Freediver, the comment re lifestyle considerations not being sufficient is attributed to a number of business leaders in Cairns when trying to recruit from Brisbane and Sydney. The main sticking point is income. I'm not referring merely to white people either - dont make those sort of assumptions. There are plenty of people of "coloured" backgrounds who are perfectly good employees and whose skin types (and possibly even their acclimatisation from country of origin) suits the tropics. White-skinned people will suffer just as much on the beaches of Bondi than in an office complex in Cairns.

As far as cheap labour goes, the businesses are already there (in many cases). The rate of potential growth is quite rapid and what's holding back is the lack of employees.

No-one is trying to make people move out of the city onto the land freediver - you dont need to make wild exaggerations of the position of other posters in order to make your point. The aim is simply to encourage them to consider moving to areas where they have better living conditions, and provide a workforce to regional business. As regions continue to grow in strength, the need to the extra encouragement will wane and it can be phased-out as required. The US has been very successful at fostering industry and growth throughout its countryside, not just in a handful of major cities. Cities have indeed grown up around some of the areas of industrial development. The US is markedly different to Australia, but some of the benefits that they have achieved from this approach could also be brought to bear here.

"Freediver, the comment re lifestyle considerations not being sufficient is attributed to a number of business leaders in Cairns when trying to recruit from Brisbane and Sydney. The main sticking point is income.

This is not becuase income is somehow more important than lifestyle, or one is insufficient. It's because income is what they negotiate over. It's not like the boss is going to say, OK I'll throw in a 10% better lifestyle for you and a free savings account, how about that? Every business, including those in the city, have the same problem - employees cost money. There is nothing special about Cairns, except that the lifestyle will make people prepared toa ccept a lower salary.

"The aim is simply to encourage them to consider moving to areas where they have better living conditions, and provide a workforce to regional business.

I realise this. I have responded. It costs money. That money has to come from somewhere. Thus, you have to justify it. Merely pointing out that there is potential for growth is not a justification. Cities have the potential to grow also. It's not like one sort of growth is better. The growth you envisage for regional areas will come at the expense of growth in cities. You assume this is a good thing, but that is not a reasonable or valid assumption.

"The US has been very successful at fostering industry and growth throughout its countryside, not just in a handful of major cities.

The US, and most other places, has far more fertile land throughout the country. The US has also been great at fostering growth in cities.

"The US is markedly different to Australia, but some of the benefits that they have achieved from this approach could also be brought to bear here.

Your almost there. I can tell that soon you are going to attempt to provide some justification for the billions of dollars you want to throw at this problem. Don't stop now. I just hope it is something more substantial than 'hey, let's try to be more like America'.

As soon as I have a spare 24 hours you will get some form of financial analysis. I'm in the process of putting together the figures,just hard getting some of the numbers required. Therefore at this point its a theoretical discussion, which I believe has its own merits (this IS called online opinion, not online facts). The other difficulty is that any factual discussion has to rely on forecasts,which by their nature are not good future predictors. One can come up with how much this might cost,but not necessarily what the long-term financial impact will be - its in this area that assumptions need to be made,which you will evidently not be happy with. That's why I have sought discussion over the qualitative outcomes before the quantitative ones.

"Cities have the potential to grow also. It's not like one sort of growth is better." Yes,cities have the capacity for economic growth, but space,resources and pollution have become major concerns. This is especially evident in Sydney,Melbourne and Brisbane/Gold Coast. These limitation factors can be difficult and expensive to overcome. Hence in some cases it may be cheaper and more beneficial to the country overall to encourage growth in different areas,which is one of the points of this discussion.

Yes the US has been good at fostering growth in cities as well as regional areas. My point is that it has used government policy to work on BOTH,not just one. Our policy on the other hand has been centralisation, and some of the problems with this are now becoming evident (see above). Yes,the US has more fertile land,but I thought we were getting away from the farming debate. I'm talking about regional industries - farming already gets assistance, although not to the extent of ths US and EU. Surely we are smart enough to come up with ways to utilise our space that dont involve farming (or giant quarries). The US has been able to foster and create regional industries that DONT rely on a farming base - we can learn from them in this instance.

"As soon as I have a spare 24 hours you will get some form of financial analysis.

I don't need the numbers just yet. It would help if you at least gave hints as to why we should sacrifice growth in one area for growth in another. So far you have focussed almost exlcusively on the growth that is gained, while ignoring the growth that is sacrificed.

"Yes,cities have the capacity for economic growth, but space,resources and pollution have become major concerns. This is especially evident in Sydney,Melbourne and Brisbane/Gold Coast.

As opposed to say New York, Tokyo and London? Is Brisbane near some kind of limit as to how far you can scale up cities and still get net economic benefits? Please enlighten us.

"My point is that it has used government policy to work on BOTH,not just one.

Are you saying our government has ignored regional areas? That's a rather odd assertion, given that we are one of the few countries on earth with a major party dedicated to representing the interests of regional areas. Many analysts, such as Jared Diamond, believe that regional areas get too much and that this is harming our society. He points to a few reasons behind this, such as our cultural 'affinity' for the bush, which is at odds with the reality of life in Australia.

"The US has been able to foster and create regional industries that DONT rely on a farming base - we can learn from them in this instance.

The US just has big cities inland. That's all. Most of your ideas would not create industry dispersed through rural areas. It would transfer it from some cities to others.

I'm not advocating that every town will be a mecca for industrial growth, more that there is decent potential for good growth in some areas, and that government and policy has a role to play in promoting and fostering this growth. Yes the US has cities inland. These have grown up over time around industry. They have sought over time to move industry off the seaboard (yes I know that Cairns is on the seabaord), and away from just a few major port hubs. We can benefit from doing the same. We are not the US and should not aim to be, but we can learn and benefit from some of the approaches that they have taken. There are concerns that have been raised with other approachs that the US have used (such as enterprise zones), and what I am looking at is a different approach to the same problem. Yes it will have its problems and inequities like any other approach. Ideally we can come up with something that is as effective AND fair as possible.

New York/London/Toyko do not have some of the restrictions that our current large cities have, in particular water. I put it to you that there are already massive complaints about crowding, housing shortages and transport concerns now, without growing to the sizes of your examples. What I propose is the help generate a reasonably consistent growth rate for the country as a whole, but slow it down in areas (such as Sydney) that are unable to cope with their current growth rates. Its governments job to help regulate this.

This post limit thing is getting tedious and frustrating. Hopefully I will have the OzPolitic forum up and running again today. I will try to take this up there.

part 1 of 2

"They have sought over time to move industry off the seaboard

What active policies did they use, if any? I would assume that it just happened that way, due largely to economic pressures - the same pressures leading the collapse of many small towns across the US and Australia.

"New York/London/Toyko do not have some of the restrictions that our current large cities have, in particular water.

Perhaps you didn't know, but Australian use more water per person than most other countries. We do not have a water shortage problem. We have a water wastage problem.

"I put it to you that there are already massive complaints about crowding, housing shortages and transport concerns now, without growing to the sizes of your examples.

Of course, people complain about everything and anything. But they still choose to live there don't they? The government isn't forcing them? As you pointed out earlier, there is not a shortage of jobs in the bush. Employers are crying our for more people everywhere. City jobs just pay more because most businesses perform better ina more centralised environment.

"What I propose is the help generate a reasonably consistent growth rate for the country as a whole, but slow it down in areas (such as Sydney) that are unable to cope with their current growth rates. Its governments job to help regulate this.

Sydney is able to cope. What you cite as restrictions and inabilities to cope are not in fact real limitations. If they were, there would be no need for the government to intervene - people would just move elsewhere. The problem with what you hope to achieve is that Sydney and the other capitals can easily absorb even more people, if they want to pay the price.