabby,
when you've got nothing you resort to ridicule, I can understand that.
But I'm not an ascetic or on a guilt trip, and my footprint's as considerable as anyone's (literally; I'm size 13-14). I enjoy my creature comforts and my idea of roughing it is a 3 star motel. But that doesn't stop me from seeing things how they are, or from different perspectives. All our problems will be resolved one way or another.

...Now can Australia beat Sri Lanka this arvo. That's the pressing question of the moment!

*I enjoy my creature comforts and my idea of roughing it is a 3 star motel.*

Well yes Squeers, its do as I say, not do as I do. Its a common
human foible, so you are not alone there.