RBA just put rates up again to 4.25%

[topcropper]

what's the point - are you saying that population growth always lowers living standards? is this proven in the case of say the UK and US and similar countries?

I'd reckon that was quite clear. India, bangladesh, name any number of about 100 other overpopulated places in the world can never ever enjoy the standard of living we do here and will continue to enjoy as long as we don't overfill this place up and dilute our resource wealth. We should aim to slow population growth and pull up before 30 million in about 60 years if we are smart.

Countries can decide the standard of living they want by their populations. If India want 1.2 billion people, they can, but they will have a poor standard of living and there is not much they can do about it. That's why they all want to come here for goodness sake!

regardless of what the stats there is clearly a case for economies of scale and international influence. The size of the US economyis the only reason it's citizens enjoy (for now) such perversely low interest rates

The US has such low interest rates because it's economy is buggered. Don't you read the news? The US economy is buggered because for the amount of people they have they don't export enough stuff to pay for what they import. Pretty darn simple stuff going on here.


See ya's.

 

[WinstonWolfe]

are you saying that population growth always lowers living standards?

Economies heavily based in domestic services, like Australia, rely on population growth to stop GNI going negative. It's unsustainable and hides seriously flawed fundamentals.

Your leaders realize this, and aren't about to trim population growth dramatically, no matter how bad the lag in infrastructure and housing.

 

[Ausprop]

The US has such low interest rates because it's economy is buggered. Don't you read the news?

ha ha - yeh if it wasn'ts so scary it would be funny. What other creditor could have unfettered access to funding at such extraordinarily low rates with little or no hope of repayment??

 

[Ausprop]

Economies heavily based in domestic services, like Australia, rely on population growth to stop GNI going negative. It's unsustainable and hides seriously flawed fundamentals.

Your leaders realize this, and aren't about to trim population growth dramatically, no matter how bad the lag in infrastructure and housing.

agreed. I think it's good, you think it's bad, doesn't really change what will happen.

 

[Ausprop]

That's why they all want to come here for goodness sake!

and that they shall. We can decide if it is partly on our terms, or fully on their terms.

 

[boz]

Economies heavily based in domestic services, like Australia, rely on population growth to stop GNI going negative. It's unsustainable and hides seriously flawed fundamentals.

Your leaders realize this, and aren't about to trim population growth dramatically, no matter how bad the lag in infrastructure and housing.

Interesting point.
So, if we put at 5% of GDP that is going towards building for newcomers that are probably around 2% (on top of the normal birth/death rate), I believe the key is weather those new people coming bring more gdp and wealth then the one working for it, otherwise this 5% could do something else towards people that are already residents.
So it is very important for the disposable income growth to have high skilled workers or that the new immigrant are loaded with money

 

[Shadow]

Nice charts Shadow. I like the middle one. Where'd you get it?

Thanks, they all came from the latest ANZ Property Outlook report...

http://www.anz.com/resources/e/f/efbd1b8040b26959b4ccf7d5d7811059/Property-Outlook-20091412.pdf.pdf

 

[WinstonWolfe]

I believe the key is weather those new people coming bring more gdp and wealth then the one working for it, otherwise this 5% could do something else towards people that are already residents.
So it is very important for the disposable income growth to have high skilled workers or that the new immigrant are loaded with money

I think the misunderstanding re population growth, especially fast periods based moreso on foreign migration, is that GNI per migrant has to be not just a little bit higher, but a huge bit.

Why? because rapid popn growth requires seriously expensive new infrastructure. In many cases, existing infrastructure has taken decades to construct and pay for. To add to that in a compressed time frame requires serious increases in tax revenue.

Roads, dams, trains, hospitals, schools, housing......these things are all lagging pop growth.....why? because rapid migration demands the infrastructure of whole new cities be constructed....

but tax revenue and GNI isn't increasing proportionately to fund enough new stuff, let alone upgrade the old stuff....and staff both.

Compare the rate of growth in Australia's capital cities water storage capacity with population growth, or the number of hospital beds per capita, the number of hospital nursing hours per capita.

So migration and natural pop increase, has to not only increase GNI per capita a bit, but a lot, enough to cover the cost of associated infrastructure in a compressed period of time.

 

[BayView]

I'd reckon that was quite clear. India, bangladesh, name any number of about 100 other overpopulated places in the world can never ever enjoy the standard of living we do here and will continue to enjoy as long as we don't overfill this place up and dilute our resource wealth. We should aim to slow population growth and pull up before 30 million in about 60 years if we are smart.
See ya's.

I'm with ya! 30 mill would be absolute tops - unless you can convice all the immigrants we now receive to go live in the outback. Good luck with that.

I absolutely hate large hordes of people at any given time, and to encourage more of same is horrific to me.

Yes, I'm a snob; like my nice, quiet, under-populated, over-lifestyled Country just as it is.

Don't let a single extra human into the place thanks.

Don't be fooled people; no matter what the Gubbmint tells ya's; more people will not improve your standard of living one iota, based on what I saw in the USA.

That joint is truly on the downhill slide; unless you are in the very top 5% of earners.

 

[WinstonWolfe]

Yes, I'm a snob; like my nice, quiet, under-populated, over-lifestyled Country just as it is.

I don't think you are a snob BV, I think you are just trying to create a bit of heaven on earth......and every other country has the freedom to do the same, by getting an education, exercising restraint over base impulses, not overpopulating, and applying themselves systematically to producing goods and services to the value of those they consume.....and the most important thing, creating enough wealth to protect what you have from those more hungry and resentful of your hard work.

 

[topcropper]

regardless of what the stats there is clearly a case for economies of scale and international influence.

Really? Stats...??? We are talking standards of living are we? Lets look at the top 10 nations in GDP per capita?

1 Liechtenstein $ 122,100
2 Qatar $ 121,700
3 Luxembourg $ 78,000
4 Bermuda $ 69,900
5 Norway $ 58,600
6 Jersey $ 57,000
7 Kuwait $ 54,100
8 Singapore $ 50,300
9 Brunei $ 50,100
10 Faroe Islands $48,200


I haven't even heard of some of these places. Not many of these nations would exert much international influence on anything.

Norway is interesting. Everyone knows that a lot of Norways wealth comes from northsea oil. Just like Britains. But as it's divided by just 4.6 million people, with almost non existant population growth, the country is rolling in it. Not so with the poor old Poms.

These places all have extremely low population growth rates. Funny that, I thought you needed high growth? Isn't that what we are constantly told?



I wonder whats going on down the other end of the scale?

219 Afghanistan $ 800
220 Central African Republic $ 700
221 Eritrea $ 700
222 Niger $ 700
223 Guinea-Bissau $ 600
224 Somalia $ 600
225 Liberia $ 500
226 Burundi $ 300
227 Congo, $ 300
228 Zimbabwe $ 200 2008 est.

All with massive population growth. Mostly basket case economies. Lots of violence and war and genocide going on.


It's a complete and utter con job being pulled on the residents of this country by the government, big business and the property industry that we need this massive population growth to sustain our standard of living. The most stupid argument is the ridiculous one about we need younger workers to support our aging population. If this is the case it means we are in a giant ponzi scheme. If we need more and more people for ever more, that's exactly what it is. A ponzi scheme.



Another example?

If population is everything, then tell me this?

Imagine if Western Australia decided to susceed from the commonwealth of Australia. Imagine if Kev was silly enough to say, "fine, on your way then".

So we have two nations,

Western Australia with 2.2 million people, massive export earnings, 33% of Australia's exports, Gross state product of $70,000 per capita.

The rest of Australia with nearly 20 million people. 66% of Australia's exports, Gross state product of about $50,000 per capita.

Using your argument, WA would be less well off than the rest of Oz? It wouldn't, WA with one tenth of the population and massive wealth and export earnings would be right up there with the wealthiest nations in the world, the the rest of Oz would be in far more trouble, especially with debt.

But WA is stuck with us. Every one of the 22 million residents owns a share of the wealth. I reckon there's probably a billion dollars worth of coal under my farm, a thousand hectares. I don't own it, the residents of Australia do.


See ya's.

 

[alexlee]

1 Liechtenstein $ 122,100
3 Luxembourg $ 78,000
4 Bermuda $ 69,900
6 Jersey $ 57,000

These are all tax havens. Small population, little traditional industry, few if any resources, but lots of financial and legal services and offshore income. GDP per capita can be distorted, especially by migrant labour who might be providing the low level (cheap) labour, but wouldn't go into the GDP per capita stats because they're not citizens. These aren't exactly 'normal' countries. They wouldn't exist in the absence of other industrial countries using them to decrease their taxes.

 

[topcropper]

These are all tax havens. Small population, little traditional industry, few if any resources, but lots of financial and legal services and offshore income. GDP per capita can be distorted, especially by migrant labour who might be providing the low level (cheap) labour, but wouldn't go into the GDP per capita stats because they're not citizens. These aren't exactly 'normal' countries. They wouldn't exist in the absence of other industrial countries using them to decrease their taxes.

I wonder if the residents of those tax havens say this about Australia then,....

Small population, little traditional industry, lots of financial services and service industries, GDP per capita can be distorted, especially by coffee shops and housing, all they do is dig up rocks and dirt. Just born lucky. Not exactly 'normal'.

See ya's.

 

[alexlee]

I wonder if the residents of those tax havens say this about Australia then,....

Small population, little traditional industry, lots of financial services and service industries, GDP per capita can be distorted, especially by coffee shops and housing, all they do is dig up rocks and dirt. Just born lucky. Not exactly 'normal'.

No, those places would not consider Australia to have a small population, at least relative to them. Populations from wikipedia:

Liechtenstein 36,000
Luxembourg 500,000
Bermuda 68,000
Jersey 90,000

Australia 22,000,000

I haven't dropped any zeros, by the way.
Make of it what you will. Nothing is normal if you dig deep enough.

 

[WinstonWolfe]

Small population, little traditional industry, few if any resources, but lots of financial and legal services and offshore income.

so why can't Australia do financial and legal services as well as Luxembourg and Lichtenstein?

They wouldn't exist in the absence of other industrial countries using them to decrease their taxes.

You mean companies.....and what's wrong with a company decreasing taxes? Socialists like Hawke and Keating encouraged Australian companies to be globally competitive, and dropped tariffs to encourage it..... Hawke and Keating WANTED Australians to exploit cheap Asian labor.

Therefore, govts shouldn't be surprised when same companies seek to be globally competitive, in tax efficiency.

 

[alexlee]

so why can't Australia do financial and legal services as well as Luxembourg and Lichtenstein?

Because our tax system isn't generous enough to be considered a tax haven. It's not about whether we can provide the same quality of service (we can), it's about the demand (no hedge fund will want to operate out of Australia for tax reasons when they can incorporate wherever they want. Witness what happened to the proceeds of the DJs float).

People don't incorporate in tax havens just because they have good lawyers there. That's just the cart. The horse is that companies incorporated in tax havens don't get taxed on overseas income, have more shareholder privacy and don't share information with overseas tax offices. These juristictions get great income just from company registration fees and resident director fees. They can do this because they have tiny populations and basically no domestic economy other than financial and legal services.

You mean companies.....and what's wrong with a company decreasing taxes? Socialists like Hawke and Keating encouraged Australian companies to be globally competitive, and dropped tariffs to encourage it..... Hawke and Keating WANTED Australians to exploit cheap Asian labor.

Therefore, govts shouldn't be surprised when same companies seek to be globally competitive, in tax efficiency.

I don't see anything wrong with it. I was merely stating facts, not making any sort of judgement. It is what it is. I personally also try to pay as little tax as possible within the law.

 

[Graemsay]

The argument for ramping up population is that it means more young people to support the elderly.

The alternative is to reconsider old age and retirement. This article from New Scientist suggests that might be a better option.

As for migration rates, Abbott is against high numbers, and Rudd (in the face of voter pressure) seems to be backing off from the whole Big Australia thing.

My guess is that immigration is going to fall off this year. Since September very few people have been awarded visas unless they've got skills that Australia desperately needs. The few that have are those who had pretty much completed the process in September last year, and had a state sponsoring them.

The noises coming from DIAC and the politicians suggest that in the future there's going to be much more focus on highly skilled professionals and trades, and probably fewer arrivals. Family member visas are likely to be cut back too.

 

[alexlee]

As topcropper said, population growth isn't everything. You need the new people, whether new births or migrants, to add value to the economy. For kids that requires a social infrastructure and education that makes them into productive workers or entrepreneurs or teachers or whatever. For adult migrants, ideally they bring money, skills and ideas into the country.

 

[BayView]

The argument for ramping up population is that it means more young people to support the elderly.

My worry about ramping up population is the quality of the rampees.

To use the USA as an example, their population is steadily increasing - some by immigration (some legally as well ), but from my observation of both here and over there, the general trend seems to be that the main contributors to reproduction (from both immigrants and existing residents) is from the "bottom end" of the social ladder.

In short; all the welfare recipients and those more likely to be a financial burden on the Country's Gubbmint are the poor, and even the lower middle class. Lower wager earners and lower educated.

Sounds like snobbery, but this is what I see.

This group are the ones who reproduce themselves ad nauseum, adding more of same to an already over-stretched system, while the top end, highly educated, professional, higher wage earners (and tax payers) are not reproducing.

We are heading towards a smaller group of high earning wage earners and business owners who have to support the growing group who are like the brooms in the master's apprentice Disney cartoon.

 

[Shadow]

Skilled migrants earn more than average Australians

To use the USA as an example, their population is steadily increasing - some by immigration (some legally as well ), but from my observation of both here and over there, the general trend seems to be that the main contributors to reproduction (from both immigrants and existing residents) is from the "bottom end" of the social ladder.

Actually the vast majority of migrants to Australia enter through the 'skilled migration' program, and must pass many tests before they are granted entry. They are assessed based on age, skill set, education, criminal record, employment prospects, language fluency, and they must pay fees of several thousand dollars to enter. I know, because I'm one of them.

Furthermore, skilled migrants tend to earn more than average Australians. So it is certainly not accurate to say that most immigrants are from the 'bottom end' of the social ladder. In fact they are mostly from the upper end.

This is one of the reasons why migrants to Australia really can push up property prices here - they earn more than average Australians.

http://www.news.com.au/money/proper...-property-market/story-e6frfmd0-1225820461473

* Skilled immigrants forcing up house prices
* Market driven by what highest bidder will pay
* Australian property 5.5 times household income

AUSTRALIAN families are being priced out of the property market by record numbers of highly paid skilled workers arriving from overseas.

Research by The Sunday Telegraph has revealed for the first time how skilled immigrants - predominantly from Britain, India and China - are forcing house prices to some of the highest levels in the world when compared with average incomes.

Almost 115,000 permanent skilled visas were issued last year, compared with just over 40,000 in 1998-99 - an increase of 187 per cent.

During the same period, the median house price rose 168 per cent, from $156,600 to $420,600.

Although the number of migrants is relatively low compared with total property transactions, which have averaged 500,000 a year over the past 10 years, experts say property-price inflation is driven not by what the average buyer can afford to pay, but by the highest bidder.

And because skilled migrants command above-average salaries, they pay above-average prices. As a result, a relatively small number of highly paid buyers can have a disproportionate effect on house prices...

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-scoring-top-pay/story-e6frg6nf-1111115823155

Migrant workers on 457 visas scoring top pay

SKILLED temporary migrant workers are earning on average $15,000 more than their Australian counterparts, undermining trade union claims that the system is being abused to undercut local wages.

Figures obtained by The Australian show that holders of 457 visas, which allow temporary skilled migrants to work in Australia for up to four years, are earning more than the average salaries of local workers across all industries in which they are employed...