A new survey of 49 “top” economists from the Economic Society of Australia shows the overwhelming majority support record-breaking immigration post pandemic:
Australia’s leading economists have overwhelmingly endorsed a return to the highest immigration intake on record, saying Australia should aim for at least 190,000 migrants per year as it opens its borders, up from the target of 160,000 per year set ahead of COVID.
More than a third of those surveyed believe 190,000 isn’t enough, arguing that a “catch up” will show Australia is open to the world…
Ahead of COVID, Australia’s permanent intake has only been as high as 190,000 on five occasions, during the five years 190,000 was the official target…
Only four of the 49 economists surveyed by The Economic Society and The Conversation wanted less migration than Australia had going into COVID.
Their concerns were that growing population numbers put pressure on “fragile resources and infrastructure”. Slower population growth would “ease pressures on the environment, housing prices, infrastructure and emissions”.
Adelaide University labour market specialist Sue Richardson said there was no evidence high levels of migration raised GDP per person, as opposed to GDP.
Congestion and the environment matter
“In terms of living standards, it is the per capita measure that matters,” she said. “And it should be adjusted for increased traffic congestion, urban density and pressures on the health and other important social systems”…
The 19 economists who went for 190,000 argued less would show a “lack of ambition” for lifting economic growth.
Helen Silver, chief general manager at Allianz Australia and a former head of Victoria’s Department of Premier and Cabinet said a higher target would be both a “catch up” and would act to symbolise Australia was more open to the world…
The individual responses from each economist can be read here. You will notice that only the economists calling for lower immigration bother to mention the costs of immigration, including:
Increased strains on infrastructure and housing;
Increased environmental damage and greenhouse gas emissions;
Forcing people to live in smaller and more expensive housing (e.g. high-rise apartments);
Reduced quality of life (e.g. having less green space, more time lost in traffic);
Higher unemployment and lower wage growth; and
Reduced productivity (mostly because of infrastructure pressures).
Advertisement
None of these costs are ever mentioned by the proponents of big migration, who only ever talk up the vague benefits of having a bigger economy, a slightly (and temporarily) younger population, and a bigger Commonwealth tax take (while ignoring the negative financial impacts on state governments and private citizens).
It seems the notion of performing rigorous cost-benefit-analysis goes missing whenever immigration is concerned. Why is that?
It’s not like the prior 15 years of extreme immigration were successful from either a per capita growth or productivity standpoint. They were abysmal. So why would economists want to repeat the mistakes again?
Advertisement
Here are 15 economists and institutions that actually grasp the facts of the great immigration experiment that are ignored by a clearly biased Peter Martin, a long-term mass immigration extremist:
Leith van Onselen is Chief Economist at the MB Fund and MB Super. He is also a co-founder of MacroBusiness.
Leith has previously worked at the Australian Treasury, Victorian Treasury and Goldman Sachs.
