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 > Does size matter? An economic perspective on the population debate > Comments

Does size matter? An economic perspective on the population debate : Comments

By Andrew Leigh, published 28/3/2014

Population growth has the potential to get us things we cannot obtain in other ways: better cultural goods and a more productive, more entrepreneurial culture. A larger nation has more mouths, but also more minds.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All
Funny thing is that the people desperate to come here are from highly populated countries, not Switzerland or Iceland. The author assumes there is nothing wrong with getting 80% of our energy from burning fossil fuels, nor stretching our water supply to the limit. We have about 0.8m unemployed with more expected. Young people cannot afford to buy a house within a half hour commute of a city CBD.

All of this seems to be saying Australia has more than enough people. Those new arrivals become immediate service users and many will become future welfare dependents. Does mean we will need even more future taxpayers? Meanwhile costs of food, energy and water keep rising.
Posted by Taswegian, Friday, 28 March 2014 7:34:02 AM
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
Some good points, Taswegian.
Posted by SPQR, Friday, 28 March 2014 7:42:41 AM
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
Andrew Leigh’s arguments are typical of elite groups over the past generation. The article exudes a confidence that bigger is better without giving any supporting evidence.

Evidence that bigger is not better is dealt with by diversions. For example, he argues that traffic congestion, which is obviously a consequence of higher densities, is better dealt with by planning policies, not population policies. Australia’s suburbanites known that planning has never been able to catch up with population growth, because the same people who insist on boosting our population also advocate or allow lower taxes.

The big issue with population now is not ‘How many?’, but ‘Who will decide?’ what our population growth should be.

We can see the dysfunction which results from letting Governments run by big business decide. The Commonwealth brings in up to a quarter of a million people each year and dumps them on the States, who then force selected local areas to bear the brunt of increased densities, whether they want them or not.

The alternative is for the people to decide, through the We Will Decide process. Using the census, let people decide whether they want increased or decreased population density in their local area. The average answer decides the result for that area. The consequence would be that development which would permit a density higher than the local decision would be prevented.

Then take the total of all local decisions and that can determine the self-interest component of our migration intake. Let the Government decide how many refugees to bring in, but let us determine whether it’s in our interests to have more people in our own area. The process is fully set out at www.wewilldecide.info. The elites, which includes the media, ignore We Will Decide, because they profit from high immigration and want to keep that decision for themselves.
Posted by Philip Howell, Friday, 28 March 2014 8:18:27 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Taswegian, Phillip, you make good points. Australia can only support the population it has now through profligate use of scarce and depleting resources.
The folly of another aspect our immigration programme was brought out by Tanveer Ahmed in ”The Bottom of the Pit” OLO Tues 18th March 2014. He was bemoaning the racial problems in Logan where unemployed Sudanese, Pacific Islanders and Aboriginals were involved in gang warfare. You would have to ask the question, why bring these sorts of people into the country in the first place?
Immigration into Australia should be restricted to a few specialist occupations which are needed here
Posted by Imperial, Friday, 28 March 2014 8:39:44 AM
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
The internet makes the benefits (e.g. ideas and cultural exchange) of mass immigration obsolete. Migration nowadays is about getting people into apartment buildings and reducing wages in order to maintain the rich/poor gap....for no other reason does mass immigration make sense.
Posted by progressive pat, Friday, 28 March 2014 9:01:36 AM
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
All comments so far are right on the money.

Andrew, what are you saying? You support a big Australia, but you seem to have a pretty rudimentary set of reasons for this.

Please, talk to your colleague Kelvin Thomson and explore with him just why bigger is not better.
Posted by Ludwig, Friday, 28 March 2014 9:07:17 AM
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, Ludwig, agreed, all comments so far "are right on the money".
.
"We have the third-lowest population density of any country. Only Mongolia and Namibia have fewer people per hectare than Australia"

Yes, there's a good reason for that, like Australia, Mongolia and Namibia are mainly desert --what point is being made here, the amount of arable land in Australia is relatively small, so reference to overall population density is irrelevant. Brazil and the US can support populations of hundreds of millions, not Australia.

There are many countries with smaller populations than Australia which have prosperous economies, their people actually manufacture products and trade internationally, there's obviously enough smart people in Switzerland and Scandinavia.

There are facts and there's economic theory and, of course, vested interests.
Posted by mac, Friday, 28 March 2014 9:41:22 AM
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
Labor let in over 50,000 unproductive welfare for lifers, we certainly don't need these types.
Posted by Philip S, Friday, 28 March 2014 9:55:50 AM
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
And we're a world leader in loss of species and soil.
I suspect that, if builders, land developers and generally those who make a buck out of population growth could not fund political parties, our immigration programs would be a lot smaller.
Posted by Asclepius, Friday, 28 March 2014 12:21:46 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
We do have an aging population/shrinking taxpayer base. Unremarkable conventional thinkers like Andrew, seem to think we can solve both of those issues, by importing more people/taxpayers.
Never considered is tax reform, linked to the GNP, that grows with the economy, regardless of population numbers!
As other writers have noted, water is a limiting factor, in just how many we can support, or guarantee food security for!
We could grow a lot bigger, if we were to develop our vast and arid inland.
We could achieve much of that, with the creation, of a tide reliant, self flushing inland canal(s).
Salt water can be used to grow many things, given it is pumped around miles and miles of underground agpipes, covered in high tech membrane filter medium.
Many plants have stronger water pulling power than many pumps, and pumping the water around, could rely on wind, or solar thermal energy, or, some combination. And the pristine evaporate could be easily recovered and used again and again!
With permanent reliable water, and seriously expended food production, we could envisage a population as large as 100 million, residing in new cities, built alongside the canal.
The canal could also enable, amphibious aircraft and small boats, to use it as a transport hub and for emergency evacuations.
There'd be room for a hundred or more new Purpose built cities, and they would have trade and commerce, between them as well as the usual export markets.
A population of around 100 million, would make a domestic car/aerospace industries viable, and create economies of scale, that would allow us to export to the world.
And it would guarantee, no large nation would think it could simply take over, by putting a million boots on our ground, given we could easily match that number by then, and any defense industries manufacture and supply line, should we ever need to!
That said, without visionary projects, like that envisaged, we are nearly as large as our modest green belt and reliable water sources, fragile environment, will allow us to be.
Rhrosty
Posted by Rhrosty, Friday, 28 March 2014 12:30:56 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
Israel's economy benefited from the influx of highly skilled migrants from the former Soviet Union. Australia's economy can also benefit from sustainable population growth driven by smart migration and larger and better educated families.
Posted by Macedonian advocacy, Friday, 28 March 2014 1:08:26 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
It is a pity that your article was couched in such balanced and inoffensive terms, Mr Leigh. It gives those who wish to impose control over our population, a cohort that that permeates this Forum, open licence to ignore what you say, and instead just wheel out their tired mantras.

But this puzzled me a little:

"One side tells us that a big Australia is a 'catastrophe', while the other says that slow population growth will hurt share prices and drive up debt."

That sounds like two versions of one side of the discussion, rather than two sides...

No matter. To the meat.

"A larger nation has more mouths, but also more minds. Size has potential costs, but economics teaches us that these are best addressed by good policies to reduce congestion, increase housing supply and protect the environment."

The most interesting aspect of the population-control lobby is their insistence that we can somehow i) stand still and ii) continue to prosper. No amount of either logic or example will move them from this contradiction.

Thanks to the faux-comfort of our century-old role as primary producer, we have also become a net exporter of brainpower and ideas. Our level of innovation has been declining for decades - it is difficult to identify any Australian invention, or invention by an Australian, that has managed to stay within these shores. The inevitable result of the standstill brigade is that we slowly lose the last vestiges of our local "smarts", and develop an even more pronounced second-class intellectual culture.

But it is quite clear that the anti-growth brigade are extremely comfortable with the idea of creeping mediocrity, quite possibly as a result of their own life experiences, and their inability to cope too well with change.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 28 March 2014 1:40:34 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
Many of the so called boffins who are for winding back Oz's pop to between 6-12 million (Flannery, John Coulter, etc) usually come from the sociobiology paradigm - often IT and genetics - which equates humans with ants.

I never had much of an interest in the anti-pops until I found out just how stupid and dangerous their economic and social programs were. Much of what they say is just blithering stupidity.

I've over done it with articles here and else where about the Sustainable Population Australia and their political wing, the Sustainable Population Party. Bit bored now.

My interest, although mild, is the psychology of these groups and the sheer depth of group think. For the record, they polled less than .02 per cent of the vote at the last election.
Posted by Malcolm 'Paddy' King, Friday, 28 March 2014 1:59:32 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
A bit of personal perspective:

<<Population growth has the potential to get us things we cannot obtain in other ways: better cultural goods and a more productive, more entrepreneurial culture.>>

Correct, but as far as I'm concerned, both undesirable.

I came to Australia to have a simpler life, so I can be left alone and live in peace. According to the author's formal classification I came as a skilled-immigrant, but according to my own I was a refugee.

Pericles is quite right that "the anti-growth brigade are extremely comfortable with the idea of creeping mediocrity": Yes, I actually like it, otherwise I would have chosen a different country to migrate.

He continues: "quite possibly as a result of their own life experiences, and their inability to cope too well with change."

Yes, as a result of my life experiences I decided to make a huge change - to come to Australia! Being happy with the new lifestyle, why should I seek another, unfavourable, change? There are plenty of other countries occupied by rat-race, if that's what one is after, but none as easy and relaxed as Australia used to be [at the time I came].

Australians - you are taking the wonderful advantages of Australia for granted and have no idea what and how much you are in the process of losing due to this silly desire for economic and cultural growth!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 28 March 2014 6:18:54 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
Andrew Leigh "better cultural goods, such as international sporting events and great entertainers"

And where's your per capita stats on that?

We've already provided many legendary sportspeople/events and artists/entertainers, even with our "tiny" population.

How do we compare to Mongolia and Namibia in contributions to sport and art/entertainment?

How do we compare with China and India? (Can you count their world famous "cultural" superstars on one hand?)

"if extraordinary people like Albert Einstein and Steve Jobs are one in a million then it follows that they are also an argument for another million people"

No, because that one Einstein is accompanied by 999,999 losers.

Why not wait until that Einstein appears on the world stage and invite *him*, and only him, to migrate and ignore the other 999,999.

"Some evidence suggests that bilingualism raises intelligence"

Do we need another million immigrants every decade to *learn languages*?

"a global outlook is good for business"

And has nothing to do with how many foreigners live here.

We've always been big-time exporters, no matter what our immigration policy or demographics were at any time.

"good city planning and economically sensible policies"

Don't hold your breath.

So just keep piling in the immigrants, hoping some future politicians/bureaucrats will magically find the answers nobody else could find before?

"Even if we stopped all population growth tomorrow, cars would still become cheaper to buy and use"

And that means more cars on the road?

So I can buy two cars instead of one.
Can I magically drive two cheaper cars at the same time?

"a more productive, more entrepreneurial culture"

So why aren't the economies of India and China the world's best PER CAPITA?
With those huge populations, they should have many more entrepreneurs, right?

Malcolm 'Paddy' King "I've over done it with articles here and else where about the Sustainable Population Australia and their political wing, the Sustainable Population Party. Bit bored now."

Nobody mentioned them.
Until now.
Posted by Shockadelic, Friday, 28 March 2014 6:41:31 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
The important thing about growing population sociologically is differences in family size - this is not our own population size, but tomorrow's. Groups with family sizes of six to ten upward will be bigger than other groups with family size of one to three, and our society will be different accordingly. We could have any number of migrants with 0-3 in family size without it making any difference to us tomorrow.
Posted by ozideas, Saturday, 29 March 2014 6:06:20 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<< I've over done it with articles here and else where about the Sustainable Population Australia and their political wing, the Sustainable Population Party. Bit bored now. >>

Haaaa hahahaaa!

Oh come-on Paddy. Don’t stop now. You’re doing the poppos (antipops to you) a great service by continually raising the debate.

It’s a great tactic actually – to come out as strongly as you can against them, which really does prompt strong debate, and helps get SPA and SPP known in wider circles.

<< My interest, although mild, is the psychology of these groups… >>

Well, YOU present an interesting psychological study, with your articles and posts on OLO! ( :>)

Your interest certainly is with the psychology of the poppos, and not at all with their arguments! It seems that you really can’t be bothered assessing the veracity of their principles of a stable population or a sustainable society.
Posted by Ludwig, Saturday, 29 March 2014 8:19:19 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
Here you go Luddy,

Here's a sample below. Your silly anti-people/sociobio 'argument' never amounted to much. Pretty much the same as it was to support sterilisations of poor people in the 60s and 70s. As for promoting the anti-human league, ask your candidates in Penrith and Adelaide if I helped their campaign. You're a very silly boy Luddy.

http://indaily.com.au/opinion/2013/11/05/no-growth-lobby-dominates-community-groups/

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/fortress-australia-green-washing-the-future-20131021-2vwzy.html

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/population-alarmists-disregard-human-feelings-20131010-2vb5y.html

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=15382

http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/54774

http://www.penrithcitygazette.com.au/story/1625627/malcolm-king-population-growth-in-penrith/

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=15206

http://newmatilda.com/2013/06/07/stop-breeding-nations-sake

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14617

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13640

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10403

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9819

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8990

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8838
Posted by Malcolm 'Paddy' King, Sunday, 30 March 2014 8:28:37 AM
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
Thanks Paddy.

Gee you have been busy!

What a huge effort you have been putting into pummelling a small group of people, whose real arguments you don’t seem to be interested in…. only in their ‘psychology’!

I gave you a great opportunity to debate the real issues on one of your recent article threads. But alas you just completely avoided it:

My comment: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16101#279533

Your reply: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16101#279534

My further request: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16101#279541

Your reply, which completely avoided my question: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16101#279569

My further attempt to get you to address the all-important points of debate that sit right at the heart of the population issue: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16101#279619

No response from you.

My final attempt two days later: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16101#279712

Another post from you, completely failing to address the issue: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16101#279855

My final post thanking you for making it crystal clear that you are not interested in debating the real issues at hand, and are only interested in lambasting a group of people, the views of which you really don’t understand and bizarrely don’t want to!: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16101#279863

It’s all there in black and white Paddy.

Whacky stuff indeed!
Posted by Ludwig, Sunday, 30 March 2014 9:28:35 AM
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
Ignoring the usual play-the-man-and-not-the-ball stuff from Paddy King, and reverting to Andrew Leigh's article,that is, the issue itself, his thesis fails to take into account the environmental arguments for a stable or smaller population. Urban sprawl brings loss of habitat for other species and Australia already has very high rates of biodiversity loss. An ever-increasing population demands ever more energy and resources and when that energy is fossil fuel based, any hope of achieving internationally agreed targets for greenhouse gas emission reduction go out the window.

As for social arguments, the Einstein argument is laughable. People may be brought in who are brilliant but unless they have an excellent education, opportunities to use that education, and a stable home life, they often end up driving taxis. And in order to provide this kind of supporting environment, you need capital deepening (investment in education and productive industries that is more likely when population growth is relatively stable), not capital widening (building ever more houses for an ever-increasing population). Every person added to the population from either immigration or natural increase demands at least $200,000 in infrastructure. With 407,000 people added to the population in the year to the end of June last year, that means $80 billion is required to cater for their needs.

What is required is a dynamic, steady state economy with a stable or slowly reducing population. Ageing? Forget it. Increase the retirement age a couple of years and combine it with compulsory superannuation and you deal with it. Health costs with an ageing population? Most come in the last year of life when people require hospitalisation or nursing home care. Keeping people healthy for as long as possible is one way of dealing with that, but pushing everyone into urban high-rise with few opportunities to exercise is not the way to do it.
Posted by popnperish, Sunday, 30 March 2014 10:45:44 AM
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
"Population growth has the potential to get us things we cannot obtain in other ways: better cultural goods and a more productive, more entrepreneurial culture"

How beautifully vague!
Perhaps Mr Leigh can be more specific, what exactly are these "things" we may look forward to obtaining?

"lifestyle improvements" is the same old stale carrot dangled before us, but it's never more than an inducement to acquiesce in a blunderheaded laissez faire promotion.
Lifestyles do not improve; they degrade while suburbia spreads.
Capital growth (for capitalists) needs population growth, it's as simple and cynical as that.
Posted by Squeers, Sunday, 30 March 2014 5:53:22 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
Anyone pro poulation increase should have to increase their tax contribution first.
Posted by individual, Monday, 31 March 2014 6:21:18 AM
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
One of the points often raised about Australia's population is its low density per square kilometre. This ignores an important fact. Australia is the driest continent on earth. About 75% of our land area is classified as arid or worse. This has to be a severe limitation on our capacity to support high population growth. How much we should grow is an important policy question which this article does not help to solve and which needs to seriously addressed.
Posted by AyJay, Monday, 31 March 2014 12:06:17 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
You claim that there are 2 levers, migration or home-grown babies.

You claim that "migration" is the ONLY choice really as "government policies have little impact on whether or not people have babies”.

This is pure crap.

Had the government in pre-mass migration days (say 1950) simply set out to explain to people that their political and economic projections for the world over the next 100 years and for how it will impact us mean that it is of VITAL importance to drastically and quickly increase our population size, then I am certain most Australians at that time would have been more than willing to have more kids, as long there was subsidies.


As for the aftermath of the Gov pulling the migration lever:

Compare the following:

A. 1950s working class family – able to get jobs anywhere and everywhere jobs of low to no skill pre-required and no official training usually needed. A man could have such a job get married have 2-4 kids and while only he works is able to purchase a land and house by age 30-35 in outer-suburbia.

B. 2000-2010 working class family – unable to get jobs anywhere that require “low skill” [refer to China] and even those that still exist usually require that one first obtain an official certificate of “training” – training is what? This means that 2000-2010 man will likely be unemployed unless he retrains to get a university degree o at least a 4 year trade. Thus 2010 man cannot get married and have kids unless poverty is all he cares to offer them.

So Mr Andrew Leigh, why do you think our government overlooked the option for lever , which was to simply ask us to have more kids and explain why.

I think because this option still would not have overcome the problem of crushing minimum worker rights for manufacture whereas taking ALL our such jobs and putting them in Asian slave cams, does deal with this concern.
Posted by Jottiikii, Monday, 31 March 2014 4:42:32 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
My personal belief about why we have a migration program is because western business forces have a considerable investment in keeping the world economy exactly how it is at present, where the third-world do majority of the world’s low-skilled manufacture, leaving unskilled westerners to either 'retrain' OR 'PERISH'.

Australia's massive migration program has resulted in the 2010 demographics with about 45% Anglo, 10-15% other European, 30% Asian, 10% Middle East, etc.

But ask yourself this: IF Australia never had a large migrant program and we only had a handful of Asians and Indians etc. to participate in the economy, do you think that these “western business forces” would have been ABLE to achieve the feat over 50 years of . . . ‘removing ALL manufacture and factory jobs’ . . . and ‘giving them to the Asian markets’?

Surely there would have been protests and even riots.

However think about what happens to the social perception when a nation introduces millions of new citizens from third world cultures (the type of places where the cheap slave labour exists and the Western business elite desire to exploit) into an economy which is slowly being dismantled and reconstructed to fit into the world they project where NO manufacture jobs exist in the West but only in the third-world.

For example, a US car company closes all but 1 factory in Australia as it cannot compete with China’s cheap prices, but they reduce the minimum wages to level most westerners would consider highly unfair. Having thousands and millions of people some who are from places where such low wages and worse are acceptable, it is likely that whilst the working class Anglos are wondering what to do about this situation, the newly arrived Chinese migrant and others like him fill the job places leaving the Anglos who are not culturally used to such unethical conditions, remain unemployed.

Fancy that. The so-called "bogan ethics standard" which makes him abhore mistreatment and slavery is the very thing keeping him unemployed
Posted by Matthew S, Monday, 31 March 2014 5:37:21 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
Consider what is actually happening here -

The wealthy business classes of the West have established the world market set-up so that ALL manufacture and assembly line factory jobs are in Asia.

What was the point in the west "banning" "slavery" centuries ago not to mention the myriad of further advancements in ethics since when we have abandoned this ethic and standard by our actions in participating in bringing about world markets where Asia’s slave-base does all the manufacturing jobs.

Essentially with this the “West condones slavery”, oppression of all forms (especially political being in China) and worst of all they are making into superpowers nations such as China and India which together have about half the world’s population.

But the main reason this is such an extremely bad thing is that about half the population of both China & India exists in poverty, slavery, exploitation and third-world squalid conditions while the other half live in the same modern wealth as a middle-class westerner. The problem is that the wealthy and middle classes in these nations are not allowing anything at all to “trickle down” which is the whole point of economic development as is evident in the West.

And unlike with western powers (even the US) no matter what the government wishes to do globally the force of “public opinion” of their citizenry can at any time force the government to stop, cultures where they care less about exploiting their own poor will not care about any "foreigner".The best example of this in the west was with how the US lost and withdrew from the Vietnam conflict in 60s-70s mostly from “public opinion” being against innocent Asian villagers dying in the cross-fire.

Recall Sudan some years back and the northern Mujahedeen attempting to genocide the entire southern darker Christian people and the US or even UN could do nothing since China vetoed any help since China had oil interests in Sudan.

How's that for a small preview of what's to come
Posted by Matthew S, Monday, 31 March 2014 6:56:52 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
Jottiikii, there was a baby boom in the 1950s precisely because people felt confident about the future and their apparently inevitably rising living standards.

Today, how many Australians would have such optimism?

Instead of solving economic problems, current immigration makes people less confident and optimistic, as they see their once pleasant neighbourhoods turn into dirty, dangerous dystopias.

Who'd want to inflict such social chaos on innocent children?
Posted by Shockadelic, Monday, 31 March 2014 7:14:44 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
Interesting article, and for those negatively concerned about 'population growth', they need to be sure they are not being informed by those whom have an interest in eugenics and qualitative issues about 'immigrants'.

Over population spruiking sounds plausible and fair, till protagonists 'lurch' into social territory of identity etc.. then it becomes proxy 'white Australia' policy, like media types claiming to be vicitims of anti white racism.....

Further, for many without background in statistics and definitions, it's popular now in the media and amongst 'demographers' to conflate definitions, inflate population, or immigration and confuse people.

Population growth is now mostly driven by temporary visitors staying for 12+ months e.g. 2nd year backpackers, international students, 457 visa workers etc.. as they are included in Net Overseas Migration, as are Australian citizens when returning for 12+ months.

However, they are deemed to be 'immigrants' by media etc. which leads many to believe that Australia's skilled and other migration programs are out of control, when they are not. Further, claims that these temporary visitors will become permanent ignores the fact they come under the migration cap.

What is not explained is new definition of population from 2006 to include such temps inflated headline population numbers. Further, if temps were not included in Australia's population it would be stagnant, and be ageing too.

How would Australia look without permanent immigration, temp workers and neither backpacker nor international education industries? Greyer and more conservative (like all political parties) no doubt...
Posted by Andras Smith, Monday, 31 March 2014 9:42:14 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How would Australia look without permanent immigration,
Andras Smith,
That is a very silly argument & an irrelevant question. Without permanent immigration the whole world would look different. Is anyone actually arguing about perment immigration ? I don't recall reading anything on that. What people are saying is too much permanent & unsuitable people immigration. In the 50's permanent immigration was beneficial by the right kind of immigrants. In 2014 these people are no longer looking to come to Australia.
Posted by individual, Tuesday, 1 April 2014 6:36:25 AM
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
Andras Smith,
You’ve made some very sensible and sobering comments that hopefully the “anti-pops” shall take heed of.
On the other hand I’m concerned that several contributors here imply that racism, nationalism, supremacism, paranoia, etc. are all that lies beneath the “anti-pops” agenda—just as those who are not “denialists” are often painted as “alarmists,” or greens are diagnosed in much the same way as women were once deemed hysterics. The problem is that what might be complex and subtle debates are reduced to the level of ignorant populism, with one sided condemning our whole way of life and the other defending it, neither being prepared to consider the full implications.
Pertinent as your comments are apropos the “eugenics” etc. agenda of nationalists, there’s no hint of a deeper critique in your own comments, which impute to our global economic institution the inevitable context of the debate—the master which must ultimately be served. This is the same pretext of the article, and indeed the rationale that brings all sides (more or less) together: “it’s the economy, stupid!”
We have the likes of Dick Smith claiming we "can” prosper without population growth (profiting from growth offshore—as if we were separate and self-sufficient planets), and the neoliberal cohort treating the planet like a magic pudding; both sides favouring an “economic solution”.
My argument is that capitalism is the problem and can never be the solution—except by dismantling it.

I’m concerned thus not to be conflated with the “anti-pops,” nor indeed with the weighty deliberations of either (popular) side of this bipolar debate--which we might liken to that other debate between the warring factions of Lillyput and Blefuscu.
Posted by Squeers, Tuesday, 1 April 2014 8:00:57 AM
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
You're sliding into the same territory as Malcolm King, Andras, namely casting aspersions on our integrity by aligning us with eugenics. How dare you! Only those without a credible argument to their name is reduced to that. Like it or not, population growth has deleterious effects on the environment (greenhouse gas emissions in particular) and on social matters such as housing (un)affordability. It matters not who comes here, as long as they abide with our democratic, liberal and humanitarian traditions, but it does matter how many. We are stewards of this country and we must protect the habitats of other species by not concreting over them for housing and infrastructure or by converting forest to farmland to feed ever more people.
Posted by popnperish, Tuesday, 1 April 2014 8:53:45 AM
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
Andras is also doing his best to obscure the population growth rate of 1.8%. The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) counts people as immigrants if they stay for more than 12 months, but it also counts people as emigrants if they leave after 12 months. What matters for the population growth rate is the difference between immigration and emigration. It doesn't matter if a migrant is temporary if he is just going to be replaced by another temporary migrant when he goes home. the impact of a series of temporary migrants on the environment, infrastructure, housing and job markets, etc. is just as great as that of a permanent migrant.

Population growth, through mass migration or otherwise, is a brilliant way for the folks at the top to siphon more of a nation's wealth up to themselves. They benefit from bigger domestic markets, high profits from ownership of residential land and other necessities, and a cheap, compliant work force. This can be most clearly seen in the case of the US. There was a previous era of globalisation in the early 20th century with very high immigration, but it was shut down after WWI, essentially because the elite were afraid of a revolution. There were then high tariffs and low immigration until 1965, when Congress changed the immigration laws, paving the way for very large numbers. How has it worked out? According to people like Malcolm King and Andras Smith, the average American should be much better off due to the marvellous benefits of mass migration and diversity.

(cont'd)
Posted by Divergence, Tuesday, 1 April 2014 1:20:13 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
(cont'd)

But look at these graphs from State of Working America.

CEO to worker compensation ratio - from 20 to 1 in 1965 to 411 to 1 in 2000 (down to 231 to 1 in 2011)

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

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

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

Wages ceased to go up with productivity in 1972. Productivity is up 241% since 1948, but average hourly wages are only up by 108%.

Share of total household wealth growth accruing to various income groups since 1983. The bottom 60% of the population is actually poorer, while 74% of the growth has gone to the top 5%.

http://www.stateofworkingamerica.org/chart/swa-wealth-figure-6b-share-total-household/

Andras Smith hasn't denied that he is a migration agent and would thus stand to lose substantial income if immigration is reduced.

Malcolm King has a public relations firm. He hasn't denied that he is being paid to rubbish people who want to stabilise the population.
Posted by Divergence, Tuesday, 1 April 2014 1:24:25 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
Andras Smith "they need to be sure they are not being informed by those whom have an interest in eugenics and qualitative issues about 'immigrants'."

Who needs quality when you can have quantity?
All that matter is headcount, eh?

"till protagonists 'lurch' into social territory of identity etc."

Yes, how dare we have an identity.

Of course, immigrants can have theirs and are encouraged to stick to them like glue.
We must adapt, they musn't.
Posted by Shockadelic, Tuesday, 1 April 2014 1:40:41 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
And there is the neo con style or predilection for smearing or individual personal attacks with whom they disagree with .... while not offering any clear analysis or empirical evidence for all the supposed negatives of immigration, population etc..
Posted by Andras Smith, Tuesday, 1 April 2014 5:13:46 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This article received applause from the pro-Tanton Sustainable Population Australia lobby on their Facebook page. 1/3rd of the pop will have to go.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/scientists-look-onethird-of-the-human-race-has-to,27166/

I know where I'd start.
Posted by Malcolm 'Paddy' King, Tuesday, 1 April 2014 8:51:00 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
Like Tanton has commonly complained about anybody being able to breed..... begs the question, many of the sustainable population type protagonists seem to assume that they can decide who breeds, who immigrates etc..... bit autocratic..... and what factors do we base this slection on? IQ, physical attributes, religion, social class etc.? Slippery slope....
Posted by Andras Smith, Tuesday, 1 April 2014 9:02:42 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Malcolm 'Paddy' King, if you ever had any credibility (cough!) it just vanished.
The article is from The Onion, a *satirical* website.
It's not news, it's a joke.

Even if *world* population needed to fall, there's no need to kill anyone.
Nor does that mean *our* domestic population must fall.

100% of us die, sooner or later.
Since everyone dies, what you really need to control is the addition of *more* people.

We can stop growing our own population (and its resource consumption) by stopping or severely reducing immigration.

"I know where I'd start."

Yeah, but let me guess, you don't own any weapons.
But the right-wing nationalists do.
Guess who's going first?

Andras Smith "assume that they can decide who breeds, who immigrates"

Those are two completely different things.
Newsflash: The government *decides* who will immigrate every day.
Posted by Shockadelic, Wednesday, 2 April 2014 3:19:02 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
Hey Shocker, now I get it, "lets make a joke about exterminating people" said the SPA.

"yeah, that will get us some great publicity," said the SPP. "We only got .2 of the vote last election."

"It will certainly confirm to those who haven't made up their mind about us, that we're certainly a pack of fruit loops and not worth the time of day," said the SPA.
Posted by Malcolm 'Paddy' King, Wednesday, 2 April 2014 6:50:54 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
Malcolm 'Paddy' King

SPA didn't organise that one, sorry to disappoint. But I hope it makes people think. There are now an increasing number of warnings that we are facing collapse from either oil and other resource shortages,or from climate change. A four degree warmer world will only be able to support one billion people, not seven billion, and four degrees warmer is exactly where we're heading. So we have a choice either to shift to a low carbon economy (with limited resource throughput) very very quickly, or we adapt to a warmer climate that will not feed the people we have, let alone another couple of billion. That adaptation will have to include a reduction in population, however it's accomplished (let's hope it's not nasty).

This is not an ideological position - it's an intelligent response to the challenges that confront us. We should all be fighting this together.
Posted by popnperish, Thursday, 3 April 2014 9:06:27 AM
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
popnperish,

very nicely put. I concur.
In casting their nasty eugenics aspersions Andras Smith and Paddy allude to their own method of dealing with overpopulation: ideological indifference at the inevitable collapse of the pyramid and the billions who support it.
Posted by Squeers, Thursday, 3 April 2014 10:02:23 AM
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
Malcolm 'Paddy' King, the SPA obviously have a sense of humour, and the intelligence to recognise the difference between the serious/factual and the absurd/fictional.

People like you accuse others of what you yourselves are doing.
Obliterating entire peoples (by displacement).
You're the genocidalists.
Posted by Shockadelic, Thursday, 3 April 2014 6:19:29 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
Wouldn't be so sure, we're talking about 28 or fewer people who claim to be eexperts in population, immigration, climate change, social engineering.... ....... many of the over population, anti immigration etc. types seem to take themselves very seriously, and are very sanctimonious in their beliefs while being very sensitive or even paranoid about criticsm, not even directed at them personally.

Acting like a noisy and provocative conservative journalist (and others) in Oz media claiming right to be bigoted but claim defanation if anyone bites back at them, but no surprise as they are all cut from the same cloth, old neo con school of strongly held beliefs, paranoia and narcissism.
Posted by Andras Smith, Thursday, 3 April 2014 6:48:11 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Andras

As Shockadelic said: People like you accuse others of what you yourselves are doing.

Exactly.
Posted by popnperish, Friday, 4 April 2014 9:39:57 AM
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
Ludwig recommended that I keep promoting the anti-human league. It's worth a hard news feature on the SPA and its political associates. We need to look hard at how the SPA is funded and its links to the international anti-immigration and 'proto-nationalist' movements.
Posted by Malcolm 'Paddy' King, Friday, 4 April 2014 10:11:10 AM
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
I find it ludicrous that this discussion should proceed while at the
same time as the press carries news of the closing of still more refineries.
You don't see the connection ?
Then you are like the author, bereft of knowledge of what is going on
under your nose.
We have crossed the tipping point of our energy cost/availability balance.
We are now at the mercy of all other countries who can pressure us to
do as they wish. If it comes to the crunch a larger population will
make it harder to refuse to say "How High ?".

We do not have the resources to support our present population let
alone to increase it. We need to husband our resources and stretch
them out even further until that miracle energy, everyone says "they"
will develop in plenty of time, actually arrives.
Posted by Bazz, Sunday, 6 April 2014 12:46:49 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
Bazz, smaller plants in Oz are all under pressure as fuel from Asia is cheaper to refine. Nothing, once again, to do with population.
Posted by Malcolm 'Paddy' King, Sunday, 6 April 2014 5:35:26 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
Malcolm 'Paddy" King

I know who funds SPA and it's the members. Just had the AGM and the treasurer's report is open for all to see. It's almost a joke how well they do with so little money.
Posted by popnperish, Sunday, 6 April 2014 6:34:40 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
Repetition of such mantras or memes serve's a purpose, like (the oxymoronic) Progressives for Immigration Reform PFIR in the USA taking on the Sierra Club (not unlike the ACF) for being soft on the negative impact of immigration and population growth on the environment, althugh no empirical evidence.

http://imagine2050.newcomm.org/2012/02/16/philip-cafaro-takes-on-the-sierra-club-again/

Curious the links between these groups and individuals from years ago (when the Sierra Club was under attack) including Sea Shepherd's misanthrope Paul Watson, Bob Carr's mate Paul Ehrlich, and the likes of PFIR (Labor MP Kelvin Thomson is associated with).

http://colorlines.com/archives/2013/05/how_sierra_club_learned_to_stop_worrying_and_grew_to_love_immigration.html

Surprisingly the 'puppeteer' behind such activity all along has been John Tanton's network, which includes Social Contract Press whose (public) contributors from Australia include SPA's Mark O'Connor and Monash University's Bob Birrell.
Posted by Andras Smith, Sunday, 6 April 2014 6:41:49 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Malcolm said;
Nothing, once again, to do with population.

You believe that ?
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 7 April 2014 7:38:27 AM
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
Andras Smith said -

"there is the neo con style or predilection for smearing or individual personal attacks with whom they disagree with .... while not offering any clear analysis or empirical evidence for all the supposed negatives of immigration, population etc.."

Well I hereby likewise challenge the proponents of the mass immigration and lunatic levels in population increases pushed for by business,

. . . to provide some proper evidence and "clear analysis" and "empirical evidence" other than the usual answer given of -

. . . . .. 'more population = better economy' . . .

which even in the west only works so far since the "trickle down effect" only does so much for the working and the poor. In fact poorer Australians today when compared with Australian from pre-mass migration 1950s, has only one aspect that is any good or beneficial to them - the enormous increase in type and amounts of items, technical objects etc. they can purchase to make their existence a little bit easier to live.

Comparing any REAL and IMPORTANT factors between the 1950s Australian poor and the current poor shows that the present poor in AUs are nuch, much, much worse off.

That is to say, whereas before when population was smaller and and was significantly cheaper the average worker in Aus could have a low-skilled job ib factory, have a wife and kids and still purchase a house and land in lifetime;

where today unless the worker is university educated and also likely must not had kids (unless two professionals for earners be required) otherwise poverty is all the family will ever get.

Tell me How is this better than before the mass immigration
Posted by Matthew S, Tuesday, 8 April 2014 7:30:56 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
Thanks Matthew S, and we haven't even got to whether other species are doing better or worse. And they're a lot worse off. With the loss of habitat that accompanies human population growth, particularly in high biodiversity regions like SE Queensland or the wet forests north-east of Melbourne, other species become increasingly threatened. Cassowaries are barely hanging on in the wet tropics because of urban expansion.

Not that Andras Smith or Malcolm Paddy King would care, but I do.
Posted by popnperish, Wednesday, 9 April 2014 9:44:11 AM
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
Pericles,

you ask Ludwig to "suggest a more useful measure than GDP per head" since you claim in somewhat a snide manner that he must not understand the "concept" as you say it gives him "a headache?”

Let me jump in to help here.

I propose the 'Relative cost of a Family Home' [i.e. residential property] to be the Indicator in this new and to be proposed Indicator of wealth and average standards and further this Indicator MUST measure the 'Relative Possibility for average working citizens to purchase 1st Home' as measured from 1 era (decade) to another.

First it is no secret that the average working class person/family of low-skilled employment and non-tertiary education NO LONGER has it so easy when it comes to the possibility to be able to purchase their very 1st and ONLY Home property. That is at least compared (relative) to their grandparents of the 50s,60s & 70s who DID easily almost ALL purchase their own home by age 40 which today as retirees they still occupy whilst their children and grand children are struggling to merely pay the rent and bills.

Now surely this type of FACTOR for measuring living standards etc. is the most telling of all possible measures? That is to say what does relative higher access to medicines, higher access to information and education, increased ability to access and own newer technologies etc., are NOT informative about the TRUTH of how a family feels and haw a family/individual can control their own destiny which I think is essentially what economic freedom is all about.
Posted by Matthew S, Wednesday, 16 April 2014 3:42:32 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
Therefore with the insane population increases over the last 5-6 decades in AUstralia the price of land is now all but out of reach for the low-skilled classes.

Simultaneously the middle-classes have managed to increase their owndership and control of the property resources (mostly residential) and it is now quite common for kids from this class to be given a small property as well as other funds at early age which they use to build upon and get a second property in 10 years, this 30 year old middle-class person can use the first property entirely as an INVESTMENT house and rent it to some poor and unfortunate working-class family.

If the average working Australian person and family (even worse) who might have 1 full-time earner employed in low-skilled functions (earning less than 60,000pa) wishes to SERIOUSLY plan to have a family and purchase a Home . . . UNLESS –
(i) that individual has pre-existing financial resources from inheritance and/or family/friends private lending;
(ii) plans to ask his wife also work full-time or at least part-time whilst he also gets second job;
(iii) goes back to school and breaks 10 generations tradition of NOT being very academic or tertiary educated not to mention also a strong “cultural anathema” to university [possibly left over from the classist, oppressive convict mistreated past], and GO to University and become a Professional high earner;
(iv) forget giving the family anything but POVERTY;

Otherwise - this low-skilled, low-earner can forget considering a family and stay alone and childless.

This is how the TRUE standards of living etc. ought to be measured, with relative possibility and individual/family ability to purchase a FIRST and only residential property.

This is a kind of economic oppression that Marx himself spoke of when he studied the industrial slums and classist oppression of 18th century Britain (e.g. Manchester).

Now I think I know WHY all the economic bodies for analysis DO NOT include this "residential property" aspect in their measurements - since to do so underwrites all their attempts to dress their claims up to be "wealth and health improvements".
Posted by Matthew S, Wednesday, 16 April 2014 3:48:15 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. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All

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