Funny you should say that Hasbeen because I have a solution.
If we offered a free trip with citizenship into Australia for any woman who had already had two or more children providing she was willing to have a hysterectomy and also any married man who had two or more children and was willing to have a vasectomy that would slow down the flood.
Of course the present huge flow of migrants and various workers visa holders would have to be stopped.
It would also be made clear that any migrants or refugees would not be allowed to settle here unless they met these requirements i.e. they were now infertile.
The big corporations would scream at having their flow of cheap labour cut off but hard luck for them.

Paul Hollander wrote a book, "Soviet and American
Society: A Comparison" way back in 1978.
I feel it may be still relevant today.

Hollander tells us that the example of democratic
socialism, with its blend of capitalist and
socialist elements, has led some observers to
postulate "convergence theory," the hypothesis
that similar problems faced by capitalist and
socialist societies may influence their evolution
toward a common ultimate form.

He points out things like: -

There are many similarities between the advanced
capitalist and socialist societies. Both are
heavily industrialised, urbanised, and bureaucratized.
Both face the need for constant growth to satisfy
the demands of their respective consumer cultures
and to avoid economic stagnation. Both face problems
of resource depletion and environmental pollution.
Both must find incentives for their workers to
produce, and means to distribute the production among
the population in a way that is perceived as fair.

He tells us that -

The United States, as we've seen is by no means a pure
capitalist society. Many services have to be provided,
for example, even if they profit nobody - so schools,
sewers, police forces, and the like are socialised and
publicly owned. Governments have intervened repeatedly
in the "free" market in ways more reminiscent of a
socialist country - saving mammoth corporations in the
past from bankruptcy, supporting agricultural prices,
giving direct and indirect subsidies to industries,
regulating the money supply, shifting income from
workers to Social Security recipients, and so on.

We're also told that -
Conversely, there are signs that the communist-ruled
societies are embracing aspects of capitalism, especially
through their use of financial incentives. Some of
the communist ruled countries are finally confronting the fact
that their system is inherently inefficient.

Any comparison of similar capitalist and socialist societies
yields the same impression about the relative standards
of the populace. The United States is more prosperous than
Russia, South Korea, more than North Korea; Taiwan more so
than China, and so on. Even the most productive and
prosperous socialist countries like Hungary and Rumania
have least centralised economies and the most "capitalistic"
incentives.

cont'd ...

cont'd ...

The trend according to Hollander in all these societies,
seems to be toward greater rewards for individual effort.

However the question that needs to be asked is - if
economic convergence does appear to be taking place
will political convergence also follow?

All democratic socialist societies and all advanced
capitalist societies are democracies, with a free press,
an independent judiciary and regular free elections.
There is no prospect that this situation will change.
On the other hand, no communist-ruled country is a
democracy. Ultimately "convergence" according to
Hollander may depend on whether more liberal economic
politices will lead to democratisation in the
"Soviet-style" economies.

'The Soviet society imploded largely because of the maldistribution of capital'

the idiotic communist/socialist dogma ignored the very easy observation that man (and woman's) hearts are corrupt. That is what brought communism down and what will bring capitalism down. A denial of this requires blind ignorance. We actually have many in the public service who think they are overworked and underpaid.

Maybe ask the millions who are desperate to flee communism whether there is any real difference?

There is a gulf of enormous proportions between the two. One word, 'freedom' says it all.

Better to discuss totalitarianism and why the hell there are misled fools (the 'useful idiots' of Marxism) who would promote totalitarian creeds and ideology to benefit a clique whose first priority, apart from feathering their own nests, would be to deal with the aforementioned 'useful idiots'.

The following link may be of interest:

http://sustainablehuman.com/capitalism-and-communism-two-vehicles-to-the-same-direction/

The question is asked - "So what do capitalism and
communism have in common?"

We're told that both assume nature's resources to be
indefinite and both place value on extracting resources at
faster rates distributing them through an ownership-based
model.

With infinite resources you can meet everyone's needs
through individual ownership since there is enough, in theory,
to make one for everyone. However, we're told that many
(especially the youth) see the futility of the idea that
nature is limitless, that the earth has an infinite capacity
to absorb our pollution or hide our waste.

In a world with finite resources - the goal of one of
everything for everyone is impossible - not for 7 or
potentially 10 billion of us.

Therefore, just like their goal growth-based capitalism and
growth-based communism are both inherently invalid.
When the pie doesn't get any bigger, ideologies that
champion growth strategies to solve hunger and poverty issues
lose their appeal.

New economic systems must emerge that allow us to share the
world efficiently but also justly. A world in which some
people die systematically from malnutrition while others
throw away the necessary food to feed them will not work
any longer.

Values must change to base one's self-worth on the quality
on one's relationships and experiences instead of the number
of their possessions.

Access to quality resources for all of the world's people
must take precedence over satisfying insatiable desires of
the few.