(Briefly for now:)

There was a debate between Federal Labor MP Kelvin Thomson and Melbourne Lord Mayor Robert Doyle which covers much of the same ground being covered here.

Articles about the debate include: "Update 14-10-2014: Doyle vs Thomson: Big debate on Victoria's population increase - 13 Oct 2014" at http://candobetter.net/node/4066 and "Video: Melbourne Mayor Robert Doyle supports Referendum on Population Growth" at http://candobetter.net/node/4115

The videos of this debate include: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5k8lTD1_x4 (33min)

In my view, and in the view of most of the audience, Kelvin Thomson won the debate emphatically. Kelvin Thomson, together, with most of his own electorate, who are largely of Middle Eastern and Southern European descent, is opposed to the current high immigration scam.

Aidan,

A higher population will increase pressure to divert parkland to human use, just as Harry Triguboff has been advocating.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/triguboff-lets-trade-trees-for-homes/2006/10/10/1160246131958.html

http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2012/05/highrise-harry-wants-more-people/

15% of the Earth's land area for agriculture is not so arbitrary when you consider all the land area that is occupied by deserts, ice caps, tundra, boreal forest, etc. When reserves are too small, animals and plants go extinct. Are you really rooting for the 6th mass extinction?

The big studies on immigration, such as the 1997 US Academy of Sciences report, the 2008 House of Lords report in the UK, and the 2006 Productivity Commission in Australia agree on the main economic conclusions. There is a per capita benefit from immigration, but it is very small. The Productivity Commission modeled doubling skilled migration and found a per capita benefit of less than $400. This benefit is overwhelming distributed to the migrants themselves and the owners of capitals. There are wage depression effects for the rest of the population, varying on how vulnerable the job is to migrant competition. The black community in the US has been particularly hard hit.

This link is to an article by George Borjas, a Harvard economist who was one of the authors of the Academy of Sciences report

http://cis.org/immigration-and-the-american-worker-review-academic-literature

Most studies that show a real economic benefit from immigration assume full employment, but the work force is already hard hit by automation and offshoring.

How is it racist to mention that a recently arrived migrant child who doesn't speak English will create extra problems for the teacher?

By the way, I agree with Shockadelic about our elected leaders. Our main problem isn't that Australians are having too many babies. They aren't. Nor is it that migrants are bad people. They aren't, on average. Our real problem is that most of our elite are traitors. They are running a gigantic Ponzi scheme instead of moving us towards a steady state economy. They are trashing our environment, security, social cohesion, personal freedom, and quality of life. The more that people see the mainstream politicians for what they are, the better.

Divergence,

Though a higher population will increase pressure to divert parkland to human use, it's likely to result in a much bigger increase in pressure to NOT divert parkland to human use.

"15% of the Earth's land area for agriculture is not so arbitrary when you consider all the land area that is occupied by deserts, ice caps, tundra, boreal forest, etc. When reserves are too small, animals and plants go extinct. Are you really rooting for the 6th mass extinction?"
Of course not. But the argument was not about protecting reserves, it was about imposing a TOTALLY ARBITRARY 15% limit that completely failed to take into account how much of everything else was left.

We should be aiming for full employment, but that's a matter for fiscal and monetary policy, and is just as achievable no matter how high or low immigration is. And Australia's regulated wages mean we can avoid a repeat of the USA's problems.

"How is it racist to mention that a recently arrived migrant child who doesn't speak English will create extra problems for the teacher?"
It isn't. But why do you assume the newly arrived migrant child doesn't speak English? Speaking English is one of the main reasons why Australia's such an attractive destination for migrants.

"Our real problem is that most of our elite are traitors. They are running a gigantic Ponzi scheme instead of moving us towards a steady state economy. "
Those who think our economy is a Ponzi scheme invariably don't understand it. Continuous improvement is much better than a steady state.

"They are trashing our environment, security, social cohesion, personal freedom, and quality of life."
Politicians are doing all those things, but not with immigration.

And is it really such a bad thing that our inner suburbs no longer look and feel like country towns? There's plenty of real country towns available for those who prefer them.

I note that, unlike Divergence, Aidan has yet to supply even ONE SOURCE for his assertions that I requested on Tuesday, 25 November 2014 11:25:16 PM, let alone for the additional assertions he has made made since.

Aidan wrote: "Continuous improvement is much better than a steady state."

Does Aidan claim that circumstances will continue to 'improve' indefinitely into the future and that a steady state will never be reached?

In any case, how is peak hour gridlock, higher parking charges, increasingly unaffordable housing, cramped high-rise living conditions for a larger proportion of people and an ever growing list of endangered and extinct native flora and fauna 'improvement'?

I note that whilst claiming that we need not concern ourselves about Australia's current record high immigration rate, Aidan professes to be an environmentalist.

Environmentalists who have spoken against population growth in Australia include David Attenborough, Hans Brunner and the late Judith Wright (1915-2000).

I would be interested to know if Aidan can name one environmentalist who shares his bizarre views about population.

Aidan,

There are a number of economists who don't agree with you. See Leith van Onselen (the "Unconventional Economist") on Macrobusiness for one. Actually, a good explanation came from a comment on one of his posts by Stephen Morris:

"One of the unintended consequences of income inequality has been the difficulty of growing aggregate demand, and therefore growing profits in developed countries. If the incomes of most of the population have stagnated (because the returns from economic growth are going almost entirely to the rich) then it is almost impossible to increase demand.

"Rich country elites have managed to generate some extra demand through loose monetary policy: encouraging people to become indebted in order to maintain their spending. But the Global Financial Crisis and its aftermath showed that there is a limit to this tactic.

"Some extra demand may be accessed by firms selling into export markets. But for many developed country businesses this also is limited. Many are uncompetitive, relying for their domestic 'success' on favours from political Mates, a competitive advantage which cannot be readily translated to export markets. Others are simply in non-tradable sectors tied to the domestic market.

"If domestic per capita incomes have stagnated, and if the borrowing binge is exhausted, and if export markets are not accessible, there is only one variable left to play with, the number of “capitas”.

"If demand and profits are to grow, then the population must be increased.

"This is a problem which affects elite interests in all countries. Hence the campaign to allow uncontrolled population growth through immigration. It is the only way in which the profits of the wealthy can be made to grow further."

Reply to this comment:
"This does seem to be the card the Victorian government has been playing for the past 15 or so years…

"Pump up the population to boost construction and consumption."

http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2014/09/will-a-falling-aud-curb-the-population-ponzi/

malthusista, I make no apologies for not treating a discussion website like a report or university assignment. And I don't regard posting links to show others are of the same opinion as very useful. The absence of insurmountable problems is unfortunately very difficult to prove, but for any problem you care to mention I can explain why it can be overcome.

"Does Aidan claim that circumstances will continue to 'improve' indefinitely into the future and that a steady state will never be reached?"
Though I'm better at predicting the future than most people are, I'm reluctant to rule anything out for all time. But I seriously doubt we will ever either reach perfection or decide the status quo is good enough.

"In any case, how is peak hour gridlock, higher parking charges, increasingly unaffordable housing, cramped high-rise living conditions for a larger proportion of people and an ever growing list of endangered and extinct native flora and fauna 'improvement'?"
Peak hour gridlock and higher parking charges give us a reason to build more railways, saving people time and money while ultimately reducing the traffic congestion.

Increasingly unaffordable housing can be a problem, but it's best addressed with taxation changes. High rise living doesn't have to be cramped, and it's a matter of personal preference - some people like it and some don't.

And an ever growing list of endangered and extinct native flora and fauna is mainly the result of our failing to value what we have.

And no, I don't keep track of which environmentalists think what about population. Environmentalism does require caution, so it's unsurprising that many are conservative on this issue.