malthusista, I think we've been arguing at cross purposes. I was referring to a steady economic and technological state, not a steady population. I do not dispute the latter was the case in many parts of the world for centuries, though not always by design.

And your "like battery hens" rhetoric doesn't improve your argument. If people to choose to live in high rises, what's wrong with that?

I love this forum, entertains me for hours :). What sense does it make to bring in immigrants who are uneducated or unskilled or possibly cannot speak English not to mention many unwilling to integrate? Surely a burden on tax payers.
Someone mentioned getting rid of the baby bonus (does it still exist?). If it does yes get rid of it, I imagined, when it was introduced, lower income couples/singles, teens becoming pregnant because of the almighty dollar, lots of, being dangled in front of them.
The ludicrous paid parental leave. Who pays for this? If its the tax payer, get rid of it or reduce it to the amount of a dole payment. It is ridiculously over the top. If the employer is going to be made responsible for them as well as pay their replacement, I know I would certainly frown upon employing any female of child bearing age.
Besides the fact it should not even be necessary, its kind of incentive to stay pregnant dont you think?
One more thing. The first home buyers payment, I think around $10,000 at the moment. Is that tax payers money? If it is its wrong on two levels. Stop it. And I wonder how many young couples were tempted by the carrot dangling in front of them, putting themselves into a world of debt -$400,000 or so thinking $10,000 will make a difference. These bonuses in many instances have probably been more detrimental in the long run. Onya chief controllers!

I know this is a touchy subject but here goes. There is a large number of unemployed youths and young adults living in towns throughout WA in particular, who could help greatly reduce tax payer funded benefits. Recently in a Pilbara town, companies were invited to a get together with the local unemployed, presenting them the offer of a life time. BBq was arranged for the 220 attending. These companies were to receive Govt subsiby packages to offer employment, training and apprenticeships opportunities. Truck driving and other skills that do not usually fall into your lap. I didnt actually hear if there were any expressions of interest shown but once the food was gone, the large group of guests promptly departed. Not one company was able to secure a single trainee ship. I wonder why anyone would turn down that opportunity to remain on the dole, for which they will soon be working.

Aidan wrote: "I think we've been arguing at cross purposes."

Then we're agreed it's Australia's current record rate of population "that's unsustainable"?

As for my '"like battery hens" rhetoric':

Obviously, those living in cramped high rise apartments are not living literally like battery hens. Nevertheless, to have, as living space, perhaps five or six small rooms and maybe a balcony high above the dirt and bushes is hardly what I would have thought that previous generations of Australians, who mostly lived in freestanding homes, would have considered 'progress'.

Unless each person added to the population through birth or immigration is able to export more than what he/she needs to import to be able to sustain himself/herself, adding more to Australia's population can only reduce the wealth of the average Australian already living here.

With the destruction of Australia's manufacturing sector and the current reduction in demand for Australia's mineral exports (not to mention its unsustainability in the long term), a large number of new arrivals can only reduce our standard of living.

So, as Australia as a whole is becoming ever more impoverished and environmentally degraded as a result of high immigration, a small minority is perversely gaining. That minority includes land speculators and property developers.

In at least one previous era (as well as now) another minority was also able to grotesquely gain from war as millions died and had their homes and property destroyed. That war was the almost entirely avoidable Second World against Nazi Germany. It should have ended shortly after Italy switched sides in July 1943, if not before.

Instead, the war dragged on in Europe until May 1945 causing hundreds of thousands more to die in the West and an even more terrible death toll in Eastern Europe.

The first sentence in my previous post should have read:

'Then we're agreed it's Australia's current record rate of population [growth] "that's unsustainable"?'

- my apologies

jodelie,

There was a time in my life, when a job in the Pilbara, with the reputedly good pay and working conditions, would have been attractive to me.

Nonetheless, we should not rush to judge those who are unwilling to work, even in the Pilbara.

Whilst there may be worse ways to earn a living than working in those mines, I can think of far better and more creative ways to spend my time.

Whilst most would be unaware or have forgotten by now, in the late 1970's the Australian Trade Union movement started to fight for a 35 hour working week.

The achievement of the 35 hour week was supposed to be the first step towards a further reduction in working hours so that we could all have more time to do the things we enjoy rather than spend our time performing menial, boring and/or stressful tasks.

Instead, after decades of supposed supposed efficiency gains brought about by 'reforms' from the likes of Hawke, Keating, Kennett and Howard, most of us, who have work, are working longer hours at nights or on weekends. In addition, creeping credentialism is forcing many to spend more of their evenings and weekends studying to gain further qualifications.

Where workers are not compelled to work longer hours, many see no other choice because of much higher living expenses, including for rent, mortgage repayments, education, etc.

malthusista,
'Then we're agreed it's Australia's current record rate of population [growth] "that's unsustainable"?'
Not exactly. If we continue to undervalue the environment then we will fail to achieve sustainability even with no population growth. But if we take the problems seriously, Australia can achieve sustainability even with a much higher rate of population growth.

"Obviously, those living in cramped high rise apartments are not living literally like battery hens. Nevertheless, to have, as living space, perhaps five or six small rooms and maybe a balcony high above the dirt and bushes is hardly what I would have thought that previous generations of Australians, who mostly lived in freestanding homes, would have considered 'progress'."
That's not where I want to live either, but that's largely because I've got quite a lot of stuff. But most of that stuff is books, papers, magazines, CDs, tapes, DVDs etc. Stuff that's increasingly available as digital downloads, so it would be idiotic to assume the next generation has the same space requirements as I do.

Remember, nobody's forcing people to live in those flats; there are plenty of freestanding homes available further out.

"Unless each person added to the population through birth or immigration is able to export more than what he/she needs to import to be able to sustain himself/herself, adding more to Australia's population can only reduce the wealth of the average Australian already living here"
That's not actually true, as there's a lot more to wealth than foreign currency value. In fact your statement is an example of the kind of mentality that's still wrecking the Great Barrier Reef!

"With the destruction of Australia's manufacturing sector and the current reduction in demand for Australia's mineral exports (not to mention its unsustainability in the long term), a large number of new arrivals can only reduce our standard of living."
A dubious claim. For instance another possibility is they could revitalise our manufacturing sector.