Hi Jonathan,

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 unemployment and underemployment.

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

Cheers,

Ralph

rpbennett@optusnet.com.au

Denmark, Ralph Bennett?

>>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<<

The bit about a stable population is true - they are growing steadily at about 0.25% a year. But it has no impact on unemployment at all.

http://www.indexmundi.com/denmark/unemployment_rate.html

http://www.indexmundi.com/denmark/population.html

If you look at the graphs, you can see that there is no correlation whatsoever between population and unemployment.

So that argument goes straight out of the window.

It is also hardly realistic to compare us with a tiny country that has a population only a quarter larger than that of Sydney, a land mass a twentieth of that of NSW (and 0.55% the size of Australia), one that has no raw materials in the ground, and has the highest personal tax rates in the known universe.

>>Stabilisation designs out unemployment and underemployment. (happy to chat further, if you have any queries)<<

Ok. How about you begin with a more convincing example?

Pericles, so are yo suggesting that 5.1% is the real unemployment number?

Another stat that rarely gets a mention is that just over 42% of those employed, actually pay less tax than they claim back in welfare.

So, when you do the math, this means 48%, not only pay the bills, but they also pick up the slack.

Now as for no work where you live, then move.

Of cause they can stay put, but shouldn't expect to be cared for in their lifestyle choice.

labor says they have created some 700,000 new jobs.

Can anyone tell us how many have also been lost.

Butch you have another conspiracy. You obviously would not have to create jobs if it was not for unemployment.
The less tax more welfare has gone back many years, there are a lot of people out there that are being under payd, and with child support, you have what you said.

rehctub

Can you provide a source for your data on tax and benefits?

“labor says they have created some 700,000 new jobs.”

This number is net – the excess of additional jobs over jobs lost. When Labor was elected in October 2007 Australian employment was 10,668,000; in January 2012 it was 11,449,000.

Whether Labor deserves credit for “creating” those jobs is another matter. Annual average employment growth is the past four years has been 1.6%, which is significantly below the average of 3.0% in the previous four years. But then, Labor came to power shortly before the global financial crisis, and compared to most other developed economies our economic and employment record since then has been very good.

It all depends on how you want to spin the numbers, I guess.

There are many factors that caused the casualization of our workforce.

The main one being, unfair dismissal, followed by extended trading hours, both of which have reeked havoc throughout the small retail sector.

Employers nm longer trust governments so full time employment is a thing of the past, to the point where many positions are now on a contract basis.

What a crying shame I say.

Also, one of the reasons for under employment, is that the system is geared in such a way that if a casual works a regular 38 hours, even though they have been paid at casual rates, they can claim thatbthey are employed on a permeant basis, so the only way for employers to have the flexibility they need, is to employ more people for less hours.

You can thank the smarty lawyers and employees who sued the bosses for that one.

If only people realized that for every action, there is a reaction.

I am afraid it is both labor and former, greedy employees that are to blame for under employment.

All because governments can't leave well enough alone.