Australian Politics Forum - The Population Debate

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: The Population Debate
Reply #180 - Sep 15^th, 2010 at 2:12pm

Investors Face Low Returns on Ageing World, Deutsche Bank Says

Sept. 13 (Bloomberg) -- Investors should prepare for more volatility, shorter business cycles, more asset purchases by central banks and below-average returns as populations age, according to Deutsche Bank AG.

“There are no stand-out opportunities in developed markets,” London-based strategists Jim Reid and Nick Burns wrote in a research report. “Credit has normalized to average valuations, equities have arguably returned to above average valuations with bond yields now looking rich relative to history. Property still looks highly valued with commodities the asset class with most to lose if all assets mean revert.”

The “golden era” for investment in the 25 years through 2007 resulted in a 50/50 portfolio of U.S. Treasuries and equities returning an average of 7.3 percent, Deutsche Bank said. That was partly because of one of the world’s biggest periods of population growth in its history, between 1950 and 2000, it said.

“The ultra-supportive demographics of the past cannot be repeated,” the note, dated Sept. 10, said. “De-population is a genuine problem for parts of the developed world going forward. Indeed on that front Europe is more at risk of repeating Japan’s problems than the U.S.”

Link -
http://noir.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=axVvKb0s6lZk
===============
I would suggest that both the USA & Europe are exposed and Japan will dive even deeper!

That should not be read, as OZ and the rest of the world will be ok! Far from it, OZ & the ROW will catch the same brand of "flu"!

Back to top

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: The Population Debate
Reply #181 - Sep 15^th, 2010 at 4:21pm

Population: Thinking about our Future

Death is inevitable; population growth is not.

I prefer to discuss the latter and some of its implications in an attempt to convince you that further growth of the human population is unnecessary and will complicate virtually every other problem that we face today.

Writing about his popular blog, Dot Earth, Andy Revkin noted, “By 2050 or so, the human population is expected to reach nine billion, essentially adding two Chinas to the number of people alive today.”

The word “expected” is used here and elsewhere as if nothing we do can stop the addition of at least 2.1 billion more people to the planet over the next 40 years. That is absurd. Though nine billion is only a projected figure, based on assumptions about birth and death rates that may or may not be accurate between now and 2050, it is most often accepted as a fait accompli.

Rather than ask why we want or need another 2.1 billion humans on the planet, researchers focus almost exclusively on how we are going to provide those additional people with safe drinking water, food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and other needs, even though billions already do without some or all of those things.

Let’s be clear up front. There is nothing natural or necessary about adding 2.1 billion more people to the planet and it can’t be done without either diverting scarce resources from other uses or finding new resources.

One of the most common comments that I hear about population is the following: As the poor countries become richer, women in them will have fewer children. This thinking is based on the demographic transition model, which in turn was based on the experience of a number of western nations during earlier phases of the Industrial Revolution. The demographic transition model has no predictive power, as most demographers know, but it has led to the conventional wisdom that economic growth everywhere will lead to lower rates of population growth.

If we take an extreme case, the fallacy of such thinking becomes apparent. Assume that we wish to bring the world’s current population of 6.9 billion up to an American standard of living, then ask how we might do that. If we focus just on crude oil, the absurdity of such an assumption is striking. In round figures the United States right now consumes about 20 million barrels of crude oil per day and we have about 5 percent of the world’s population. If we were to bring the world up to our current oil consumption level, we would need to extract about 400 million barrels of crude oil per day, nearly five times current extraction.

Given what we know about oil extraction, oil deposits, oil reserves, alternative fuels from tar sands, and whatever else you want to throw in the mix, it is clear that we could not even come close to extracting 400 million barrels of oil per day from planet Earth, now or ever. We may not even be able to reach 100 million barrels per day.

Consider two different disciplinary perspectives, economics and ecology, and their very different implications for the future of humans and our planet. In the economics corner, Larry Summers a few years back stated that there is no limit to the carrying capacity of Earth for humans. More recently, Tim Harford concluded, in The Logic of Life: The Rational Economics of an Irrational World, “The more of us there are in the world, living our logical lives, the better our chances of seeing out the next million years.”

Though I don’t want to bias you too much, keep in mind that about 99.9 percent of economists failed to predict our recent global financial meltdown.

Economists and ecologists cannot both be right. Or can they? The answer depends in part on the time frame in which we choose to think, with economists thinking in much shorter time frames than ecologists.

The ecological costs of future demographic growth also outweigh the benefits.

In their recent study, Running on Empty? The Peak Oil Debate, David Ingles and Richard Denniss concluded the following:

Peak oil will arrive; the question is simply one of timing. It will probably be sooner than most people expect and definitely sooner than many would prefer. In an ideal world, governments would anticipate this development and plan for it; the alternative is a laissez-faire scenario likely to impose high economic costs in terms of stagflation and lost output.

As the sun rises on the dawn of peak oil we will see emerging from the shadows the four horsemen, ready to ride again if we do nothing now to humanely curtail our birth rates and shrink our burgeoning numbers. The choice is ours; the burden of making the wrong choice will fall on future generations.
Link -
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6949
============
Let's be clear, we don't have the essential resources to sustain 8-9 Billion people.

In fact, we would still struggle to sustain 2-3 Billion in a highly complex society, with all living in 1 st world conditions, given our existing & future likely positions regarding Energy, particularly in respect of transport.

That said, the longer we leave the current status quo, the more we are restricting the choice of future generations!

In fact, the likely outcome of business as usual, is a massive die-off in Energy starved third world countries and the danger of war in the "developed world".

Back to top

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: The Population Debate
Reply #182 - Sep 20^th, 2010 at 5:01pm

Chris Martensons Crash Course

Anyone wanting to get a holistic handle on current & future events, including Financial issues, would do well to review all of the following!

Personally, I would view Chapter 19, for an overview, then go back to Chapter’s 1 thru 18, to get a full perspective. Finally, look at Chapter 20 to view, What should we do?

The following observation of Arthur Schopenhauer is included in these videos and is very apt!

All Truth passes through three stages.

First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

Chapter 1 – Three Beliefs

Chapter 2 – The three E’s

Chapter 3 – Exponential Growth

Chapter 4 – Compounding is the Problem

Chapter 5 – Growth Vs Prosperity

Chapter 6 – What is Money?

Chapter 7 – Money Creation

Chapter 8 – The Fed & Money Creation

Chapter 9 – A brief History of US Money

Chapter 10 - Inflation

Chapter 11 – How much is a TRILLION?

Chapter 12 – DEBT (1 of 2)

Chapter 12 – DEBT (2 of 2)

Chapter 13 – A National Failure to Save (1 of 2)

Chapter 13 – A National Failure to Save (2 of 2)

Chapter 14 – Assets & Demographics (1 of 2)

Chapter 14 – Assets & Demographics (2 of 2)

Chapter 15 – Bubbles (1 of 2)

Chapter 15 – Bubbles (2 of 2)

Chapter 16 – Fuzzy Numbers (1of 2)

Chapter 16 – Fuzzy Numbers (2of 2)

Chapter 17a – Peak Oil (1 of 2)

Chapter 17a – Peak Oil (2 of 2)

Chapter 17b – Energy Budgeting

Chapter 17c – Energy & the Economy

Chapter 18 – Environment Data (1 of 2)

Chapter 18 – Environment Data (2 of 2)

Chapter 19 – Future Shock

Chapter 20 – What should I do?
http://vodpod.com/watch/1239314-crash-course-chapter-20-what-should-i-do-chris-m...

Back to top

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: The Population Debate
Reply #183 - Sep 20^th, 2010 at 9:17pm

Arithmetic, Population & Energy

Dr Albert Bartlett

(Part 1 of 8)

(Part 2 of 8)

(Part 3 of 8)

(Part 4 of 8)

(Part 5 of 8)

(Part 6 of 8)

(Part 7 of 8)

(Part 8 of 8)

The Bacteria comparison in Chapter 3, is apt!

But, there are a few other apt observations –
1) Technology Optimists will always be able to solve all of our Population Growth, Food, Energy & Resources problems?
2) Thinking is upsetting, it tells us things, we’d rather not know!
3) The chief source of problems, is solutions!
4) Facts do not cease to exist, simply because they are ignored1
5) The 1st Law of Sustainability, is that Population growth &/or growth in the rates of Consumption of Resources
CAN NOT BE SUSTAINED!
6) The greatest shortcoming of the human race, is OUR INABILITY TO UNDERSTAND THE EXPONENTIAL FUNCTION!

Back to top

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: The Population Debate
Reply #184 - Sep 22^nd, 2010 at 11:45am

Pensioners in Japan exceed 20% of population

For the first time the number of Japanese aged over 65 has reached 29.44 million, or 23.1% of the population of Japan, the ministry of national affairs reported on Monday.

The number of men of retirement age is 12.58 million, or 20.3% of the male population. For the first time since such statistics have been kept the age of one in every five men in the country is over 65 years.

There are 16.85 million women over the age of 65, or 25.8% of the female population, this means that one in four women in Japan is of retirement age.

Experts note that the "aging society", which is linked on the one hand, with increasing life expectancy, and on the other, with a reduction in birth rates, threatens to turn into a serious problem in the near future, because every year a growing number of people begin living on pensions and the reduction of the percentage of the working part of the population.
Link -
http://english.ruvr.ru/2010/09/21/21428362.html
=============
Whilst the headline of this article refers to 20% being being of Pensionable age (65), the figures are actually closing in on 25% or a quarter of the Population.

However that is only part of the story!

Of equal or greater importance is how these figures relate to the overall Worker to Total Population Participation Rate?

At present, given that 23% of the Population are retirees and at least 15% of the Population are under the working age, that means there are now approximately 6 workers for every 4 none workers.

That equates to 1.6 workers for every one non worker and that gap is expected to close significantly thru to 2050, placing a huge tax burden onto the remaining Japanes workers.

Similar patterns are emerging & will continue to do so, in many other countries, including the USA, Europe & Australia, Japan just started earlier than most, in around 1990, which also coincided with Declines in Japanese Share markets (Nikkei) & in their Real Estate markets!

http://chartmechanic.com/rest/charts/CURRENT_cmRandom=1285129884046

Back to top

« Last Edit: Sep 22^nd, 2010 at 2:33pm by perceptions_now »

IP Logged

It_is_the_Darkness Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 4000 in a ReTardis Gender:	Re: The Population Debate Reply #185 - Sep 22^nd, 2010 at 12:40pm Hey, this all looks pretty interesting after just having watched Attenborough's "How many people can planet earth have?" BBC last night on SBS. ...gotta go to work now though.
Back to top	SUCKING ON MY TITTIES, LIKE I KNOW YOU WANT TO. IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: The Population Debate
Reply #186 - Sep 22^nd, 2010 at 4:10pm

It_is_the_Darkness wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2010 at 12:40pm:

Hey, this all looks pretty interesting after just having watched Attenborough's "How many people can planet earth have?" BBC last night on SBS.
...gotta go to work now though.

Thanks Jasignature, I hadn't seen that before, it was good viewing!

================

How Many People Can Live on Planet Earth?

Part 1 of 6

Part 2 of 6

Part 3 of 6

Part 4 of 6

Part 5 of 6

Part 6 of 6

Attenborough produces some strong arguments, although perhaps, he could have gone for a little more of reality bites?

That said, he (Attenborough) does close well with -
Will the human condition called “Intelligence” save us?

Although,

I would have added -
Or, will the human conditions of Wrath, Greed, Sloth, Pride Lust, Envy and Gluttony, condemn us?

Back to top

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: The Population Debate
Reply #187 - Sep 27^th, 2010 at 8:59pm

China: One-child policy will stand

Beijing, China (CNN) -- China will not drop its one-child policy, officials say, 30 years after Beijing decreed the population-control measure.

"I, on behalf of the National Population and Family Planning Commission, extend profound gratitude to all, the people in particular, for their support of the national course," said Li Bin, who leads the commission.

"So we will stick to the family-planning policy in the coming decades," she said over the weekend, according to the state-run China Daily.

An estimated 400 million births have been prevented by the policy, according to official statistics.

Some critics have urged Beijing to relax the policy, partly because it has skewed China's population. Its workforce is aging, which hurts its ability to compete in manufacturing. That has led some companies to move operations to other countries.

The measure limits most Chinese couples to one child. In their quest for sons, some couples have aborted female fetuses or abandoned infant girls, thousands of whom have been adopted by foreigners.

Some Chinese couples -- such as those who are both only children, or some who live in rural areas -- have been allowed more than one child. Critics also have complained that better-off families have been able to bribe officials into allowing them more children.
Link -
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/09/27/china.one.child.policy/
===========
There really wasn't any other realistic decision possible for China and at some point India will also cease its Population growth!

Back to top

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: The Population Debate
Reply #188 - Oct 3^rd, 2010 at 9:14pm

Population and Sustainability: Addressing the Taboo

More and more activists in the sustainability movement are coming to the conclusion that carbon emissions can’t be reduced to a safe range without curbing population growth. However at present it’s considered politically incorrect to even mention population control. The right accuses you of infringing on God-given personal rights – to have babies and own guns. And what passes for the left accuses you of being naive and impractical for trying to address something that inflames the right.

Thus I feel compelled to begin with a disclaimer: I am not about mandatory sterilization, abortion or eugenics (mandatory sterilization and/or abortion for those considered “unfit” to reproduce). Nevertheless I believe those of us in the developed world face a stark choice: either we substantially limit our population growth or we massively – and I mean massively – downsize our high tech lifestyles.

Fossil Fuel Depletion: A Bigger Threat Than Climate Change

Unfortunately extreme weather events and other complications of increasing carbon dioxide concentrations aren’t the only major crisis human kind faces at present. Fossil fuel depletion also poses a major threat because of its implications for food production. Our industrialized system of agriculture is totally dependent on cheap oil and natural gas – not only to run farm machinery and transport produce to market, but in the production of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides.

Even the oil companies acknowledge that production of oil and natural gas isn’t keeping up with the exploding demand from a new, very large middle class in India and China. Although it will be decades before we totally run out of either, we have definitely reached a point where relative scarcity has significantly increased the cost of driving and heating our homes – and, in many parts of the world, the cost of food.

Has the Earth Already Exceeded Its Carrying Capacity?

The basic problem humanity faces is that we live on a finite planet with finite resources – which means we cannot provide food, water and other resources for an infinite number of human beings. Some in the sustainability movement

– pointing to the 1.2 billion people who are essentially starving to death from an epidemic of famines (due to increasing desertification, combined with the increasing frequency of tropical storms, floods, droughts and wild fires) -

believe that we have already exceeded the number (at 6.8 billion) that the earth can support.

Without the availability of cheap fossil fuels, the number of hungry people will increase exponentially. Agricultural scientists predict that subsistence level agriculture (replacing farm machinery with horse, oxen and human labor) can only support around two billion people.

The big question obviously is how we address population growth without infringing on personal freedoms. I, for one am absolutely opposed to mandatory population controls. For the simple reason that I don’t trust the global elite that controls our so-called democracies to legislate population measures fairly. They will always pass laws that allow the privileged classes to reproduce, while mandatory abortion and sterilization is imposed on populations they consider inferior to themselves.

Ignoring the Elephant Won’t Make Him Go Away
I certainly don’t pretend to have all the answers, but agreeing not to discuss the population issue definitely won’t get us there. The first step in my mind is to understanding the different pressures driving population growth (why, for example, does the US have a fertility rate of 2.1, when the rest of the developed world hovers between 1.1 and 1.4?) and then developing policy that addresses these specific pressures.
Link -
http://blogs.alternet.org/refugee/2010/10/02/population-and-sustainability-addre...
==============

In terms of Climate & Fossil Fuels, I doubt it will come down to a choice, but both a large problems.

However, the Decline of Fossil Fuels will become an obvious problem first, then followed by Over-Population & Climate issues.

So, it's more a matter of timelines & when the issues become unmistakably apparent to the general Public.

Back to top

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: The Population Debate
Reply #189 - Oct 8^th, 2010 at 11:22am

Australian Job Boom Sends Immigration ‘Wake-Up Call’

Oct. 8 (Bloomberg) -- Australia’s surging job market, capping its strongest quarter since 2006, signals the government may need to retreat from a campaign pledge to slow population growth as the central bank tries to control inflation.

The number of people employed rose 49,500 in September from a month earlier, almost 2 ½ times the median estimate in a Bloomberg News survey and the most since January, the statistics bureau said yesterday in Sydney. Full-time employment jumped 112,500 in the past two months, the biggest back-to-back increase since 1988.

“Clearly the latest jobs data sends a wake-up call to the government,” said Craig James, a senior economist at Commonwealth Bank of Australia in Sydney. “If we want to restrain wage pressures and keep interest rates low then labor supply needs to increase and that means more migrants.”

Net immigration dropped 25 percent to 241,400 in the year ended March 31 from 320,400 recorded for the year earlier, a statistics bureau report showed last month.

In the past year, immigration has fallen at the fastest rate on record, which is “certainly not a desirable outcome,” James said.

Under the baseline scenario of a Treasury report in February, the population is forecast to expand 1.2 percent a year to 35.9 million by 2050. Paring that rate by one-third would cut the average annual economic growth rate to 2.3 percent from 2.7 percent, according to the Treasury. Net migration is the “key” variable influencing the outcomes, the study said.
Link -
http://noir.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aUVuPXRq4L2A&pos=2
=====================
Yes, immigrants have brought along many benefits, in the past!

As did the high natural birth rates of mid last century, which brought Economic benefits!

However, nothing ever goes in one direction forever and we now find ourselves in a different situation to which we have been, for the last 50-60 uears, in particular.

Sustaining that past high growth in the natural birth rate & in immigration is now more of a cost/benefit equation, rather than simply a benefit!

For example, we are already starting to struggle to provide Food & fresh Water for the existing Population, let alone double that Population, which is where both major Political party's are heading.

An example of that is the Murray Darling basin, which is the Food bowl of Australia. It is struggling now, under a lack of water and will not double its Food production, as Climate Change continues to dry the continent, over time.

A second example is WA and the mining boom. But, the wheatbelt area & general agricultural Production are struggling against a lack of rainfall & Production will not support increasing numbers.

This is particular applicable in Perth city, as it is drying up from lack of rainfall, as shown in our current dam levels which are only 35% of capacity, having just come out of winter.

Then, there is the matter of Peak Energy, where Global Oil Production is already in Decline & Coal & Gas are set to follow, within 20-30 years.

Housing & Infrastructure are no longer simply benefits, they are two edged swords.

It's time to think a little further ahead, than the usual Political timeline of the next election & the Economic imperative of the next quarterly profit figures!

Back to top

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: The Population Debate
Reply #190 - Oct 11^th, 2010 at 7:55pm

Population: It’s the infrastructure, stupid. Or is it?

I was at the local pub a few weeks ago with a friend and her husband, both of whom work in defence. He was keen to catch up and discuss my involvement in the fledgling Stable Population Party, and as it turned out, to rebut concerns I have about population growth.

More infrastructure, he said, would solve everything.

He’d barely considered peak oil or other finite resources, the loss of arable land, food security, water supply, carbon emissions or climate change. Nope, it’s all about infrastructure.

I drilled down a bit further. Why would you need ever-increasing infrastructure if you don’t have an ever-increasing population? Surely we should focus on improving our current hospitals rather than building new ones?

I eventually prised it out of him. It was about security. Or insecurity.

I explained to him (yes I know, he’s the one in defence) how modern warfare is not about more people lining the beaches. His wife nodded in agreement. Does it really make any difference if we balloon to 30, 40, 50 or even 100 million, if countries five to ten times as populous invade? Surely the odds are in their favour either way if it simply comes down to numbers, which of course it doesn’t. So why should we destroy our quality of life advantage based on fear?

We returned to infrastructure.

I pointed out that it's not just about the planning. It’s also about the paying. Importantly, these are up-front costs borne by current taxpayers, if we are to maintain our per capita infrastructure standards.

So what is the cost to existing taxpayers in order to grow the population by (say) one person?

It’s a real challenge to find information on the per capita cost of infrastructure for some reason. Growthist governments and business groups don’t normally leave that sort of information lying around.

The best information I currently have is a recent report by Curtin University which found that state development costs including infrastructure for new suburbs are $684,000 per dwelling. At the national average of around 2.6 people per household that’s approximately $263,000 per person.

Putting aside the enormous and often ignored environmental and social costs for a moment, does this evidence help demonstrate that population growth on our thin green coastal strip has reached the stage where diminishing returns have become negative? That is, uneconomic. Or are our politicians too frightened to tell us?

The term ‘black hole’ comes to mind.

Let’s put this conservative Curtin University development cost estimate into practice.

Recently we’ve heard immigration lawyers whipping up hysteria (and business) by encouraging an estimated 147,000 ex-students in the permanent residency queue to defy Australian law and stay on regardless.

If we add up the estimated state-level development costs for these students, at a conservative $263,000 each, we come to a big number. $38,661,000,000. Or $38.7 billion. That’s the conservative up-front investment required from current taxpayers, just to accommodate the current ex-student applicants. It’s not inconceivable to multiply these costs by (say) four, for our generous family reunion program, and you have a cost of over $150 billion. This just scratches the surface. What does the total population growth obsession of government and big business cost us?

Environmental and social costs are hard to measure, so we just ignore them. Higher rents and mortgage repayments, driving many into economic hardship, don’t matter. The destruction of our native wildlife and vital arable farmland don’t rate either.

If population growth is sending you broke and necessitating the sale of your remaining assets and use of retirement funds, there won’t be much left to pay for a fleet of Joint Strike Force fighters – let alone an aged-care bed.

As a starting point, the onus is on those who push population growth against the will of the people to prove that it still has net economic benefits. We then need to factor in environmental and social costs.

The evidence is now overwhelming that most of our major economic, environmental and social problems are caused or exacerbated by our high population growth. Until we get a full cost-benefit analysis, we can choose to stabilise through two simple policies:

1. Phase out the baby bonus; and
2. Reduce immigration to around 50,000 per annum.

Given the current fertility rate of around two children per woman, this zero net migration program would stabilise our population at around 23-26 million through to 2050, and beyond. It would comfortably include our refugee intake, as well as reasonable skilled migration and family reunion elements.

No matter what the business lobby and their well-funded ‘independent’ centres and institutes tell us, endless population growth is not inevitable. It’s a choice.

The way I see it, a stable Australia is the sustainable choice.
Link -
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/39930.html
=============
The real choice is Populate & Perish or operate a sustainable Population & a sustainable Economy!

Back to top

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: The Population Debate
Reply #191 - Oct 15^th, 2010 at 2:10pm

Boomers exit 'key issue' for workforce

AUSTRALIA is about to start a big "baby bust", according to a new study, where baby boomers increasingly quit the workforce over the next 15 years, removing their skills and their big contribution to the national tax base.

The study, by KPMG and Ipsos, said the Australian economy had benefited for 45 years from baby boomers moving into and remaining in the workforce, including contributing to the spending and investment spree that preceded the global financial crisis.

"But from 2011 onwards, the demographic underpinning to the workforce and to the tax base provided by the boomers slowly unravels," the study said.

"The imminent removal of key skills from the workforce is shaping as a key issue for the coming decade."

As an example, the study pointed out that one-third of Australia's nurse population was likely to retire in the next five years
, despite the inadequate pipeline of young nurses.The oldest baby boomers, born just after the war, start to turn 65 next year.

Many of them have inadequate superannuation, given the compulsory system only began in 1992.

The study predicted that, despite the strains on the tax base as this generation looks for greater support in retirement, the boomers are also likely to force acceptance of older workers continuing in employment, at least part-time.

Even this won't be sufficient to offset the loss of skills, with the research showing a gulf in attitudes between business leaders and the general population towards immigration and the need for a "big Australia".

Demographer and study co-author Bernard Salt said business held real concerns about the supply of labour and skills without adequate immigration and population growth.

"Business leaders are far more concerned than consumers about the detrimental effects of the current discussion about asylum-seekers and immigrants," he said.

Both parties in the August 21 election campaign backed away from any support for high immigration levels, exacerbated by the public antagonism to asylum-seekers and widespread anger that services could not cope.
The study said while many consumers acknowledged the need for more skilled migrants, there were still significant levels of anxiety and hostility about immigration in general.
Link -
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/boomers-exit-key-issue-for-workforce...
=============

This is more a "WISH" from some segments and a reflection that some boomers retirement funds have disappeared, rather than any "desire" that Boomers have to work on.

Any appearance that either major party may favor lower Population growth, is purely for perceptions, rather than reality!

Back to top

IP Logged

Equitist

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW

Re: The Population Debate
Reply #192 - Oct 15^th, 2010 at 2:30pm

The issues raised in the article should come as no surprise to anyone - what is surprising, is that our Govts (of all persuasions and at all levels) have serially failed to take serious mitigating steps...

Notably, the Howard Govt had the benefit of the 2 Intergenerational Reports and the unprecedented revenue windfalls of the GST and an extended mining boom - and they still set up the nation to suffer from several structural deficit time-bombs...

In addition to doling out billions of dollars in effectively-pre-paid pensions to the already-well-off, they gave high-end tax cuts and introduced a range of other counter-productive WEALTHfare measures...

On top of this, they failed to invest in the public education and training of those Aussies who would otherwise be able to fill the employment and service gaps created by large numbers of retiring and ailing Baby Boomers - and they chose to import record numbers of workers and students...

The Labs have been somewhat remiss too - especially when they matched the reckless $34b 2007 pre-election Tax Cut promises of Howard/Costello...

Back to top

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: The Population Debate
Reply #193 - Oct 15^th, 2010 at 4:50pm

Equitist wrote on Oct 15^th, 2010 at 2:30pm:

The issues raised in the article should come as no surprise to anyone - what is surprising, is that our Govts (of all persuasions and at all levels) have serially failed to take serious mitigating steps...

Notably, the Howard Govt had the benefit of the 2 Intergenerational Reports and the unprecedented revenue windfalls of the GST and an extended mining boom - and they still set up the nation to suffer from several structural deficit time-bombs...

In addition to doling out billions of dollars in effectively-pre-paid pensions to the already-well-off, they gave high-end tax cuts and introduced a range of other counter-productive WEALTHfare measures...

On top of this, they failed to invest in the public education and training of those Aussies who would otherwise be able to fill the employment and service gaps created by large numbers of retiring and ailing Baby Boomers - and they chose to import record numbers of workers and students...

The Labs have been somewhat remiss too - especially when they matched the reckless $34b 2007 pre-election Tax Cut promises of Howard/Costello...

I agree that Liberal & Labor were well underperformed, in the lead up to the start of the current GFC and I refer there not to a few years, but many decades, really at least post 1970!

That said, both Libs & Labs did do some things, like introduce the Super Guanrantee(Labs) & Debt clearing (Libs).

However, the Libs failed to continue raising the Super guarantee to 15% & beyond, as they should have and both Libs & Labs made an unholy mess out of "promises" for the 2007 election.

Notwithstanding that both Libs & Labs could have & should have, done much better, as they knew what was & is coming in the Boomer Bust & other problems such as Peak Oil.

Still, they both still did much better than most other countries!

Back to top

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: The Population Debate
Reply #194 - Oct 20^th, 2010 at 12:08am

Aging Baby Boomers and the Nursing Shortage

Some 80 million baby boomers are expected to retire between 2010 and 2020, and healthcare analysts are predicting that this, coupled with the already existing scarcity of nurses, will result in the largest nursing shortage in the nation's history.

The future of nursing is full of uncertainty right now -- the retirement of nurses who are themselves baby boomers will create huge shortages. About one-third of the nurses now working are 50 or older, and more than half are reported to be considering retirement in the next 10 years.

By 2020, the shortage could be anywhere from 300,000 to 1 million nurses. What makes the problem even worse is that nursing schools are turning away more than 40,000 qualified applicants each year. Some believe that the shortages will be large enough to bring the entire healthcare system to a standstill. Recently passed healthcare reform will be an additional burden, as it will require more healthcare professionals to handle the increase in the number of insured.

About 75 percent of nurses surveyed by the American Association of Colleges of Nursing believe that the shortage of nurses decreases the quality of their work life, the quality of the care they give to patients, as well as the time they give to patients.

So, this shortage is especially problematic in that it is both a supply shortage, and a demand increase, with fewer nursing students, an aging workforce, and a baby boom bubble needing more healthcare services.

The shortage is not just in the United States. Canada, the Philippines,
Australia
, and Western Europe also are experiencing shortages.

The demand is driven even more by changes in health care management. More and more, hospitals are treating only the most severe health problems, requiring the most intense treatment. As a result, skilled nurses and nurses specializing in certain areas are in demand.

Another problem is the educational pipeline. Hospitals want nurses with at least a bachelor's degree, but college nursing enrollments have actually been falling.

Another situation making the problem even worse is the baby boom/baby bust cycle. The baby boom generation was created between 1946 and 1964 yet was followed by a rapid fall in birthrates. So now there are roughly 80 million baby boomers, followed by just 44 million in the generation after the boomers. This has led to the smallest number of entry-level workers since the 1930s. And that has created problems for employers in finding enough qualified workers to fill open positions -- a problem for healthcare employers as well.

So all of these problems are coming together to create a situation that needs to be addressed quickly and cooperatively.
Link -
http://yourarticlesource.com/Art/268393/274/Aging-Baby-Boomers-and-the-Nursing-S...
=============
The US situation will be reflected in many other countries, in nursing, in Doctors, in Health services generally and in many esstential industries!

But the bottleneck is not only in esstential personnel, but also in Demand for Goods & Services!

Back to top

IP Logged