Immigration, population 'inseparable'

Prime Minister Julia Gillard's attempt to decouple the issues of immigration and population growth is ridiculous, the federal opposition says.

Asked on Wednesday if she would cut immigration to ensure a sustainable population, Ms Gillard said the debate was about planning and policy choices for the nation's future growth.

So, yes immigration & Population Growth are linked, but they do not have to continue to follow the old rules.

But opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison said the two issues are inseparable.

"She made the ridiculous statement that immigration has nothing to do with curtailing population growth," Mr Morrison told reporters on Wednesday in Sydney.

"She says she wants to do something about sustainable population but she doesn't want to address the primary reason that population is growing so significantly.

"And any prime minister who says they want to do something about getting population growth under control obviously has to address immigration."

Australia's immigration rate is the main reason the population is forecast to reach 36 million by 2050. Ms Gillard does not support such a number.

"I don't believe that this is an immigration debate ... I believe it's a debate about planning and policy choices for the nation's future, about where we want to see growth," she told reporters in Sydney.

"We do need skilled migrants, definitely."

Meanwhile, another boatload of asylum seekers has been intercepted near Christmas Island, with about 40 people on board.

It is the first boat to arrive since the federal election campaign began on Saturday.

It was the 80th suspected illegal entry vessel to arrive in Australia this calendar year, Mr Morrison said.
Link -
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/7616418/immigration-population-ins...
=========
Let me try to put a little perspective into the discussion.

If the current level of Boat People were to continue for a few years, it would be an additional expense that Australia could do without and we should endeavour to keep the level down, but the sun will continue to rise in the morning!

Should the Climate run into some of the suggested tipping points, including rising sea levels, then 100's of MILLIONS OF REFUGEES looking for a safe haven, would be a very different story.

In terms of Population Growth & Immigration, the current Australian Fertility rate is below replacement level, so should that continue then the total Population would eventually start to decline, unless the immigration intake is high enough to level things off or if the immigration level is high enough, then the total population will continue to show growth.

Governments set immigration levels and therefore whether we will have a net Population growth or a decline!

No matter what both major Political party's say, they seem intent on Growing the Population & continuing to Grow the economy!

That can not end well, for either new or old immigrants or those original Australians!!!

The future is likely to have some unpleasant Climate problems and all essential resources will shortly (now - 40 years, depending on what) start to slide into decline, which will make any larger population extremely difficult to sustain.

In fact, the existing 22 million, is likely to actually be too high and may finally be lowered, either by plan or by disaster?

hawil wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2010 at 1:16pm:


2. More saleable? To be honest, I doubt it, the prevalling attitude is one of, if it is going to affect ME, then it's not going to happen!  

3. It should have started being dealt with about 40 years ago, with governments setting up programs, such as the Super Guarantee,  started in OZ, but not until around 1990.
Although OZ started, it did not start early enough and the Liberals then stopped the progression thru from 9%, to 15% & more, which should have happened, to more fully fund the Baby Boomer retirements.
That said, Australia at least did something, the rest of the world & the USA in particular, did nothing, with the result that the majority of their people now have very, very little in the way of Funds or assets, with the housing market having collapsed, along with the shahe markets and governments with Debt coming out of every orifice.  

On top of that, there are several other tsunami's impacting or about to impact and I simply can see any Hollywood ending?

Btw, your Telstra example may have a few floors, as the dividends would be nowhere near $120,000 annually. In fact the total share price today would only be about $128,000 for 40,000 shares (@ $3.20 today), having fallen from nearly $5.00 a share at their recent top on 27/02/2008.

1. Talk about it, at every opportunity, in every forum possible, in person, by letter or electronically!
Just don't expect to many, particularly Politicians or Economists to agree with you, let alone put anything into action!

But, also remember, Aging is not the only issue, there is also Peak Energy, Over-Population (&Population Decline), Debt Mountains & Climate Change, all requiring "their fix"!
 

Btw, your Telstra example may have a few floors, as the dividends would be nowhere near $120,000 annually. In fact the total share price today would only be about $128,000 for 40,000 shares (@ $3.20 today), having fallen from nearly $5.00 a share at their recent top on 27/02/2008.

You are very right; it takes 400,000 shares from my calculations.
You are also right, no politician or economists will agree with me, but the big cowardice from them, is, that they do not even try to prove me wrong, because all the economists and politicians earn enough to set up their own Self Managed Super Funds (SMSF) including Jeremy Cooper, and according to governemnt statistics, the average balance of the funds is $947,000, yet the average balance for the average people will be $180,000 after 30 years of contributing 9%.
As far as the USA goes, they always worshipped the winner takes all principle.

FUTURE WINDOWS

Written in mid 2006, this contained 6 Possible, Major Influencing Events, including this one, relating to -


5)  BABY BOOMER RETIREMENT
Event Initiator
- Commencement of post WW2 babies going into retirement.

Event Start Date
- Already commenced recently – 2005.

Event Outcome/s
- Significant reduction in Workforce Participation is likely, notwithstanding government efforts to delay.
- Immigrant intake dilemma likely, some will want a greater intake, to offset bottlenecks in some workforce sectors, whilst others will seek lower intake, to offset rising unemployment.
- Significant cost factor increases will enter the economy, due to population aging and lower Participation Rate, causing inflationary & deflationary pressures to grow.
- Significant reduction in Property values is likely, as event shifts thru to retirement and to the death of Baby Boomer generation. The generation birth rates that followed the Boomers reduced to 60%, then 40% in more recent times. As the asset rich Baby Boomers die, those left will be less well off and there will be less of them – the laws of supply & demand will take over.
- Significant reduction in Share Market values is likely and an extended depression, commencing around 2010, give or take a couple of years.
 
Event Duration
- 20 to 30 years.

Event Probabilities
- Start 100% - Has been guaranteed for over fifty years.
-Worst case scenario, 60-40

Global population outlook: Fewer workers to support seniors

WASHINGTON: The ranks of retired and elderly citizens are beginning to swell in many countries while the number of younger workers funding seniors' benefits and health care is on the slide, a report published Wednesday found.

The world population stood at 6.9 billion in 2010, with all the demographic growth taking place in developing countries.

Africa was expected to double its population by 2050, to two billion.

Industrialized countries, in contrast, now have 1.2 billion people and will see their populations grow increasingly elderly.

Japan, for example, has watched its birth rate edge down to 1.4 per woman; it has just three adults working to support one elderly person, the lowest ratio in the world alongside those of Germany and Italy, the report found.

By 2050, Japan will have just one working-aged adult to fund the needs of an older person. In Germany, Italy and France, the ratio will be two to one.

The United States, which now has five workers for every elderly person, will see the ratio slide to three to one.

"In 2011, world population will reach seven billion, just 12 years after reaching six billion," said Carl Haub, PRB senior demographer. "It also took 12 years to climb from five billion to six billion. The big question now is when will we reach eight billion? Most likely in 2024, 13 years after the seventh billion, but it could be sooner," he noted.

The economic recession also seems to have already caused a decline in the birth rates in developed countries including Spain and the United States, the study found.
Link -
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/news-by-industry/et-cetera/Global-popul...
===========
Personally, I think we may struggle to reach 8 Billion!

BobH wrote on Jul 29^th, 2010 at 4:25pm:


Well, we could have a lengthy discussion  about Growth & Planning, but let me head that one off and simply say this -
Economic Growth is dying, for many reasons and the "Economic Growth Fairy" will not be resuscitated.

So trust me, Economic Decline will need every bit of Economic, Population & Energy Planning possible and then some!

the world is overpopulated.
we have reached the point where we should naturally have fewer people in the earth, for the benefit of us all .

our unnaturalness may make our overpopulation worsen.
But it's still overpopulated as it is .

there would conceivably be in the world extremely powerful and wealthy interests who would agree with that no doubt. What do you say if these interests, corporate, government, military, or economic or a combination any or all of these, decide to act upon some agenda to reduce the world population by "rapid attrition", for want of a better term.
What would you say then?