I’ll step straight past the absurd and highly schizophrenic position that Pericles has adopted; of being both in favour of controlled growth and in support of the current growth rate, and concentrate on what we can do about getting our population growth rate down.

Divergence, can I seek your views on this.

Do you think that the in-bed nature of big business and government is as much of a critical factor here as I do?

Can you suggest how we might make government much more independent?

If we had a much more independent government, would we have a much better chance of getting sustainability-oriented policies implemented, or would be still be stuck with manic pro-growthers holding the reins of power?

Pericles, I hate having to respond to your nonsense, but I can't let this one slip.

How is it a “fact” that a stable population, which just means the same *number*, not the same *people*, will “inevitably” lead to economic and cultural stagnation?
The economy can change in any fashion people want, as can culture.
You don't need *more* people for change to occur.

Even if true, why growth through immigration?
Japan has changed dramatically economically and culturally with virtually no immigration.

Even if we need immigration, why does it have to be so incongruent with our demographics/history? Why 3 out of 4 non-European?

I'm sure there's many Europeans who'd love to get the hell out of Dodge before the proverbial hits the fan.

I'm sure there's many White South Africans who'd love to move to Australia, instead of fearing the next massacre will include their farm.

Which leads to this: “And there are the xenophobes, who invariably use it as a platform to express their fear of anyone not their own colour or religious leanings”

Fear? It's not fear of any particular people, it's fear of the accumulative destabilising consequences.
Fear? Or honesty about human nature, about how our brains are wired to react to dissimilar faces, how people need social continuities/familiarities or they cannot function.

No society can exist in a state of extreme “flux” forever.
No individual mind can either.
Flux must be followed by periods of *equilibrium*. That's what we seek.

Perpetual disruption of society can only reap a harvest of mental and physical illness.
Is this not what we see in the West today?

“their fight against people who do not share their nineteen-fifties, white-bread, white-man "Australian" values. “

Or their individualist bohemian-decadent “values”?
The non-European migrants are even more "conservative" than 1950s Aussies!

Do you think those “behead the infidel” types are going to respect my freedom to do “debauchery” or "heresy" in the privacy of my own home?

The West has at least tolerated the “bohemian-decadent” for some time now.
You want authoritarian, heterosexist, patriarchal, racist, conformist, intolerant?
Don't look West, look East.

Cheryl,

Of course there are economic benefits from mass migration - for big business and the rich, who are in bed with our government, as Ludwig put it, and population growth, at least until near the point of collapse, does increase total GNP. But so what? China has a vastly greater GNP than Denmark, but where would you rather live as an ordinary person? What exactly are the compensatory benefits for an Australian family on the median income ro make up for the congestion, exorbitant housing costs, etc.? You accuse me of quoting selectively, but what I have said about the lack of benefit for ordinary people is consistent with other reports from around the world, such as the 2008 House of Lords report in the UK or the 1997 Academy of Sciences report in the US. This is what Prof. Robert Rowthorn (Economics, Cambridge) had to say in the (UK) Sunday Telegraph (2/7/06):

"If you repeat something often enough, you can perhaps make people believe it. What you cannot do is turn it from being false into being true. And the Government's claim about the economic benefits of immigration is false. As an academic economist, I have examined many serious studies that have analysed the economic effects of immigration.

"There is no evidence from any of them that large-scale immigration generates large-scale economic benefits for the existing population as a whole. On the contrary, all the research suggests that the benefits are either close to zero, or negative.

"Immigration can't solve the pensions crisis, nor solve the problem of an ageing population, as its advocates so often claim. It can, at most, delay the day of reckoning, because, of course, immigrants themselves grow old, and they need pensions."

You keep bringing up the fact that 457 visas, international students, and humanitarian visa holders are included in net immigration, but you don't discuss how many people in these categories actually end up going home. 457 visas and studying in Australia are largely stepping stones to permanent residency.

(cont'd)

Divergence,

I can't spoon feed you info which is freely available on the Immigration website. Approx 84 percent of international students return - that's our loss.

No. 457 visas are not a stepping stone to residency unless sponsorship can be found, which is rare. See recent changes to Australia's international student rules.

Rowthorn is talking about unskilled immigrants in to the UK. The bulk of Australia's immigrants come from has the skilled migration category, plus some humanitarian.

You are not across this issue re citing the Sunday Telegraph from 2006 and citing GDP from China and Denmark as being somehow indicative of anything.

The SPA, the SPGN and God knows what other blather factory, can't even work out who stays and who goes in Australia. But they're real hot at citing newspapers and quotes that concern other countries with different economic and social priorities. Real hot too at saying we're being invaded by Asians when 20 percent of Oz's migrants come from New Zealand and another 9 per cent come from the UK. They're whiteys.

Oh, that's OK, you say.

Lets cut to the chase - if any reporters are out there and want a radio story, ring up any of these spoon benders, fiction wallahs and backyard racists and ask them to talk about migration - who comes and who goes. No idea.

(cont'd) 457 visa holders:

"Four out of five respondents indicated that they would prefer to live permanently in Australia; only 12 per cent stated that they would prefer to live in their home country."

It is clear that a very large majority of 457 visa holders would like to become permanent residents in Australia because they liked the lifestyle and they liked their jobs here. Only a small minority planned to return home at the end of their contracts."

http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/pdf/457s_survey_report.pdf

International students:

"Similarly, AEI (2007) reported that in a follow-up of international
students who had graduated in the previous year, 72 per cent had either applied for (36%) or planned to apply (36%) for permanent resident status."

http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/research/_pdf/obtaining-better-understanding-student-skilled-graduate-visa-programs.pdf

It is true that conditions are not as extreme in Australia as in the US. If there were a State of Working Australia report I would have linked to it, but economist Bill Mitchell's blog has graphs that show the same sorts of trends: rising profit share at the expense of wages and rising productivity without a commensurate increase in wages.

http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=11911

One last thing Divergence,

There was a methodology error in the 2006-2011 Census period which accounted for 294,000 more people than we actually had.

So the ABS has downward revised Oz's population growth over the 5 year period 2006-2011, from 1.8% (average annual growth) to 1.5%.

On that note, I wish you all a Happy New Year.