Rhian

I guess you will agree that the immigrant intake is much much more malleable than our fertility rate. As you said, “demographic transition takes decades to unfold” when based on changes in fertility patterns.

So why on earth don’t we adjust our immigrant composition and just not worry at all about the fertility rate?

Worrying about the fertility rate instead of immigration seems akin to filling your swimming pool with a thimble when you have a hose right next to you!

It seems to me that you are wrong with the rest of your post because you have completely overlooked the enormous ability that we have to adjust our demographics with adjustments to immigration.

There is no way in the world that we are going to ‘suffer’ an actual decline in population, for as long as the powers that be are growth-oriented and can adjust immigration numbers pretty much at will.

“Increasing migration to offset the effects of ageing is subject to rapidly decreasing returns…”

Absolutely. And the same applies with increases to the birthrate. Increasing population growth is not the answer to our concerns about an aging population.

“…sustaining higher birth rates now and allowing a more gradual transition to zero population growth…”

But who’s planning on a transition to zero population growth? Certainly not Costello or Howard, or Beazley or ….or anyone!! If stabilising population was part of the plan, then a boost in fertility, in conjunction with a decline in immigration might almost be acceptable.

Ludwig

If all we cared about was the Australian head count, then I would agree that stopping migration now and reintroducing a large immigration program at some stage in future would be the quickest way to stabilise population without draconian anti-child measures (but not that this is a desirable goal to achieve).

However, the impact of migration on the ageing of the population is asymmetrical. Raising the immigration rate only reduces ageing a little, but cutting net migration to zero makes it significantly worse.

(see McDonald, Peter and Kippen, Rebecca. ‘The Impact of Immigration on the Ageing of Australia's Population’, DIMIA, 1999.)

This means that not only would you cause much more rapid aging if you eliminated net migration now; you’d also need to have a much increased migration program in future to ameliorate the effects - or have a much older age profile. Which is why I argue that a smooth transition is preferable to turning the migration tap fully off now, and fully on in future.

And while migration is certainly malleable from year to year, its impact on the composition of the population also takes decades to unfold – demography is not amenable to short-term fixes.

I’d like to know why you think that stabilising population is not a desirable goal Rhian.

The question remains, why bother with manipulation of the fertility rate if it takes decades for the results to unfold?

Surely if we are talking about decades, then we have GOT to be talking about the timeframe in which population stabilisation is absolutely necessary. Surely there are much bigger factors to worry about in that timeframe than an aging population or the effect of fertility rates on it.

Your concern about aging seems to be at stark odds with your apparent lack of concern about sustainability (ie the need for population stabilisation). Surely sustainability is vastly more important. Surely if we do not rapidly gear ourselves towards a balance between the number of people on this continent and the life-support systems that those people demand essential resources from, then we can forget about ANY support for the elderly or for the tax-payer that is burdened by an increasing cost of pensions and healthcare for retirees.

Let’s worry about sustainability first and foremost. Let’s not get hung up on this relatively minor concern about an aging population.

Ludwig, I don’t believe our current population levels and growth are unsustainable. We have one of the lowest population densities in the world, and our resources are more than sufficient to support a larger population.

Most of our water is used in agriculture, and most of our agricultural produce is exported. That’s fine by me. But if domestic consumption represents a higher value use, let’s use our water and food to service domestic markets instead. And let’s have governments with the courage to take decisions to match water supply and demand (prices that reflect costs, recycling where appropriate, the construction of infrastructure such as dams and desalination where necessary).

Many of our most pressing environmental problems are not going to be solved by changing population levels (within plausible bounds) – salinity, species loss and climate change will remain problems of much the same magnitude whether our population in 20 years time is 22 million or 28 million.

Greenhouse is a global problem requiring global solutions. Migration doesn’t increase the world’s population it just rearranges it, so cutting migration will have no effect on global greenhouse emissions.

I’m not denying that there is any relationship between population growth and environmental pressures, but I do believe that these pressure can be managed, and that our most pressing environmental issues are unlikely to improve much as a result of any plausible demographic policies.

I see the costs of population growth as manageable, and exceeded by the benefits. These are mainly social and cultural – the pleasure of living in a diverse, globally-linked, complex and evolving society – but also (secondarily) economic, as there does seem to be a positive link in Australia between population growth and real per capita living standards.

The real risk in blaming our environmental problems on population growth is that it diverts attention from the measures necessary to really address them.

Hopefully this discussion hasn't turned into a bickerfest between two people. It's a topic that matters to a lot of people and it would be a shame to exclude others by turning it into a private exchange even if that is the privilege of the author.

Hi , with a friend we have a discution going as follow
is the immigration being a replacement for a proper technical education
policy , when the country need some qualified manpower it is simpler
and cheaper to import it than to make it .
technical education in N.S.W. ( I don't knows other states ) is very
bad , immigration seems to be a device to put training in the "too
hard basket

.