"what is the per capita infrastructure and education cost to provide the Australian living standard, Cheryl? You seem more interested in abusive tirades than arguing the economic benefits of recent immigration,' Fester.

Well Fester, the annual tax revenue from all tiers of Gov in $348 billion in 07-08. Capital infrastructure is split between public and private - mainly public. So road, ports, transport, airports, public buildings, welfare, etc, are funded from the tax base. That's people Fester. You and me.

Now if the Sustainable People Himmlerites get their way, it'll just be YOU supporting your vision of Fortress Australia.

Good luck with that. If you want more info, ask Clownfish. He/she is way ahead of the game.

Cheryl,

This is from an article on this forum by Eric Claus in which he discusses the Productivity Commission report on the economic effects of mass migration.

"In April 2006 the Australian Government Productivity Commission published a report entitled Economic Impacts of Migration and Population Growth which said:

• Economic gains accrue mostly to skilled migrants and capital owners (page 151)
• Hourly wages will drop slightly under high immigration (page 161)
• These results are consistent with research both in Australia and overseas (page 161)
• Environmental impacts are likely to impose a drag on productivity and living standards, but the details are "too hard" to quantify (page 122)"

There were similar findings in the 1997 US Academy of Sciences Report entitled "The New Americans". Any net economic benefits were small and went mostly to the owners of capital and the migrants themselves. Mass migration also tended to redistribute wealth from workers in direct competition with immigrants to owners of capital. One of the authors, George Borjas, who holds a chair in economics at Harvard, has written extensively on the labor market effects of mass migration. See for example

http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~GBorjas/Papers/QJE2003.pdf

There is also the issue of increased population and competition leading to big increases in the cost of certain necessities. For example, an average house now costs the equivalent of 7.5 years of the median wage, and more in a number of cities, compared to 3.5 years in 1970, mostly due to increased urban land prices, even though block sizes are much smaller. There are permanent water restrictions, and water is going to get much more expensive, due to the need for desalination plants.

Cheryl

The reason it is useful to know the per capita infrastructure and education costs per Australian is that it allows better planning. I note that neither yourself or other pro-growthers seem to know this figure: Odd for people so sure of the benefits of population growth. How do you think people would react were they to know what the cost was?

As divergence pointed out, the productivity commission's report on immigration showed a negligible benefit for the existing residents, and it didn't consider the infrastructure cost to my knowledge. So why should I support something which has the potential to be financially damaging? Isn't it part of the philosophy of capitalism to make decisions which support your financial interests?

Hi Fester

Generally speaking in 1980 our foreign debt was around 8 billion and population 15 million. 2009 our debt is 700 billion (674)and population 22 million ( 21.5 ).

So for an increase of 7 million people and to maintain the existing population, debt rose roughly 700 billion ( 674-8 = 666 ). What proportion of that 700 billion is the per capita cost of new infrastructure ?

Hard to say, in Overloading Australia by Mark O'Connor 2008 ( I have given my copy away ) there is a section in there on that topic.

My recollection is that some 10 years ago, it was estimated that $500 million was spent each year providing "new" water infrastructure for population growth of around 250,000 ( That half billion could then be multiplied by ? factor, to estimate other Government provisions, including on-going welfare). Bob Birrell in People and Place Journal ( Monash University Press) established about ? 5 years ago, that in some immigrant groups, that after 5 years a staggering 70% were still receiving some form of social security.,,, let alone Government housing.

What we can say though is each of us on average have consumed more than we have produced, to a masssive collective debt of $700 billion and set to grow to a trillion with govt borrowings of 300 billion coming up. Welfare costs to spiral out of control, as record population growth levels of 1.2 million every 3 years; intersects with job shedding.

It is a very simple concept. Each extra person is sending us broke both financially and environmentally.

Sorry I couldn't be of more assistance,
Cheers,
Ralph

Thanks, Ralph and Fester. So, let me get this straight. Each additional person is adding to the national debt, creating more competition for increasingly scarce resources, and increasing the total ecological footprint of the nation. And we want more population growth because.....?

And we want more population growth because.....?

Because It makes bloody Kevin Rudd(aka "we have to have violence in modern societies- as long as its not in my neighbourhood") & all the other 'out of touch' Parliamentarian wannabees approach the US President in Global stature backed by an uber National wealth & populous significance.

The uber National Wealth is expected to be underpinned by immigrant loaded GST which can go 20% at the very hint of a war footing.

When things get too hot Parlimentarians can retire, move to the Gold Coast and let some other halfwit run the country and deal with Harris Parky immigrant sludges and all the other social cockups that Rudd & Co are building (and downplaying) on their way to fame and glory.

UNSUSTAINABLE?

YEAH!

But LOOK at the advantages!

We can have a prime minister with his own Air Force One.

Why, we can have enough Nimitz class carriers and Abrams tanks so every Australian can have a nice war.

And all the victims in Harris Park? Its not as if they're genetically superior new-Labor rich-immigrant stock. They are necessary and in some ways appropriate casualties of .. er .. economic Growth.