Daggett, if you want to argue you have to be able to put the arguments yourself - not suggest I go and read someone's thesis. GDP is rigorous because it counts things that can be counted and measured. Some of the things that you appear to want to put into the measure are impossible to quantify. What is the "bad" that accrues from a car accident? How do you measure it?

I wouldn't agree with Pericles that we are better off than we were just because GDP has gone up, but I subjectively agree with him. We're certainly a richer society, and you can measure that on the basis of GDP, and it's really immaterial what you say Kuznets might or might not have thought. Just because he invented a measure, it doesn't mean he's the only person entitled to a view of what it means.

I've got no idea why the French ended their policy of high immigration in 1974, if in fact they did. There seemed to be a lot of immigrants burning parts of Paris earlier this year.

Graham,

Of course the fraction of GNP that goes to accommodate population growth is worth it if the population is below the optimum. If this were the case, then GNP per capita would be increasing significantly with population. It isn't. If you think mass migration and high population growth is a net benefit then you need to explain why the Nordic countries are doing so well without it. Our thesis is that certain groups derive handsome economic benefits from population growth and can buy their way out of much of the downside, others don't lose in economic terms, but do suffer from reduced quality of life, and still others suffer both economically and otherwise.

In the US, GNP per capita has gone up since the country was opened up to mass migration in 1965. However, the median wage has been stagnant in real terms since 1973. *All* of the benefits of economic growth have gone to the folk at the top, although many families have maintained or increased their income by working longer hours. The minimum wage is worth less in real terms than in 1960 when Eisenhower introduced it. It is worse to be in the bottom 10% in America than in any other OECD country, and worse in absolute, not just relative terms. (See the graphs at the Economic Policy Institute site, www.epinet.org). According to George Borjas, Professor of Economics at Harvard, unskilled workers took an 8% cut in real wages between 1980 and 2000 due to immigration alone (and more due to other factors). See www.borjas.com.

Our viewpoint is hardly fringe. The Center for Immigration Studies (www.cis.org) reports a 2006 poll. People were informed about expected population growth and asked what a one third increase in the population of their community would do to their quality of life. Answer: 34% much worse, 31% somehat worse, 21% no difference, 6% better, and 1% much better. 68% wanted immigration cut and only 2% increased. 70% thought that there would be plenty of Americans to do unskilled work if pay and conditions were improved.

Graham,

No, I wasn't expecting that you go off to read all of Sheila Newman's thesis yourself. I was pointing out that there was hard evidence for my assertion that Australia's growth lobby exerted undue influence.

I am perfectly happy to put the arguments up myself, although it needs to be said that the limits imposed by Online Opinion have often made it hard to do this. I trust that if ever do try to get around this again in order to make a lengthy and involved argument, I won't find my posts arbitrally removed, without warning, as has once occurred.

You stated : "I've got no idea why the French ended their policy of high immigration in 1974, ..."

It is explained on pages 100-101 of the thesis (downloadable from http://www.candobetter.org/sheila):

"In Australia, where immigration remains high, despite quite substantial public disapproval about this, the costs seem too diffuse to mobilise and focus any wide-based and influential section of society, whereas the benefits have given rise to an active, well financed, highly organised lobbying business sector - notably the private land development and housing industries - seeking a bigger local market. During the era of massive industrialisation in France, employers in manufacturing eagerly courted mass immigration, but changes to industry requirements, plus free movement within the EEC, were to eliminate the benefits focused in this area. With the Oil Shock of 1973, after which 'worker immigration' was stopped throughout the EEC no such organised group rose to defend high immigration, with the short-lived exception of the ... National Federation of French Employers (CNPF). Patrick Weil attributes France keeping her borders open for one year longer than Germany to CNPF lobbying. But as the recession bit, the CNPF also became silent. In fact there is evidence that advice from the then head of the CNPF influenced the man who initiated the immigration policy changes in France. This failure to protest at the closing of the borders to immigration is almost certainly because no organised group in receipt of narrowly focused benefits from high immigration existed any more in France."

Graham wrote: "What is the 'bad' that accrues from a car accident? How do you measure it?"

The economic activity resulting from a car accident is considered by the GDP measure to be just as much a benefit to the national economy as if an equivalent amount were spent, for example, building a bus shelter.

Whilst, in general, there is a very rough correlation between a country's prosperity and its GDP, there is enormous scope for harm to our wellbeing to be concealed behind GDP figures.

On at least two levels, immigration causes harm to the interests of those who already live here, without it being accurately reflected in the GDP measure. The obvious way that it harms us is that there is now less natural resources for each person in the country. Another way is the dis-economies of scale caused by crowding ever more people into the same land area. Have a look at the terrible traffic congestion in Brisbane and the enormous expense that Brisbane residents will now have to go to in order to 'solve' this with the North South Bypass Tunnel (http://www.notunnels.org), the Hale Street Bridge (http://www.stopthehalestreetbridge.org) and other projects. The cost of the NSBT has blown out from the original estimate $900 million at most to $3billion. Also, the estimated cost of the planned Ipswich bypass has doubled. How is it that when Brisbane was less crowded we could build the necessary transport structure easily and without forcing motorists to pay tolls to travel across Brisbane?

In a few years time, Pericles, will, no doubt, be able to cite GDP figures as further evidence of the 'neutral' or 'positive' economic impact of immigration and population growth as its park benches overflow with the homeless and as a gridlocked Brisbane chokes to death on car exhaust.

I have heard a Swinburne population expert say that when you look at the migration of the 1950s the major beneficiaries were the factories like Ford, General Motors etc that employed the migrants on their production line. The ministry of housing provided housing for the workers and the state built schools to educate their children.

There may be a shortage of rental property in some parts of Australia but other parts of Australia have a glut of housing stock. While we live in a free market its up to the individual investor to make decisions about whether its better to buy investment property in Brisbane, Perth or Melbourne or Sydney or stuff his money under his mattress.

Daggett, you've never had a post arbitrarily removed, although it might have been without "warning" if it breached the rules, if you don't think that posting clear rules on the site doesn't constitute a warning.

If the rest of Sheila Newman's thesis is as illogical as the excerpt, just as well I haven't downloaded it. The reason that there is no lobby appears to be because there isn't a need, not because there aren't groups who could lobby. The oil shock depressed the economy, made unemployment high and therefore made immigrants unnecessary for immigration, and immigration unattractive to those looking for work.

But that doesn't mean that France doesn't have an immigration policy, or receive immigrants. It does - and the scheme looks remarkably similar to Australia's. They had around 100,000 new entries in 2001, and they actively look for highly skilled professionals, just like we do. Our intake is higher per capita, but then, we have a shortage of employees. If we didn't I don't think that land-developers and real estate agents would be nearly as convincing.

With respect to the car accident example, most of the GDP benefit from the accident is from remediation. All objects wear out, and someone has to fix them. Accidents are part of the process of wearing out in some cases, and I can't see why you should take objection to the income that is earned fixing or replacing them being included in the GDP.

And all of this is a side-track from my original contention that you should wind immigration back, at least until the housing stock catches up, which I suspect we mostly agree about.