Inflation

[Value Collector]

The results are clear to see. Just bring up a graph of CPI adjusted GDP per capita and you can see how it has gone sideways for the past two years. Meaning that migration is no longer a net benefit. Perhaps it was a different story 30 years ago.

But with our aging population, perhaps without migration real GDP would have shrunk, sideways might be a good outcome.

I mean, if you took out all the immigrants, out population would be a lot older, would our GDP still have gone sideways? Or would it have gone down?

 

[Belli]

Good work Belli I am green with envy, my current pet hate is paying $9 to $10 for a Corona when eating out same beer cost me 30 cents in Mexico 1987

I don't drink alcohol so a saving to me there.

To make you even greener, the prices at the coffee shop I frequent is dependant on who is working there and if I have a keep cup with me. On numerous occasions I've purchased a large flat white at $2.50 and other times the prices will vary between be $3.00 or $4.50. Part of the thrill is you never know what you will be charged. Think of it as the coffee equivalent of the share market.

 

[Value Hunter]

But with our aging population, perhaps without migration real GDP would have shrunk, sideways might be a good outcome.

I mean, if you took out all the immigrants, out population would be a lot older, would our GDP still have gone sideways? Or would it have gone down?

Even if that is the case you are essentially admitting that Australia is now a ponzi economy that will go backwards without net migration flows?

Besides even if migration were to slightly increase GDP per capita going forward it would still not be worth for the average person due to the offsetting negatives like increased traffic, increased pollution, more competition for jobs, higher land prices, higher rents, etc .
(yes migrants sometimes start businesses also but the net effect is more supply of labour for available demand). Sure landlords who own prime real estate will benefit from higher land prices and rents and many businesses will benefit from a larger labour pool and an enlarged customer base but for the average person I firmly believe population growth (i.e. migration) is now a net negative.

 

[Value Collector]

Even if that is the case you are essentially admitting that Australia is now a ponzi economy that will go backwards without net migration flows?

Besides even if migration were to slightly increase GDP per capita going forward it would still not be worth for the average person due to the offsetting negatives like increased traffic, increased pollution, more competition for jobs, higher land prices, higher rents, etc .
(yes migrants sometimes start businesses also but the net effect is more supply of labour for available demand). Sure landlords who own prime real estate will benefit from higher land prices and rents and many businesses will benefit from a larger labour pool and an enlarged customer base but for the average person I firmly believe population growth (i.e. migration) is now a net negative.

I wouldn’t call it a Ponzi scheme.

But yes Australia’s birth rate is only 1.5 per woman, so without immigration our population will age and shrink.

Population is still growing globally, so I think being the holders of such a large land with such a small population we has a responsibility to accept some immigration and as I said atleast maintaining our population of working age adults seems beneficial.

One day the global population will begin to decrease, hopefully by then we have robots to do all the work, or Australia is still attractive that we can maintain immigration even with a shrinking population.

 

[Value Hunter]

I wouldn’t call it a Ponzi scheme.

But yes Australia’s birth rate is only 1.5 per woman, so without immigration our population will age and shrink.

Population is still growing globally, so I think being the holders of such a large land with such a small population we has a responsibility to accept some immigration and as I said atleast maintaining our population of working age adults seems beneficial.

One day the global population will begin to decrease, hopefully by then we have robots to do all the work, or Australia is still attractive that we can maintain immigration even with a shrinking population.

You didn't really address my concerns other than to say that we need to accept migrants for the greater good of humanity which is not a stance I agree with although I can see why you would feel that way.

 

[over9k]

 

[moXJO]

I heard the unions are blocking certain ports for a pay rise. It's slowed shipping up a lot.

 

[sptrawler]

But yes Australia’s birth rate is only 1.5 per woman, so without immigration our population will age and shrink.

Jeez I did my bit, had 4 kids, 2 boys + 2 girls (or for the inclusive members, two with, two without) and they have produced 8 grandkids, I would say I performed above and beyond.

7th Dec 2023:

Ditch the rose-coloured glasses: Australia’s GDP is going backwards | Greg Jericho

We have now had three consecutive quarters of falling GDP on a per capita basis. That last happened 40 years ago during the 1982-83 recession

www.theguardian.com

 

[sptrawler]

I heard the unions are blocking certain ports for a pay rise. It's slowed shipping up a lot.

It's worse than that Jim.
Lucky inflation is going down and along with it interest rates.

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

www.bloomberg.com

Transgrid strike action threatens renewables build-out

Industrial action starting on Friday may disrupt construction of the $2.3 billion EnergyConnect transmission line, a key part of the renewable energy build-out.

www.afr.com

Centrelink cost-of-living cash boost coming for these Aussies

Thousands of Centrelink recipients will see their payments increase in January, due to regular indexation. Here’s what’s changing.

au.finance.yahoo.com

 

[Belli]

Having a chin wag with the fella who owns the coffee shop (he has another food venue as well.) He told me the take-away cups cost $0.07 each last year. His latest order he placed the price had increased to $0.17. I'll feel the pain when the price of my coffee goes up shortly.

 

[qldfrog]

Having a chin wag with the fella who owns the coffee shop (he has another food venue as well.) He told me the take-away cups cost $0.07 each last year. His latest order he placed the price had increased to $0.17. I'll feel the pain when the price of my coffee goes up shortly.

Then his public liability premium, etc etc

 

[Belli]

Then his public liability premium, etc etc

Yup. As you imply add on power price increases and all the rest. The profit margin on coffee isn't great. You have to sell a lot of them to even begin to cover your costs. He is expecting a backlash from some. However, those who do complain probably don't have the ability to run a business. He has another food venue as well and is putting in at least 80 hours a week. That's the business he wants to be in and loves what he does despite the effort.

 

[Value Collector]

You didn't really address my concerns other than to say that we need to accept migrants for the greater good of humanity which is not a stance I agree with although I can see why you would feel that way.

I am not sure what your actual concern is.

I mean you called Australia a Ponzi scheme, but it seems quite normal that people want to retire in their old age, and that we need workers to replace them, I don’t consider that a Ponzi scheme, it’s just the natural human condition.

Unfortunately the developed world, including Australia don’t produce enough births to maintain that working population ourselves, so we need immigration or as I said better robots.

——————————-

Also, with a shrinking population inside Australia, and growing one outside, eventually the rest of the world might not support the idea of our tiny population hoarding all this land and resources to ourselves, and we might find parts of Australia annexed.

 

[Value Hunter]

I am not sure what your actual concern is.

I mean you called Australia a Ponzi scheme, but it seems quite normal that people want to retire in their old age, and that we need workers to replace them, I don’t consider that a Ponzi scheme, it’s just the natural human condition.

Unfortunately the developed world, including Australia don’t produce enough births to maintain that working population ourselves, so we need immigration or as I said better robots.

——————————-

Also, with a shrinking population inside Australia, and growing one outside, eventually the rest of the world might not support the idea of our tiny population hoarding all this land and resources to ourselves, and we might find parts of Australia annexed.

My concern is we are sacrificing the quality of life of young and middle aged people to pay for looking after older people.

I feel that its just kicking the can down the road.

I feel if society faced the problem head on the problems of an ageing population would wash through the system within a timeframe of 50 - 100 years.

And yes some sacrifices would need to be made by people (lower welfare spending, fewer government paid pensions, etc) today but that would set up a sustainable future and the demographics would eventually stabilize/right themselves. And in the meantime you would not have all the problems caused by rising population (rising rent and land prices, suppressed wages due to job competition, crowding, lack of infrastructure, etc). If you keep importing migrants to grow the population to stop the ageing demographic then later you will need to import even more migrants as the original migrants will get old and thus the problem just snowballs. You are not solving anything you are just kicking the can down the road.

My solution would be to only take enough migrants to maintain the population rather than grow it and deal with the problems of an ageing demographic head on by cutting government spending to keep finances sustainable. There is plenty of wasteful boondoggle spending you can cut so it should not be a problem.

 

[Value Collector]

My concern is we are sacrificing the quality of life of young and middle aged people to pay for looking after older people.

I feel that its just kicking the can down the road.

I feel if society faced the problem head on the problems of an ageing population would wash through the system within a timeframe of 50 - 100 years.

And yes some sacrifices would need to be made by people (lower welfare spending, fewer government paid pensions, etc) today but that would set up a sustainable future and the demographics would eventually stabilize/right themselves. And in the meantime you would not have all the problems caused by rising population (rising rent and land prices, suppressed wages due to job competition, crowding, lack of infrastructure, etc). If you keep importing migrants to grow the population to stop the ageing demographic then later you will need to import even more migrants as the original migrants will get old and thus the problem just snowballs. You are not solving anything you are just kicking the can down the road.

My solution would be to only take enough migrants to maintain the population rather than grow it and deal with the problems of an ageing demographic head on by cutting government spending to keep finances sustainable. There is plenty of wasteful boondoggle spending you can cut so it should not be a problem.

You can’t just bring in enough migrants to maintain the population, you need to bring in enough to maintain the working age population, because the population is ageing and living longer we have a growing population of retired people.

So we need to not just keep the total population level, but the ration of workers to retired people stable, which requires a growing population, atleast until the life expectancy stops increasing.

 

[Value Hunter]

You can’t just bring in enough migrants to maintain the population, you need to bring in enough to maintain the working age population, because the population is ageing and living longer we have a growing population of retired people.

So we need to not just keep the total population level, but the ration of workers to retired people stable, which requires a growing population, atleast until the life expectancy stops increasing.

I disagree and I outlined my solution in my post above. Stomach the pain of an ageing population for 50 - 100 years to right the ship. That is taking a long term view rather then perpetuating an ultimately unsustainable system. Besides if theworking age population shrinks then wages will rise and boost people standard of living (as long as spending cuts are made by the government to keep fiscal sustainably intact). Just look what happened in Europe after the black plague (a shortage of labour caused rising wages and living standards as well as better working conditions).

 

[sptrawler]

You can’t just bring in enough migrants to maintain the population, you need to bring in enough to maintain the working age population, because the population is ageing and living longer we have a growing population of retired people.

So we need to not just keep the total population level, but the ration of workers to retired people stable, which requires a growing population, atleast until the life expectancy stops increasing.

If you aren't building productive industries and only increasing popultion to maintain a working age population, that is building non productive infrastructure, where is the net gain? Other than increasing population for population sake?

As I posted earlier, we are actually running a negative GDP per capita economy and I don't see many capital raisings or IPO's flying.
Nickel is on the nose, coal is a nono, iron ore is having it's day in the sun, but let's be honest things aren't rosy.

 

[qldfrog]

I disagree and I outlined my solution in my post above. Stomach the pain of an ageing population for 50 - 100 years to right the ship. That is taking a long term view rather then perpetuating an ultimately unsustainable system. Besides if theworking age population shrinks then wages will rise and boost people standard of living (as long as spending cuts are made by the government to keep fiscal sustainably intact). Just look what happened in Europe after the black plague (a shortage of labour caused rising wages and living standards as well as better working conditions).

And for the solution taken by VC, look at the results in Europe: France is the top demographic champion of Europe, plenty of unrestricted migration, by the millions, suburbs booming and new mosques building relentlessly;
And with most on welfare, yes the growth is maintained , more consumption, more jails but the job skills are still lacking, you just add millions on welfare .
We could just allow the pension or dole for dogs and cats, same economic effect, less trouble
We have reached that point here as the later figures demonstrate:
if adding people does not increase the cake proportionally, you are leading the population toward poverty and misery, with wealth per inhabitant decreasing
as in France..definitively not a model to follow
And even humanitarian aka refugees input is a burden to society:

The shocking revelation about Palestinians and crime in Denmark: the vast majority have been convicted of crimes

This was found by an analysis based on official sources from the Danish government.

voz.us

Real figure, real data, sad outcomes
Feel free to visit the horror of Japan with its aging population vs the happy life of France's suburbs.
LOL
A decreasing population does not need to be an issue especially when productivity is supposed to increase with robots, AI and IT.
But you have to be smart, change legislation and taxation to fit
That assumption of productivity increases is not a given in the state controlled economy as poor Australia is doing its best to emulatethe past miracles of former USSR :-(

 

[Value Collector]

I disagree and I outlined my solution in my post above. Stomach the pain of an ageing population for 50 - 100 years to right the ship. That is taking a long term view rather then perpetuating an ultimately unsustainable system. Besides if theworking age population shrinks then wages will rise and boost people standard of living (as long as spending cuts are made by the government to keep fiscal sustainably intact). Just look what happened in Europe after the black plague (a shortage of labour caused rising wages and living standards as well as better working conditions).

The ship won’t right itself, in a country that has a birth rate of less than 2 per woman and where the life expectancy keeps rising, the population imbalance between young and old/ workers and retired will permanently be out of balance.

 

[Value Collector]

And for the solution taken by VC, look at the results in Europe: France is the top demographic champion of Europe, plenty of unrestricted migration, by the millions, suburbs booming and new mosques building relentlessly;
And with most on welfare, yes the growth is maintained , more consumption, more jails but the job skills are still lacking, you just add millions on welfare .
We could just allow the pension or dole for dogs and cats, same economic effect, less trouble
We have reached that point here as the later figures demonstrate:
if adding people does not increase the cake proportionally, you are leading the population toward poverty and misery, with wealth per inhabitant decreasing
as in France..definitively not a model to follow
And even humanitarian aka refugees input is a burden to society:

The shocking revelation about Palestinians and crime in Denmark: the vast majority have been convicted of crimes

This was found by an analysis based on official sources from the Danish government.

voz.us

Real figure, real data, sad outcomes
Feel free to visit the horror of Japan with its aging population vs the happy life of France's suburbs.
LOL
A decreasing population does not need to be an issue especially when productivity is supposed to increase with robots, AI and IT.
But you have to be smart, change legislation and taxation to fit
That assumption of productivity increases is not a given in the state controlled economy as poor Australia is doing its best to emulatethe past miracles of former USSR :-(

immigration has been thing in Australia for 200 years.

Remind me frog where were you born? I was born here but to immigrant parents.

50% of our population is either immigrants or born to immigrants.

the only problem I see is the recent speed, we could idle back a bit in my opinion.