And here is a curious statistic found via Stable Population Party of Australia facebook page:
"In 2006, almost one in five (19%) of the overseas-born population were aged 65 and over compared with 11% of the Australian-born population."
Immigration doesn't seem to be the answer and people are emmigrating because this FUBAR country has turned it's back on it's own children in pursuit of the almighty dollar and is becoming little better than the third world countries the majority of it's new immigrants come from.
True, many developing countries do have above replacement fertility rates, yet in those same countries fertility is falling.
We are a developed country and have a very high GDP per person.
True, we have now 5.27 million boomers and only 4.1 million were born here.
Immigration is not the only answer, as nations like Japan fall in population, yet increase their GDP through increasing exports.
We can not stop our population momentum, without killing people and our population growth will continue on regardless of our natural growth or immigration.
Note, in the next 25 years our death rates double and our natural growth could drop to zero.
Creating a xenophobic state is certainly not the answer, yet as our nation ages, that largest voting block will increasing see immigration as a problem, without really knowing the true demography of our increasing death rates.
Am I for increasing immigration? No. I am for doing what we can to stop the increasing emigration. Approx 100,000 Australian residents will leave last financial year, permanently. About half are OS born (student etc) and they will not return within 1 year as reported by the abs. That statement by the abs is bullshit.
We can not stop our population momentum, without killing people and our population growth will continue on regardless of our natural growth or immigration.
Note, in the next 25 years our death rates double and our natural growth could drop to zero. ........
Keh? Logic seems to be missing from these statements. Please expand.
Keh? Logic seems to be missing from these statements. Please expand.
Sorry I did not make myself clear. Babies and immigration only contribute 2/3 to our population growth. The 1/3 that is our population momentum, can not be stopped. More people living longer.
Ross Gittins, Ross Gittins Is The Economics Editor
July 9, 2011
Most of the interest in this week's figures for the labour force in June was in what they told us about the strength of the demand for labour. But what's happening to the supply of labour is just as interesting.
With the trend figures showing total employment grew by 188,000 over the six months to December, but by only 38,000 over the past six months, it's clear the demand for labour is slowing. This suggests the economy itself is growing less quickly, reducing concerns about gathering inflation pressure - for the time being, anyway.
Even so, the rate of unemployment staying steady at (a healthily low) 4.9 per cent for the past four months says the demand for labour at least is keeping pace with the supply of it. Which means the supply must have slowed, too.
The labour force (all those people with jobs or actively seeking them) grew by 1.7 per cent to just over 12 million people in the year to June, which was down from 2 per cent growth the previous financial year.
This is in distinction to the earlier position because, as an article in the latest Reserve Bank Bulletin points out, the labour force has grown at an average rate of 2.5 per cent a year since 2005. That's fast - it's also an extra 1.4 million people. Where have they all come from?
The first source is more people of working age (those 15 and over) choosing to actually participate in the labour force. And the big increase has been among women, plus older workers choosing to delay their retirement.
To appreciate the full effect we have to go back a bit. Since 1980, the rate of participation by women aged 25 to 54 has increased by about 20 percentage points, while the rate for women aged 55 to 64 has risen by a remarkable 35 percentage points.
Female participation has been rising since the 1960s and is occurring in all the rich economies. It reflects changing social norms as well as economic factors. The proportion of women with post-school qualifications has risen from 7 per cent in the early 1980s to more than 25 per cent today - which is higher than the proportion for men. Why wouldn't these women want to use their qualifications in paid work?
The strong growth of employment in service industries has suited women, partly by providing more jobs with flexible working arrangements. Growing access to child care and paid maternity leave has also helped.
But the largest increase in participation has been for older workers. The change for men began in about 2000. Since then, the rate for males aged 55 to 64 has risen by more than 10 percentage points. This trend, too, is happening around the developed world.
In Australia there had been a trend towards early retirement (you can access your superannuation savings at 55), but this is reversing. One factor encouraging people to remain in the labour force for longer is greater longevity.
Another is increases in the qualification age for the age pension. Since 1995 the age for women has been gradually increasing from 60 to 65, the same as for men, and for both men and women it will increase from 65 to 67 between 2017 and 2024.
Other factors encouraging later retirement include more flexible work practices, such as greater willingness to allow older workers to work part time, and the rising share of jobs in the services sector, where employment is typically less physically demanding than in the traditional goods-producing industries.
And here's where psychology enhances
oh-so-logical economics: more people are working longer because more of their mates are working longer. As social animals we have an instinctive urge to do what everyone else is doing.
Something to note about the rise in both female and older-worker participation, however, is that it's been accompanied by a decline in the average hours worked per worker. It's gone from 35 hours a week in 1980 to 32 hours today.
Why? Because women and older workers are more likely to work part-time. It also reflects a fall in the share of people working very long hours in recent years.
This means a bigger factor explaining the growth in the supply of labour has been the growth in the population of working age. It's been increasing at an average rate of 1.5 per cent a year since 1980. But annual population growth picked up markedly from the mid-2000s, peaking a more than 2 per cent in 2008, since when it's fallen back to the average.
Part of this is population growth is ''natural increase'' (more kids turning 15 than oldies dying) but most of it is net migration (more people come in than going out). The increase in net migration between 2004 and 2008 mainly reflected a higher intake of permanent and temporary skilled migrants and a huge rise in the number of overseas students.
The Howard government's switch of priority from family reunion to skilled migration helps explain why more than 80 per cent of the migrants who arrived in 2009-10 were of working age, compared to 70 per cent of the total population. The proportion of the labour force that had arrived in Australia in the previous five years rose from under 3 per cent in 1996 to 6 per cent in 2011.
In recent years the significance of the government's much-watched annual permanent immigration program has been overshadowed by the temporary immigration categories for skilled workers (employer-sponsored 457 visas), students and working holiday-makers (backpackers).
The number of 457 visa holders has doubled since the mid-2000s, though their share of total employment is still less than 1 per cent. Their numbers have fallen as a result of the global financial crisis, but are likely to go back up because of resources boom mark II.
The number of student visa holders has tripled over the past decade, accounting for most of the surge in net migration. Overseas students are permitted to work 20 hours a week while their course is in session and unlimited hours during scheduled course breaks.
Student numbers have fallen sharply, however, because of a tightening in entry rules, the higher exchange rate and the bad publicity in India.
Those who disapprove of high immigration should remember this - as should those economists who bewail the slowdown in net migration. A lot more overseas students won't avert our looming skilled labour shortages.
Why do so many think that population growth is a problem?
In TED Conversations, Hans Rosling, professor of International Health and co-founder of the outstanding interactive website Gapminder, asks, “Why do so many think that population growth is an important issue for the environment? Don’t they know the facts of demographics?” He partially answers his questions: We face many environmental challenges, but the foremost is the risk for a severe climate change due to CO2 emissions from fossil fuels.
I meet so many that think population growth is a major problem in regard to climate change. But the number of children born per year in the world has stopped growing since 1990. The total number of children below 15 years of age in the world are now relatively stable around 2 billion. The populations with an increasing amount of children born are fully compensated by other populations with a decreasing number of children born. A final increase of 2 billion people is expected until the world population peaks at about 9 billion in 2050. But the increase with 2 billion is comprised by already existing persons growing up to become adults, and old people like me (+60 years). So when I hear people saying that population growth has to be stopped before reaching 9 billion, I get really scared, because the only way to achieve that is by killing.
So the addition of another 2 billion in number constitutes a final increase of less than 30%, and it is inevitable. Beyond 2050 the world population may start to decrease if women across the world will have, on average, less than 2 children. But that decrease will be slow.
So the fact is that we have to plan for a common life on Earth with 7-9 billion fellow human beings, and the environmental challenge must be met by a more effective use of energy and a much more green production of energy.
The only thing that can change this is if the last 1-2 poorest billion do not get access to school, electricity, basic health services and family planning. Only if the horror of poverty remains will we become more than 9 billion.
So my question is: Are these facts known? If not, why?
It is important because placing emphasis on population diverts attention from what has to be done to limit the climate crisis.
You really should learn to use quotation marks, pauk. Hans Rosling's thoughts are not yours.
Sanjeev Sanyal: World population - Boom to bust? Sanjeev Sanyal / July 10, 2011, 0:15 IST
Tomorrow is World Population Day and we are probably expected to spend it fretting over demographic growth. The United Nations Population Division recently forecast that world population will hit almost 7 billion this year, 9.3bn in 2050 and over 10 billion by the end of this century. It also forecasts that India will surpass China as the world’s most populous country before 2025 and that its population will peak at 1.72bn in 2060.
However, data from population censuses conducted in many countries last year suggests that population growth is slowing very sharply. Birth rates have been low in developed countries for some time but they are now plunging in developing countries. The Chinese, Russians and Brazilians are no longer replacing themselves, while Indians are having fewer children. Indeed, global fertility will fall to the replacement rate within 15 years. Population may keep growing for a few more decades because of momentum from rising longevity but, reproductively speaking, our species should no longer be expanding. This would be a major turning point in the history of the human race. Total Fertility Rate (TFR) is the average number of live births per woman over her lifetime. In the long run, a population is said to be stable if the TFR is at the “replacement rate”. The replacement level of TFR is a little above 2.3 for the world as a whole although it is somewhat lower at 2.1 for developed countries, since they have lower infant mortality rates. The TFR for most developed countries now stands well below replacement levels. The OECD average is at around 1.74 but countries like Germany and Japan produce less than 1.4 children per woman.
However, the biggest TFR declines in recent years have been in developing countries. The TFR in China and India were 6.1 and 5.9 respectively in 1950. The ratio has now fallen to 1.8 in China due to the aggressive one-child policy and to 2.6 in India due to changing social attitudes. Indeed, India’s urban middle-class may be already below replacement rate. My informal survey of urban middle-class families suggests that their fertility rate may be below 1.5 and falling. In other words, urbanisation and upward mobility will depress population growth in India into the future.
An additional factor could depress future birth rates in China and India. The Chinese census suggests that there are 118.6 boys being born for every 100 girls. Similarly, India has a gender ratio at birth of around 110 boys for every 100 girls, with large regional variations. Compare this with the “natural” ratio of 105 boys per 100 girls. A cultural preference for boys is usually held responsible for the deviation. Since it is women who give birth, the future scarcity of women implies that the effective reproductive capacity for both countries is below that suggested by the unadjusted TFR.
After making the adjustment for the gender imbalance, China’s Effective Fertility Rate (EFR) is around 1.5 while that for India is around 2.45 — both below what is widely discussed. In other words, the Chinese are already far from replacing themselves while the Indians are only slightly above the replacement rate. The EFR is around 2.4 for the world as a whole, barely above the replacement rate. Current trends suggest that the human race will no longer be replacing itself by the early 2020s. Population growth will continue for a few more decades because of momentum from the age structure but, unless we discover the elixir of immortality, the gains from longevity will peter out eventually and the fall in fertility will triumph.
The above shifts have important implications for global labour supply. China is aging very rapidly and its working age population will begin to shrink within a few years. Will relaxing the one-child policy help? It may have some positive impact in the very long run but China is already past the tipping point because of a combination of gender imbalance and a very skewed age structure. The number of women of child bearing age (15-49 years) in China will drop 8 per cent between 2010 and 2020, another 10 per cent in the 2020s and, if not corrected, at an even faster pace thereafter. Thus, China will have to withdraw an increasing proportion of its female workforce and deploy it for reproduction and childcare. Even if such social engineering was possible today, it would further deplete the country's available workforce.
Meanwhile, the labour force has peaked or is close to peaking in most major economies. Germany, Japan and Russia already have a declining workforce. The US is one of a handful of advanced countries with a growing workforce due to its openness to immigration. However, this may become more difficult as the source countries become richer and themselves see rapid declines in birth rates. Thus, many developed countries will be wondering about how to keep people working productively into their early seventies. India is the only large economy that has a workforce that is growing in sufficient scale over the next three decades to balance the declines expected in other major economies.
Note, however, that birth rates are declining even in India. Current trends suggest that its population will probably stabilise at 1.55bn in the early 2050s, a full decade and 170mn below the UN’s forecast. Similarly, world population will peak at around 9bn in the 2050s, almost half a century sooner than generally anticipated. It could be argued that this is still higher than the planet’s carrying capacity but, when demographic dynamics turn, the world could be faced with a very different set of problems.
The author is Deutsche Bank’s Global Strategist. The opinions expressed here are personal
The working-age population is set to fall from 53.67 million people this year to 49.5 million by 2025, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Higher immigration from other European Union countries and farther afield may well prove a critical part of the answer, just as British ministers led by Iain Duncan Smith try to deter migrants from entering Britain.
"This is an ageing society," Felix Hufner, an OECD economist specialising in Germany, said. "What can you do in the short term? Promote high-skilled migration. We need to get them to the country and then integrate them."
Germany has one of the worst demographics of the big OECD nations, and the shortage of young candidates is evident in the apprenticeship system, where a record 50,000 places will go unfilled this year, according to the chambers of commerce. ...
What will Australia be like with less kids as a percentage of our total population? Looks like we really are headed for an actual nanny state...as the percentage of those over 65 grows...
"At June 2009, the total number of children under 15 years of age was 4.19 million. This was an increase of 181,100 (4.5%) from 2004, however, the proportion of the total population in this age bracket declined from 19.9% to 19.1%. A decline was recorded across all states and territories.
Australian Property Forum is an economics and finance forum dedicated to discussion of Australian and global real estate markets and macroeconomics, including house prices, housing affordability, and the likelihood of a property crash. Is there an Australian housing bubble? Will house prices crash, boom or stagnate? Is the Australian property market a pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme? Can house prices really rise forever? These are the questions we address on Australian Property Forum, the premier real estate site for property bears, bulls, investors, and speculators. Members may also discuss matters related to finance, modern monetary theory (MMT), debt deflation, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin Ethereum and Ripple, property investing, landlords, tenants, debt consolidation, reverse home equity loans, the housing shortage, negative gearing, capital gains tax, land tax and macro prudential regulation.
Forum Rules:
The main forum may be used to discuss property, politics, economics and finance, precious metals, crypto currency, debt management, generational divides, climate change, sustainability, alternative energy, environmental topics, human rights or social justice issues, and other topics on a case by case basis. Topics unsuitable for the main forum may be discussed in the lounge. You agree you won't use this forum to post material that is illegal, private, defamatory, pornographic, excessively abusive or profane, threatening, or invasive of another forum member's privacy. Don't post NSFW content. Racist or ethnic slurs and homophobic comments aren't tolerated. Accusing forum members of serious crimes is not permitted. Accusations, attacks, abuse or threats, litigious or otherwise, directed against the forum or forum administrators aren't tolerated and will result in immediate suspension of your account for a number of days depending on the severity of the attack. No spamming or advertising in the main forum. Spamming includes repeating the same message over and over again within a short period of time. Don't post ALL CAPS thread titles. The Advertising and Promotion Subforum may be used to promote your Australian property related business or service. Active members of the forum who contribute regularly to main forum discussions may also include a link to their product or service in their signature block. Members are limited to one actively posting account each. A secondary account may be used solely for the purpose of maintaining a blog as long as that account no longer posts in threads. Any member who believes another member has violated these rules may report the offending post using the report button.
Australian Property Forum complies with ASIC Regulatory Guide 162 regarding Internet Discussion Sites. Australian Property Forum is not a provider of financial advice. Australian Property Forum does not in any way endorse the views and opinions of its members, nor does it vouch for for the accuracy or authenticity of their posts. It is not permitted for any Australian Property Forum member to post in the role of a licensed financial advisor or to post as the representative of a financial advisor. It is not permitted for Australian Property Forum members to ask for or offer specific buy, sell or hold recommendations on particular stocks, as a response to a request of this nature may be considered the provision of financial advice.
Views expressed on this forum are not representative of the forum owners. The forum owners are not liable or responsible for comments posted. Information posted does not constitute financial or legal advice. The forum owners accept no liability for information posted, nor for consequences of actions taken on the basis of that information. By visiting or using this forum, members and guests agree to be bound by the Zetaboards Terms of Use.
This site may contain copyright material (i.e. attributed snippets from online news reports), the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such content is posted to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues. This constitutes 'fair use' of such copyright material as provided for in section 107 of US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed for research and educational purposes only. If you wish to use this material for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Such material is credited to the true owner or licensee. We will remove from the forum any such material upon the request of the owners of the copyright of said material, as we claim no credit for such material.
Privacy Policy: Australian Property Forum uses third party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our site. These third party advertising companies may collect and use information about your visits to Australian Property Forum as well as other web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here: Google Advertising Privacy FAQ
Australian Property Forum is hosted by Zetaboards. Please refer also to the Zetaboards Privacy Policy
