This is becoming a series. The point is that public figures now routinely refuse to engage with counter-arguments. I have another one not yet written about Nobel Laureate Brian Schmidt who did not respond to three polite emails from me. The latest intellectual weakling is Liz Allen, who is the go to pro-population growth demographer with media training (taking over from Peter MacDonald).
She wrote an article on The Conversation earlier this year. Have a read of it now or my commentary below will not make any sense. I came across it in May and sent her an email on July 8. The entire email is below. I have had no reply. After a whole month, do you think I could assume that I will not receive one?
What does it say about someone who will not defend their position or acknowledge weaknesses in their arguments or other valid frameworks? When people send me critical emails in my field of expertise (i.e. my research area) which happens every year or so, I always respond.Always. I just cannot resist.
FYI, I sent a direct email to the this aspiring academic that I have published my assessment of her pitiful lack of response.
Dear Dr. Allen,
I refer to your article in the conversation, which I recently encountered. With the greatest respect, I found it very one-sided and have quoted your article with critical commentary below. I think population growth is way too high and this does not indicate a hidden agenda on my part or on the part of others who draw attention to it. More importantly, I think the discussion seems bedevilled by unnecessary culture war acrimony.
“A sensible approach to population and immigration is needed to ensure living standards don’t go backwards.” Yes, everyone agrees. Is the current policy sensible or driven by vested interests? Is more population always better? Is our current growth optimal? Sorry for the rhetorical questions. But your article seems to avoid these key points.
“Migrants help us weather the demographic headwinds.” Well, only a little. I wrote an article for TC here (based on my published research though I am not primarily a demographer). It helps slightly but not all that much, much less so if migrants bring their parents over under family reunion. The momentum of falling TFR is just too irresistible. The age dependency ratio, variously defined, will increase no matter what. We cannot get back to the population pyramid of the 1980s, without going back to a TFR=3.5 for a couple of generations. Which is not only impossible but would be a disaster, I am sure you agree. Demographic aging must be managed, not avoided. For instance, we could all work to 71 instead of 67. Not what I personally planned for but not a national disaster either. But there are the other issues of congestion and the massive cost of extending infrastructure. Let’s have the discussion of how to adjust, but it seems to me you did not. You just seemed to argue that more migrants is the only rational response to local population aging.
It beggars belief that housing affordability is unrelated to our population increase. Yes, capital prices went up during Covid when there was zero migration, which appears to be an empirical counter-example, but that is because of all the free money that was pumped into our wallets. On the other hand, rental costs went down and only went up again when NOM spiked (see attached graphic). We were also told that zero immigration would destroy the economy and it did not (not that I want zero immigration), again because of all the free money.
Seriously, how can an increase of 146,000 in Melbourne’s population in 2023-4 not increase rents? Making this point is not “political mastery” as you term it. Let’s not impugn the motives of those who make a coherent vanilla economic case that demand in an environment of restricted supply matters. No complaints from this lucky boomer though. I happen to have THREE rental properties in Melbourne! $$$!!!
It is estimated that total infrastructure (roads, public transport, schools, universities, courts, defence, hospitals, airports, water, dams, pumped hydro, Snowy 2.0, gas and coal power plants, renewable energy) is worth 4.5 trillion dollars, which is just over two years GDP. Does it not follow then that a 1% increase in population requires (at some point) an extra 2% GDP? Currently we have more than 1% growth each and every year. We barely average 2% (real) GDP growth per year. So basically, all of it is taken up with the infrastructure costs of more than 1% population growth. Victoria is currently bankrupting itself building massive public transport infrastructure for the extra 2 million people that were not in Melbourne 25 years ago. Migrants are not to “blame” for this. It is a consequence of our own misguided, developer friendly, lobbyist driven, Ponzi-policy.
And lastly, Australia’s population growth over recent past years is higher than any other developed country. By a large margin. Am I wrong? If not, why so high? Is the rest of the world getting it wrong?
Most of our population growth is immigration driven, a point you make yourself. This is actually good, since we can adjust our population growth to exactly what we want. We have a dial we can turn up or down at will. It has been turned up and up in recent times, not only the last 2 years but the last 20. What is the downside of turning it down in experimental steps? If the economy reacts badly, we could quickly pause or even reverse and get back to the previous trajectory as quickly as we like. Whereas, increased immigration is almost impossible to reverse. The risk/costs of policy change are asymmetric. My contention is that: there is no downside risk to trying a lower immigration policy. I suspect that those against fear it might work.
Why did you not include any of these discussion points, even if you have counterarguments and ultimately come to the conclusion that …. What was your conclusion? What population growth should we have? Referring to your last sentence, I have no idea what “harness the power of demography” means.
Sincerely
Chris J. Lloyd