Population Statistics Thread

[Bullswool]

I'm sure there is more movement for us to become more efficient at how we do everything so that we can utilizes labour in more useful areas - but we still need skilled migrants to keep growing our economy.

[Mornnb]

Originally Posted by Onijin

Why not retrain and skill up our current population instead?

First of all because this country is underpopulated, and the old phrase populate or perish, really still applies.
But most importantly, we need an influx of new young tax payers to deal with the ageing population, or will we run into the sorts of deficit problems they are having in Europe and Japan.

[asdfg]

Originally Posted by Mornnb

First of all because this country is underpopulated, and the old phrase populate or perish, really still applies.
But most importantly, we need an influx of new young tax payers to deal with the ageing population, or will we run into the sorts of deficit problems they are having in Europe and Japan.

Yes, absolutely.

Plus, it is almost certainly cheaper to import skill. "Skilling up the current population" is a long-term project that involves improving Australian educational institutions through steady investment. This has been occurring but it is a slow, evolutionary process and takes decades.

Another factor is that the supply of imported skilled labour can be increased very quickly. Policy changes could increase the flow within a year or two, and can target very specific skills.

[natfat madd fucker]

Originally Posted by Mornnb

First of all because this country is underpopulated, and the old phrase populate or perish, really still applies.
But most importantly, we need an influx of new young tax payers to deal with the ageing population, or will we run into the sorts of deficit problems they are having in Europe and Japan.

Exactly what i was going to say. although his got a point, we do have alot of people who were born here that are unemployed not just because they sit around on the dole but because either some aren't young enough and they want younger people not old(e.g its hard for people 55 and over to get a job these days) or they just dont have enough experience. we need more people who are over 65 who are still fit and healthy to get back into the workforce, but at the same we do need more skilled migrants.

[Onijin]

Originally Posted by natfat madd fucker

Exactly what i was going to say. although his got a point, we do have alot of people who were born here that are unemployed not just because they sit around on the dole but because either some aren't young enough and they want younger people not old(e.g its hard for people 55 and over to get a job these days) or they just dont have enough experience. we need more people who are over 65 who are still fit and healthy to get back into the workforce, but at the same we do need more skilled migrants.

Pretty much what I was implying. Considering the number of long-term unemployed out there who can't quite get the break they need, it'd be beneficial to train them up or retrain them and get them employed again to reduce their burden on the welfare system. And some companies need to take a bigger risk of hiring people with little or no experience instead of asking for 5 years experience like a lot of positions seem to require these days.

[Mornnb]

Originally Posted by Onijin

And some companies need to take a bigger risk of hiring people with little or no experience instead of asking for 5 years experience like a lot of positions seem to require these days.

That's the real core of the issue here. We have ample educational institutions that are low cost and accessible, such as TAFE. And we have university education with excellent repayment arrangements, so that people don't have to pay anything until they are earning enough to be off the welfare system. But you can train long term unemployed and older above 65s as much as you like, companies at the moment won't hire them.

[asdfg]

Originally Posted by Onijin

Pretty much what I was implying. Considering the number of long-term unemployed out there who can't quite get the break they need, it'd be beneficial to train them up or retrain them and get them employed again to reduce their burden on the welfare system. And some companies need to take a bigger risk of hiring people with little or no experience instead of asking for 5 years experience like a lot of positions seem to require these days.

But why should companies hire lower performing staff, when there is an alternative source of higher performing, cheaper labour?

If the government changed policy to enforce - for example, that companies must seek to employ long-term unemployed before immigrants - then the country would be shooting itself in the foot.

[natfat madd fucker]

[QUOTE=Mornb. But you can train long term unemployed and older above 65s as much as you like, companies at the moment won't hire them.[/QUOTE]
Companies barely high people over 50 who are unemployed! maybe if we bring a tone of young skilled migrants(im talking like say 1 million skilled migrants per annum who are 25 or younger) we might be able to retire at 50

[asdfg]

Australian population density heatmap

Here are some interactive heatmaps that let you compare the population density of Australian suburbs.

If you click on a suburb you will see more details of the suburb, including population density figures, plus other demographic stats. The whole of Australia is covered, so you can zoom out and move around the maps as you need.

The densest suburb is Pyrmont/Ultimo in Sydney with 18,731 people per square kilometres (see below). At the other end of the scale, the emptiest area in Australia is the Western region of South Australia, with 0.001 persons per square kilometre, or one person per 1000 square kilometres.

Sydney


Melbourne

http://censusstats.blogspot.com.au/2...y-heatmap.html

[Kelli]

Originally Posted by natfat madd fucker

we need more skilled migrants! we feed off them!

It's probably you that's scaring them off.

[Onijin]

Originally Posted by asdfg

But why should companies hire lower performing staff, when there is an alternative source of higher performing, cheaper labour?

If the government changed policy to enforce - for example, that companies must seek to employ long-term unemployed before immigrants - then the country would be shooting itself in the foot.

Who said anything about lower performing? I'm just saying that maybe we should see what we've got before jumping straight to importing people and contributing to the current rental squeeze in our capital cities.

As for enforcing, I wouldn't necessarily do so, but I'd give companies who hire workers over 50 and other long term unemployed people and retain them for at least a year a tax break or a similar incentive of some description. Wouldn't stop people importing workers from overseas, but wouldn't encourage it either.

[Mornnb]

Originally Posted by asdfg

Australian population density heatmap

Here are some interactive heatmaps that let you compare the population density of Australian suburbs.

If you click on a suburb you will see more details of the suburb, including population density figures, plus other demographic stats. The whole of Australia is covered, so you can zoom out and move around the maps as you need.

The densest suburb is Pyrmont/Ultimo in Sydney with 18,731 people per square kilometres (see below). At the other end of the scale, the emptiest area in Australia is the Western region of South Australia, with 0.001 persons per square kilometre, or one person per 1000 square kilometres.
http://censusstats.blogspot.com.au/2...y-heatmap.html

Interesting, and 18,731 per square km is pretty high by international standards, being higher than the density of central London.

Also here's the similar maps of Brisbane and Perth.

[asdfg]

Originally Posted by Onijin

As for enforcing, I wouldn't necessarily do so, but I'd give companies who hire workers over 50 and other long term unemployed people and retain them for at least a year a tax break or a similar incentive of some description. Wouldn't stop people importing workers from overseas, but wouldn't encourage it either.

Yes, however these types of incentives interfere with market efficiency. You are incentivising the hiring of less efficient (in terms of performance-to-cost) staff. This policy would lower the productivity and global competitiveness of the workforce.

The obvious follow-on question would be: would the savings on government support to the unemployed be worth the efficiency hit? I'm not sure, but I doubt it.

[BearCave]

[Mornnb]

Originally Posted by asdfg

Yes, however these types of incentives interfere with market efficiency. You are incentivising the hiring of less efficient (in terms of performance-to-cost) staff. This policy would lower the productivity and global competitiveness of the workforce.

The obvious follow-on question would be: would the savings on government support to the unemployed be worth the efficiency hit? I'm not sure, but I doubt it.

You can not assume that hiring long term unemployed and the old would mean less efficient and productive staff, that's a discriminatory attitude. Often it's a case of capable people with mental illnesses or other personality or physical issues. And it can be just plain and simple discrimination on the part of the employers, age, race, sex etc.
This discriminatory attitude by employers towards the unemployed and old is the biggest challenge to increasing the work force participation rate. The education services and welfare policies are already there.

[asdfg]

Originally Posted by Mornnb

You can not assume that hiring long term unemployed and the old would mean less efficient and productive staff, that's a discriminatory attitude. Often it's a case of capable people with mental illnesses or other personality or physical issues. And it can be just plain and simple discrimination on the part of the employers, age, race, sex etc.
This discriminatory attitude by employers towards the unemployed and old is the biggest challenge to increasing the work force participation rate. The education services and welfare policies are already there.

It's not discriminatory - I'm saying people should be hired based on competitiveness alone. It would only be discriminatory if a judgement was made based on their age, gender, ethnicity etc. Obviously this would be unacceptable.

Tax incentives, regulation etc interfere with market efficiency. If, in a free labour market, companies are choosing to hire 30 year skilled immigrants over 60 year old Australians, it's because the immigrant is more competitive. Their perceived value is higher relative to their cost.

A more qualified, cheaper and eager 60 year old should absolutely be hired over someone else with less experience, motivation - immigrant or not.

Incentivising the hiring of *anyone* for reasons other than performance would reduce Australia's competitiveness and is a form of protectionism.

[Mornnb]

Originally Posted by asdfg

Tax incentives, regulation etc interfere with market efficiency. If, in a free labour market, companies are choosing to hire 30 year skilled immigrants over 60 year old Australians, it's because the immigrant is more competitive. Their perceived value is higher relative to their cost.

A more qualified, cheaper and eager 60 year old should absolutely be hired over someone else with less experience, motivation - immigrant or not.

But in practise what happens most often is that the 60 year old is not hired, for being seen as 'too old'. How eager and experienced they are most of the time doesn't matter, the age is seen as a potential liability. Like wise with the long term unemployed. They can be the most qualified and eager person, but the employer is going to assume something is wrong with them because they have been unable to find employment for so long.
My point is there are real discrimination issues here, which are seeing capable people being under utilised. And this is not a problem that can be solved from the government and welfare side of things as the policies that need to be there are already in place. What is needed is a change in attitude by employers.

[AlphaBravo]

Originally Posted by asdfg

http://censusstats.blogspot.com.au/2...y-heatmap.html

I think there is an error. Pyrmont is quoted as 18731 people per square kilometer but when you click on the heat map section, the detailed data window shows the whole population of Pyrmont at 18,731 over an area of 1.5 square kilometres. The density therefore is 12,563 people per square kilometre.

[asdfg]

Originally Posted by AlphaBravo

I think there is an error. Pyrmont is quoted as 18731 people per square kilometer but when you click on the heat map section, the detailed data window shows the whole population of Pyrmont at 18,731 over an area of 1.5 square kilometres. The density therefore is 12,563 people per square kilometre.

Yeah, there was an error in the blog post, but the heatmap was correct.

It now appears to be fixed.

[asdfg]

Originally Posted by Mornnb

But in practise what happens most often is that the 60 year old is not hired, for being seen as 'too old'. How eager and experienced they are most of the time doesn't matter, the age is seen as a potential liability. Like wise with the long term unemployed. They can be the most qualified and eager person, but the employer is going to assume something is wrong with them because they have been unable to find employment for so long.

I disagree that there's lots of economically irrational discrimination. Otherwise a smart company could make its riches purely by employing all of the the old, long-term unemployed diamonds out there.

If all other things are equal and one candidate is long-term unemployed and another is working for another company in a related job - it makes sense to hire the currently-employed person, unfortunately.

Perhaps the role that is freed up from that person's movement can go to the unemployed or older candidate.

Originally Posted by Mornnb

My point is there are real discrimination issues here, which are seeing capable people being under utilised. And this is not a problem that can be solved from the government and welfare side of things as the policies that need to be there are already in place. What is needed is a change in attitude by employers.

So... a government-sponsored marketing campaign?