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.

Malcolm said;
Nothing, once again, to do with population.

You believe that ?

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

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.

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.

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".