Divergence,

It seems I may have been slightly misunderstood with respect to those who migrate to Australia who remain technically, with respect to citizenship, aliens. I was not suggesting that in any way, or at any time over the last 60 years, improper voting BY ALIENS has been of significance. Quite the reverse. What I was questioning was whether the very presence of a significant number of people who fall into this category can act as a smokescreen against effective auditing of the Australian electoral administration and process. The fluid category of aliens simply collectively and unwittingly would fulfill a role of making the electoral enrolment statistics, should anyone be monitoring them, appear inconclusive.

I would hate to add fuel to the fire of any simplistic 'anti-migrant' debate through being inarticulate or misunderstood. This topic is about population growth misconceptions, and if I understand the seemingly well argued points of other posters, particularly Ludwig and Rhian, there does not seem to have been at any time an overwhelming case for pursuing, as a matter of national policy, migration as a means to achieving population growth. That is not to say there has been no benefit, either to migrants themselves or to the society that has received them. Again, quite the reverse. But the issue seems to be growth for its own sake. So I look for possible explanations to what appears, across the political spectrum, to be a dogmatic adherence to a sustained policy of encouraging and/or facilitating migration at any price. All I suggest is that perhaps persons uneasy about the implications of population growth in general, or migration in particular, may be looking in the wrong direction for explanations.

On this point, those administering the electoral process cannot audit themselves. Who does this job? How long has it been being done? More to the point, what sort of a job has been done? Does anybody know?

Forrest,

You might have a look at the Center for Immigration Studies site, www.cis.org, in the US where they have had similar issues. I am concerned about the possibility for election fraud too, but I think that what is driving both high immigration and the baby bonus are economic benefits from growth to the top 10% and more particularly, the top 0.5%. If you own some of the limited supply of urban land and have more and more people competing for it then you can get very rich, very fast. The corporate elite also get bigger captive domestic markets, and a cheap, cowed work force that doesn't dare complain about exploitation or unsafe working conditions. There are large savings on training costs. Take a look at the State of Working America graphs at the Economic Policy Institute, www.epinet.org, to track the growth over the years in the share of the economy going to the folk at the top while wages stagnated or even went backwards in real terms for the bottom 80%. The Edwin Rubinstein archive at vdare.com is also useful for this.

Upper middle class people also support the high immigration because they get a buzz from diversity and "global attunement". Their own jobs are safe, since they generally require recognised tertiary qualifications, good English, and often an intimate knowledge of the culture. They can usually afford to go private, so don't need to worry about crumbling public health and education, and to live in neighbourhoods that are too expensive for most migrants. In the US there are also benefits from illegal immigrant nannies and the like.

This elite controls the mass media and can afford to "donate" handsomely to politicians and reward them with investment tips. Once the politician leaves politics he can often expect a nice sinecure as a consultant or company director.

It could be even more sinister of course. The sorts of people we are dealing with are not above jailing political opponents, as with Pauline Hanson and earlier with Albert Langer.

Ludwig, asks “Have real wages gone up in recent years? Has our purchasing power increased?” The answer to both questions is emphatically “yes”.

In the past 15 years, average full-time earnings have risen by 85%, while the Consumer Price Index rose by just 46% - that’s real earnings growth of more than 25%. Over the same period real (after inflation) household consumption rose by 71%, while the population rose by less than 20%, so real per capita consumption increased by 43%. Even if some of this growth was accounted for by the super-rich, most of it benefited ordinary folk. It is growth ahead of Australia’s long-term average and of most other mature developed economies.

Other measures of our quality of like are also improving – life expectancy is rising, more people are going to university or experiencing foreign travel. Contrary to popular perceptions, we’re working shorter hours on average.

Divervence, the likes of the Productivity Commission are hardly equivalent to believers in alien abduction. Other studies that show a small but positive economic impact include William Foster’s “Immigration and the Australian Economy”, and ACIL Consulting’s “Impact of Migrants on the Commonwealth Budget”, and research by Econtech and the Bureau of Immigration, Multicultural and Population Research. Typically, independent and credible research shows a small but unequivocally positive improvement in average living standards (and in employment and unemployment and the budget bottom line) in Australia as a result of migration.

“The answer to both questions is emphatically ‘yes’.”

Crikey Rhian really? So why is it then that one-income households have been replaced to a very significant extent by two-income households…. that still struggle to make ends meet?

“so real per capita consumption increased by 43%.”

That’s a hell of a claim. Very rubbery figures I would suggest. Where did you source them?

“Other measures of our quality of like are also improving….”

So what about all the ones that aren’t improving? What is the net effect on our quality of life?

“life expectancy is rising”

Yes. But is that connected to continuous growth?

“more people are going to university or experiencing foreign travel.”

You presumably mean a greater proportion of the population?

What about our health system, education, law enforcement, etc? Despite considerable technological advances in all of these areas, you could hardly say that these services have significantly improved on a per-capita basis. And yet these are the core issues that a growing economy is supposed to be constantly improving.

Can you answer these questions from my last post…

‘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.’

Thanks

Ludwig
All my data were sourced from the Australian Bureau of Statistics website (http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/viewcontent?readform&view=ProductsbyCatalogue&Action=expandwithheader&Num=1). Specifically, I used the spreadsheets of data for Average Weekly Earnings (catalogue 6302.0), the Consumer Price Index (catalogue 6401.0), real household consumption data from the National Accounts (catalogue 5206.0) and population data from Australian Demographic Statistics (catalogue 3101.0). You can easily check my numbers and do the math for yourself. I used real seasonally adjusted household consumption divided by population for real consumption growth, and average weekly total earnings divided by the Consumer Price Index for real wage growth. If you believe this methodology or the ABS data are “rubbery”, perhaps you could explain why.

You asked to what point I believe population growth is a good thing. But as I have said before, I don’t believe in population level or growth targets. The natural rate of population growth is determined by couples’ choices about how many children to have. I think that’s as it should be – deciding this is not a role for governments or policymakers (though for other reasons, I support some “family friendly” policies). The level and composition of immigration is varied by the government according to varying humanitarian needs, economic circumstances, and community expectations. These change over time, so I’m reasonably comfortable with the current scheme of annual population targets adjusting as circumstances change (though a bit more predictability and consistency in setting and applying the migration criteria would be a good idea).

How much improvement in average income or living standards from population growth do the studies show? I recall one suggesting a $700 improvement in average income over 20 years: How would this weigh against negatives like increased water charges, traffic congestion, Australia's balance of trade, housing costs, and environmental impacts?
Do the studies consider such things? Is "quality of life" given any consideration at all in the studies?

Harry Triguboff might want another 16 million people in Sydney by 2050, but going by the SMH reader response (the plug got pulled after less than 18 hours), this vision is considered abhorrent by an overwhelming majority. http://blogs.smh.com.au/newsblog/archives/your_say/006689.html

My concern is how population growth will impact on quality of life. Barrie Pittock edited a report on the environmental impact of climate change and its implications for quality of life: http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/science/guide/index.html#summary
The report was substantially misrepresented by Australian media, which trumpeted the finding that Australia could support 50 million, but ignored the proviso that this would entail serious environmental and social degradation. Attempts to have the media redress the misrepresentation were all but ignored.