Page 31 of 68
Re: SA Economy
Posted: Fri Jan 24, 2020 10:29 am
by Bob
Re: SA Economy
Posted: Fri Jan 24, 2020 12:59 pm
by Chicago
ghs wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 11:58 pm
how good is he wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 11:16 pm
I think it’s more employment/jobs being the key to population growth (both coming in and reason for those leaving). Until there is significant change in employment and the types of jobs, I expect our limited population growth to continue.
Tasmania isn't an economic powerhouse but still they have higher population growth. It's pathetic.
Not sure all Tasmanians are rejoicing in the higher population growth as many would now face longer commute times and more expensive housing, with the number of homeless growing.
Re: SA Economy
Posted: Fri Jan 24, 2020 1:09 pm
by Chicago
rhino wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 10:13 am
ghs wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 11:58 pm
Tasmania isn't an economic powerhouse but still they have higher population growth. It's pathetic.
What is the demographic of people moving to Tasmania? Clean air and a slower pace attracts retirees. Retirees travel and spend to start with, but that reduces the further they are into retirement. Then (with all due respect) they slowly become a drain on services and a burden to society. They still have a right to be there of course, but it doesn't really mean a stronger economy due to a larger population.
Doubt the number of retirees would be that large as retirees usually prefer warmer climates. I think it would be mainly people priced out of Sydney's and Melbourne's property markets and international students who can't get Permanent Residency in Sydney or Melbourne.
Re: SA Economy
Posted: Fri Jan 24, 2020 1:23 pm
by Chicago
A blessing in disguise for many South Australians.
Re: SA Economy
Posted: Fri Jan 24, 2020 2:58 pm
by Chicago
I understand business (particularly big business) wanting higher population, preferably much higher population growth. Given the source of that labour it means lower wage costs and more consumers. Easy money.
I also understand people wanting a more vibrant Adelaide. A bigger, wealthier population will deliver that.
But be careful what you wish for.
Do you really want your schools, shops, hospitals, favourite weekend spots flooded with people? Like being stuck in traffic forever or not getting a seat on the train? Like being undercut by somebody cheaper? Love being in debt? Happy to see your kids renting, complaining about how everything is too expensive and how they'll never be able to afford a house? Because that is guaranteed should Adelaide's economy be doing much better.
I live in Melbourne and I think for most 'locals' (non recent immigrants) massive population growth has been a disaster.
Sure some are now millionaires, multi, but the cost of that growth has been very painful.
Adelaide and Australia for that matter would be much better off focusing on increasing its productivity per capita, on being more entrepreneurial, innovative and most importantly on being happier. Bigger isn't necessarily being happier.
Unfortunately Big Business is in charge and to them people are just workers and consumers, the more of them the better.
Re: SA Economy
Posted: Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:18 pm
by Aidan
Chicago wrote:
Do you really want your schools, shops, hospitals, favourite weekend spots flooded with people?
Yes, it's much better than having them close down because if lack of demand.
Like being stuck in traffic forever or not getting a seat on the train?
No, but the best solution to that is more trains.,And the second best solution is longer trains.
Like being undercut by somebody cheaper?
That's a risk regardless of the size of tye population. But with a large population there are more opportunities so it's less of a problem.
Love being in debt? Happy to see your kids renting, complaining about how everything is too expensive and how they'll never be able to afford a house? Because that is guaranteed should Adelaide's economy be doing much better.
As opposed to now, when lack of work makes housing unaffordable?
Re: SA Economy
Posted: Sat Jan 25, 2020 10:10 am
by rev
Chicago wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 2:58 pm
I understand business (particularly big business) wanting higher population, preferably much higher population growth. Given the source of that labour it means lower wage costs and more consumers. Easy money.
I also understand people wanting a more vibrant Adelaide. A bigger, wealthier population will deliver that.
But be careful what you wish for.
Do you really want your schools, shops, hospitals, favourite weekend spots flooded with people? Like being stuck in traffic forever or not getting a seat on the train? Like being undercut by somebody cheaper? Love being in debt? Happy to see your kids renting, complaining about how everything is too expensive and how they'll never be able to afford a house? Because that is guaranteed should Adelaide's economy be doing much better.
I live in Melbourne and I think for most 'locals' (non recent immigrants) massive population growth has been a disaster.
Sure some are now millionaires, multi, but the cost of that growth has been very painful.
Adelaide and Australia for that matter would be much better off focusing on increasing its productivity per capita, on being more entrepreneurial, innovative and most importantly on being happier. Bigger isn't necessarily being happier.
Unfortunately Big Business is in charge and to them people are just workers and consumers, the more of them the better.
I think you need to realize Adelaide is supposed to be a major city.
What you're complaining about might happen, is the mentality of a country town. And there in lies the problem with this "city". Too many people have that same or a similar mentality to what you've expressed above.
I'm not having a go at you for having that mentality or those views, but this is supposed to be a major city. Not a country town.
If people want to enjoy minimal traffic, no busy shops where they can walk in grab what they want and not have to wait at the checkout to be served, and so on, we have many country towns desperate for people where they'll fit right in.
I spend a considerable amount of time in Melbourne every year. Have lots of family and friends there. Not a single person yet has complained about the population growth, or Melbourne's growth in general. You're the first I've ever come across. Even when I'm stuck in traffic with them in the CBD, there's no complaining.
That seems to be a major point of difference between people in Melbourne and people in Adelaide.
Re: SA Economy
Posted: Sun Jan 26, 2020 9:04 am
by Chicago
Aidan, a place as well located and resourced as Adelaide won't die if it doesn't go Big, assuming good management. The go big or die message being peddled is a scam designed to benefit those in power.
Trains don't get you everywhere and not always the friendliest of places. They're also an additional cost as is the rest of the infrastructure and people necessary to accommodate a growing population, a cost paid by all and not just the new arrivals and predominantly a cost borne by those that can't avoid those costs unlike big business that can. Maybe it makes more sense to spend some of that money on other measures.
If you're the only plumber in town you're not getting undercut that's for sure. Large populations potentially offer more opportunities given the right mix and supply of skills and all other variables required for a thriving economy. However in Australia we have a large and rapidly growing section of the labour market that is insecure, has lower expectations, and is willing to work for less than the local population. All business knows this, they're bringing them, reaping the rewards and you're paying for it one way or another.
Sure, no job no house most likely. However plenty of well employed people out there struggling to afford suitable accommodation. Housing in Australia is expensive not due to lack of employment but due to Government policies. All by design.
You don't really think the new casino and the rest of the hotels, apartments, office buildings, and cafes going up are mainly going to be serviced by locals?
Re: SA Economy
Posted: Sun Jan 26, 2020 10:24 am
by SRW
Chicago wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 2:58 pm
Do you really want your schools, shops, hospitals, favourite weekend spots flooded with people? Like being stuck in traffic forever or not getting a seat on the train? Like being undercut by somebody cheaper? Love being in debt? Happy to see your kids renting, complaining about how everything is too expensive and how they'll never be able to afford a house? Because that is guaranteed should Adelaide's economy be doing much better.
These things don't necessarily follow population growth and you've done your argument no favours by taking it to the logical extreme.
Chicago wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 2:58 pm
Adelaide and Australia for that matter would be much better off focusing on increasing its productivity per capita, on being more entrepreneurial, innovative and most importantly on being happier. Bigger isn't necessarily being happier.
Unfortunately Big Business is in charge and to them people are just workers and consumers, the more of them the better.
On this, I agree. The economic growth model is flawed as a method of measuring our wealth and happiness. Relying on population growth alone to increase GDP while GDP per capita falls is not sustainable or desirable. But again, I don't think that precludes population growth where everyone's lot rises -- it's a matter of distribution. At the same time, I don't think we should measure Adelaide's success by the number of people moving to or leaving it.
Re: SA Economy
Posted: Sun Jan 26, 2020 10:48 am
by Chicago
Appreciate your reply Rev and hope I don't offend with my direct reply but it is borne out of quite a bit of frustration. Hope you understand.
Adelaide is not a country town. It is a small city. Are you saying there is no place for or benefit in having small or mid size cities? It should all be either big cities and small country towns with nothing in between?
Wouldn't it then be a bit dishonest to be promoting Adelaide as an affordable and less congested alternative to Melbourne and Sydney if the plan then is to eventually turn Adelaide into a big city where the kids of those that come will then face the same problems their parents did before making the move to Adelaide.
And if affordable and less congested is desirable then why change? Can't have a vibrant small city? Got to go Big?
And those that don't want to go Big they don't get a say? They're all wrong, ignorant, negative? They should all move? Where to? Can you name another city in Australia that offers what Adelaide does that is not trying to go Big?
Maybe those Adelaidians that like big cities should move to Melbourne or Sydney, double their mortgages, commute times, perhaps buy themselves a nice tiny flammable apartment or some other one riddled with faults that the developers/builders/politicians don't want to take responsibility for (and will in part be bailed out by the tax payer) and enjoy the good life that Australia's best are able to offer. And once those Adelaidians and others have had their fill of big city adventures and successes maybe they can leave the mess they created to others and move somewhere more liveable. Fair enough?
Don't know the personal circumstances of your relatives and friends in Melbourne, so can't comment there. But complaining is part of human nature, everyone does it. Nobody likes being stuck in traffic for hours to and from work, or waiting for care at the emergency department or facing a mountain of debt that will most likely take a lifetime to pay back, or feeling insecure about your job when you have a family to support, and that is the situation for many people in Melbourne thanks to Big Business and their ways. And people are complaining, plenty, that's why the Government made the token gesture of reducing Permanent Migration down to 160,000 per year whilst allowing temporary visa holder numbers to balloon.
You want to grow some cities, sure, but do it right.
What has happened in Australia for the past 20 years has been nothing more than a cash grab by the rich with poor regard for the little guy.
Re: SA Economy
Posted: Sun Jan 26, 2020 11:30 am
by Chicago
SRW wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2020 10:24 am
Chicago wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 2:58 pm
Do you really want your schools, shops, hospitals, favourite weekend spots flooded with people? Like being stuck in traffic forever or not getting a seat on the train? Like being undercut by somebody cheaper? Love being in debt? Happy to see your kids renting, complaining about how everything is too expensive and how they'll never be able to afford a house? Because that is guaranteed should Adelaide's economy be doing much better.
These things don't necessarily follow population growth and you've done your argument no favours by taking it to the logical extreme.
Chicago wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 2:58 pm
Adelaide and Australia for that matter would be much better off focusing on increasing its productivity per capita, on being more entrepreneurial, innovative and most importantly on being happier. Bigger isn't necessarily being happier.
Unfortunately Big Business is in charge and to them people are just workers and consumers, the more of them the better.
On this, I agree. The economic growth model is flawed as a method of measuring our wealth and happiness. Relying on population growth alone to increase GDP while GDP per capita falls is not sustainable or desirable. But again, I don't think that precludes population growth where everyone's lot rises -- it's a matter of distribution. At the same time, I don't think we should measure Adelaide's success by the number of people moving to or leaving it.
The issues I outlined have in part followed Australia's rapid pace and type of population growth. That's been Sydney's, Melbourne's and recently Brisbane's experience. You really think it'd be different in Adelaide, assuming Melbourne's levels and type of population growth for Adelaide and the world's economy not falling of the cliff? Wouldn't put my money on it.
Re: SA Economy
Posted: Sun Jan 26, 2020 12:49 pm
by gnrc_louis
While Adelaide is almost as far from Melbourne as Melbourne is from Sydney, it never made the transition to a big city. Adelaide greeted the federation as our third-largest capital but couldn’t hold that position once economic power began drifting north, then west. Brisbane passed Adelaide in the 1940s, and Perth pushed it to fifth place in the 1980s.
Today Adelaide is a capital with the characteristics of a stagnant regional centre. More people depart the city each year for interstate than are added to its population through net natural increase (births minus deaths). Population growth can only come from the overseas migration program and this is where proximity to Melbourne becomes a curse.
Melbourne already receives the lion’s share of the 6000 people who leave Adelaide each year. To keep up with Melbourne, Adelaide needs to break even in the contest for overseas migrants. But of the 90,000-plus who settled in the two cities in 2018, Melbourne took just over 80,000 while Adelaide received just under 11,000. And so Melbourne, a city already almost four times larger than Adelaide to begin with, grew three times as fast in 2018.
The latest official projections for the 2020s has Melbourne reaching six million people before Adelaide hits 1.5 million, and seven million in the next decade before its near-west capital city neighbour gets to 1.6 million.
McConville says Adelaide’s problems are more confronting for the nation than any relative shift between the big cities along the east coast. “The general point is probably that the rest of Australia is being left behind quite rapidly as almost all towns along the east coast expand,” he says. “One long-term change that may be worth noting is the inexorable decline of South Australia’s once influential role. “
From this article:
https://www.smh.com.au/national/victori ... 53f29.html
Re: SA Economy
Posted: Sun Jan 26, 2020 1:10 pm
by rev
Things will only change when Federal Government decides to make fixing this states and city's woes a priority of national importance. You know, if all states and major cities are prosperous and doing well economically and socially, it's a positive for the nation in general whereas if one or more are struggling and down in the dumps it's a drag on national resources.
Local South Australian politicians aren't capable of fixing a root in a brothel if their life depended on it.
Re: SA Economy
Posted: Sun Jan 26, 2020 1:18 pm
by gnrc_louis
rev wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2020 1:10 pm
Things will only change when Federal Government decides to make fixing this states and city's woes a priority of national importance. You know, if all states and major cities are prosperous and doing well economically and socially, it's a positive for the nation in general whereas if one or more are struggling and down in the dumps it's a drag on national resources.
Local South Australian politicians aren't capable of fixing a root in a brothel if their life depended on it.
South Australia in many ways has had more political influence in both the major parties than its size arguably "deserves" over the past few decades, with relatively influential politicians like Young, Minchin, Downer, Pyne, Farrell, Wong, Butler, Birmingham etc.
Re: SA Economy
Posted: Sun Jan 26, 2020 5:49 pm
by Aidan
Chicago wrote:Aidan, a place as well located and resourced as Adelaide won't die if it doesn't go Big, assuming good management. The go big or die message being peddled is a scam designed to benefit those in power.
You misunderstand me. I'm not saying Adelaide itself is at risk of dying. But there are a lot of boarded up shops in the suburbs. It's noticeable at Hallett Cove, and worse at Noarlunga where half the downstairs level of Colonnades is boarded up. And even in the City, the Gallerie's been closed for years and the Myer Centre can't fill its upper levels.
Trains don't get you everywhere and not always the friendliest of places. They're also an additional cost as is the rest of the infrastructure and people necessary to accommodate a growing population, a cost paid by all and not just the new arrivals and predominantly a cost borne by those that can't avoid those costs unlike big business that can. Maybe it makes more sense to spend some of that money on other measures.
That's the kind of thinking we want to avoid! Firstly its stupid for the cost future infrastructure to be borne by the present population when most of the benefits will occur in the future. Secondly, what makes you think big business won't pay? A lot of the state taxes do fall on big business,
Try reversing your mindset! Look at how railways and other infrastructure can meet future needs and be paid for in the future, but can also improve the lives of people in the present.
Yes trains don't get you everywhere. That's why we have buses! But we don't have a problem everywhere, and by reducing congestion on the roads, large areas can benefit from more use of trains. As for friendliness, trains tend to be friendlier than roads full of traffic.
If you're the only plumber in town you're not getting undercut that's for sure.
But your customers will get ripped off, that's for sure!
Large populations potentially offer more opportunities given the right mix and supply of skills and all other variables required for a thriving economy. However in Australia we have a large and rapidly growing section of the labour market that is insecure, has lower expectations, and is willing to work for less than the local population. All business knows this, they're bringing them, reaping the rewards and you're paying for it one way or another.
So the solution should be to increase expectations!
Sure, no job no house most likely. However plenty of well employed people out there struggling to afford suitable accommodation. Housing in Australia is expensive not due to lack of employment but due to Government policies. All by design.
You don't need to stay small or avoid success to fix the policy flaw. A much better solution is to provide more slternatives.
You don't really think the new casino and the rest of the hotels, apartments, office buildings, and cafes going up are mainly going to be serviced by locals?
That depends what you mean by “serviced” and “locals”.