Ageing of the population not solved by high immigration
by TheRealists ~ September 20th, 2009
The past week has seen a lot of reporting on Australia’s high levels of immigration and population growth. The reports were sparked by the release of the latest Intergenerational Report.
Headlines such as Australia ‘sleepwalking’ into population disaster have questioned the perceived wisdom that an ever-increasing population is a good thing. It’s heartening to see a federal politician express his concern that the current high immigration levels will result in “Declining housing affordability, traffic congestion, over-crowded concrete jungles.”
The treasurer, however, seems oblivious to any of these concerns, as well as the concerns raised by TheRealists. Instead of listening to the concerns of Australian citizens, the treasurer has opened a new front on the population debate, arguing that high levels of immigration are required to reduce the ageing of the population.
When the latest Intergenerational Report predicted that Australia’s population will rise to 35 million in 40 years’ time the treasurer, when referring to the economic consequences said “It is arguably one of two of our greatest economic challenges along with climate change.”
This statement shows the enormity of the task people have when arguing that immigration is too high. The treasurer didn’t say that ‘Obviously immigration is too high and is already causing overcrowding in our cities and forcing up house prices’. He didn’t say ‘Obviously our population is ageing so we must boost productivity so that we can support our ageing population into the future’. You won’t hear words like that coming from the treasurer.
Instead, the treasurer just accepted that the only solution to an ageing population is to maintain record levels of immigration. By referring to it in the same breath as climate change the treasurer hopes to gain consensus that this is a challenge that must be faced, that we must cater for more and more people arriving in this great country every year.
But does the evidence stack up? Is immigration the best way to counter population ageing?
The short answer is, no, not really. Immigration is indeed part of the solution, but not at the record high levels we have currently.
The problem with using immigration to reduce population ageing is that migrants age too. You end up bringing more and more people, in the many hundreds of thousands of people each year into the country indefinitely.
There have been previous studies carried out into this very question. The conclusions of The Impact of Immigration on the Ageing of Australia’s Population produced in 1999 were as follows (emphasis added):
“This level [80,000] of annual net migration also makes a worthwhile and efficient contribution to the retardation of population ageing. Levels of annual net migration above 80,000 become increasingly ineffective and inefficient in the retardation of ageing. Those who wish to argue for a higher level of immigration must base their argument on the benefits of a larger population, not upon the illusory ‘younging power’ of high immigration.
The effects upon ageing of a younger immigrant intake or higher migrant fertility are very small. Furthermore, implementation of either measure would be problematic. They are not realistic options.”
The paper says ‘They are not realistic options’…that was 1999. Now it’s 2009 and the ‘not realistic options’ are reality with Net Overseas Migration over 200,000 per year.
In an embarrassment for the treasurer, the treasury website also states that immigration cannot stop the ageing of the population. The Treasury website states the following in the Australia’s Demographic Challenges section (emphasis added):
“But increased migration cannot prevent our population from ageing. This is because migrants who come to Australia will age along with the rest of the population. To maintain Australia’s existing age structure through immigration would require increases in immigration every year — and the increases would need to become progressively larger and larger to take account of the ageing of the migrants themselves. While there are undoubted benefits in maintaining net overseas migration, migration cannot stop the ageing of our population.”
Perhaps by increasing the font size as well the treasure may pay attention.
Fortunately, as opposed to politicians, there are some sensible people in the community who make it their business to know a lot about population and demographics.
Professor Bob Birrell of the Monash University Centre for Population and Urban Research has been quoted in The Australian as saying (emphasis added):
“”The government seems to have bought the argument that business in Australia needs a high amount of labour force growth to keep it going in the future. The rest of us are going to have to bear the consequences of that. The government doesn’t seem prepared to explore how we need to make social adjustments; rather, they are relying on the prop of bringing in more people of younger ages to essentially put all the older people to bed.”
The government should listen to the advice of specialists in this area as well as the advice that it has published on its own websites. Population ageing is a challenge, but the solution is not to bring ever-increasing numbers of people to Australia.
The answer lies in things that are occurring already. Already people are working longer and delaying retirement, meaning they place less of a burden upon society. In the same way, the minimum age for the aged pension is being increased. Compulsory superannuation has been in effect since 1993 and will reduce the burden of an ageing population in the medium to long term.
Our wealth as a nation continues to grow, and will grow into the future, meaning we will have enough resources to support the increased number of elderly people. And to top it all off the fertility rate has been increasing recently, from 1.79 to 1.93 in the past two years.
The treasurer this week launched the Australian Institute for Population Ageing Research. It is supposed to “examine the impacts of the ageing population on the economy, society and environment.”
I’ll give him some advice for free. Maintain and implement policies that will build wealth. Reduce the levels of immigration. With these policies Australia will cope just fine over the next 50 years, and will be a much better society for it.
September 24th, 2009 at 2:44 am
As a 1999 parliamentary research paper stated: “It is demographic nonsense to believe that immigration can help to keep our population young. No reasonable population policy can keep our population young.”
More:
“… immigration cannot ‘solve our ageing problem’. Substantial ageing of the Australian population over the coming decades is absolutely inevitable. To illustrate the lack of power that immigration has in relation to our age structure, we investigate the levels of immigration that would be required to maintain the proportion of the population aged 65 and over at its present level of 12.2 per cent. In doing this, we maintain the fertility and mortality assumptions of the standard but allow annual net migration to change.
To achieve our aim, enormous numbers of immigrants would be required, starting in 1998 at 200 000 per annum, rising to 4 million per annum by 2048 and to 30 million per annum by 2098. By the end of next century with these levels of immigration, our population would have reached almost one billion. … it is important that the message is heard that our population cannot be kept young through immigration. The problem is that immigrants, like the rest of the population, get older and as they do, to keep the population young, we would need an increasingly higher number of immigrants.”
September 24th, 2009 at 2:50 am
On the recent projections that immigration will push Australia’s population to over 35 million by 2049:
“These numbers are staggering and a clear indication of how out of control immigration now is. To put it into perspective, the total projected population growth from immigration and births to natives as well as immigrants is equal to the combined populations of Ireland and Portugal.
How is Australia expected to cope – socially, environmentally and economically – with such a huge population explosion? What impact will this massive population increase have on quality-of-life issues such as urban sprawl, overcrowding, traffic congestion, overburdened infrastructure and services, housing costs, stress on the environment and natural resources such as water, loss of open spaces, and pollution?
Given that immigration will be the prime driver of this projected population explosion, it also raises disturbing questions about what kind of nation Australia will become in terms of its ethnic and cultural character. Although no one can say for sure, it is reasonable to assume that, if these projections are borne out, what is now a nation of mostly European-descended people will become a nation of mostly Asian and Third World peoples by the mid 21st century.
This means that, unless we change course, the Australia in which most citizens grew up will be swept away forever by an immigration-driven demographic tsunami. Most of the immigration that will fuel this looming demographic revolution will come from non-Western countries where the customs, habits, and values of the people are radically different from Australia’s historic, British-derived cultural pattern. Australia will become an increasingly alien place.”
http://eye-on-immigration.blogspot.com/2009/09/immigration-to-swell-australias.html
September 24th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
“While there are undoubted benefits in maintaining net overseas migration…”
In terms of economics there is no relationship between population growth and per capita economic growth. Higher population growth certainly makes the economy grow faster, but the resulting national income must be shared amongst an ever increasing number of people. Effective economic growth comes from application of new technology, which doesn’t require more people at all. Instead Australia creates national income by building houses for the people who settle here. These people generally work in tertiary industry, increasing the consumption of energy, food and technology. There is therefore less of the former available for export, and the latter is imported, so worsening our current account deficit.
In social and environmental terms, our rate of population growth is highly undesirable. Firstly, it is simple mathematics that the more people that inhabit this continent the fewer natural resources per person. In that regard living standards are falling. For example, in the 70′s water restrictions were almost unheard of; now they seem to be permanent. Land is perhaps the most obvious natural resource that is diminishing per person. Now more people find it harder to buy a house. More people are forced into the restricted living conditions of apartments (akin to ghettos). More food is being imported because there is less land available per person to produce it. Add to that Australia’s high reliance on oil, the melting pot mix of races and persistent drought, the future is very grim indeed. Rising crime, vandalism and social disorder are directly attributable to ethnic enclaves and restricted city living. There seem very few benefits of population growth. China recognised this over 30 years ago and acted to mandate one child families. Australian governments ignore the perils and continue a bi-partisan immigration policy that is ad hoc and recklessly irresponsible.
September 24th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
Well said. There are myriad current problems caused by immigration, yet there is barely anyone willing to point this out. It’s why I like Kelvin Thomson’s quote so apt: “We are sleepwalking into an environmental disaster”. I personally feel we’re sleepwalking into more than just an environmental disaster however.
September 26th, 2009 at 8:42 am
[...] source: The Realists. [...]
October 25th, 2009 at 9:26 am
Read James Lovelock – The vanishing face of Gaia – A Final Warning.
I think our last best hope of surviving as a species is a global pandemic.
The politicians know this but don’t want to panic anyone.
November 13th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
this was very informative to read, i learnt alot off this article, thanks for helping me with my assignment
November 30th, 2009 at 11:33 am
see what people really think of migration at http://www.activeopinion.org
the polls are shocking…
March 20th, 2010 at 5:15 pm
The UK House of Lords select committee report on ‘the economic impact of immigration’ also debunked the idea that immigration is the answer to an ageing population (the report also demolishes the argument that largescale immigration leads to increased GDP – there is a huge difference depending on the skills of the immigrants in question):
“Arguments in favour of high immigration to defuse the “pensions time bomb” do not stand up to scrutiny as they are based on the unreasonable assumption of static retirement age as people live longer and ignore the fact that, in time, immigrants too will grow old and draw pensions. Increasing the retirement age, the Government has done, is the only viable approach to resolving this issue.”
March 20th, 2010 at 5:15 pm
Here is the pdf of the select committee report.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeconaf/82/82.pdf
June 11th, 2010 at 1:19 pm
“The treasurer, however, seems oblivious to any of these concerns” That is the problem! Our democracy is only superficial and we have no say over these important life-affecting matters. We are fed the crumbs to make us feel we have a say, but in reality it is very little. Once in government, our politicians have their own way, and with both sides of government heavily pro-growth, we are voiceless! By replacing older people with young immigrants, we ultimately blow out our numbers even more further down the line. No population can stay young forever, and we end up with these imbalances purely because of artificially bloating our numbers with immigration. Forty years down the track, these “young” people will be retiring, and then where do we go? We need a stable economy and a stable population.