Hi Andras,

My concern is that women have access and education. There is much evidence to suggest that women with control of their fertility will have both better health and economic circumstances, both for themselves and their children.

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/What-We-Do/Global-Development/Family-Planning

According to this site,

<This collective effort will result in 200,000 fewer women and girls dying in pregnancy and childbirth, more than 100 million fewer unintended pregnancies, over 50 million fewer abortions, and nearly 3 million fewer babies dying in their first year of life. It will also enable more girls to finish school and earn more income over their lifetime. >

So by opposing family planning programs in developing countries, this is the status quo that you, PJ and Malcolm would uphold.

Cat got your tongue, Malcolm Cheryl etc King?

I asked back on Thursday arvo who your client is, and whether it is in fact a branch of the Property Council (a developers' alliance).

I thought you'd be eager to tell us if it isn't in fact the Property Council. Instead.... a strange silence from the voluble one.

So, the Property Council then?

Next question, how much are they paying you?

--To save people flipping back, here's what I wrote on Thursday arvo.

--
Time to own up Malcolm.

Who's your client?

What's their interest in slandering those who raise the population issue?

And how much are they paying you?

When we know who they are it will indeed be time to have an argument -- with them, not with their hired mouth.

P.S. Would it by any chance be an arm of the Property Council?

Posted by Livio, Thursday, 22 August 2013 4:52:54 PM

Livio,

I'd also be very interested in an answer.

Hi Livio,

The debate cannot advance until an accepted estimate of per capita infrastructure cost is found. Malcolm's info would suggest around 100k, SPP would suggest much higher, but without a figure it is all hot air.

If Malcolm is a sock puppet for an anonymous client then that is his lot. We all have to make a living in this world.

Malcolm King and Andras Smith are beating up phony hysteria on racism to distract attention from the growthists' sledgehammer assaults on our environment, security, social cohesion, personal freedom, and quality of life. These problems would all be just as great or nearly as great if all the additional people were fifth generation native-born white Australians rather than migrants. King et al. also want you to overlook the fact that there is no significant per capita economic benefit from mass migration (according to the Productivity Commission, not one of Malcolm King's mythical fellow travelers) or that the population growth reduces the bargaining power of labour and concentrates more and more of the nation's wealth in fewer and fewer hands.

For the real reasons why many Americans support NumbersUSA, see these graphs from the Economic Policy Institute. The real value of the minimum wage is worth less than in 1967

http://stateofworkingamerica.org/chart/swa-wages-figure-4-ae-real-minimum-wage/

Most American men are now earning lower real hourly wages than in 1979, despite 35 years of technological progress.

http://stateofworkingamerica.org/chart/swa-wages-figure-4c-change-real-hourly-wages/

Productivity and real hourly compensation for non-supervisory workers went up together from 1948 until the early 1970s, then sharply diverged, and the wages stagnated.

http://stateofworkingamerica.org/chart/swa-wages-figure-4u-change-total-economy/

CEO to worker compensation ratio since 1965

http://stateofworkingamerica.org/chart/swa-wages-figure-4-ceo-worker-compensation/

It is worth pointing out that the US had approximately zero net immigration from 1921 to 1965. Mass migration is not the only factor behind social inequality, but it is an important one. See Roy Beck's testimony to Congress on the meat packing industry

http://judiciary.house.gov/legacy/beck0311.ht

(cont'd)

(cont'd)

King et al. hope that shrieks of Racist! will have the same effect that shrieks of Witch! or Heretic! had in the 16th or 17th centuries, shutting down critical faculties. I can't speak for anyone else, but I am not a fan of (genuine) racism. It is needlessly hurtful to individuals, wastes talent, and creates animosity between groups of people. Nor do I believe the theory behind it. I have worked with plenty of Asian scientists and some Africans who were very capable. Some were highly creative. A number of Asian countries and Barbados (a black country) are all on the UN's very high human development list, while a number of white countries rank low.

If you have to compare the harm that is done, though, racism is not the ultimate evil, at least until you get into the Hitler class. I would rate the harm done by the boosters to our environment and society well above that done by a garden variety Australian racist.