The research conducted by school finance group Futurity takes in school fee data from Australia's curriculum authority and interviews with 2500 parents.

The capital cities.
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/640x480q70/924/nJCbwz.png

The regional and remote areas.
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/640x480q70/923/N3MBhB.png


Quote:

Families value education, with nine in 10 saying education is important for their child to thrive in life. A third of respondents said they turned to credit debt, while others are having fewer family holidays and working more to afford the quality education for their kids. Over half said they rely on others, including grandparents, to pay for their children's education. "Alarmingly, 45 per cent of parents said that they are now considering having less children as a result of the cost of raising and educating a child today,"

Is mass immigration the answer to that demographic problem?

Quote:

Is mass immigration the answer to that demographic problem?

Noooooooooooooo.      :'(    :'(    :'(

Forget about stupid WOKE ideology and Populate or Perish

https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/640x480q70/924/rBY6kX.jpg

The cost of living crisis is the number one reason why couples aren’t having children.

Why would you have a child if your already struggling to afford electricity?

Well said Daves2017, also what about the price gouging supermarkets?.   :(   

tallowood wrote on Jan 15^th, 2026 at 9:59am:

The research conducted by school finance group Futurity takes in school fee data from Australia's curriculum authority and interviews with 2500 parents. The capital cities. https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/640x480q70/924/nJCbwz.png The regional and remote areas. https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/640x480q70/923/N3MBhB.png Quote: Families value education, with nine in 10 saying education is important for their child to thrive in life. A third of respondents said they turned to credit debt, while others are having fewer family holidays and working more to afford the quality education for their kids. Over half said they rely on others, including grandparents, to pay for their children's education. "Alarmingly, 45 per cent of parents said that they are now considering having less children as a result of the cost of raising and educating a child today," Is mass immigration the answer to that demographic problem?

The answer is no.

The current mass immigration is bringing in thousands & thousands of non integrable, non skilled, illiterate, non English speaking welfare dependent peoples who hate us.

tallowood wrote on Jan 15^th, 2026 at 9:59am:

Is mass immigration the answer to that demographic problem?

It depends on what you're actually prepared to change.

If the goal is to rework the economy, embrace automation in manufacturing, deepen public–private collaboration, reverse the privatisation of essential services, and properly regulate the free market, all paired with a Universal Basic Income, then population growth is not a hard requirement.

If, however, you want none of that, if you insist on clinging to an economic model built on perpetual growth, speculative markets, and suppressed wages, then yes, continuous population growth becomes a necessity to keep the system from collapsing under its own contradictions.

You cannot have it both ways. A genuinely sustainable population is incompatible with preserving the current economic landscape unchanged.

One of them has to give.

Because the current system is actively harming the very people who keep it running, they're having fewer children as the costs of living, housing, healthcare, and education continue to spiral. That isn't a mystery or a moral failing, it's a predictable outcome of policy choices.

Those choices are being defended most loudly by many here, especially by people with an obsessive hatred of immigrants, who somehow fail to notice they're entrenching the conditions they claim to oppose.

It's the same incoherent logic as demanding cuts to foreign aid and then acting shocked when refugee numbers increase. You don't get to manufacture the problem and then feign outrage at the consequences.

Daves2017 wrote on Jan 15^th, 2026 at 5:12pm:

The cost of living crisis is the number one reason why couples aren’t having children. Why would you have a child if your already struggling to afford electricity?

There were larger families with more children in days befor electricity was introduced.

ProudKangaroo wrote on Jan 16^th, 2026 at 10:14am:

tallowood wrote on Jan 15th, 2026 at 9:59am: Is mass immigration the answer to that demographic problem? It depends on what you're actually prepared to change. If the goal is to rework the economy, embrace automation in manufacturing, deepen public–private collaboration, reverse the privatisation of essential services, and properly regulate the free market, all paired with a Universal Basic Income, then population growth is not a hard requirement. If, however, you want none of that, if you insist on clinging to an economic model built on perpetual growth, speculative markets, and suppressed wages, then yes, continuous population growth becomes a necessity to keep the system from collapsing under its own contradictions. You cannot have it both ways. A genuinely sustainable population is incompatible with preserving the current economic landscape unchanged. One of them has to give. Because the current system is actively harming the very people who keep it running, they're having fewer children as the costs of living, housing, healthcare, and education continue to spiral. That isn't a mystery or a moral failing, it's a predictable outcome of policy choices. Those choices are being defended most loudly by many here, especially by people with an obsessive hatred of immigrants, who somehow fail to notice they're entrenching the conditions they claim to oppose. It's the same incoherent logic as demanding cuts to foreign aid and then acting shocked when refugee numbers increase. You don't get to manufacture the problem and then feign outrage at the consequences.

Excellent points.

ProudKangaroo wrote on Jan 16^th, 2026 at 10:14am:

tallowood wrote on Jan 15th, 2026 at 9:59am: Is mass immigration the answer to that demographic problem? It depends on what you're actually prepared to change. If the goal is to rework the economy, embrace automation in manufacturing, deepen public–private collaboration, reverse the privatisation of essential services, and properly regulate the free market, all paired with a Universal Basic Income, then population growth is not a hard requirement. If, however, you want none of that, if you insist on clinging to an economic model built on perpetual growth, speculative markets, and suppressed wages, then yes, continuous population growth becomes a necessity to keep the system from collapsing under its own contradictions. You cannot have it both ways. A genuinely sustainable population is incompatible with preserving the current economic landscape unchanged. One of them has to give. Because the current system is actively harming the very people who keep it running, they're having fewer children as the costs of living, housing, healthcare, and education continue to spiral. That isn't a mystery or a moral failing, it's a predictable outcome of policy choices. Those choices are being defended most loudly by many here, especially by people with an obsessive hatred of immigrants, who somehow fail to notice they're entrenching the conditions they claim to oppose. It's the same incoherent logic as demanding cuts to foreign aid and then acting shocked when refugee numbers increase. You don't get to manufacture the problem and then feign outrage at the consequences.

Incoherent nonsense.

You are both for remaking the economy AND for large immigraton especially from culturally distant societies.  No advanced economy needs mass immigration of low or semi skilled workers.  You want to remake not so much the economy - increasingly automated -  as society and culture by replacing the people.

As for refugees and foreign aid - Africans, Arabs, Persians and Afghans are not beasts to each other because we are not giving them enough aid.  Nor are we obliged to take them in, no questions asked, in large numbers.

You are dog whistling the usual crap and incoherent, contradictory bilge great divide parrots left right and centre.

Frank wrote on Jan 16^th, 2026 at 4:20pm:

ProudKangaroo wrote on Jan 16th, 2026 at 10:14am: tallowood wrote on Jan 15th, 2026 at 9:59am: Is mass immigration the answer to that demographic problem? It depends on what you're actually prepared to change. If the goal is to rework the economy, embrace automation in manufacturing, deepen public–private collaboration, reverse the privatisation of essential services, and properly regulate the free market, all paired with a Universal Basic Income, then population growth is not a hard requirement. If, however, you want none of that, if you insist on clinging to an economic model built on perpetual growth, speculative markets, and suppressed wages, then yes, continuous population growth becomes a necessity to keep the system from collapsing under its own contradictions. You cannot have it both ways. A genuinely sustainable population is incompatible with preserving the current economic landscape unchanged. One of them has to give. Because the current system is actively harming the very people who keep it running, they're having fewer children as the costs of living, housing, healthcare, and education continue to spiral. That isn't a mystery or a moral failing, it's a predictable outcome of policy choices. Those choices are being defended most loudly by many here, especially by people with an obsessive hatred of immigrants, who somehow fail to notice they're entrenching the conditions they claim to oppose. It's the same incoherent logic as demanding cuts to foreign aid and then acting shocked when refugee numbers increase. You don't get to manufacture the problem and then feign outrage at the consequences. Incoherent nonsense. You are both for remaking the economy AND for large immigraton especially from culturally distant societies.  No advanced economy needs mass immigration of low or semi skilled workers.  You want to remake not so much the economy - increasingly automated -  as society and culture by replacing the people. As for refugees and foreign aid - Africans, Arabs, Persians and Afghans are not beasts to each other because we are not giving them enough aid.  Nor are we obliged to take them in, no questions asked, in large numbers. You are dog whistling the usual crap and incoherent, contradictory bilge great divide parrots left right and centre.

We are, actually.

If they claim asylum we must take them in.

Then their claims will be assessed to determine if they get to stay or not.

We can't turn away asylum seekers.

Only a sociopath would do such a thing.

Or, in your case, a white supremacist.

Same thing?   :-/

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 16^th, 2026 at 4:24pm:

Frank wrote on Jan 16th, 2026 at 4:20pm: ProudKangaroo wrote on Jan 16th, 2026 at 10:14am: tallowood wrote on Jan 15th, 2026 at 9:59am: Is mass immigration the answer to that demographic problem? It depends on what you're actually prepared to change. If the goal is to rework the economy, embrace automation in manufacturing, deepen public–private collaboration, reverse the privatisation of essential services, and properly regulate the free market, all paired with a Universal Basic Income, then population growth is not a hard requirement. If, however, you want none of that, if you insist on clinging to an economic model built on perpetual growth, speculative markets, and suppressed wages, then yes, continuous population growth becomes a necessity to keep the system from collapsing under its own contradictions. You cannot have it both ways. A genuinely sustainable population is incompatible with preserving the current economic landscape unchanged. One of them has to give. Because the current system is actively harming the very people who keep it running, they're having fewer children as the costs of living, housing, healthcare, and education continue to spiral. That isn't a mystery or a moral failing, it's a predictable outcome of policy choices. Those choices are being defended most loudly by many here, especially by people with an obsessive hatred of immigrants, who somehow fail to notice they're entrenching the conditions they claim to oppose. It's the same incoherent logic as demanding cuts to foreign aid and then acting shocked when refugee numbers increase. You don't get to manufacture the problem and then feign outrage at the consequences. Incoherent nonsense. You are both for remaking the economy AND for large immigraton especially from culturally distant societies.  No advanced economy needs mass immigration of low or semi skilled workers.  You want to remake not so much the economy - increasingly automated -  as society and culture by replacing the people. As for refugees and foreign aid - Africans, Arabs, Persians and Afghans are not beasts to each other because we are not giving them enough aid.  Nor are we obliged to take them in, no questions asked, in large numbers. You are dog whistling the usual crap and incoherent, contradictory bilge great divide parrots left right and centre. We are, actually. If they claim asylum we must take them in. Then their claims will be assessed to determine if they get to stay or not. We can't turn away asylum seekers. Only a sociopath would do such a thing. Or, in your case, a white supremacist. Same thing?   :-/

Claiming asylum does not mean asylum is granted.  Hearing them out is not taking them in permanently. 
That is why we returned boats and took the ones that got through to Nauru.

How many we take from UN camps and from  which countries and with what other attributes is entirely up to us. As i said, we are not obliged to take them in.

Abolishing the temporary protection visa was a mistake. Being a refugee is not the same as being a migrant. Now the two are washed together to disastrous effect across the West.

Frank wrote on Jan 16^th, 2026 at 8:12pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 16th, 2026 at 4:24pm: Frank wrote on Jan 16th, 2026 at 4:20pm: ProudKangaroo wrote on Jan 16th, 2026 at 10:14am: tallowood wrote on Jan 15th, 2026 at 9:59am: Is mass immigration the answer to that demographic problem? It depends on what you're actually prepared to change. If the goal is to rework the economy, embrace automation in manufacturing, deepen public–private collaboration, reverse the privatisation of essential services, and properly regulate the free market, all paired with a Universal Basic Income, then population growth is not a hard requirement. If, however, you want none of that, if you insist on clinging to an economic model built on perpetual growth, speculative markets, and suppressed wages, then yes, continuous population growth becomes a necessity to keep the system from collapsing under its own contradictions. You cannot have it both ways. A genuinely sustainable population is incompatible with preserving the current economic landscape unchanged. One of them has to give. Because the current system is actively harming the very people who keep it running, they're having fewer children as the costs of living, housing, healthcare, and education continue to spiral. That isn't a mystery or a moral failing, it's a predictable outcome of policy choices. Those choices are being defended most loudly by many here, especially by people with an obsessive hatred of immigrants, who somehow fail to notice they're entrenching the conditions they claim to oppose. It's the same incoherent logic as demanding cuts to foreign aid and then acting shocked when refugee numbers increase. You don't get to manufacture the problem and then feign outrage at the consequences. Incoherent nonsense. You are both for remaking the economy AND for large immigraton especially from culturally distant societies.  No advanced economy needs mass immigration of low or semi skilled workers.  You want to remake not so much the economy - increasingly automated -  as society and culture by replacing the people. As for refugees and foreign aid - Africans, Arabs, Persians and Afghans are not beasts to each other because we are not giving them enough aid.  Nor are we obliged to take them in, no questions asked, in large numbers. You are dog whistling the usual crap and incoherent, contradictory bilge great divide parrots left right and centre. We are, actually. If they claim asylum we must take them in. Then their claims will be assessed to determine if they get to stay or not. We can't turn away asylum seekers. Only a sociopath would do such a thing. Or, in your case, a white supremacist. Same thing?   :-/ Claiming asylum does not mean asylum is granted.

Indeed.

And nobody said it did.

So why did you change the subject?

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 16^th, 2026 at 8:14pm:

Frank wrote on Jan 16th, 2026 at 8:12pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 16th, 2026 at 4:24pm: Frank wrote on Jan 16th, 2026 at 4:20pm: ProudKangaroo wrote on Jan 16th, 2026 at 10:14am: tallowood wrote on Jan 15th, 2026 at 9:59am: Is mass immigration the answer to that demographic problem? It depends on what you're actually prepared to change. If the goal is to rework the economy, embrace automation in manufacturing, deepen public–private collaboration, reverse the privatisation of essential services, and properly regulate the free market, all paired with a Universal Basic Income, then population growth is not a hard requirement. If, however, you want none of that, if you insist on clinging to an economic model built on perpetual growth, speculative markets, and suppressed wages, then yes, continuous population growth becomes a necessity to keep the system from collapsing under its own contradictions. You cannot have it both ways. A genuinely sustainable population is incompatible with preserving the current economic landscape unchanged. One of them has to give. Because the current system is actively harming the very people who keep it running, they're having fewer children as the costs of living, housing, healthcare, and education continue to spiral. That isn't a mystery or a moral failing, it's a predictable outcome of policy choices. Those choices are being defended most loudly by many here, especially by people with an obsessive hatred of immigrants, who somehow fail to notice they're entrenching the conditions they claim to oppose. It's the same incoherent logic as demanding cuts to foreign aid and then acting shocked when refugee numbers increase. You don't get to manufacture the problem and then feign outrage at the consequences. Incoherent nonsense. You are both for remaking the economy AND for large immigraton especially from culturally distant societies.  No advanced economy needs mass immigration of low or semi skilled workers.  You want to remake not so much the economy - increasingly automated -  as society and culture by replacing the people. As for refugees and foreign aid - Africans, Arabs, Persians and Afghans are not beasts to each other because we are not giving them enough aid.  Nor are we obliged to take them in, no questions asked, in large numbers. You are dog whistling the usual crap and incoherent, contradictory bilge great divide parrots left right and centre. We are, actually. If they claim asylum we must take them in. Then their claims will be assessed to determine if they get to stay or not. We can't turn away asylum seekers. Only a sociopath would do such a thing. Or, in your case, a white supremacist. Same thing?   :-/ Claiming asylum does not mean asylum is granted.  Indeed. And nobody said it did. So why did you change the subject?

I didnt, creep. You are trying to play your stupid silly buggers games again.


As for refugees and foreign aid - Africans, Arabs, Persians and Afghans are not beasts to each other because we are not giving them enough aid.  Nor are we obliged to take them in, no questions asked, in large numbers.

tallowood wrote on Jan 16^th, 2026 at 10:48am:

Daves2017 wrote on Jan 15th, 2026 at 5:12pm: The cost of living crisis is the number one reason why couples aren’t having children. Why would you have a child if your already struggling to afford electricity? There were larger families with more children in days befor[e] electricity was introduced.

Might that have been a lack of Social Security payments, rather than lack of electricity, Tallowood?  Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 16^th, 2026 at 8:53pm:

tallowood wrote on Jan 16th, 2026 at 10:48am: Daves2017 wrote on Jan 15th, 2026 at 5:12pm: The cost of living crisis is the number one reason why couples aren’t having children. Why would you have a child if your already struggling to afford electricity? There were larger families with more children in days befor[e] electricity was introduced. Might that have been a lack of Social Security payments, rather than lack of electricity, Tallowood?  Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::)

So your parents had you only because they didn't get enough dole? Really? Tsk, tsk  ::) ::)

Frank wrote on Jan 16^th, 2026 at 4:20pm:

ProudKangaroo wrote on Jan 16th, 2026 at 10:14am: tallowood wrote on Jan 15th, 2026 at 9:59am: Is mass immigration the answer to that demographic problem? It depends on what you're actually prepared to change. If the goal is to rework the economy, embrace automation in manufacturing, deepen public–private collaboration, reverse the privatisation of essential services, and properly regulate the free market, all paired with a Universal Basic Income, then population growth is not a hard requirement. If, however, you want none of that, if you insist on clinging to an economic model built on perpetual growth, speculative markets, and suppressed wages, then yes, continuous population growth becomes a necessity to keep the system from collapsing under its own contradictions. You cannot have it both ways. A genuinely sustainable population is incompatible with preserving the current economic landscape unchanged. One of them has to give. Because the current system is actively harming the very people who keep it running, they're having fewer children as the costs of living, housing, healthcare, and education continue to spiral. That isn't a mystery or a moral failing, it's a predictable outcome of policy choices. Those choices are being defended most loudly by many here, especially by people with an obsessive hatred of immigrants, who somehow fail to notice they're entrenching the conditions they claim to oppose. It's the same incoherent logic as demanding cuts to foreign aid and then acting shocked when refugee numbers increase. You don't get to manufacture the problem and then feign outrage at the consequences. Incoherent nonsense. You are both for remaking the economy AND for large immigraton especially from culturally distant societies.  No advanced economy needs mass immigration of low or semi skilled workers.  You want to remake not so much the economy - increasingly automated -  as society and culture by replacing the people. As for refugees and foreign aid - Africans, Arabs, Persians and Afghans are not beasts to each other because we are not giving them enough aid.  Nor are we obliged to take them in, no questions asked, in large numbers. You are dog whistling the usual crap and incoherent, contradictory bilge great divide parrots left right and centre.

Blah blah blah