The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The critical election issue: population > Comments

The critical election issue: population : Comments

By Jenny Goldie, published 12/8/2013

With one or two notable exceptions, our political parties are not acknowledging that population lies at the heart of most issues.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. Page 9
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. All
Thanks, D.

I understand that immigration policy should consider the whole cost, and should weigh this cost against say sourcing or training locally. But it is not simple, and I can understand the concerns of posters like S, who see the potential for harm. It would be nice to see some more robust economic analysis like that of the Productivity Commission. Were this to demonstrate advantage over existing policy, it would be silly to ignore it.
Posted by Fester, Friday, 16 August 2013 11:17:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fester,

This is from the 2010/2011 Productivity Commission Annual Report (p. 6):

"An understanding of the economic impacts of immigration is sometimes clouded by misperception. 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/0016/113407/annual-report-2010-11.pdf

From the 2005 Productivity Commission Report on Immigration (p. 154)

"Most of the economic benefits associated with an increase in skilled migration accrues to the immigrants themselves. For existing residents, capital owners receive additional income, with owners of capital in those sectors experiencing the largest output gains enjoying the largest gains in capital income. On the other hand, the real average annual incomes of existing resident workers grows more slowly than in the base-case, as additional immigrants place downward pressure on real wages. The economic impact of skilled migration is small when compared with other drivers of productivity and income per capita."

http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/9438/migrationandpopulation.pdf

Of course, there are educational and cultural benefits to having some immigration, and sometimes we really do need someone with particular skills from overseas to fill a niche. Our argument is with the huge numbers.

There are rich and powerful groups in the community, though, that really do benefit from mass migration at the expense of the majority of other existing residents, and they donate heavily to the major political parties. They get bigger domestic markets, high profits from real estate speculation, and a cheap, compliant work force that they don't have to train. The costs of the additional infrastructure are shared with everyone else in the community, as are the welfare and social costs when local people are passed over, denied training, or relegated to precarious casualised work alternating with unemployment. Our official statistics are ridiculously restrictive. Roy Morgan Research says we currently have 10.1% unemployment and 9.0% underemployment. Here is a backgrounder from the Center for Immigration Studies in the US on the motivation for hiring foreign workers

http://www.cis.org/labor-shortage-not-reason-employers-want-alien-workers
Posted by Divergence, Saturday, 17 August 2013 12:03:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Most of the comments on this article are parochial and xenophobic.
It isn't immigration that is the problem. Overpopulation is a key factor in the limits to "economic growth". There isn't a politician who would voice this. Abbott is planning to reward people for having children, much like the Taiwanese (Guardian, 23.1.12).
What we need is another Supervolcano or two. Toba is estimated to have wiped out 60% of the human population. That would still only reduce us to the 1974 figures of around 4.2 billion.
Perhaps Nature's ability to regulate excessive populations will come to the rescue of the Human species (if, indeed, that is a "good thing").
Posted by dmisso, Saturday, 17 August 2013 2:29:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi D.

Yes, Costello commissioned the PC Report, but lost interest when it didn't give the answer he wanted. We still need more analysis: An estimate of per capita public infrastructure cost would be an essential first step, as it would be important in comparing sourcing labour locally or from os. Leaving aside the benefit of a more skilled population, I suspect that even on a cost basis it would be far cheaper to source locally. It would also alert the public to growth in public debt as a result of population growth. But without the analysis, it is only speculation.

Hi dmisso,

<What we need is another Supervolcano or two.>

Why not a few more genetically engineered super-crop cultivars and a WHO drive to give the world's women access to contraception? There is strong evidence suggesting that the World's population would stabilise and the economic circumstances of the poor would improve substantially if women had access to family planning services. Why would you rather them die in a calamity?
Posted by Fester, Saturday, 17 August 2013 5:14:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes Fester, I agree with the WHO initiative, though not with the GM solution.
Unfortunately, Religion and self importance get in the way of a meaningful reduction in the birth rate. Humans seem to believe that they are the peak of evolution or, worse, that they have been "chosen" to be important.
Countries with a high infant mortality rate might have some excuse to celebrate a new addition to their number, but Western cultures? I fail to see why we make such a big thing of what is essentially an instinctive and biologically driven process. Surely, with the intellect in todays world, we should be celebrating the self restraint of non-breeding people.
Perhaps we need an education initiative that stresses that we are only one form of organism on this planet and that, other than our proficiency in destroying our own nest, we are not that special.
Population reduction will only occur through the intervention of natural disasters. In the meantime we applaud every discovery that cures some disease and delays the inevitable. We save lives for what? The next famine, the wheelchair, the curiosity (and vanity) of doctors?
Fortunately, many of todays smarter youngsters are opting out of the breeding race.
Posted by dmisso, Saturday, 17 August 2013 5:59:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
dmisso,

Australia's fertility rate has been slightly below replacement level since 1976. It is not a problem. There is still some natural increase in the local population, but it is entirely due to demographic momentum from pre-1976 population growth (large young adult generation relative to the elderly generation, so there are more births than deaths). Natural increase is getting smaller all the time and expected to end entirely some time in the 2030s.

From ABS figures, we are growing at 1.8% annually, enough to double the population in 38 and half years and keep doubling it at the same rate indefinitely. 60% of the growth is due to immigration and 40% from natural increase, about a third of which is from births to mothers born overseas.

Back in 1994, the Australian Academy of Science recommended 23 million as a safe upper limit for Australia's population due to pressures on the environment, and resource and quality of life issues. We are there now. If we want to stop growing, talking about immigration isn't xenophobic, it is facing facts.

Fester,

I agree with you about a proper economic analysis - and about what it is likely to find.
Posted by Divergence, Saturday, 17 August 2013 6:28:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. Page 9
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy