Farnswort

Population projections by the ABS indicate that continued low fertility, combined with the increase in deaths from an ageing population, will result in natural increase falling below zero sometime in the mid 2030s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_Australia

you say " The real demographic challenge facing Australia is population aging — a problem which cannot be solved by immigration for the simple reason that immigrants also grow old"

You seem to have very little understanding of the mathematics of demography. A population ages and then declines when the fertility rate falls below replacement levels. Many immigrant groups do not suffer from this affliction. Many developed countries are not aging due to the high fertility rates of their large immigrant minorities.

You say “Population 'shrinkage' would only occur if net immigration was permanently cut to zero.”

This is incorrect. If more people die or emmigrate than are born or immigrate, then your population will start to decline, whether you have net immigration or not. In Germany, Hungary, Poland, Japan, Russia and many ex-soviet republics their populations are declining. “According to the UN, below-replacement fertility is expected in 75% of developed world by the year 2050” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_decline

But I’m not part of the cheersquad for more third world immigration. In fact I’m fairly adamantly opposed to increasing some of our ethnic and religious minorities beyond their current numbers. I totally agree there is nothing liberal or progressive about stripping the third world of its doctors and engineers AS I HAVE ALREADY SAID in previous posts.

My point is that I think WE should be having more babies. Not necessarily to increase the population but to ensure that it doesn’t decline. The lefts mortgaging of our futures by displacing the responsibility of social programs into the future, in order to reap prosperity now, means we are at risk of dire economic outcomes.

Furthermore, France and Britain are two examples where large minority groups are seizing the chance to reorder the social landscape in their favour by means fair and foul. That is our future if we continue to rely on immigration to stabilize our population.

PaulL,

I agree with you about the damage that is being done to social cohesion by mass migration around the world. The problem is that the corporate elite, who own the politicians, benefit from high real estate prices, bigger markets, a cheap, compliant work force, etc., so unless we are prepared to vote out growthist politicians, the present situation will continue. Bringing the fertility rate up to replacement level then makes a bad situation worse.

If we cut immigration back to near zero net, we would (in the long run) need to do a bit more to make life easier for people who want to have more children. (In opinion polls people say that they want enough children to stabilise the population, even without immigration.)

However, you need to consider whether current populations are sustainable. As I posted before, there are too many people globally to give all of them a decent standard of living, even if we conserve, and share and care some more. Given the risk of food shortages with climate change, agricultural land diverted to biofuels, etc., it is probably not a smart idea to have a bigger population than you can feed yourself. Britain has 6 times as many people as in the 18th century. They nearly starved during and just after WWII with a smaller population than now. There is a big difference between an anorexic starving herself and going on a diet when you are almost too obese to walk.

Firstly, High real estate prices are the result of middle class families purchasing housing for the rental market as an investment. This competition with home buyers not only drives up the cost of housing it also puts it out of reach of many first home buyers.

Secondly, Due to globalization Australian businesses have access to huge markets in Asia, Europe and America. By comparison our domestic market is almost irrelevant to large business.

Thirdly, Cheap compliant workforces don’t exist to any real extent in the Australian labour market. Protection under the law ensures this. The shortage of labour also helps ensure good wages for the employed.

Fourthly, To our north 222 million people live and feed themselves in a country about the same size as Queensland. I am unsure what analogy you would use for them if we are considered to be “too obese to walk”

Fifthly, you presentation of GDP divided evenly amongst the people of the world is a massive oversimplification of the issue. The 3 earths scenario is pure rubbish of the type beloved of the eco-chondriacs. And the very idea that all wealth should be divided equally is absurd although it fits well with the free-money policies of the lunatic-left.

Sixthly, The most likely scenario that will cause food shortages is the conversion of large tracts of farmland to bio-diesel production. The impact not of global warming, but fear of global warming.

Finally, there are huge swathes of farm land across the planet that are used for cotton, rubber and other non food production. These could be turned over to food production if needed. As food becomes more expensive, low quantity but high margin crops will be dumped in favour of higher volume crops. Fish farming has massive potential to produce food and is expanding rapidly. If need be suburban lawns could be turned over to agriculture as the local Vietnamese do where I used to live. In a country the size of Australia, 50 million people can easily be accomodated.

PaulL

"Firstly, High real estate prices are the result of middle class families purchasing housing for the rental market as an investment."

You hilariously funny fellow, you. That great Aussie comedian, Paul Keating, showed what a wonderful joke your theory was when he removed negative gearing. Maybe you could provide the forum with an explanation of why the funster's action had an effect opposite to that which your theory would predict? Then you could explain how high immigration and great restrictions on development by secretive councils is of no significance to housing affordability?

"In a country the size of Australia, 50 million people can easily be accomodated."

Haven't there been instances of bird flu in Vietnam caused by people eating birds killed by illness? That doesn't strike me as an affluent lifestyle. It might be affluent compared to the Phillipines, where, if a dog dies, the argument is not about who gets rid of it, but who gets to eat it. Perhaps your definition of "easily" differs from mine. Perhaps you mean "easily" as in, "The elephant in the living room passed easily through the mincer."?

PaulL,

Housing would be worthless as an investment unless there were people to live in the houses, whether they are buying them or renting them. The politicians have abandoned decentralisation, so land for housing needs (for most people) to be within commuting distance of a major city, the place where the jobs are. At the same time, the politicians have driven up population through mass migration. That is why it is the land component that is driving up the cost of housing, which has risen from 3.5 times the median wage in 1973 to 7.5 times in 2005 and higher in some cities. The people who own the land are doing very nicely. That is why the real estate interests are pushing for more immigration. Do you dispute this?

Profits have been increasing faster than wages for quite some time. Not all businesses operate globally, and not all jobs can be outsourced. Every year the business lobby argues against increases in the minimum wage.

When I spoke about too obese to walk, I was referring to very crowded European countries, not Australia. Here in Australia, however, we already have permanent water restrictions in every major city, except possibly Hobart, with people encouraged to spy on their neighbours, and there are constant disputes over water between the various interest groups. The water could certainly be better managed, but I don't see how 50 million would be possible without playing hell with the environment and with the quality of life of ordinary people, who might prefer not to have to grow vegetables in their front gardens. There is no comparison between the carrying capacity of Australia, which is mostly desert and has very little really good soil, and Indonesia, which has plentiful water and deep rich volcanic soils. See the CIA World Factbook for percentages of arable land for different countries.

You might read about environmental footprints before assuming that they are all a plot by radicals like the editors of New Scientist. I never suggested dividing GNP equally, just that doing so would not solve problems of global poverty.

Fester

THE tax concession for investment housing is booming, with big beneficiaries of negative gearing found in outlying "aspirational" suburbs as well as traditional wealthy areas. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,23399807-25658,00.html?from=public_rss

In June, 1996, Australians owed the banks $159 billion in mortgages, almost 80 per cent of it for our own homes. Then in the next four years, we borrowed another $96 billion, almost 50 per cent of it for housing we would not live in. http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/06/10/1022982818188.html

First home buyers are particularly disadvantaged in this market as they are competing against property investors who can take advantage of generous tax concessions. The purpose of this article is to compare the value of the tax advantages available to property investors against the Federal Government’s first home buyers’ grant and various State Government grants and benefits available to first home buyers. This article reveals that not only are wealthy property investors better off in the longer-term by over $100,000, but their presence in the housing market is distorting housing prices. Journal of Australian Taxation http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/JATax/2005/4.html

I am not denying that immigration and council intransigence are contributing factors, merely that they are subsidiary to the main problem

Divergence,
CIA factbook says that Australia has 6.15% of arable land. Indonesia has 11.03%. Australia is 7.741 million kilometers square. Indonesia is 1.019 million square kilometers. Therefore total arable land in Australia is 467,000 square kilometers. In Indonesia that figure is 110,000 square kilometers. Considering that we have 1/10th the population of Indonesia that means we have 40 times more arable land per person.

I don’t read enviro magazines because the environment has become a quasi religious topic where feelings have replaced facts. As for the news scientist I would like to see the link.

Water restrictions in most of our capital cities mostly affect those who want a quarter acre of cooch or buffalo grass. That is definitely an unsustainable situation and the sooner we se the end of it the better. Any population growth in Australia should be channeled towards Northern Australia as I would agree that the South East is beginning to press its boundaries.