4 ms·

25M is really small....what are these angst about. Sounds funny...

andrewwharton 8y ago
It's not the gross population that's the problem, it the rate of growth in population and the infrastructure that's required to support it. The basic problem is that if infrastructure last 50 years, you have to replace 2% of it every year. Now, for every 1% of population growth, you also have to (on average) also build 1% more infrastructure, so you need to build 3% in total, or 50% more than if you had no population growth. But you only have 1% more revenue to build it with, so inevitably only a fraction of what you need gets built, hence the problems. And the higher the population growth, the worse the problems.
- ulfw 8y ago
  What a really odd logic. So then let's bring immigration down to 0%. Woohoo! Now you still got to "replace 2% of infrastructure every year" with 0% more revenue. How's that working out for you? You argue 0 immigration -> 2% infra costs You argue 1% immigration -> 3% infra costs but also 1% more revenue to use for infra costs I fail to see your issue
  - sb8244 8y ago
    Where is immigration brought up? Poster is taking about rate of population growth which includes all sources of population.
    - taneq 8y ago
      Population growth in Australia is largely immigration-driven.
- e12e 8y ago
  Indeed, reminds me of this lecture series: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL76483D7434812A0D https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL76483D7434812A0D At some point there's a (not entirely) rethorical question about what's a "good" growth rate for a town, and a politician indicate 5% is good. 1.05^15 ~ 2. So that's a doubling in the period between someone enters kindergarten and leaves high school.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
sumedh 8y ago
Did you miss this part "Yet the majority of Australia’s 3 million square miles is uninhabitable desert, and even many of the greener parts along the coast struggle to secure adequate supplies of fresh water and face periodic drought and wildfires."
dosy 8y ago
As an expat Australian I agree. But as someone who grew up in Sydney, I got to observe first-hand how the rail system / other critical infrastructure development projects...did not develop. When I first came to Asia and compared Australia to, say, trains in HK, or Japan. I knew the problem. To some extent, yes, I think we have to control immigration but blaming stressors on immigration is political expedience typical of the change-ineffective democracy we have there. A more useful culprit I see is the refusal / inability to choose to take responsibility to make the changes to critical infrastructure that could have created improvements with alleviating these stressors. We had a mining boom (thanks, China!) and could have reinvested that free money back into growing out critical infrastructure, with decades-long future planning to exceed capacity. But we didn't. Credit loosened the banking sector gobbled up the profits in a (mostly residential) property boom, while the population twiddled their political thumbs and battled viciously (assisted by a complicit media) over small-stakes issues, seemingly benumbed by the spectacle of 66 leadership changes in 13 years[0]. But blaming politicians is "public expediency". The people didn't do anything about it, and in the face of some challenges, are they showing much more than learned helplessness and useless blaming of politicians, without creating some changes? I want to finish by saying that Sydney was fine, back in the late 90s. Before there was any type of pressure. But to think that situation would last forever is the height of naivety, when you have such an attractive resource. We didn't plan ahead, and we wasted the mining piggy bank I think we could have used to extend capacity to meet future projected needs. It's really very sad I find, because you have a great city, beautiful in every way, with decreasing value / utility because the quality of forward looking planning / action was so poor. Maybe the worst part of it is, Sydneysiders / Australians think quite highly of themselves, and are quite aspirational / ambitious, but they didn't enact that attitude into reality. [0]: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-10/australia-political-leadership-rollercoaster/6080126 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-10/australia-political-le...
honestoHeminway 8y ago
Yes, its always funny, peak ressource, the butchering of citizens by another, the crimes done by youth with nothing to loose, its all funny. Then you turn around and point at the superficial motives - the racism, the desperation, the drugs needed and start yelling. I want a adult as communication partner. It was funny enough while it blasted. Somebody who can take uncomfortable decisions and is able to go against his/ her instincts, when they are proven wrong.

It's not the gross population that's the problem, it the rate of growth in population and the infrastructure that's required to support it. The basic problem is that if infrastructure last 50 years, you have to replace 2% of it every year. Now, for every 1% of population growth, you also have to (on average) also build 1% more infrastructure, so you need to build 3% in total, or 50% more than if you had no population growth. But you only have 1% more revenue to build it with, so inevitably only a fraction of what you need gets built, hence the problems. And the higher the population growth, the worse the problems.

ulfw 8y ago
What a really odd logic. So then let's bring immigration down to 0%. Woohoo! Now you still got to "replace 2% of infrastructure every year" with 0% more revenue. How's that working out for you? You argue 0 immigration -> 2% infra costs You argue 1% immigration -> 3% infra costs but also 1% more revenue to use for infra costs I fail to see your issue
- sb8244 8y ago
  Where is immigration brought up? Poster is taking about rate of population growth which includes all sources of population.
  - taneq 8y ago
    Population growth in Australia is largely immigration-driven.
e12e 8y ago
Indeed, reminds me of this lecture series: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL76483D7434812A0D https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL76483D7434812A0D At some point there's a (not entirely) rethorical question about what's a "good" growth rate for a town, and a politician indicate 5% is good. 1.05^15 ~ 2. So that's a doubling in the period between someone enters kindergarten and leaves high school.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

sumedh 8y ago

Did you miss this part "Yet the majority of Australia’s 3 million square miles is uninhabitable desert, and even many of the greener parts along the coast struggle to secure adequate supplies of fresh water and face periodic drought and wildfires."

dosy 8y ago

As an expat Australian I agree. But as someone who grew up in Sydney, I got to observe first-hand how the rail system / other critical infrastructure development projects...did not develop. When I first came to Asia and compared Australia to, say, trains in HK, or Japan. I knew the problem. To some extent, yes, I think we have to control immigration but blaming stressors on immigration is political expedience typical of the change-ineffective democracy we have there. A more useful culprit I see is the refusal / inability to choose to take responsibility to make the changes to critical infrastructure that could have created improvements with alleviating these stressors. We had a mining boom (thanks, China!) and could have reinvested that free money back into growing out critical infrastructure, with decades-long future planning to exceed capacity. But we didn't. Credit loosened the banking sector gobbled up the profits in a (mostly residential) property boom, while the population twiddled their political thumbs and battled viciously (assisted by a complicit media) over small-stakes issues, seemingly benumbed by the spectacle of 66 leadership changes in 13 years[0]. But blaming politicians is "public expediency". The people didn't do anything about it, and in the face of some challenges, are they showing much more than learned helplessness and useless blaming of politicians, without creating some changes? I want to finish by saying that Sydney was fine, back in the late 90s. Before there was any type of pressure. But to think that situation would last forever is the height of naivety, when you have such an attractive resource. We didn't plan ahead, and we wasted the mining piggy bank I think we could have used to extend capacity to meet future projected needs. It's really very sad I find, because you have a great city, beautiful in every way, with decreasing value / utility because the quality of forward looking planning / action was so poor. Maybe the worst part of it is, Sydneysiders / Australians think quite highly of themselves, and are quite aspirational / ambitious, but they didn't enact that attitude into reality. [0]: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-10/australia-political-leadership-rollercoaster/6080126 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-10/australia-political-le...

honestoHeminway 8y ago

Yes, its always funny, peak ressource, the butchering of citizens by another, the crimes done by youth with nothing to loose, its all funny. Then you turn around and point at the superficial motives - the racism, the desperation, the drugs needed and start yelling. I want a adult as communication partner. It was funny enough while it blasted. Somebody who can take uncomfortable decisions and is able to go against his/ her instincts, when they are proven wrong.