Archived Kevin Rudd has revived his controversial 2009 push for a "big Australia" (theguardian.com)
submitted ago by PaulNeriAustralia
Posted by: PaulNeriAustralia
Posting time: 1.8 years ago on
Last edit time: never edited.
Archived on: 5/10/2019 10:00:00 AM
Views: 148
SCP: 5
5 upvotes, 0 downvotes (100% upvoted it)
Archived Kevin Rudd has revived his controversial 2009 push for a "big Australia" (theguardian.com)
submitted ago by PaulNeriAustralia
view the rest of the comments →
[–] Norm85 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
For someone who likes to portray the aura of being a well-informed nerd, he has clearly missed (or is deliberately ignoring) research showing how wrong he is on the idea of using "Big Australia" to "sustain our future standard of living" (aka the population ponzi). Our own Productivity Commission has done excellent (and mostly ignored) research on this topic.
To copy pasta a summary I have provided in the past:
MIT economists published a paper titled Secular Stagnation? The Effect of Aging on Economic Growth in the Age of Automation (PDF Warning), which showed that there is absolutely no relationship between population aging and economic decline. To the contrary, population aging seems to have been associated with improvements in GDP per capita, thanks to increased automation.
Even if secular stagnation was true, the idea that immigration solves the problem of an ageing population is a myth. Our own Productivity Commission (PC) has comprehensively debunked the view that immigration can ‘solve’ population aging, noting the following over more than a decade:
PC (2005): “Despite popular thinking to the contrary, immigration policy is also not a feasible countermeasure [to an ageing population]. It affects population numbers more than the age structure”.
PC (2010): “Realistic changes in migration levels also make little difference to the age structure of the population in the future, with any effect being temporary“…
PC (2011): “…substantial increases in the level of net overseas migration would have only modest effects on population ageing and the impacts would be temporary, since immigrants themselves age… It follows that, rather than seeking to mitigate the ageing of the population, policy should seek to influence the potential economic and other impacts”…
PC (2016): “[Immigration] delays rather than eliminates population ageing. In the long term, underlying trends in life expectancy mean that permanent immigrants (as they age) will themselves add to the proportion of the population aged 65 and over”.
Immigration increases absolute GDP (which is why it is so loved by big business and the property sector), but decreases the GDP per capita. GDP per capita is the critical economic criteria to whether individuals are better off.
[–] PaulNeriAustralia [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Yes. Judith Sloan of the Australian newspaper seems to be saying similar things. Kev tends to look at issues from 30,000 feet, in my opinion, where there are no traffic jams; congestion; pollution; crime...)