“Advocates of much higher population in a short timeframe are as unrealistic and authoritarian as advocates of zero or negative population growth, in my experience. I don’t believe we should have any population target.”

Mmmm interesting Rhian.

So you advocate a slow or moderate rate of population growth, presumably like we have now (if we can call the current rate slow or moderate).

“Why do I support migration? Mainly because I enjoy the social and cultural benefits of membership of a diverse, dynamic, globally attuned society…”

Well…. wouldn’t you consider a higher immigration intake to increase these benefits?

It seems that you are balancing this perceived cultural benefit with something that you are not telling us about. Could it be that you do see real environmental or societal problems with high immigration / pop growth? (I’m not meaning to be rude. Just trying to get to the nub of the issue)

I think Divergence is quite right. The cultural benefits are here and have been for a long time. I can’t see that immigration adds to them significantly any more.

“Adjusting for the fact that Europeans began settlement in the USA almost 170 years before Australia, our population growth since settlement has probably been a little faster that theirs”

Sure. But the enormous discrepancy between the US and Australian populations is first and foremost due to the enormous difference in basic life-supporting resources.

“overall population growth has not been a key driver of recent rapid increases in house prices.”

Fine. But neither does population growth lower prices, or raise income or increase average per-capita economic growth and quality of life, as we have been led to believe by various waves of pro-growth politicians.

So if this growth is not doing us any good in hard economic terms, quality of life terms, environmental terms, sustainability terms…..or cultural diversity terms, then it has surely got to be time to curtail it. By the way, a stable population scenario with net zero immigration, would still allow for a significant immigration program of 30 000 or more per annum.

Ludwig, I disagree, migration raises both average per-capita economic growth and (more importantly) quality of life. That’s what the balance of Australian evidence shows.

I’m not advocating any particular rate of migration - slow fast or moderate - but I do think that those who say (I believe Hugh Morgan did) that we should have 50 million people by the middle of the decade are as off-the-wall as those (from memory, Tim Flannery is one) arguing for a population of about 10 million.

You are right to say that we currently enjoy a diverse culture. But here again the inexorable long-term grind of demographics is at work. Even though our numerical migrant intake is almost back to the levels of the mid 1980s, in percentage terms these numbers represent a smaller proportion of our resident population. So the percentage of the population born overseas will almost certainly fall over the next few decades. Cutting net migration to zero will make that transformation deeper and more rapid.

“.. the enormous discrepancy between the US and Australian populations is first and foremost due to the enormous difference in basic life-supporting resources”. Then why did our population grow faster in our first 200 years than the USA’s? Once human societies move beyond subsistence, local life-supporting resources are decreasingly important in determining quality of life. Otherwise China would be super rich and Japan, Taiwan and Singapore dirt poor.

You conclude “So if this growth is not doing us any good in hard economic terms, quality of life terms, environmental terms, sustainability terms …..or cultural diversity terms, then it has surely got to be time to curtail it”. I would agree, but the key word here is “if”.

In fact, population growth is doing us some good in hard economic terms, and more good in terms of quality of life and cultural diversity. In environmental terms it causes some problems, but these nowhere near as bad as the alarmists claim, and can be managed. So on balance, it’s as good thing.

(there was a typo in my previous post – the Mayflower landed in 1620).

How can agricultural water benefit cities? Most is too far away from major populations, and very little is available all the time, which is a prerequisite for domestic water.

I realise that there is substantial theoretical research suggesting that immigration is beneficial, but a real per capita benefit has not been proven, and much research of late suggests the contrary.

The notion of an ideal population could be useful, as it would imply that immigration could be beneficial where a population was below its ideal. It could also provide an objective standard, as most proponents think Australia's water, environment and resources are capable of supporting a far greater population, which is in stark contrast to many opponents believing that we are well in the red now.

There is nothing wrong with stating that you enjoy a diversity of cultures, but the suggestion that immigration creates a superior society is blatantly racist, as it implies that one racial mix is superior to another.

“migration raises both average per-capita economic growth and (more importantly) quality of life.”

Rhian, we’ll have to agree to strongly disagree on this.

The overall size of our economic turnover continues to increase largely due to population growth, which generates ever-increasing demand for all sorts of stuff. But per-capita economic turnover just simply isn’t increasing. Have real wages gone up in recent years? Has our purchasing power increased?

What’s the point of having an ever-bigger economy if it is not leading to improvements in quality of life, or to things like better national security, better environment integrity and faster rates of repair, better management of our stressed resources and so on? It just seems to be more of the same with no gain, except for a few already rich and powerful people….and with a steady decline in a lot of parameters.

We've had the same sort of rapid growth for decades, always espoused by politicians as the answer to our woes. But the problems have steadily worsened. So what do they do? Espouse the same old solutions, or I should say; non-solutions.

The majority of the wealth that is generated by or in association with population growth is being concentrated in the pockets of a small minority, which means that for most of us the decline is considerably larger than the average fall in per-capita economic growth would suggest.

As far as quality of life factors go, what about all the diseconomies of scale such as increased congestion, increased demand on stressed resources, especially water, increased coastal development and the consequent decline in natural environment values, which affects us via tourism, recreation, fishing, etc...and heaps of others?

Alright, so you think that population growth is a good thing. Up to what point? Should our population reach 30 million? Should our growth rate stay as it is or be increased? Can you outline just exactly what scenario you want to see.

Rhian , one thing we do know is that population growth and industry are destroying our natural environment now , just as was occurring in the 1800's.
Major Mitchell while exploring Northern NSW and QLD with his typical large party in about the 1840's said in his diary he was embarassed in front of his "sable" Guide when the pristine water hole they were going to camp on was already badly polluted by cattle .
Believe me, speaking from experience it doesn't taste too good .
Why growth for growth's sake ?[kartiya].

Sorry, Forrest, I haven't looked at the political aspects of all this and am not aware of any claims of fraudulent voting by aliens. Paul Sheehan in 'Among the Barbarians' made claims about the Labor Party encouraging migration from certain areas to gain an electoral advantage, but presumably this would be after the migrants became citizens.

Rhian,
Some time ago the politicians essentially abandoned efforts towards decentralisation, so most of the jobs are in a few major cities. There is only so much land within reasonable commuting distance of these cities. In the 1970s the land was 30% of the cost of an average house, and now it is 80%, even if the house itself is more lavish. A number of more volatile factors act to increase demand, including a trend to smaller households and internal migration. If you pick a sufficiently short time frame, then it can look as if population growth is relatively insignificant. I note your use of the word "recent". A (pro-immigration) contributor to this forum called Foundation did the numbers over a longer time frame and found that population growth was significant in lack of housing affordability. No one would be speculating in real estate if he didn't think demand and prices were going to increase. Why else is the real estate industry lobbying hard for more and more population growth?

If you look hard enough you will no doubt find a study that says immigration has economic benefits. There are experts who will say that alien abductions are real and that the HIV virus doesn't cause AIDS. I notice that the 1997 US National Academy of Sciences Report
came to the same conclusions about population growth (negligible benefit) as the Productivity Commission, and also that it is causing increasing social inequality (see refs. to this and similar studies at the Center for Immigration studies site, www.cis.org). If you were right, the benefits of mass migration would be unmistakable, just like the damage to our environment and quality of life. You may be keen on permanent water restrictions, but I am not.