Survival.
Shockadelic,
Is that why we are the minority on this planet ? Or has it something to do that we realised long ago that we're overpopulating the planet but still hoping the others will come to realise that in our time ?

Individual
The competitiveness index does not measure economic performance. It measures what a bunch of business people think of Australia’s economic policies.

Are high house prices caused by population growth? It may have contributed, but the data show that Australia’s housing stock has grown in line with its population – hence the data Malcolm quotes, indicating that the number of people per household was stable over the past 10 years. Still, there is good reason to think that housing demand is growing faster than population. This is due mainly to demographic changes in the existing population, such as smaller households in an aging population. And housing market experts point to government policies constraining land releases as the main source of rising house prices. For example, the UDIA says that:

“Australia does not suffer from a lack of land suitable for development and inadequate housing supply is a manufactured condition. State/Territory and local governments are primarily responsible for generating an adequate level of supply.”

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=udia+rising+land+prices&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.udia.com.au%2FLiteratureRetrieve.aspx%3FID%3D102027&ei=KCEHUfiPFq66iAeJtYGwDQ&usg=AFQjCNHFFkhf64ZvFpASO3jxFEywga3SGQ&bvm=bv.41524429,d.aGc

I do not assume the future will be like the present. But nor do I share your distopian apocalyptic fantasies about imminent eco-collapse. And in the extremely unlikely event that you are right, shaving a few tens of thousands off our annual migrant intake is hardly likely to make much difference.

Shockadelic
Individual claimed that the HDI data proves that population growth is bad for human development. I pointed out that the data s/he quoted in fact shows the opposite. It is hardly inappropriate to point this out.

By the content of your argument it appears that you do not oppose migration, just non-white migration. Would you support high migration if we returned to the white Australia policy?

Jay of Melbourne
“Japanese, Indian, Chinese and Korean students work their butts off to get into programs at top Western universities”. Indeed they do. And I say we should welcome them - except that Australia doesn’t have any top Western universities

Rhian,

Developed ountries can still rank high on the HDI despite high population growth. I never claimed otherwise. (There is a negative correlation, however, for the poorer countries.) What I was claiming was that it is possible to rank high on the HDI while having a stable age structure and low or no population growth, in other words, that high population growth, unlike what many growthists are claiming, is not a necessary condition for good economic performance or decent living standards.

In a frontier economy, there are enormous natural resources per person, but production is limited by the lack of labour. More people are a win/win proposition, and you would expect just having a bigger population to significantly raise GNP per capita. This is no longer the case, at least according to the 2006 Productivity Commission report. In the present situation, only total GNP is being substantially boosted by population growth, enabling our movers and shakers to strut on a bigger stage. The distributional effects, such as wage depression, also siphon a larger share of the nation's wealth up to them. All that the average existing resident gets is more competition for jobs, housing, public services, and amenities, along with more pressure on the environment (see the Australian Conservation Foundation submission I linked to earlier) and, in some areas, more ethnic tensions. You and Cheryl have been remarkably elusive on what's in it for the average existing resident.

If we had a stable population, the demand for extra residential land would be obviously be very small, with people per household about the same, no matter what the government did about supply. This seems obvious. Why has the government restricted supply? To give their mates rent-seeking opportunities might be the cynical answer, but it is more likely that they can't afford the extra infrastructure costs. Assuming a 50 year lifetime for infrastructure, you would need to replace 2% of it every year. If your population is also growing by 2%, then you would need to spend twice as much upfront, but your revenue is only growing by 2%. See

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-0270.2011.02125.x/pdf

http://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/6869.html

Divergence,

I checked out your ACF citation. It states and I'll put what the report highlighted in caps that:

"Among the most important trans-national studies of population and biodiversity are the
following: McKee et al (2003), a multivariate regression analysis finding close correlation
between population density and percentage of overall species under threat.

The authors found that POPULATION GROWTH RATE IS NOT A STRONG PREDICTOR OF THREATENED SPECIES BUT “human population density alone was significantly and strongly correlated with threatened species per unit area.”

It's pop density as per coastal regions and our capital cities. This is a very different take on your original assertion.

I thought Oz was number two on the HDI - not that anyone cares for subjectively derived and measured criteria.

Whose idea was it on this post to start doing international comparisons of population and economic development? It shows a fundamental ignorance of individual social, historical and national development. It's like comparing Keats with Baudelaire. So what?

“Australia does not suffer from a lack of land suitable for development and inadequate housing supply is a manufactured condition.
Rhian,
I don't suppose you've spoken to too many who get flooded periodically ? As a matter of fact right now would be a fantastic opportunity for those academic experts to find that suitable land for more development. Australia may be large in but it is small in habitable area unless people are prepared to drastically lower their quality of existence to that of pre-colonialisation.
.. shaving a few tens of thousands off our annual migrant intake is hardly likely to make much difference.
Is that so ? When it comes to collecting your Super & you'll be told that it's all gone to the extra tens of thousands will you still be saying that ?
In Cairns I have to look at the cost of staying in motels because I, as a citizen of the lucky country have to watch my Dollars. When you walk into a 4 star motel & you find it is $165.00 per per night you think twice of taking a room whilst 20 or so boat people staying there are sitting around the pool or hang around the lounge at our expense. That's only twenty, how about tens of thousands ?

Rhian “Individual claimed that the HDI data proves that population growth is bad for human development. I pointed out that the data s/he quoted in fact shows the opposite. It is hardly inappropriate to point this out.”

Did I say anyone's opinions were “inapproprate”?
I simply disagree with your conclusions.

“By the content of your argument it appears that you do not oppose migration, just non-white migration. Would you support high migration if we returned to the white Australia policy?”

No. My concerns cover a wider spectrum than just race/culture.
All the same issues about infrastructure and the environment that other people are talking about are of concern to me too.
I just don't *omit* race/culture like they do.