One of the more pointless public debates revolves around the notion of a ‘big’ Australia. With a population of just 21 million occupying a continent you’d think this wouldn’t be much of a problem. But former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd caused a huge kerfuffle when he told the 730 Report that he supported a ‘big’ Australia.
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd says he believes in a “big Australia” and that the population forecast is good news for the country, but he does concede that it poses complex challenges.
A rare instance of Rudd being exactly correct. But it all went downhill from there.
And the Opposition’s sustainable development spokesman Bruce Billson says the Government has made big promises but doesn’t have a big plan.
“[It is] quite bitsy. They’re not connected to a strategic plan for our major cities,” he said.
“The Prime Minister might be excited about a big Australia but what I think Australians are concerned about is the Federal Labor Government has no plan for coping with this enlarged population.
“We’ve seen no coordinated strategic plan about how the population will be settled, no consideration about what extra pressure that will be putting on our environment.
There are many people who are quite comforted by the fact that the government had no plan. Government has an appalling record at planning.
Nonetheless the notion of a Big Australia is very confronting for many people. Kevin Rudd went on to lose the Prime Ministership and Julia Gillard dumped the idea in her very first major policy speech.
It is against this background that Pantera Press has published the third book in their series ‘Why vs Why’. These clever booklets contain both a yes and a no argument for major issues. Previous books relate to nuclear power and gay marriage.
The structure of the book is as follows: it contains both sides of the argument including a rebuttal on reverse sides. The reader can decide which argument to read first. No particular argument is favoured by the book structure. So far so good. A particular defect, however, is in the footnoting. Each argument contains copious footnotes – yet they are not included in the book, they have to be downloaded from the internet. I understand that footnotes take up space and add to the production cost of the book and many readers don’t like them, etc. etc. etc. But I want to see the footnotes. Not endnotes, footnotes. They are important and as I’ll argue below quite problematic in this debate.
Jessica Brown and Oliver Hartwich – both formerly of the CIS – mount the ‘yes’ case while Mark O’Connor, poet and environmental writer, mounts the ‘no’ case. So it is a case of libertarians and a statist taking at each other. The idea is that the reader makes up their own mind, yet I did find the lack of a synthesis somewhat troubling. I’m not sure if that is because readers have come to expect a synthesis but reading the book left me feeling unsatisfied. Having said that I did enjoy the rebuttals more than the original ‘yes’ – ‘no’ arguments.
Reading through the arguments I’m left wondering if these are the best arguments that can be brought to the debate. The ‘yes’ argument – that I think is correct – relies on inevitability and all those bad things that are supposed to happen being not so bad. While the ‘no’ argument relies on ‘peak oil’ and those bad things being really bad.
‘Peak oil’ arguments are just rubbish and should be treated with the contempt they deserve. But at the same time I wonder if the ‘inevitability’ argument is convincing. I suspect not. ‘It is going to happen anyway so get used to it’ could apply equally to many different things both good and bad. I would have liked to see more argument about the unambiguous benefits of a larger population – it is not just about skilled migration. Something that I think is sorely missing from the Australian debate.
O’Connor engages in some of the dodgy practices that have so undermined green arguments about climate change. He tries the old ‘peer-review’ and ‘appeal to authority’ stunt.
… my opponents would need good support from independent demographers. Yet they offer only a demographic paper they themselves have written.
Population projections are a job for skilled professional demographers. My opponents, like myself, are not demographers (which is why I cite the publications of qualified demographers) and their paper was not published in a peer-reviewed journal.
He then goes on to cite Gary Banks of the Productivity Commission, Graeme Hugo (a professional demographer), and an Immigration Department report. But neither the Gary Banks statement nor the Immigration Department report are published in a peer-reviewed journal. As it turns out neither is the Graeme Hugo citation. In the footnotes – available on the web – the Graeme Hugo cite turns out to be an Australian Climate Change Adaptation Research Network for Settlements and Infrastructure discussion paper.
A perusal of the ‘no’ citations shows a lot of government reports, newspaper articles, various media websites, the Wikipedia, and blogs as references. I also note several citations to the ERA C ranked journal People and Place – a controversial journal that faced allegations of xenophobia and racism during its 18 year run.
Going beyond the merits of this particular book I think there is something else going on. The ‘Big Australia’ debate is a proxy debate for something else. To my view this is really about migration and the type of migrants coming to Australia. I have no qualms in labelling that debate as being xenophobic and racist. In principle I agree that it is possible to oppose migration and not be racist but I doubt those individuals make up a large proportion of the anti-immigration contingent. There is nothing wrong with hating foreigners and if Bryan Caplan is to be believed anti-foreign bias is common. But be honest; don’t pretend to be an environmentalist to mask prejudice.
The book series is an interesting idea – I wish them commercial success. Longer rebuttals and including the footnotes in the book itself would be improvements (to my mind anyway).
Wrong.
22,706,177 and counting…
Rabz
21 Aug 12 at 2:41 pm
I think poets are under-represented in Australian public policy debates.
H B Bear
21 Aug 12 at 2:47 pm
Drive two hours inland from any coast of Australia and then laugh yourself silly at anyone who claims Australia is “full”.
Matt
21 Aug 12 at 2:48 pm
Canberra was planned. Until recently New York wasn’t.
You decide.
Infidel Tiger
21 Aug 12 at 2:50 pm
Australia isn’t “full”, but it is filling up with fuckwits.
Abu Chowdah
21 Aug 12 at 3:00 pm
That idiot ruff nominated a target of 36 million people by 2050 as the size of the “big Australia” he wanted.
On current population growth rates, we will easily exceed that figure by that year.
What always infuriates me about these so called population debates is how intrinsically dishonest they are.
There is no doubt that we could easily carry a significantly larger population. If we want a dynamic, free market based economy it makes perfect sense.
However, there are several reasons why I am extremely wary of advocates of mass population growth.
- It should be achieved by higher birthrates, not excessive immigration
- The current anti development policies, massive regulation, unnecessary costs due to red and green tape, etc, must be swept away
- A proper infrastructure development and decentralisation agenda must be put in place.
- leftism must be banned.
Otherwise forget it. Our cities will become increasingly unlivable, everything will continue to skyrocket in price and we’ll face massive social problems, including the emergence of totalitarians and incidents of terrorism.
Rabz
21 Aug 12 at 3:06 pm
And of course, Rabz, you are verboten from saying things like: “Can we please focus on migration from countries that have a history of Western liberalism and not… the Sudan?”
Raaaaaaaciiiiist!
Abu Chowdah
21 Aug 12 at 3:09 pm
Australia has so much water it isn’t funny.
Anyone who says we’re going to die out at 30 million is simply off their head.
Australia could support 200 million before desalination was widely used.
The northern riprarian outflow and total goundwater is staggeringly large – even if used sustainably.
Sustainability is a matter of pricing and better land management.
.
21 Aug 12 at 3:12 pm
No one wants to have kids because taxes are too high. Both partners have to work to pay the rent on land which has obscene developmental taxes on it.
A good point because you would be subject to the same LEP rules in the middle of nowhere.
A good way of doing this is having more States and reducing the role of the State, philosophically and in terms of % of GDP.
The electorate may well ban it in the Federal Parliament come the next election.
.
21 Aug 12 at 3:15 pm
That rules out Europe. I guess we’ll have to focus on Asia.
Infidel Tiger
21 Aug 12 at 3:17 pm
But who’d want to leave Singapore, IT? The other shitholes wouldn’t get a guernsey, except Japan where the women are hot.
Abu Chowdah
21 Aug 12 at 3:27 pm
I guess it’s up to the local RWDB crew to populate or perish this wide brown leftist stinkhole.
Along with public floggings I believe mandatory sterilization of leftists is essential.
Infidel Tiger
21 Aug 12 at 3:29 pm
The population of Europe will have halved by 2050 and they’ll have the welcome mat out with a bag of cash for any breeding age female willing to move there. And we’re likely to have hoardes of rich, spoilt, fat Chinese boys who can’t get any action at home trawling Asia for anything in a skirt.
I reckon Australia will have all sorts of trouble retaining our ‘good sorts’, especially if the remaining punters keep electing the Trade Union or Liberal (sic) Parties. On the other hand if the LDP gets up we’ll probably have at least one new large city under construction in each state.
I’ll be retired by then and able to visit my favourite camping spots mid-week so the crowds won’t be an issue.
Rail will never get up here because everyone involved will remember how the Union movement comprehensively destroyed that option last century.
Forester
21 Aug 12 at 3:29 pm
I think the point of the ‘inevitability’ argument was to say that population was not a variable over which politicians have much control, even if you are willing to make very big adjustments in the migration intake.
The anti-foreign bias reveals itself when you consider politicians are often pro-natalist at the same time as having reservations about immigration.
This was my stab at the same set of issues:
http://www.cis.org.au/publications/policy-monographs/article/3503-hands-mouths-and-minds-three-perspectives-on-population-growth-and-living-standards
Stephen Kirchner
21 Aug 12 at 3:35 pm
Culture really, really matters.
Ellen of Tasmania
21 Aug 12 at 3:38 pm
The 100s of millions of men without partners from China, India, the Middle east and Africa will result in massive changes to the lives of Western Feminists
Max
21 Aug 12 at 3:46 pm
All cultures are equal. All women must be repsected.
.
21 Aug 12 at 3:47 pm
Let Wagga be the capital of a new state “Riverina” as they demanded 80 years ago and watch as people flock westward to enjoy the low tax rates, cheap land and pro development platform that would be implemented out there.
Then create another State “New England” which too was demanded 80 years ago with Armidale as it’s capital and assign Tony Windsor to be Grand Emperor as punishment to all those hippy scum out there for foisting that fuckhead upon Australia.
twostix
21 Aug 12 at 3:48 pm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1249797/Labour-threw-open-doors-mass-migration-secret-plot-make-multicultural-UK.html
Or even within countries. Compare assimilation of Lebanese Christians with Lebanese Muslims. The “Arab Spring” has been disastrous for Christians in the region. Preference them for asylum.
Ivan Denisovich
21 Aug 12 at 3:53 pm
Pretty please …
Matt
21 Aug 12 at 3:57 pm
http://www.csu.edu.au/research/archives/collection/regional/agencies/rivmovement
The Riverina Movement (1931-32)
The Riverina Movement was launched on the banks of Wagga Wagga beach on 28 February 1931, when 10, 000 people gathered in an anti-government rally aimed principally at NSW Premier J. T. Lang (1876-1975). Representatives from across the Riverina, including leading pastoralists, graziers, businessmen and politicians joined an army of local protesters, and heard Charles Hardy jnr (1898-1941), leader and chief organiser, deliver an ultimatum to both State and Federal Governments that was, in their eyes, long overdue. In summary, the ultimatum demanded immediate reduction in taxation and financial relief to primary producers. It also stipulated that if neither government acted by 31 March, a referendum would be held deciding the right of Riverina to determine its own affairs.
An outrageous MDBA plan may well be all it needs to be to tip things over.
The Riverina also has a majority Catholic population in the major urban areas, which makes it a little odd and will see this blog rife with speculation…
.
21 Aug 12 at 4:01 pm
A West Australian secession coupled with mass deportations has much merit.
Infidel Tiger
21 Aug 12 at 4:06 pm
My effort at state redistribution
Seal off the capital cities into their own little worlds, and let the rest of the country recover.
States need to be stronger, more localised, and less dependant on the whims of the federal government.
Driftforge
21 Aug 12 at 4:09 pm
So does a Tasmanian one.
Driftforge
21 Aug 12 at 4:09 pm
I think your onto something here twostix. Break up the larger States into smaller regional dutchies or Shires then get rid of States altogether. Federally raised taxes distributed direct to local government who run schools, hospitals, police,etc all under Commonwealth laws and regulation. Mayors dual hat as Mayor and Federal member.
Splatacrobat
21 Aug 12 at 4:15 pm
Lots of luck populating the interior of this country. I just flew around most of it. Lots of GAFA (Great Australian Fuck All). Wouldn’t give most of it a second look. Good only for digging up for minerals but unfortunately the area that that has happened to is miniscule.
Eyrie
21 Aug 12 at 4:19 pm
Australia save for one or two spots is the ugliest place on earth. Belgium is more interesting.
Infidel Tiger
21 Aug 12 at 4:23 pm
Ah well the trick there is you put the political centres of the new states inland. Preferably somewhere people don’t really want to be.
Limits the damage of centralisation.
Driftforge
21 Aug 12 at 4:26 pm
Send the leftists to Antarctica so our claim to its resources is enhanced and so that the long nights engender high rates if suicide…. as in Finland etc
Sort of populate AND perish
whalehunt fun
21 Aug 12 at 4:28 pm
No way. I’ll keep the states thanks and also claw back their taxation rights which were stolen by the commie John Curtin. Canberra should only be involved in defence, some cross state responsibilities and making sure the states play nicely – as originally intended.
Interestingly enough it was the states / provinces debate that helped to ruin the original movement. With the New England movement wanting state’s dissolved and and the Riverina movement wanting statehood.
twostix
21 Aug 12 at 4:33 pm
The West Coast of Tasmania is remarkably underpopulated, but seems to have water.
steve from brisbane
21 Aug 12 at 4:34 pm
Texas and Arizona aren’t much to look at either.
A little freedom can make any place desirable.
twostix
21 Aug 12 at 4:36 pm
Yeah, they can spend their days hugging the whales and taking temperature readings with the occasional email telling us to turn the lights off to save da planet.
Splatacrobat
21 Aug 12 at 4:36 pm
You could stick Israel anywhere in Australia except for the absolute deserts and within ten years they’d have an irrigated land and a decent economy thriving there. All it takes is some culture and technology. There is so much land on this continent that is still highly usable with its potential carrying capacity unrealised. Many of our northern rivers could be harvested for water, much of our tropical north and north-west is habitable. And that’s just the top end. There’s plenty available closer to where you live, too, dear reader. It only takes vision.
Plus commitment.
Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.
21 Aug 12 at 4:42 pm
The states are basically large city councils. Let them run their cities and free us in rural Australia from their overwhelming bureaucracies and anti-growth policies.
Why the balance of NSW has to be governed according to the whim of Sydneysiders who have never crossed the divide in their lives is a mystery to me. That sort of nonsense gives rural NSW planning laws designed for inner Sydney, creates nonsense like shutting down thriving rural industry to create unnecessary river red gum national parks etc. etc.
Queensland (and arguably WA in recent times) aside, the states are run for the benefit of their capital city – the rest of the state can go hang.
Why Catallaxians are so pro-state government is a mystery. It is the states who are responsible for most of the ennervating red tape and nanny statism in Australia. State pollies are mediocrities in the main – glorified local councillors with more responsibility than they know what to do with. It is at the state level that the ALP do most of their destructive work – ask Kennett and Newman.
State government – not worth saving.
Matt
21 Aug 12 at 4:59 pm
Small states are better than Federally directed “regional” councils.
.
21 Aug 12 at 5:00 pm
This in fact has been mooted decades ago.
Rudiau
21 Aug 12 at 5:05 pm
From the same link above I’ve always thought Bradfield was onto something with his idea of permanently filling Lake Eyre by fresh or sea water.
Rainfall patterns would change new dams built.
Would open up a whole host of economic opportunities.
Of course getting environmental approvals today would be a minor hurdle.Not.
Rudiau
21 Aug 12 at 5:20 pm
I’ve wondered for a while if a mad, wealthy ag scientist (e.g., Rafe Champion) could use holistic/NSF methods in land north of say Goyder’s line, profit from cheap fixed inputs and further capital gains, but also open up the land to agriculture as weather patterns changed and the land became more vegetated?
.
21 Aug 12 at 5:32 pm
Or to “a new city in the desert – let’s call it Geothermia“.
manalive
21 Aug 12 at 5:34 pm
Lizzie: “You could stick Israel anywhere in Australia except for the absolute deserts and within ten years they’d have an irrigated land and a decent economy thriving there. All it takes is some culture and technology. There is so much land on this continent that is still highly usable with its potential carrying capacity unrealised. Many of our northern rivers could be harvested for water, much of our tropical north and north-west is habitable. And that’s just the top end. There’s plenty available closer to where you live, too, dear reader. It only takes vision.
Plus commitment.”
And conversely, Zimbabwe. Whoops wacist.
Big Jim
21 Aug 12 at 5:35 pm
These sort of arguments are conducted as if population will continue to grow for ever.
Looking at the worldwide trends in fertility rates (which have been on the way down since the late 60s & should drop through replacement rate somewhere between 2035 & 2050), I don’t think we will reach 36 million unless we have a really dumb migration policy that de-emphasises skilled migration.
36 million is built around the assumption that there will be an never ending supply of young skilled migrants who want to come here (we just choose how many we want).
Wealthy retiring Germans are realising that it is a good idea to have some young people around to pay taxes & keep the economy going. Right now they only need to look as far as Spain but that will change & Europe will start to throw good incentives out there to attract young skilled migrants.
At the same time as fertility rates continue to drop there maybe less young skilled people to go around.
For Australia, it will probably be harder to attract the right people in the future, best idea is to bring in as many young skilled migrants now.
I don’t care about culture, as long as they pay more in tax than the public goods they consume & counteract the negative productive effects of retiring Baby Boomers
Richard D
21 Aug 12 at 5:39 pm
Cities acquire overall inefficiencies of scale from around one million persons.
Growth above this figure is usually driven by attempts to capture specific economic benefits from the location, or poor nearby alternatives. Too often, this economic effect can be the centralising effect of government, which taxes the whole country, but spends mainly in the capital.
Any state whose capital exceeds one million should really consider relocating its capital inland, away from the coast.
2dogs
21 Aug 12 at 6:01 pm
People in general like the beach and the more even temperature of the coast. So there will always be a large population at the coast. If however a large lake or better, sea can be constructed in the middle of Australia then it would improve the climate generally and allow the spread of cheap and nasty high rise and casinos to the centre
WhaleHunt Fun
21 Aug 12 at 6:13 pm
As a means to flood the middle of Australia, a concerted effort must be made to raise the level of greenhouse gases so as to melt Greenland and parts of Antarctica. This would be the great moral challenge for our generation and all efforts should be directed toward this, so as to leave a better future Australia “for the chilllll-dren”.
Persons not emitting significant carbon dioxide are threats to the “chillllll-dren” and must be financially penalised.
WhaleHunt Fun
21 Aug 12 at 6:17 pm
Exactly.
The idea of having all of the current responsibilities of my state government given to the likes of Gillard and Conroy et-al with no hope of escape aside from leaving the country is frightening.
The idea of the entire country being directed with total power by Canberrans is stomach churning.
Fuck.that.
twostix
21 Aug 12 at 6:19 pm
Rabz says, in a list of things necessary for a Big Australia “- A proper infrastructure development and decentralisation agenda must be put in place.”
If you want a Big Australia or decentralisation, you will first need to get rid of Canberra. With independent countries, this will happen naturally as people think in smaller terms.
Most complaints about the states are with them as they currently exist. You will completely change the landscape by abolishing the Commonwealth. Of course state governments currently basically act as local councils for the capital city; the Commonwealth and the High Court try to make sure they have all the power and the national media focus their attention in the same way.
If you abolish the Commonwealth people will stop thinking “Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth” and start thinking “Melbourne, Geelong, Bendigo, Ballarat” or what have you. People dissatisfied with their current city will move off to another one in the same state far more readily. Bad decisions will affect fewer people and be quicker to change. State governments, now busy with international matters will delegate or abandon regulations and it will be closer to or in the hands of people.
There would also be a maximum amount of regulation you could seriously introduce; the Commonwealth can say whatever it likes because of how big and isolated we are, but independent states will have to be far more conservative in introducing new regulations.
Contrast that with any foolish plan to centralise government further with “local regional councils” directly under Canberra. “National solutions” will be the order of the day, and you’ll get one mess superimposed on another.
Perhaps each new independent state won’t correspond exactly to the current states, or even the number. But you can only improve the system by removing the distraction that creates problems far too big for people to understand and deal with.
(Actually, I personally think that Australia could be improved by a few Liechtenstein-sized lands in it, so I don’t think state-sized states are perfect, but they’d be a damn sight better than the current mess. If you can’t travel by land from the captial to the extremities in a working day, you probably need to cut your state in half, because you probably already have two countries.)
Alexander
21 Aug 12 at 6:20 pm
2dogs
Is that a general observation? Does the threshold change given different technology etc?
I imagine the optimum city size would have been lower say in 1400.
.
21 Aug 12 at 6:20 pm
IN 1400 there was not the technology to provide the management of large cities. What was the size of Rome at its height?
WhaleHunt Fun
21 Aug 12 at 6:24 pm
It is the states who are responsible for all the roads, rail, police, hospitals, schools, planning and general day, to day infrastructure – of course they’re beaurcratic.
The Federal government couldn’t even organise to install a few pink batts without killing people and it’s only proper responsibility: defending the borders, it has totally and utterly failed at.
Yet you want it running everything?
Many small states, power and money kept at the closet possible level as the people it affects and is taken from.
twostix
21 Aug 12 at 6:24 pm
Dot, the observation is based on the present level of technological development. Civil engineering inventions such as sewerage systems would have increased it greatly since 1400.
2dogs
21 Aug 12 at 6:26 pm
Disagree. The population panic button is part of a suite of green memes that have entered the conventional wisdom of the ‘educated’ and ‘concerned’. Yes, it is sometimes joined to an immigration fear, but it can quite easily stand alone, and does so even among free market Liberals.
jasbo
21 Aug 12 at 6:29 pm
forget people smugglers.
The recent audit showed we had one seaworthy blue water vessel.
$20 bn a year for that?
Jesus. We’d be better off paying blackwater $1 bn per year to hold a doomsday device on account for us.
.
21 Aug 12 at 6:31 pm
So much for all that carbon reduction.
Raider580
21 Aug 12 at 6:36 pm
Thanks Eyrie, I’ll stay out here in the GAFA, and you can stay to the east of the Sandstone Curtain.
Deal?
Oh. And we keep all the money made out bush.
Winston SMITH
21 Aug 12 at 6:36 pm
Immigration = who and how many.
Ok.
Australia needs a binding referendum on 3rd world immigration.
What’ya scared of statists?
Tense scenes in the member’s cocktail bar at UN headquarters, perhaps?
More likely terrified of a democratic decision whose name the elites dare not speak.
We’ll never be allowed to decide.
Because the statists know the result will be by the length of the straight.
Alfonso
21 Aug 12 at 6:47 pm
“If you want a Big Australia or decentralisation, you will first need to get rid of Canberra.”
Actually, Canberra itself is not so bad; its inland, and not particularly over-populated.
What is absurd is the practice of some federal departments in locating their staff. The ATO employs thousands of software engineers and other It professionals to keep the ATO’s systems up to date with the tax law. But they are not based in Canberra; they are based in Sydney and Melbourne. The worst possible decision in terms of the need for decentralisation.
2dogs
21 Aug 12 at 6:53 pm
*IT professionals
2dogs
21 Aug 12 at 6:55 pm
Knock the commonwealth government back to its remit at federation – about 1/4 its current scale.
Isolate the primary cities in their own city-states.
Re-divvy the rest up from scratch, with local decisions to form larger areas or not.
If you made it easy for areas to switch states or form there own state, things would work better.
Driftforge
21 Aug 12 at 7:01 pm
You have made this up.
New York City has over 8 million people in its 300 square miles and is far more efficient and desirable place to live than when it was an open sewer with a couple of millions Wogs, Paddys, Chinks and Polaks shitting everywhere and making love to livestock.
Infidel Tiger
21 Aug 12 at 7:21 pm
I agree Driftforge.
You should get a choice as to the level of your independence from the Commonwealth as well.
Some large cities as their own city-States makes sense, and some areas may want to be a State but no local Government.
.
21 Aug 12 at 7:23 pm
I keep saying that population size is purely a function of technology. You can’t say what the optimum size for oz is in the future without looking at the technology curve. And just by the way, we’ve always understated the bend rather than the opposite.
JC
21 Aug 12 at 7:30 pm
I keep saying that population size is purely a function of technology. You can’t say what the optimum size for oz is in the future without looking at the technology curve. And just by the way, we’ve always understated the bend rather than the opposite.
If we’re feeding 200 million people around the world, that’s really the starting point.
JC
21 Aug 12 at 7:30 pm
IT, I don’t doubt New Yorks’ desirability as a place to live, that’s why people live there despite it being relatively very expensive to live there. I would say its cost per person of support that population would be lower if its population was less.
In any case, New York state implements my advice. Its capital is in Albany.
2dogs
21 Aug 12 at 7:33 pm
Pound for pound I find Australian cities to be more expensive to live.
Not necessarily. This shit is what adds to costs. The mayoral candidate, a liberal, is actually starting to focus on the real issues.
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/just_the_thing_to_beat_obama_IX1fc9ggqXjPLcBeKwJ9pL#ixzz24Ait1my1
They still can’t get over the hump about wages and the relevance to employment.
JC
21 Aug 12 at 7:38 pm
I was going to say set up NW WA as a new territory and special economic zone, then I realised that as a territory it would be run by the feds like the NT is run……
entropy
21 Aug 12 at 7:40 pm
“Pound for pound I find Australian cities to be more expensive to live.”
Could you name an Australian city with a population of less than one million which would be more expensive to live than New York city, pound for pound?
2dogs
21 Aug 12 at 7:45 pm
I don’t think it is ever likely Australia could pass a referendum to change the current State arrangements.
Breaking up the states into roughly equivalent to the Catchment Management Areas would effectively merge current State and Local Government. The duplication of administrative functions would reduce efficiency hopefully offset by competitive pressure between these new States. Given taxation powers and control of resources; stand back and let them rip!
Forester
21 Aug 12 at 7:45 pm
Cairns, Townsville, Mackay, Rockhampton, Gladstone, Maryborough, Bundaberg, Maroochydore, Gold Coast…..
Do you want me to move on off the coast or interstate?
entropy
21 Aug 12 at 7:49 pm
Why would I do that comparison as it’s unfair. You would need to compare Sydney to NYC for instance.
JC
21 Aug 12 at 7:52 pm
I’ll re-iterate what I’ve already said on this subject. The battery farmers want to grab as many human ‘cattle’ as they can while it’s free, cos, once they stop pretending they haven’t enslaved us, they’ll have to bid for us ‘cattle’ at slave auctions. It’s that simple.
coz
21 Aug 12 at 7:56 pm
I agree more or less Forester.
Somewhere like the Clarence or Clyde would work like city States, but the Murrumbidgee or Murray probably won’t.
.
21 Aug 12 at 7:58 pm
I seriously can’t accept your examples, entropy. You could rent a three bedroom house in your example cities for around $2,500 AUD a month. Rental on a two bedroom New York apartment would typically be $1,000 more than that per month.
2dogs
21 Aug 12 at 8:04 pm
All of them? Really? Even the dregs of Emily’s list? That’s asking too much dot…
Skuter
21 Aug 12 at 8:07 pm
“Why would I do that comparison as it’s unfair. You would need to compare Sydney to NYC for instance.”
JC, my point is about the effect of being under or over one million in population. New York and Sydney are both over one million so the comparison is pointless. I think in branding the comparison “unfair”, you are actually conceding I’m correct here, its unfair because of the effect I am describing.
2dogs
21 Aug 12 at 8:08 pm
It’s about 2,500 per month.
Less in the boroughs.
Now you should compare NYC with say apartment living in Sydney CBD and close environs.
Compare the boroughs to Sydney burbs.
JC
21 Aug 12 at 8:08 pm
At the centre of this argument is the paradoxical relationship between differentiation and consistency.
It’s more efficient to be similar.
It’s more valuable to be different.
So much of our governmental structure either enforces similarity or imposes differences. In a world that is constantly finding its balance, fixed regulation causes inefficiency and inequity, in the name of efficiency and equity.
Driftforge
21 Aug 12 at 8:09 pm
Could you name an Australian city with a population of less than one million which would be more expensive to live than New York city, pound for pound?
Apart from rent, everything else is cheaper and the variety of what’s availiable, whether goods or services, dwarfs that available here. Pound for pound, NYC beats any Australian city of any size.
dover_beach
21 Aug 12 at 8:14 pm
Dogs
I used the word unfair incorrectly. I should have used another word to describe your example.
Jc
21 Aug 12 at 8:15 pm
Rome was supposed to have reached 1 million at its height.
The next city to reach that milestone was London, 1700 years or so later.
Technology was the key in both cases, both fresh water and sanitation.
brc
21 Aug 12 at 8:19 pm
New York is more than just lower manhattan, guys. Just sayin’
I wonder what the price of a hot dog in gladstone would be compared with manhattan though? Or a pice of pizza. A pair of shoes, a belt. A CD? A book? A bowl of spaghetti? Red wine (Australian) to go with it?
entropy
21 Aug 12 at 8:19 pm
http://www.newsweekly.com.au/article.php?id=5273
Ivan Denisovich
21 Aug 12 at 8:21 pm
There are plenty of American cities with populations at or near 1 million people. And they’re all cheaper to live in than Australia.
$100k income in any non-coastal American city will see you living a good life in a nice house with a couple of brand new cars, especially in a lower taxing state.
I knew a guy who was living on the outskirts of Houston in a 6 bedroom, 3 garage house, 5 years old and sitting on 5 acres. Cost him about $340k. He then filled that garage with a new Jeep Cherokee and a Mustang.
Even a poor-to-middling house in a regional city in Australia will cost you that much, and plopping a Jeep and Mustang in will set you back probably $150k.
brc
21 Aug 12 at 8:24 pm
I seriously can’t accept your examples, entropy. You could rent a three bedroom house in your example cities for around $2,500 AUD a month. Rental on a two bedroom New York apartment would typically be $1,000 more than that per month.
Whereabouts in NYC would you be getting that apartment? You can presently “rent a three bedroom house” in Yonkers for about $3600/m. The price of a three bedroom apartment on the Upper West Side, West Village, or Gramercy has nothing to do with “inefficiencies of scale” but with demand. I know of a couple who have a nice apartment, 1 bedroom but good sized rooms, in Riverdale for $1200/m.
dover_beach
21 Aug 12 at 8:26 pm
More expensive.
There’s places in manhattan that will sell you a hot-dog for about a buck a piece. Pizza slices are a couple of bucks.
brc
21 Aug 12 at 8:30 pm
High real estate prices in NYC aren’t caused by inefficiencies in scale; they are caused by restrictions on supply (both natural and bureaucratic). San Francisco a city of half a million people is even more expensive than NYC. While Dallas, Huston, Atlanta, Chicago are much larger than any city we have in Australia and are cheaper than Toowoomba.
AJ
21 Aug 12 at 8:30 pm
Good Lord, people pay a big part of that per week in the few parts of Sydney without much gunfire
WhaleHunt Fun
21 Aug 12 at 8:31 pm
Every place in Australia is more expensive than New York. You may pay more in rent, but this is more than offset by income. I’d rather be homeless in Manhattan than housed in Canberra.
Infidel Tiger
21 Aug 12 at 8:32 pm
Dunno, but that’s simply the direct function of foot traffic cost of capital and the price you can charge.
This has the best rep for pizza in NYC.
Mimi’s Pizza Kitchen
Pizza, Italian
1248 Lexington Ave, New York 10028
(Btwn 84th & 85th St)
The prices are possibly a little inflated because of that. The menu price is comparable to anywhere in oz for pizza and it’s bigger there too.
http://www.menupages.com/restaurants/mimis-pizza-kitchen/menu
Cheaper than here.
Cheaper
Cheaper
Cheaper
You get frog of Californian . Both are cheaper.
JC
21 Aug 12 at 8:33 pm
If you think New York is expensive please stay away from Perth you’ll die of a heart attack.
Infidel Tiger
21 Aug 12 at 8:36 pm
I wonder what the price of a hot dog in gladstone would be compared with manhattan though? Or a pice of pizza. A pair of shoes, a belt. A CD? A book? A bowl of spaghetti? Red wine (Australian) to go with it?
In order: $2-3 (from street vendor); $4-5 for family size slice from University Cafe; shoes, I was scouting runners and they are about half the price of those here; same for belts; CDs, obsolete, you might get sold one by rappers on Broadway though; bowl of spag, about $7-14 (guessing here from glancing at menus as I never buy pasta when eating out) depending on the place; and wine is about the same. I’m currently pricing the build of a computer from scratch and without the currency conversion at least 20% cheaper over there. Going to a concert is at least half the price.
dover_beach
21 Aug 12 at 8:39 pm
I need to say most of the US comparisons here are irrelevant, since US states commonly follow what I am suggesting. Those US states with very large cities typically do not have their capital located in the largest city.
2dogs
21 Aug 12 at 8:41 pm
? Why limit yourself to Manhattan when there is little other than the moon that Man has explored which one would not describe in the same manner?
WhaleHunt Fun
21 Aug 12 at 8:41 pm
Entropy… Check the menu of this place. It’s EAT pronounced E.A.T. It resides on the upper Eastside on Madison Ave and a swanky place to have lunch or breakfast outside of the hotels of executive type places, which you really don’t want to anyways.
Check out the lunch menu. It’s cheaper than here and a great great selection. (Have the calamari cold salad for lunch or if you wanna really pig out the beluga caviar omelet which is better than sex and the cheese cake is to die for.)
http://www.elizabar.com/Cafe-Menu-W29.aspx
JC
21 Aug 12 at 8:44 pm
Someone told me a coffee can be 7 bucks over there, IT. Is that right?
JC
21 Aug 12 at 8:45 pm
Oh, forgot books. About 25-40% cheaper.
dover_beach
21 Aug 12 at 8:47 pm
At some restaurants it is. A friend had lunch at Fraser’s recently and said they charged $6.80 for a flat white.
A pint of beer is $10.50. It’s enough to drive you to drink.
Infidel Tiger
21 Aug 12 at 8:49 pm
Have a great time in Prague and Europe, Sinc. You have been on fire all year with your Cat entries, quite amazing!
Judith Sloan
21 Aug 12 at 8:53 pm
Oh man, I gotta go back soon. look at this selection of cakes.. the cheese cake is 7 bucks. Don’t get me thinking about their chocolate cake either.
Last time in November, For lunch, I had the New England clam Chowder, the calamari salad and the cheese cake washed down with a coke zero and then a latte (skim). It ended in an argument because wifey said i was disgusting for pigging out like that and that I would look like a fat American if I kept that up.
JC
21 Aug 12 at 8:53 pm
Or this JC. Roebling Tea Room is good and prices more than reasonable. Great coffee too.
dover_beach
21 Aug 12 at 8:53 pm
You live at the end of a long, long road, IT.
You should move to Tasmania, perhaps.
steve from brisbane
21 Aug 12 at 8:53 pm
Nothing makes a man sound macho like going all gooey about cheesecake.
steve from brisbane
21 Aug 12 at 8:55 pm
That is outrageous, a crime against man.
One of the attractions of London is (was?) 2-3 quid for a pint. And you can stand on the footpath outside and drink it if it’s a nice day. Maybe things have changed since I was last there.
brc
21 Aug 12 at 8:55 pm
Keep the links coming, JC; I’m bookmarking them
dover_beach
21 Aug 12 at 8:55 pm
Happens at least 3 times a year.
steve from brisbane
21 Aug 12 at 8:56 pm
On the council vs state thing, I’m led to believe the Brisbane City Council has a larger budget than Tasmania. Not sure if that’s true or not.
brc
21 Aug 12 at 8:57 pm
they charged $6.80 for a flat white
FMD. $2 anywhere in NYC.
dover_beach
21 Aug 12 at 8:58 pm
If we’re going to have a big Australia and a high migration rate, can I put in a vote for a Birdian “Steal their Sheilas” style plan? Allow women from truly crappy parts of the world to migrate here if they leave their men behind?
Sure it would require some social change, a move away from couples to poligiamic style marriages, but this might be more suitable to the modern economy anyway – one person staying home to raise kids and 2 or more out working and bringing home the pay-checks. And as the global birth-rate plummets, we should then be able to keep ours up.
I just ran the proposal past my wife, and while initially frosty towards it, she started to warm to it when I laid out the economic advantage angle…
Tim
21 Aug 12 at 9:02 pm
2dogs, the reason the capitals of the states are not in some cases their largest city is political; they wanted to prevent the political hegemony of their largest city.
dover_beach
21 Aug 12 at 9:03 pm
Sounds great in theory, but the decline of the western world and the rise of the nanny state can be traced to giving women the right to vote.
There are exceptions and we should treasure them,but deep down you know I’m right.
Infidel Tiger
21 Aug 12 at 9:06 pm
I’m happy to accept the US states did the right thing for the wrong reasons, DB.
2dogs
21 Aug 12 at 9:07 pm
DB
Burgers…
no kidding this place has the best burgers in the world… the world. And the chips are simply perfect and by perfect I mean just that right crispiness and size.
The interior is a little NY Greek but the burgers are absolutely unbeatable.
http://www.menupages.com/restaurants/nectar-restaurant/
Possibly the best milkshake in the entire world is found here.
http://www.menupages.com/restaurants/ejs-luncheonette/
Burgers are good too.
For a wasp experience
Try this place.
http://www.menupages.com/restaurants/jg-melon/
The turkey club sandwich and beer .. can’t beat it anywhere.
Omelets aren’t bad either.
JC
21 Aug 12 at 9:09 pm
DB
I possibly went to Crooklyn perhaps no more than 5 times in 16 years. I don’t know the place.
JC
21 Aug 12 at 9:11 pm
Haven’t you got late ironing to do, Stepford. Fuck off. Everyone eats cheesecake in NYC.
JC
21 Aug 12 at 9:13 pm
With a population of just 21 million, due to arguments about the size of governments and people who dont like tax, the government is having a hard time, apparently, planning our infrastructure or is having a hard time dealing with private sector firms who fleece the deal in salaries and then hit the voluntary admin button?
Hmmmm I wouldnt mind a bigger Australia as long as the planning was there to cope with it but as I see it if the idea of building a bigger Australia means cramming people in a 5 to 10K ring around Sydney and Melbourne, in really shoddy constructions, with not an extra road or footpath for twenty plus years (like whats happening now)…
Alice
21 Aug 12 at 9:30 pm
Alice
Stop being a moron. The hwy serving our part of the city when I was growing up was two lanes. Infrastructure is reactive. You can’t really plan for it as the variables numerous.
Idiots who say you can really plan for it are basically statist nincompoops.
JC
21 Aug 12 at 9:33 pm
Written by a lying welfare bludger.
.
21 Aug 12 at 9:45 pm
Phooey to you JC
BS you cant plan for it. Why is Savannah Georgia so beautiful as a city (even now) and why are some cities like overcrowded stinky rat runs that we whinge about trying to navigate?
because you think traffic routes is reactive…garbage JC
Alice
21 Aug 12 at 9:45 pm
Because it wasn’t built on a series of peninsulas like Sydney.
.
21 Aug 12 at 9:48 pm
Alice, you moron.
Savanna Georgia was not a planned city. It just happened.
How the fuck do you plan for a highway 20 years hence when you don’t know if it would be used heavily.
How the hell do you know that the bulk of the population will move to x. In the 80′s it appeared Melbourne was dying and all the growth would occur north. In fact Melbourne grew fast from the mid 90s’ onward and there was actual migration to the south.
You have no idea what you’re talking about as usual.
JC
21 Aug 12 at 9:51 pm
Planning counts for little if the Feds refuse to hand back your taxes to help you build desperately needed commuter lines, a la Gillard’s refusal to fund the North West Rail link in suddenee.
WhaleHunt Fun
21 Aug 12 at 9:54 pm
We have enough green space ringing Sydney to put up pylons and build a damn freeway and solve half the problems in one fell swoop but no private operator is going to do that because no-one could afford the user pays tolls and instead poor Barry is thinking of digging up Parramatta road (what – for a ten K stretch???) and haggling to get a measly train line from the Northwest to Chatswood.
Should have done it years ago and paid it off not in one generation but in perpetuity of its life of use for future generations (like any other major capital aquisition a firm makes)
No vision. Mired in controversy over whether governments should spend that sort of money.
Meanwhile things get worse in get to work land and Aussies turn into road rage experts.
Alice
21 Aug 12 at 9:56 pm
= you sound like you know a few?
Alice
21 Aug 12 at 9:57 pm
JC
“Alice, you moron.
Savanna Georgia was not a planned city. It just happened.”
You moron, better look that up. It was a city fully planned by colonial powers in the 1700s. They didnt have a problem with central planning. They werent all sitting on their bums saying, dont worry about it, let the market build it.
Alice
21 Aug 12 at 10:00 pm
But as you move away from the coast the intensity of gunfire increases so drilling under Parramatta road is probably safer for the workers.
WhaleHunt Fun
21 Aug 12 at 10:02 pm
They can talk about a Big Australia all they want, but so long as they’re hobbling the important growth factors – cheap 24/7 electricity and limitless water – it will all be bullshit.
Beyond that, I don’t care who comes here – just so long as they leave their cultural and sectarian baggage at the door and do their utmost to stay out of the prisons and the welfare queue.
perturbed
21 Aug 12 at 10:04 pm
Right, lets reinstate the British Empire and sort out the traffic.
Sadly the situation is SO BAD that it is now tempting!
WhaleHunt Fun
21 Aug 12 at 10:05 pm
Alice
The aesthetics of what makes Savanna a pretty city was not planned. The streets and general layout was like a bunch of early Melbourne too. But what makes the city interesting are the buildings. Those weren’t planned unless you think the direction of a fucking street is pretty. Shut up as you have no idea what you’re talking about.
JC
21 Aug 12 at 10:06 pm
Bullshit. People use tolls now and if more were opened, the fees would drop on all.
.
21 Aug 12 at 10:07 pm
Perturbed you are so on the money.
WhaleHunt Fun
21 Aug 12 at 10:07 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oglethorpe_Plan
Just in case you are too lazy to check the facts JC
Alice
21 Aug 12 at 10:09 pm
Go to bed =
Alice
21 Aug 12 at 10:10 pm
Fuck off you imbecile.
Sydney toll ways are highly profitable and cheap.
.
21 Aug 12 at 10:11 pm
The fucking place is pretty JC because the streets were wide they had nice squares and it was easy to get around
oh but we wish. The buildings came later after the plan and it helps to have nice wide streets doesnt it without having someone’s cramped cafe chair fall off the cafe strip kerb onto JC’s merc parked nearby?
Alice
21 Aug 12 at 10:13 pm
I warned you = go to the car for some time out. If your tollways are so profitable why did the Lane cove tunnel guys and others fall flat on their faces?
Alice
21 Aug 12 at 10:14 pm
What is it with the “=” shtick? And is Crazy Alice always like this?
Gab
21 Aug 12 at 10:15 pm
Anyway – its past my bedtime. Ill dream of a Savannah revival in urban planning.
Alice
21 Aug 12 at 10:15 pm
Gab its = his name above you. Maybe I should call him sugar substitute.
Alice
21 Aug 12 at 10:17 pm
Honey?
Gab
21 Aug 12 at 10:18 pm
The failed company was bought out by Transurban.
The tolls are cheap and the road is good.
.
21 Aug 12 at 10:19 pm
If your tollways are so profitable why did the Lane cove tunnel guys and others fall flat on their faces?
Perhaps because the specific operators were incompetent, not because there’s a problem with tollways per se.
perturbed
21 Aug 12 at 10:25 pm
Drilling a hole in the wrong place and having a block of flats evacuated as it teetered on the edge of the whole while they poured a years carbon emissions worth of concrete into the hole to try to stop it, does that qualify as incompetent?
WhaleHunt Fun
21 Aug 12 at 10:52 pm
Whoops sorry, on the edge of the HOLE.
WhaleHunt Fun
21 Aug 12 at 10:52 pm
Canberra is the most planned city in the nation.
It literally drives its inhabitants into being brown cardigan wearing, paranoid, statist, introverts who hate their neighbours, loathe life and live in terror of anybody out in dirty uncivilized Australia. People who quite seriously cannot imagine a world in which individuals and communities even talk to each other let alone work out the smallest issue or event out for themselves.
True story.
twostix
21 Aug 12 at 11:00 pm
Drilling a hole in the wrong place and having a block of flats evacuated as it teetered on the edge of the whole while they poured a years carbon emissions worth of concrete into the hole to try to stop it, does that qualify as incompetent?
It most certainly does.
perturbed
21 Aug 12 at 11:06 pm
Thanks for the links, JC. They look like they’re all on the Upper East Side. I rarely go up there but since they’re near Hunter I can kill two birds with the one stone.
dover_beach
21 Aug 12 at 11:41 pm
Meanwhile, my 1 bedroom beachside apartment in Thailand runs me $250 a month.
Yobbo
22 Aug 12 at 2:49 am
I have many friends who work in NYC, and most of them choose to live in New Jersey. Some have to commute for 1.5 hours.
I would never want to live or work in NYC. I do not want to spend a significant proportion of my life in traffic jams or New York Subway.
Mot to mention crime. It has greatly reduced, I know, but still greatly restricts the areas you would contemplate settling in.
Apart from culture and ‘feel’ there is nothing to it.
Boris
22 Aug 12 at 3:22 am
It’s not about the money it is about what we want to spend money on. The Federal budget is around $350 Billion so could do things like a high speed rail from Adelaide to Cairns no problem the money is there and the NBN is just a drop in the ocean in reality, but we want to give the money to people instead. Put 20% of the Budget for infrastructure and it will be coming out of our ears. Before the onset of the welfare state countries tend to build infrastructure as China and South East Asia are doing now. Big Australia means more welfare recipients that is about all. Our market due to FTA’s is about 400 million people so except for retail there is no need for these extra people (thinking of the greedy capitalists here).
kelly liddle
22 Aug 12 at 4:25 am
I’m sure it has its charms, but it ain’t London.
Abu Chowdah
22 Aug 12 at 4:57 am
Total horseshit. I’ve lived in several Australian cities and several overseas (as I do now). Canberra is very livable, apart from the politicians and related arseholes.
Abu Chowdah
22 Aug 12 at 5:38 am
That’s why people pay a premium to live in Manhattan.
Yobbo
22 Aug 12 at 7:04 am
I would have thought the GFC would be a good time to steal some of the world’s best and brightest to oz.
Seemingly not…http://www.minister.immi.gov.au/media/media-releases/2009/ce09030.htm
Cory Olsen
22 Aug 12 at 7:30 am
= you have a new name. Its Honey.
Alice
22 Aug 12 at 8:18 am
You must be talking about a New York City in Africa I aint heard of.
NYC in the USA is safer than any Australian city, has a brilliant subway system that scoots you about anywhere you want to go and is the world’s greatest city for just about everything else.
You sound like the sort of person who be more comfortable in Woolongong. Good luck with that.
Infidel Tiger
22 Aug 12 at 9:40 am
Alice you have a new name. It’s “Fuckwit”.
.
22 Aug 12 at 10:39 am
Lol I was born and raised there and lived there for 25 years.
Post 1990 Canberra is a freezing cold, anti-social, commie and crime infested shithole that looks more and more like a run down soviet ghetto each decade.
This is beyond dispute.
twostix
22 Aug 12 at 10:44 am
Are we calling Andrew Bolt a racist now?
How is linking to an article in The Age authority for the statement that People and Place is “a controversial journal that faced allegations of xenophobia and racism during its 18 year run”? Firstly, that proposition is never put forward in the article. Secondly, it’s the Fairfax press.
Bob Birrell has been examining issues other venal, cowardly academics have been dodging for years. Often the abuses he uncovers are scandalous. I’m not sure the moral courage he has demonstrated for more than a generation warrants the wholesale dismissal of his work in such a cavalier fashion.
New Gold Dream
22 Aug 12 at 8:43 pm
Infidel, we may have different preferences, but we both like Perth, don’t we?
Boris
23 Aug 12 at 3:23 am