As some predicted

UP to 40 indigenous Australians are preparing compensation claims against the Victorian Government following this week's official apology to the Stolen Generations.

Link

Rudd fails again.

40 feet of abo..?

" is inches
' is feet

yeah don't you just hate those abbos? lets go lynching!

This is so unexpected...

lol at infi ... the most predictable thing on this forum is you.

As long as we deduct all of the specialist welfare we've been giving them for the last 30 years (including inflation).

I knew you'd reply to infi obes

i knew you would start making your inane observations Jim.

I am preparing to f*** at least four super hot women tonight.

I knew you'd reply to Jim's post infi

I know I hate this thread.

thanks to the Liberal party and it's admirers who will be paying the bulk of this.


man you guys must be pissed

since i'm home with the flu today i can get in early on this one before it spirals out of control

do you think the apology really had any influence on the lodging of these claims?
if so how?
i would have thought they would have been lodging claims soon enough regardless. im sure the lawyers have been circling anyway....

^ huh

I am suing because they added apricots where's my apology.

the real question is: will Mr Rudd settle the claims or will he defend them given he has already stated the aborigines are not entitled to compensation.

i knew you would reply about me replying to jim's post, casa.

i didn't expect natslovr's reply.

since i'm home with the flu today i can get in early on this one before it spirals out of control

snap! so am I :P

do you think the apology really had any influence on the lodging of these claims?

lawyers will try and exploit any angle to make a buck.. especially a potential payoff like this. you don't haveto be too creative to think that one up.

from Rudd's perspective, I beleive he hopes to escalate just this to a truely massive proportion that will lead Aborigines and their leaders to chase this thru the legal system. In doing so, the free money and privileged status that Aboriginals currently enjoy/abuse will change forever from 'fed govt handout' to 'compensation payout'. One will end. One will continue to grow, and grow. Australia can't afford to keep looking after the old natives for the next 1000 years.

Ya know - looking at it now, I'm surprised that previous Gov's didn't figure this one out. Or maybe it was just bad timing that stopped them

last edited by koopz at 15:00:03 15/Feb/08

these claims will relate to a handful of "stolen" aborigines. if you think this will lead to an end to indigenous payouts, you're dreaming.

why won't you stop paying them out?

Cos he loves them, infact his best mate (or atleast someone he talked to once) is a person of a non white background.

what makes you think i'm paying them out. i just object to unconditional never-ending handouts to any group of people.

or to prove that a Government respect a class of people are large amounts of handouts required?

the real question is: will Mr Rudd settle the claims or will he defend them given he has already stated the aborigines are not entitled to compensation.

You're so dumb it's amazing. The suits are targeting the VIC GOVT, not the Feds so nothing to do with the Feds or the Feds saying sorry, ya ninny. BTW they were always going to lodge compensation against the VIC Govt and SA Govt as has previously been done prior to the Federal Govt apology. SA has already from memory paid a compensation claim, well before the apology by the Feds.

As far as I am aware there are no claims made or have been stated are going to be made against the Federal Govt.

infi you got a handout remember?

i just object to unconditional never-ending handouts to any group of people.

So all in all you must object to families/mothers who receive the baby bonus. You must object to first home buyers who get the FHOG. Since it was the Liberals who introduced these two handouts you must have objected to the previous Liberal Governments a lot too.

It's because of the apology. I'm not saying it was because of what was said. Just the act in itself.
The people saw it as an excuse to sue...

Just like how there are 3-4 Big unions threatening to strike at the moment (Vic Teachers, NSW Fire Fighters and a efw other smaller ones splashed about on the news recently) They dont really have any new cause to Strike, they just see/think Labor being in power as an excuse to arc up a bit. Test the new boundaries.

So all in all you must object to families/mothers who receive the baby bonus.

I certainly do. Paying people to have babies is a ref***ingtarded idea. Unless you're gearing up for war.

You must object to first home buyers who get the FHOG.

I think this is a dumb idea as well. Unless you're trying to create a building boom.

^ never said I agreed with them, just asking why the inconsistency in whom infi dislikes when you can apply his criteria to a number of black or white individuals. Why single out just blacks when he could choose using the same criteria, pensioners, the disabled and many others groups.

Yeh, that's right - we should single out the pensioners!!!!

^ and war veterans?

Yeh, what did they ever do for us!

these claims will relate to a handful of "stolen" aborigines. if you think this will lead to an end to indigenous payouts, you're dreaming.

I kinda thought you were in the legal profession.. think less 'fact' and more 'feather my nest egg'. Legal reps are quite predictable - entire tertiary institutions are dedicated to their game.

which is a shame, as that is all they treat justice as

Australia is becoming more and more like America every day

last edited by koopz at 16:16:03 15/Feb/08

yes I'm taking the piss.

still - back on subject..

f*** the dirty barstards.

they can all go DIAF.

How will they find time to drink grog, abuse there children and bash people whilst going to court@!!!

I certainly do. Paying people to have babies is a ref***ingtarded idea. Unless you're gearing up for war.

Um... They're trying to encourage people to have kids to increase the birth rate. And help out with costs associated with having a newborn.

I think this is a dumb idea as well. Unless you're trying to create a building boom.

They're trying to make it easier to buy a new house..

NOTE ITS A FIRST home buyers grant.

WA will set up a fund for those abused in state care, including stolen generations members.

Queensland and NSW have rejected the idea; Tasmania has set aside $5 million for surviving stolen generations members and the children of those who have died.

heh

Unless you're gearing up for war

MWOOHARHARHAR.

Actually the baby bonus is too small - it should be closer to $20,000 and Family Tax benefits A and B should be repealed in order to simplify the tax complexity of the whole system. Fertility is the engine of our nation - don't ever forget it, if we don't recognise the role of mothers and motherhood by helping them you get less mothers as they choose careers instead. There nation slowly becomes older or dependent on immigration without replacement levels of fertility.

As a non-parent (presently) I happily pay taxes to fund this payment.

As for first home owner's grant I don't really agree with it. Demand-side funding merely stimulates the inflationary real estate cycle we are presently in. It doesn't create more houses, just higher demand for the houses already in existence.

The one thing about those two schemes though is they didn't throw money at people because of their ethnicity.

Edit: Oh and SFB isn't it funny how aged, invalid and disabled people all have this common issue of needing government assistance to exist. That is called the safety net. I wouldn't insult an indigenous person by suggesting they need assistance simply because of their enthnicity so why create classes of payments directed towards them.


last edited by infi at 16:58:24 15/Feb/08

Actually the baby bonus is too small - it should be closer to $20,000

Yes, give those 16 year olds more incentive to pop the babies out!

Yes, give those 16 year olds more incentive to pop the babies out!

Wrong. The average age of mothers in Australia has increased from 28 to just under 30 between 1990 and 2004 according to ABS statistics. 16 year old mothers are a very small fraction of society.

I have to admit the 16yo who gets the baby bonus to buy a TV or some cocaine is a very vivid and compelling image though.

Tasmania has set aside $5 million for surviving stolen generations members and the children of those who have died.

haha, easy to tasmania to do that. that $5 million isn't being touched any time soon.

Wrong. The average age of mothers in Australia has increased from 28 to just under 30 between 1990 and 2004 according to ABS statistics. 16 year old mothers are a very small fraction of society.

How does this mean there would be no more incentive if it was increased to 20k?

infi you got a handout remember?

you know... because you have close affiliations with conservative politicians?

They're trying to make it easier to buy a new house..

NOTE ITS A FIRST home buyers grant.

let's talk economics 101.

what happens when demand increases but supply stays relatively the same?

prices go up zing!

infi is a dick wort zing!

yup. you can see the effect of supply in the US states that have anti-urban sprawl laws. housing went up around 400% in real terms in states like california that had strict planning laws while around 30% in places like texas which didn't.

Mr Austin's writ is yet to be filed and does not nominate a payout figure, but claimants in other states have won between $350,000 and $500,000.

Fellow Victorian Bruce Trevorrow won $775,000 when a South Australian court ruled his removal from his family caused long-term depression.

Money makes the pain go away.

SFB you're so stupid its amazing. They are suing the Vic gov because The Sorry speech specifically said no to compensation and also that words said in fed parliament are inadmissible in court. BUT the meaning behind the apology gives rise to a case for the so called "stolen" generation. AND it was state governments that carried out the laws. HENCE state governments being targeted. your dreaming if you think that these cases would have arisen now if it wasn't for KRUD's speech.

nothing good could have come from saying sorry and now we are all going to pay for it.

FHBG HAS caused inflation of prices in the housing sector, but thats because state governments have miss managed the issue. Baby bonus is to increase local population and decrease the need for immigration, and also its no where near enough.

edit: just woke up cut some slack to a bloke

last edited by Anono at 11:21:30 16/Feb/08

you're

Wrong. The average age of mothers in Australia has increased from 28 to just under 30 between 1990 and 2004 according to ABS statistics. 16 year old mothers are a very small fraction of society.

Thats one way of looking at it.

Another is, what percentage of 16yr olds have been having kids now compared to before the baby bonus. I'd argue any significant change is a bad thing. 16 is way too f***ing young to be having a kid.

Younger mothers generally have healthier and longer living children (according to various studies I've come across), so I'd say if we actually had a decent education system there'd be no reason why girls at that age shouldn't have children.

Point: it's not so much the age, it's the current psychological state we create in them that's the problem.

Also while some would say people should go out and experience the world first, which is true in most cases, there are some people who have an extremely strong connection with the idea of parenthood and it's something they feel they want more than anything else, even at the age of 16.

It's down to the individual in my view.

I am preparing to f*** at least four super hot women tonight.

best post in this thread

Younger mothers generally have healthier and longer living children (according to various studies I've come across), so I'd say if we actually had a decent education system there'd be no reason why girls at that age shouldn't have children.

Point: it's not so much the age, it's the current psychological state we create in them that's the problem.

Also while some would say people should go out and experience the world first, which is true in most cases, there are some people who have an extremely strong connection with the idea of parenthood and it's something they feel they want more than anything else, even at the age of 16.

It's down to the individual in my view.





Agreed. I'm nearly 20 and what I want more than anything is to have children and have always wanted that. That said, I would like to finish uni etc first.

It's only in recent years that people tend to get married and have kids at a later stage, whilst in earlier times people were taking on a lot more responsibility at a much younger age, such as working full time, getting married, having children etc. I don't personally think having a child at 16 is a great idea, but even with the baby bonus I hardly doubt there are many 16 year old girls who purposely get themselves pregnant.

I knew a chick that spent her entire baby bonus on meth.

Pretty f***ed up.

Nothing else to add.

I knew a chick that spent her entire baby bonus on meth.

Pretty f***ed up.

Nothing else to add

I know its reality, but f*** this kind of stuff is just depressing. Creates f***ed up kids and the cycle continues ect.



last edited by straw hat hippie at 20:19:23 16/Feb/08

SFB you're so stupid its amazing. They are suing the Vic gov because The Sorry speech specifically said no to compensation and also that words said in fed parliament are inadmissible in court. BUT the meaning behind the apology gives rise to a case for the so called "stolen" generation. AND it was state governments that carried out the laws. HENCE state governments being targeted. your dreaming if you think that these cases would have arisen now if it wasn't for KRUD's speech.

nothing good could have come from saying sorry and now we are all going to pay for it.

You seem to have forgotten that cases were already being pursued prior to the apology and that the VIC and SA Govt have already publicly and legally accepted liability ya dumb s***. Nothing whatsoever to do with the Fed speech. If you don't want to know that the Fed apology has no bearing on the success or otherwise of any compensation claim then just ignore every leading legal eagle's opinion. Obviously you're more informed and a better judge then they are.

I reckon, I wish I was joking.

The worse thing is that $3000 of IV meth only lasts 1 - 2 weeks tops and she was broke again before her next centrelink pay.

I know its reality, but f*** this kind of stuff is just depressing. Creates f***ed up kids and the cycle continues ect.

Oh but removing the children from their (f*** up) parents would damage them for life, apparently.

ISWYDT

Oh but removing the children from their (f*** up) parents would damage them for life, apparently.

Its a dam difficult issue but i cant help but find myself nodding in agreement

Just curious...
Is there going to be an apology to white people whose kids were taken off them by childrens services?

on a side note: I disagree 1000% on the baby bonus payment. I spend more as a single person with my disposable income, generate more revenue for the govt (ie tax in it's multi layered s***e) by doing so and use the public health system way less than a family does with rugrats

Where are my tax breaks?

Im sure if you stole and "Abo" you would take it back pretty quickly, what about the returned for a refund generation ??.



Jokes OK!!

last edited by Reverend at 22:33:48 16/Feb/08

The worse thing is that $3000 of IV meth only lasts 1 - 2 weeks tops and she was broke again before her next centrelink pay.

Let's hope natural selection does its part.

(No offense, kid).

on a side note: I disagree 1000% on the baby bonus payment. I spend more as a single person with my disposable income, generate more revenue for the govt (ie tax in it's multi layered s***e) by doing so and use the public health system way less than a family does with rugrats





What you spend your "disposable income"on is your problem. I think you missed the point about why the baby bonus exists. And until you have children of your own I think you completely underestimate how much raising a family costs.


last edited by Minxy at 09:59:53 17/Feb/08

on a side note: I disagree 1000% on the baby bonus payment. I spend more as a single person with my disposable income, generate more revenue for the govt (ie tax in it's multi layered s***e) by doing so and use the public health system way less than a family does with rugrats

Where are my tax breaks?

You are a healthy single and according to your post have at least a good whack of 'disposable income'. Why do you need tax breaks?

last edited by Hogfather at 10:20:44 17/Feb/08

yer $4000 is nothing in the long run.

The money is to be used to buy essential stuffs that are for the well being of the child. In a way you could argue that it is the child's money, not the parents.

instead of a lump sum it should be changed to a deduction that you can claim on your tax. i.e. you can claim up to $x amount as a tax deduction as spent on buying baby s*** for the first y years and it isn't such an incentive to single out of work mothers without much insight to get knocked up.

that way, you don't get all the dopes wasting it on non baby related s***.

apart from that, i agree with raising the birth rate via an incentive. babies/families may use more government services but in the long run that baby is another tax payer and they will pay it back and then some in the long run.

last edited by ara at 11:26:42 17/Feb/08

toll ...

The money is to be used to buy essential stuffs that are for the well being of the child. In a way you could argue that it is the child's money, not the parents.

Err, where is this written anywhere in policy? Its the first I've heard of it. From reading, the BB policy is intended to offset part of the overrall cost of having a child, primarily the likely loss of an income for a while in a normal family. Its not specifically money for nappies.

ara, the problem with a one off 4k to stimulate the middle class to have a baby is that its not really enough. I suspect thet the BB is actualy targetted at people to whom 4k is an inviting sum of money, and its intended to be spend it on whatever you like too.

Its a bit cold, but from the nation's perspectve, it doesn't really matter if the mother spends the money on a big screen TV or a really big bottle of bourbon. All that matters is that she sprogs. The fact is that even kids from s***ty backgrounds generally turn into tax payers.

We need more young tax payers because the baby boomers and hippies didn't really have enough kids, and don't have enough cash to properly fund their care into old age. Gen XYZ has a huge taxation slug coming in about 15-20 years because we will have to pay for their dotage. 4k in 2008 is insignificant compared to the taxation revenue in 2025 from an extra worker.

Oh yeh, I hate to admit it but infi knows where its at. Old age care facilities are big business and its definetly the growth industry of the next 20-30 years in Australia.

last edited by Hogfather at 11:43:13 17/Feb/08

of course the answer to every bean-counter problem is growth! growth is how you measure success right!? just keep on stimulating that growith until all local resources are consumed & all local infrastucture over-run.... don't spare a thought for viable population sustainability coz that's never gonna produce enough beans, to count.

of course the answer to every bean-counter problem is growth! growth is how you measure success right!? just keep on stimulating that growith until all local resources are consumed & all local infrastucture over-run.... don't spare a thought for viable population sustainability coz that's never gonna produce enough beans, to count.

quoted for f***ing truth

hi5

this policy isn't about growth. for the better part of a generation Australia has not even been reproducing at 2 kids per woman i.e. replacement rate.

So not only have we not been growing, we have been in decline (excluding immigration). It's not about growth. It's about sustenance.

We're overpopulated, too many c***s everywhere... f*** the baby bonus.

We're overpopulated.

people who say we are over populated are dumb.

first, they are missing the fact that even if we had reached a magical limit, something needs to be done to sustain the tax revenue as the now static population ages. if you just increase the tax burden on current tax payers to fund it, who will pay taxes once that current generation retires?

second, 17-20million people in a country the size of ours is nothing. there are that many people in New York alone. if you complain about housing/health/transport issues these are all things you should take up with your state government who have been failing on these many fronts for decades.

third, chub you are dumb, so what you say is by definition is dumb.

I'd have to disagree. I think the world is definitely over populated, and even though Australia only has a total population of what single cities have doesn't mean it isn't over populated.

Less population = less pollution, too, so that'd shut the global warming people up, and it'd make the environment a lot nicer to live in for everyone.

Need a cap on population somehow, globally.

Need a cap on population somehow, globally.

china tried that.
now they have a zillion little princess and a zillion little princes running around acting like little f*** heads.

the world isnt over populated at all, there is no evidence to support that more people = more pollution, thats just an easy conclusion based on prior patterns. the world just needs better management but i doubt any drastic changes will happen in our lifetime.

A lot of people advocate culling the population. The funny thing is they feel they should be excluded from the cull and it should be someone else's head.

Why can't we start with those most loudest advocating the reduction. Seems only fair as they're the ones complaining so much. Stop a lot of whining.

the world isnt over populated at all, there is no evidence to support that more people = more pollution

you're kidding right?

might not be pollution as you know it, dirty water ways, air pollution etc (which it is anyway)

but go take a look at how world fish stocks have been declining since th 60's and how much of the amazon rain forest is left.

australia is over populated, you're obviously just being ignorant to the fact that most of australia is un-hospitable if you want to go and say 'omg look how much land we have per head of population'

why don't you go and live out in the desert if we have so much land for everyone to spread out into

Is there going to be an apology to white people whose kids were taken off them by childrens services?

Those white children weren't taken away from their parents so they could breed out the white race though, were they?

Amazons is totally gone now. A developer turned it into home units and the DFO.

people who say we are over populated are dumb.

first, they are missing the fact that even if we had reached a magical limit, something needs to be done to sustain the tax revenue as the now static population ages. if you just increase the tax burden on current tax payers to fund it, who will pay taxes once that current generation retires?

second, 17-20million people in a country the size of ours is nothing. there are that many people in New York alone. if you complain about housing/health/transport issues these are all things you should take up with your state government who have been failing on these many fronts for decades.

third, chub you are dumb, so what you say is by definition is dumb.

I don't live in the real world, I live in a magical world where I don't give a f*** about tax revenue. IMO if you're striving for a world that's similar to New York, you fail... what a piece of s*** place.

australia is over populated, you're obviously just being ignorant to the fact that most of australia is un-hospitable if you want to go and say 'omg look how much land we have per head of population'

have you ever driven 30min out of the CBD?

alot of australia is un-hospitable. however alot of land (especially around the coast) is quite livable and then plus some.

Those white children weren't taken away from their parents so they could breed out the white race though, were they?

did they rape the kids they took away or something? how can you breed a race out by taking them away from their parents who are neglecting them?

breed the black out of the half casts

you think you live in that world chub, but unless you completely refrain from taking advantage of any government-funded infrastructure, facility or institution, you live in right in this world with the rest of us.

have you ever driven 30min out of the CBD?

alot of australia is un-hospitable. however alot of land (especially around the coast) is quite livable and then plus some.

Uhhh... putting people whereever there's land to put them isn't actually a good idea... The ecological footprint of Brisbane is far more vast than the extents of the city itself. And that's not including the fact that we should have land set aside completely seperately so that we're not exploiting everything we come into contact with.

I'm not necessarily agreeing with the comment that .au is overpopulated, but trying to approach a complex question with a ludicrously simplistic answer is foolish.

you think you live in that world chub, but unless you completely refrain from taking advantage of any government-funded infrastructure, facility or institution, you live in right in this world with the rest of us.

As long as you "hard workers" keep funding my Centrelink I'm happy ;)

I don't know what sort of nutcase would want MORE people though, like around this Redcliffe joint I'm in now... 2 little beach houses have been sold in the past 6 months and they got 2 massive 10+ storey highrises going in.

BOOOO!

second, 17-20million people in a country the size of ours is nothing. there are that many people in New York alone. if you complain about housing/health/transport issues these are all things you should take up with your state government who have been failing on these many fronts for decades.

It's not nothing. 20 million people on the land in this country has a considerable cost. We roost in all the best quality places, and damage them.

The size of the excellent quality land required to support New York City is ENORMOUS. And very few people want to live like that.

There'll always be room for more people, you're right, we have a huge chunk of land here. But quality of life will drop.

Not to discount your other arguments, but obviously the way to deal with an aging population isn't necessarily to create more and more people.

Eventually, we all pay.

As long as you "hard workers" keep funding my Centrelink I'm happy ;)

so you do give a f*** about tax revenue, which is the complete opposite to what you said

so you do give a f*** about tax revenue, which is the complete opposite to what you said

Not really :) I scab off the Government, but I don't care about it :D

Don't take everything so serious Jim, you will get your pension.

good luck living on the pension. it's a bit parasitic to live on government benefits all your life never having paid a tax dollar to our wonderful country.

last edited by infi at 13:21:53 18/Feb/08

nah I'm hoping the pension is completely gone asap chub, but it is amusing that you would suggest that is my motive

my motive is showing you how dumb your comment was

As long as you "hard workers" keep funding my Centrelink I'm happy ;)

I can think of nothing worse than subsistence living.

Don't take everything so serious Jim, you will get your pension.

I think that you will find, if you gave a s*** about your financial future at all, that there won't be a pension for our generation and that we will need to reply on our super funds or other types of fund management to pay for our retirement - if we can even retire.

CHUB, slackers like you make me sick, but the best thing about it, is I know that I can do it on my own and for me that means so much more than free money

I can think of nothing worse than subsistence living.

At the very least, there's below subsistence(i.e. sans centerlink) living.

I can think of nothing worse than subsistence living.

Hey, this week I spent 3 days on morteon island kayaking, fishing and hiking, 2 days kitesurfing at brighton beach (in 20 - 25knot winds)I had jumps @ 15m (above the kite level of another surfer) and 14 jumps (skydives) out of a Cessna 182 @ 14,500 ft (4.4km).

Don't worry about me, I'm having a f***ing blast :)

Keep sloggin the "Australia dream" :D

Don't worry about me, I'm having a f***ing blast :)

Keep sloggin the "Australia dream" :D

Having lived on centrelink for about 5 years gone i can say that the 40 hours a week plus transport time i spend at work is well worth being able to go "hmm... i feel like getting a new 22" flatscreen monitor" at the drop of a hat and not putting a dent in my bank balance.

Especially compared to the good ol' centrelink lottery.

Actually the baby bonus is too small - it should be closer to $20,000 and Family Tax benefits A and B should be repealed in order to simplify the tax complexity of the whole system. Fertility is the engine of our nation - don't ever forget it, if we don't recognise the role of mothers and motherhood by helping them you get less mothers as they choose careers instead. There nation slowly becomes older or dependent on immigration without replacement levels of fertility.

As a non-parent (presently) I happily pay taxes to fund this payment.

I don't know s*** about economics, but I don't understand t his sort of thinking at all.

It seems to me the best way to run a country is the same as running a company - you have as few people you can get by with to do everything that needs to be done. Having more and more people just means it costs more and more to manage them all and provide them with services and all that stuff.

Obviously you have to keep having babies, but I can't see any advantages to just churning them out ad nauseum - so I'm wondering if there's some sort of school of thought on this topic, perhaps on a broad economic base that's a little more insightful and comprehenible than "fertility is the engine of our nation", which - no insult intended - sounds like a sound bite you overheard from whatever politican thought up this pay-for-babies scheme.

I can only see downsides to having more people - increase population pressure, increased requirements on infrastructure, more problems with crime, etc, etc.

I'd be very interesting in hearing thoughts about population controls because it seems like a much more efficient way to manage a society. I'm all for personal freedoms but bringing a baby into the world is such a big deal and too many people take it all to casually already. Paying them to do it more just seems like a stupid ass idea to me.

trog:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale

Xy: I reckon living below subsistence (ie sans Centrelink) would actually be prefereble to living off the Government. Of course this is from the perspective of an (apparently) educated person who has an ingrained work ethic.

The reality of sub-subsistence would probably be worse than the perceived blow to pride of living off hand-outs - but that's what hyperbole is all about innit?!

You may have missed the point I made earlier, that this is ain't about populations growth. It's about reaching population replacement of 2.0 children per woman in Australia. Currently Australia Total Fertility Rate is 1.77

The discussion of what we think is the ideal population for Australia is completely different to achieving a fertility level where we are simply replacing the same number of people who die to keep the population stable.

If fertility is interfered with too much we get giant demographic spikes such as the baby boomers which skews many infrastructure and service delivery priorities temporarily.

If you want to think of running a country like running a company, then business really enjoys of all things a stable trading environment, and stable consumer base for their products.

Our present fertility rate of 1.77 means that we having fewer births than deaths, which means as a society we will be in decline and have fewer people of working age in the future to operate all our essential services while the proportion of society who are invalid and over working age outstrip our working society's ability to service their needs.

I did my bit! I made three of the suckers

It seems to me the best way to run a country is the same as running a company - you have as few people you can get by with to do everything that needs to be done.

<3 trog

It is hard for businesses to find staff now, think how hard it will be in another 10 years when there are less people in the workforce due to old people retiring and no one to take their place combined with continued economic growth.

That is when you will see even greater pressure on wages leading to greater pressure on inflation. Taxes will be raised or government services will be cut. More programs like work for the doll and mutual obligation social security will be pushed further so no one gets a free ride.

It seems to me the best way to run a country is the same as running a company - you have as few people you can get by with to do everything that needs to be done.

<3 trog

in private companies bums don't last. cya chub.

Trog I think generally companies are usually trying to expand....yes, they want to get by with as few people as required to fulfil the demand for their demands/products....but I think our low unemployment suggests that we can expand.

Also, the economies of scale thing.

I'm sure there are many other reasons why a bigger population would be good for us.

australian population is on the rise (counting immigration... coz like they are people too...even the black ones amirite!?) so says the census. it's been rising steadily since 2001, south east queensland was one of the largest growth areas in terms of population.

& we really do gotta count those immigrants... coz world population is rising at a huge rate n they are gonna wanna live somewhere!
http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/img/worldpop.gif
anyways... this argument is pointless.

last edited by demon at 17:58:21 18/Feb/08

without any representation of pirate's effect on the world population, that graph is pointless as well

I see population on one axis and years on there other, but there's no axis for pirates

It seems to me the best way to run a country is the same as running a company - you have as few people you can get by with to do everything that needs to be done.

So, where do we send all of the dole bludgers and morons to? I'm pretty sure America won't have them.

without any representation of pirate's effect on the world population, that graph is pointless as well

The history in the ice core clearly shows a direct correlation between the number of pirates at any given stage and the world population. And if you don't agree with me then you're obviously just an apologist on the payroll of the paper cartel.

So, where do we send all of the dole bludgers and morons to? I'm pretty sure America won't have them.

And now apparantly we can't take their child away from them to make sure at least the next generation get a decent education either.

So, where do we send all of the dole bludgers and morons to? I'm pretty sure America won't have them.

they've already settled in ipswich