No More "Big Australia" (?)

[random]

The idea of pushing the population imo is ridiculous and multiculturalism even more so . All just Government bs b/c they need more mooler .
But if they can't handle what they've got on the income they have now then doubling the population won't help. What miraculously they'll somehow get more money out of the next 20mil than they can now out of this 23 .
Catering for the next 20 when we're only setup to cater for 23 and even that's pushing it , will cost double what this 23 costs b/c it'll mean major infrastructure changes in order to cope at the next level.
They think they've got problems now , they wouldn't know what a real problem was !
Just like updating your business or factory equipment , it's a long term pay off and by then , there'll be abother 20 mil and then it all needs to start again.
Ludicrous insanity and a p'poor excuse for so called economic management .

Imo we're a very lucky country now with our room and resources and although yes on the surface we do have room for more it's nowhere near as simple as that with the way our Governments work - or don't is more the key word actually , because it takes a lot more than just room .
Why abuse what we have , why not be the envy of the world in 20 yrs time and just let it grow at it's own natural pace and hey , redo and restructure the damn books just like anyone else in business is forced to do every 2 or 3 yrs these days .
An aging population , what a load of sh't . If it's aging then they aren't promoting and supporting family the way a healthy economy should be doing.
Yes many choose careers now but many also have to cope with the costs of everything and so simply can't afford more kids , it's about a country doing something wrong .
We know many friends that would love more kids if they could afford it and a gov gets 40 or 50 yrs of income out of one new child so it's a no brainer.

 

[gooram]

The idea of pushing the population imo is ridiculous and multiculturalism even more so . All just Government bs b/c they need more mooler .

But if they can't handle what they've got on the income they have now then doubling the population won't help. What miraculously they'll somehow get more money out of the next 20mil than they can now out of this 23 .
Catering for the next 20 b/c when we're only setup to cater for 23 and even that's pushing it , will cost double what this 23 costs b/c it'll mean major infrustructure changes in order to be able to cope at the next level.
They think they've got problems now , they wouldn't know what a real problem was !
Just like updating your business or factory equipment , it's a long term pay off and by then , there'll be abother 20 mil and then it all needs to start again.
Ludicrous insanity and a p'poor excuse for so called economic management .

First you make up a story about the govts reasons for wishing to increase population, then make an arguement against it and call it ludicrous.

I think you just defined ludicrous

 

[gooram]

Well, that's just my opinion isn't it. We got 300,000 new residents last year and our growth rate was above 2%. This gives us 50 million by 2050 if that growth was continued. That is too much as far as I'm concerned. To get to the 36 million by 2050 that Kev was on about the immigration level has to be dropped to 180,000. I reckon 36 million is too much as well.

What population would you like to see by 2050?

I'd like to see us get to about 27 million by 2050, and hopefully level out at that and stay there.

I think a population of 50 million would be a big drop in living standards for all of us. We would have almost no food left to export. We would be burning up much more of our coal and gas and have less of that to export. The cities would be 2 or 3 times their current sizes. The national parks and rivers and beaches would have much more human traffic, there would be more pressure to build in or mine our wilderness areas. I can't think of anything good about it.

If you think it's a contradiction then fine. Why can't I mention that China and India must be concerned about their doctors coming to Australia, and then say that I'm really glad that they do? I'm just stating what I think.

See ya's.

Of course you can, I just thought you were arguing a case for lower migration levels on one hand, while saying we need the people on the other.

On the actual levels, I agree we need to be at a sustainable level, whatever that is. I don't think 300,000 was intended to be the level for the foreseeable future. It gets adjusted every year based on the country's requirements.

The UK has just restricted their intake because their unemployment figures are rising, I think thats the right way to approach this.

The problem with saying X million is the sustainable level, what do you do for those businesses, like the example already quoted, that can't find skilled workers? Is that a population problem or a training problem? Maybe both.

 

[random]

First you make up a story about the govts reasons for wishing to increase population, then make an arguement against it and call it ludicrous.

I think you just defined ludicrous

And I think your just another very bored and petty forumite with the vision of a seagull !

It's strange , I was in this club for 3 or 4 yrs and always found it one of the best around but on returning it sadly seems have a whole new and petty attituded crowd these days , shame .

 

[Aaron Sice]

yes....pity....

 

[gooram]

And I think your just another very bored and petty forumite with the vision of a seagull !

It's strange , I was in this club for 3 or 4 yrs and always found it one of the best around but on returning it sadly seems have a whole new and petty attituded crowd these days , shame .

Dear o dear...

Seagulls have great vision, being up so high 'n that.

 

[random]

Dear o dear...

Seagulls have great vision, being up so high 'n that.

I rest my case !

 

[jaycee]

The idea of pushing the population imo is ridiculous and multiculturalism even more so . All just Government bs b/c they need more mooler .
But if they can't handle what they've got on the income they have now then doubling the population won't help. What miraculously they'll somehow get more money out of the next 20mil than they can now out of this 23 .
Catering for the next 20 when we're only setup to cater for 23 and even that's pushing it , will cost double what this 23 costs b/c it'll mean major infrastructure changes in order to cope at the next level.
They think they've got problems now , they wouldn't know what a real problem was !
Just like updating your business or factory equipment , it's a long term pay off and by then , there'll be abother 20 mil and then it all needs to start again.
Ludicrous insanity and a p'poor excuse for so called economic management .

Imo we're a very lucky country now with our room and resources and although yes on the surface we do have room for more it's nowhere near as simple as that with the way our Governments work - or don't is more the key word actually , because it takes a lot more than just room .
Why abuse what we have , why not be the envy of the world in 20 yrs time and just let it grow at it's own natural pace and hey , redo and restructure the damn books just like anyone else in business is forced to do every 2 or 3 yrs these days .
An aging population , what a load of sh't . If it's aging then they aren't promoting and supporting family the way a healthy economy should be doing.
Yes many choose careers now but many also have to cope with the costs of everything and so simply can't afford more kids , it's about a country doing something wrong .
We know many friends that would love more kids if they could afford it and a gov gets 40 or 50 yrs of income out of one new child so it's a no brainer.

You sound like they are planning to bring 20million people here in January or something

In fact, has anyone suggested actually bringing 20 million people (besides you ) ? Or did someone report that if it continues at the same rate as this year every year till 2050 we would have another 20+million ?

 

[topcropper]

did someone report that if it continues at the same rate as this year every year till 2050 we would have another 20+million ?

Anyone who can do maths can work out where the population will go using historic growth rates. When we were a big empty place we needed high growth rates. As we reach the limits we should slow them down. Now is when growth rates should be slowing, not increasing.



Peter Ridd gives a good summery of the problems we face economically in this article. They are so similar to my views that I think he's been reading my stuff on here.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9283&page=1

This population growth should be considered an economic and environmental problem of huge proportions. From the economic point of view, Australia relies mostly on mining and agriculture for its export earnings. These industries require a very small proportion of the population to operate (although it is true that due to inadequate training in the technical trades and engineering, they have suffered a temporary labour shortages in recent years).

The growing population in Australia will not increase exports of iron ore, coal or gold and will reduce our exports of food as we are forced to consume more of our output internally. The money that comes to Australia from the sales of our resources presently gets divided among 22 million Australians. When the population doubles the amount per capita will halve.

See ya's.






ps. For a good laugh, read some of the comments left by people on that article I put up.

"I want MORE people to come to Australia. I want to open the gates wide. Give us your hungry, tired and homeless. We are humanitarians, we are liberal humanists. We've got more food coming out of our fundamentals. Why?"
Cheryl.

"We are Dumb Asses , we apparently don't have any Scientists with enough energy and gumption to think outside the square , what is rain , condensed atmospheric water , so why don't we duplicate what happens naturally in the atmosphere in a contained atmosphere here on Terra Firmer using solar heat to evaporate sea water then Huge Condensers to collect the condensate eg; water."
Shaz.

 

[random]

Well, that's just my opinion isn't it. We got 300,000 new residents last year and our growth rate was above 2%. This gives us 50 million by 2050 if that growth was continued. That is too much as far as I'm concerned. To get to the 36 million by 2050 that Kev was on about the immigration level has to be dropped to 180,000. I reckon 36 million is too much as well.

What population would you like to see by 2050?

I'd like to see us get to about 27 million by 2050, and hopefully level out at that and stay there.



I think a population of 50 million would be a big drop in living standards for all of us. We would have almost no food left to export. We would be burning up much more of our coal and gas and have less of that to export. The cities would be 2 or 3 times their current sizes. The national parks and rivers and beaches would have much more human traffic, there would be more pressure to build in or mine our wilderness areas. I can't think of anything good about it.





If you think it's a contradiction then fine. Why can't I mention that China and India must be concerned about their doctors coming to Australia, and then say that I'm really glad that they do? I'm just stating what I think.


See ya's.

This message has been deleted/edited. So why am I telling you about it, b'c the the edit insists on 10 charactors b/4 putting it through .

 

[topcropper]

Deleted.

Refers to deleted post.

 

[random]

Sorry to say, but thats a time wasting, pointless response you just wrote. If people can discuss this subject without name calling, this thread mightn't get locked like the last one did. I just happen to enjoy discussing this subject and crunching the numbers.


See ya's.

Owell so much for support , I never light the fire ! I'll delete it if possible and you can go for your merry life .

Cheers

 

[hobo-jo]

The other thing people don't think of is who will pay the pensions in this country if there is not a sufficient worker base. The stats say most people (95%) will be reliant on the pension in some way or form!

This is a pretty poor reason to increase our population IMO, I mean it's not really sustainable is it...if we have to double our population by 2050 to pay the pension for the current population, will we have to double it again by 2100 to support pensions for the intake between now and then? There are surely better ways to move towards self sustaining retirement, even if it means dramatically increasing compulsory super allocations.

 

[Aaron Sice]

This is a pretty poor reason to increase our population IMO, I mean it's not really sustainable is it...if we have to double our population by 2050 to pay the pension for the current population, will we have to double it again by 2100 to support pensions for the intake between now and then? There are surely better ways to move towards self sustaining retirement, even if it means dramatically increasing compulsory super allocations.

but those forced saving are then put into the stockmarket, to which market makers take it all anyway.

 

[sash]

Ditto!

but those forced saving are then put into the stockmarket, to which market makers take it all anyway.

The population of Australia doubled a lot quicker in the last century than it will in this century. The issue is the govt investing in infrastructure!

As for increasing super you have to be kidding right??......this will just end up in the pockets of Financial Planners, Insurers, and Banks!

No offence ....most people in Australia like many developed countries are poor money managers.

The only reason the govt has a super scheme is to reduce pensions to a minimum...view it as a replacement scheme for pensions!! They may give you a small incentive by tipping in a small pension....but they are smart ...wait till there is talk of increasing the pension age to 67-70!

This is a pretty poor reason to increase our population IMO, I mean it's not really sustainable is it...if we have to double our population by 2050 to pay the pension for the current population, will we have to double it again by 2100 to support pensions for the intake between now and then? There are surely better ways to move towards self sustaining retirement, even if it means dramatically increasing compulsory super allocations.

 

[Graemsay]

It'll be worth watching what happens in Europe and Japan over the next few years, and declining populations are already an issue there.

The retirement age across the EU looks set to rise, and 70 seems to be the new 65. Naturally this is causing some consternation in Greece (who can't afford their current system) and France (though workers there strike about everything).

I'd expect it'll get easier for older people to keep on working in the future. In part this will come through demographic changes (a shrinking, ageing population means that companies have access to fewer young workers). But there also seems to be growing pressure for companies to hire older staff.

 

[hobo-jo]

but those forced saving are then put into the stockmarket, to which market makers take it all anyway.

As for increasing super you have to be kidding right??......this will just end up in the pockets of Financial Planners, Insurers, and Banks!

If this is the case then perhaps also a minimum amount of it needs to be kept in a cash management option within the fund or heavier regulation on those managing the super funds.

I see increases in compulsory super a much more appealing choice than importing workers to pay for our elderly.

 

[handyandy]

The only reason the govt has a super scheme is to reduce pensions to a minimum...view it as a replacement scheme for pensions!! They may give you a small incentive by tipping in a small pension....but they are smart ...wait till there is talk of increasing the pension age to 67-70!

Forget about a pension age altogether. On no, hang on, they still need to call hand outs something to ensure that they are not called unemployed and distort the stats

Further what makes you think that the government will not take control of your super money changing the rules to ensure a uptake of bonds by super funds or ones you stop working only allow you to draw a meager pension from it (to ensure it lasts the distance) with any residual going to the state. Maybe a somewhat extreme POV but none the less something that has already happened for any foreign worker who left money in super in Australia.

One reference and no doubt many more articles related to this topic
http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/superannuation-kevin-rudd/2009/05/19/

Getting back to the OP I see the view of never ending immigrant to fund those already here as nothing more than a ponzi scheme. Which like all good ponzi schemes will eventually run out of puff.

A much better approach would be to work within the current frame work and economy with a slow down in growth to reflect the real needs of an ageing population.

Cheers

 

[WinstonWolfe]

Keep in mind the additional tax collected by RSPT is extracted from returns on superannuation investment in public mining companies.

RSPT is amongst other things, a superannuation tax.

 

[Peter Parker]

It'll be worth watching what happens in Europe and Japan over the next few years, and declining populations are already an issue there.

Those countries have had negative population increase for some time now.

The only thing preventing their populations from falling is immigration, with Europe being much more open than Japan. Migrants in the latter have tended to come from either Eastern Europe and former colonies (ie the middle east).

While not all migrants have succeeded, and the tower blocks around the outskirts of Paris are filled with jobless families from Africa and the Middle East, increasingly working immigrants (and their European descendents) will be paying the pensions of (mostly) non-migrant Europeans.

If pensions are inadequate and/or European public servants wish to keep their 'retire at 55' mentality, I can foresee an outflow from Europe to poorer countries where living costs are lower and their euro goes further. Countries on the Mediterranean would appear to be best placed (though right now depressed Greece might be a better bet than (say) northern Africa). The pattern could be a similar trend of Englishmen going on cheap Spanish holidays or even moving there.

However though these are third world countries Europeans will want first-world safety and health care. The former requires cheap land and labour (also cheaper than in Europe). Hence there could be opportunities for (say) Northern Africa to become Europe's Florida. Although gated communities are more a US thing, they could well spread across the Atlantic.

For African and middle-eastern countries immigration can be a 'safety-valve' for their high birth-rate populations. On average it is the more enterprising who migrate (though many are in menial jobs in say the oil countries). Where they send money home to their families that can be a form of external income. The main problem here is the 'brain drain' as migrants (especially with skills) earn more money in western countries than at home.

While the possible inflow of European retirees isn't going to increase the workforce participation rate or increase productivity, it does provide a source of much needed foreign income as well as jobs for the hospitality, health, food, construction and personal service industries.

The governments of European countries benefit as there's fewer seniors clogging their hospitals and aged care facilities. If they don't already do so they may well find it cheaper to allow their people to migrate overseas and still claim the pension, knowing that the more they are overseas the less they need looking after at home.

And the African countries benefit through the inflow of foreign exchange and service sector employment for their booming youth populations.

Demographically for Europe such two-way migration could slow the ageing of Europe and allow her to balance the books better. There would however be a speeding up of existing composition trends - ie from a largely white Christian to a largely Muslim and African stock, similar to that has already occurred with Latinos in many US cities.