Australia's unemployment figures came out last week, and at 3.5% unemployment, it?s a number well below what Treasury?s definition of ?full employment?, which they put at somewhere between 4.5-5%.
Quite simply, there are more jobs in Australia than there are workers to fill them.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has a plan to fix this - migration.
Australia has a long and successful history of migration, dating back to World War 2.
In the aftermath of the war, Australia welcomed hundreds of thousands of refugees, many of whom were displaced by the conflict.
The country's migration program continued to be successful in subsequent years, with the government introducing new policies and programs to make it easier for people to migrate.
Migrants have played a vital role in many of Australia's nation-building projects, including the Snowy Hydro Scheme.
Without the hard work and dedication of migrant workers, many projects would not have been possible. Economically and culturally, it has been a boon to the country.
Last week, Prime Minister Albanese announced that the migration rate would be lifted by 35,000 people per year from 160,000 to 195,000.
The announcement has been welcomed by many in the business community, who believe that it will help to solve the country's labour shortages.
But whilst many will be cheering the decision, Australia's capacity to handle the population increase will be a challenge.
Australia is currently in the grips of a housing crisis, with a lack of affordable homes forcing many people to live in overcrowded accommodation or face sky-high rent.
The national vacancy rate has already fallen to its lowest level on record with the migration policy expected to add even more heat to the market.
Meanwhile, wage growth has remained stubbornly low for more than two decades. Historically, the availability of more workers has put downward pressure on wage growth.
And expect road congestion to ramp up as thousands of new vehicles clutter already busy networks.
So why is population growth so accepted by the broader Australian public, when it potentially impacts their living standards?
The issue is a fundamental misunderstanding of what 'growth' means.
Consider a mechanic in a town of 1000 people. Mechanic A services 100% of the vehicles.
Now, consider the town 'grows' to 1300 people but there are now 2 mechanics (Mechanic A and Mechanic B).
All things being equal, Mechanic A has just had a reduction in business from 1000 cars to 650 cars despite the 'growth' that has occurred.
In this scenario, growth for the town has not materialised in growth for the individual.
So, is population growth the silver bullet to drive economic growth?
Certainly, at a national level it helps headline numbers; more workers (inputs) equals more outputs, which helps make a bigger pie (GDP).
But, proportionally, your share may have just gotten smaller.