Thanks Fester. The potential imposition of a "huge infrastructure debt" as the population of Australia increases is an entire topic on its own. You seem to suggest that this would fall on the taxpayer, yet I observe the current trend to privatization shows no sign of abating, and along with it the concept of "user pays".

Whether I agree with this or not is a separate issue. Nevertheless, our population has experienced growth in the past, and infrastructure has - largely - kept pace.

But I am intrigued by your observations on the impact of an aging population.

>>Medical breakthroughs in the treatment of debilitating diseases like arthritis would bring large economic benefits, as did the development of a cure for tuberculosis<<

How so? Surely, the longer people live after retirement from the workforce, the harder those still in the work force will have to work to support them. Or am I missing something?

>>You might also note that the increasing numbers of older Australians coincides with reducing numbers of young Australians, so it might be relevant to offset the cost with the saving from not raising children<<

You'll have to explain that one to me. In the context of the economy of the country, who "saves" by our not raising children? Sure, at the individual level, children cost money, but they also contribute to the flow of money through commerce.

And in the context of the economy as a whole, the shortage of new entrants into the workforce will ultimately force up business costs dramatically.

Thanks for continuing the discussion, Pericles.

By privatisation I presume you mean public infrastructure and utility projects. It is nice to see, but I suspect that it will ultimately cost the public far more than publicly funded projects.

I'm glad to see you interested in the elderly. I think it a little unfair to consider them a dead weight after retirement. There might be some value in learning what retirees actually do, and what factors restrict their post retirement activity. As you observe, the changing age profile will leave more elderly supported by fewer workers, but surely this is good reason to have the elderly as healthy as possible, and thus more capable of supporting themselves? In any event, maintaining an age profile with many young people supporting a few elderly requires either exponential growth or euthanasia, or do you have another idea?

You seem to misinterpret my comments on children. Again, with a changing age profile, there will be fewer children per worker. Now then, by how much is the extra cost from more elderly offset by the reduced cost from raising and educating fewer children? I'm not advocating fewer children, merely stating that there will be fewer.

The present age profile is economically favourable, but how do you maintain such a profile? I see technological development as the only feasible means of offsetting this change by increasing the productivity of the existing population.

>>By privatisation I presume you mean public infrastructure and utility projects. It is nice to see, but I suspect that it will ultimately cost the public far more than publicly funded projects<<

The difference from our point of view though is that the building of infrastructure via private enterprise means that we will pay-as-we-go, rather than being saddled with a "huge infrastructure debt", which was one of your concerns.

We most certainly will end up paying more, but we won't notice it quite so much because it will be a never-ending stream of small payments to Macquarie Bank as opposed to the more visible direct taxation imposed by the government.

>>more elderly [will be] supported by fewer workers, but surely this is good reason to have the elderly as healthy as possible, and thus more capable of supporting themselves?<<

Being capable of supporting themselves is one thing. Being allowed to is another.

It is extremely difficult to find useful work after, say, seventy. And even if you are able to do so, what impact does this have on younger people whose career development has been impeded by the old fogeys?

The simple fact is that an aging population introduces massive social strains, which are likely to manifest themselves in unpleasant ways. Already in Europe they are finding the "youth of today" difficult to please, in the conventional sense of providing adequate challenging and productive work. Because of this, the outcomes are likely to be "unconventional".

>>with a changing age profile, there will be fewer children per worker<<

This is true.

>>Now then, by how much is the extra cost from more elderly offset by the reduced cost from raising and educating fewer children?<<

An aging population does not indicate "fewer children", simply "fewer children per person-over-retirement age", i.e. this is a ratio. The number of children-per-family may remain constant, while the proportion of non-earners in the population will continue to increase.

Costs remain static, while the number of employed people paying tax etc. declines - also as a ratio of the total number.

It's a dilemma, and a tough one.

Yes, infrastructure would cost more. Up to 6 1/2 time more for some projects. This is a big minus for high immigration, as a stable or slowly growing population would not have such great infrastructure commitments.

Where immigration is an advantage is that you get people at the productive part of their lives. But this leaves you with more old people to look after a few decades later, which might be why the Monash study didn't look too far ahead.

>Being capable of supporting themselves is one thing. Being allowed to is another.

It is extremely difficult to find useful work after, say, seventy. And even if you are able to do so, what impact does this have on younger people whose career development has been impeded by the old fogeys?<

I think that economic necessity will change attitudes. And I dont think it will take people long to choose between supporting old people and working with them. Suggesting that employed old people will impede the progess of younger workers is essentially the same as suggesting that immigrants will impede the career prospects of younger Australians. Do you you believe either statement? I dont.

The fertility rate is now lower than it was forty years ago, so yes, there are fewer children per worker. The changing age profile has further reduced the ratio.

>Costs remain static, while the number of employed people paying tax etc. declines - also as a ratio of the total number.

It's a dilemma, and a tough one.<

Costs will change to match the available revenue. Again, the only feasible solution I can see for improving living standards is technological development.

Coming back to the original question how to solve the housing dilemma,
I must say nobody really looked at the investors who buy up reasonable priced places, which could have housed first home buyers,but are turned into a profit making scheme with all the tax reprieve systems engaged.
There should be a ban...yes a ban on people owning more than the place of living plus one investment place to rent out. Overseas investments during HongKong/Chinese takeover have made it also impossible to bid on reasonable priced property as money was of no concern to these people.
Australian's dream has gone out of the door with money sharks.Rental prices with multiple investments in money making schemes as we see them today, have gone thru the roof also.We have the right to have a roof over our heads and should be affordable to the average family.