Bit of a tease, they don't explain why New Zealand are seeing an exodus in over-30s. I suspect there is an elephant in the room here that isn't being discussed. Particularly in that age range I doubt people are getting a sudden urge to adventure and excitement that they didn't feel in their 20s.
These articles like to throw out random economic statistics as though they have explanatory power, but they really don't. What exactly are the policies at play here?
> “Our wages are similar in Australia and employment law means longer probation periods, but the pros definitely outweigh the cons”
It is just a minor point, but really. If a country has an employment problem, short probation periods are a terrible idea. To get employers to employ people the easiest strategy is to make it easy and safe for them to employ people. Let them hire and fire at will. What is it with people and this instinct to immediately make life harder for the only person willing to offer someone a job. If people are leaving the island and a contributing factor is they don't have jobs, make it easy to give them a job. Don't make it harder then do this mild surprise routine when they move somewhere where people can actually employ them.
I always find it interesting employers only look at the short term benefits. Generally employment safety laws dampen income rise over time so for an employer it is cheaper to hold on to someone than hire a new, which also lessens knowledge loss.
India is facing a weird problem. Everyone keeps increasing the notice period. Unlike the US where you can quit on the spot, Indian firms, almost all, have a 90 day notice period.
But they rarely give offer letters to anyone who isn't already on notice period.
So becomes the vicious cycle. Be on NP to get an offer letter. But who will risk resigning before getting an offer
And then HRs as stupid questions like "you already have an offer why are you still looking for a change" while having zero self awareness that they are contributing to the cycle.
If everyone made NP to be 15 days or 20 days then people will not get time to attend 100 interviews
Moral of the story: nobody wants to take meaningful decisions. Everything thinks exclusively of the short term
For the same reason governments put price controls in place during catastrophes. Because they never studied enough or believe their voters never studied enough to understand basic economics. Likely the latter. Governments believing their people too stupid to understand the right move is often the reason for implementing dumb measures.
Yes, because they don't understand economics. It's a classic "sounds bad but is actually the fastest way to solve the problem" situation. So we kill people by delaying more resources in order to keep the optics nice.
New Zealand is not silicon valley. Two things: tourism and agriculture. These are seasonal industries. New Zealand might not want to deal with thousands of companies hiring staff for only a season, or using visiting backpackers to cheaply cover jobs that should go to locals. And they probably dont want to hear about import temp labor from asia.
I remember visiting Whistler BC a few years back during the ski season. All the hotel staff seemed to be auzzi or kiwi. The actual locals couldnt find proper jobs with so many backpackers willing to live communally for a few months and then disappear. While certainly a boon for local businesses, the people who actually vote on stuff were not happy. (Canada is too big and diverse to change its labor laws for this issue. New Zealand is not.)
nz has no meaningful economy. they have a real estate market and agriculture which has maxed out its productivity, because they have completely run out of land. they have cheap, generally low quality colleges, and attract middle class/rich asians to live there for a few years and get a strong passport.
they also have a big problem with alcoholism and domestic violence, and an absurdly complicated tax system. 15% first nations and 15% asian immigrants, the 70% euro population is skewed elderly and contributes most of the tax receipts, and that includes a lot of brit retirees
the problem is they run the country like canada/norway/australia/alaska, except those places all have enormous resource exports that pay for the welfare state. nz just has milk farms
the median salary is less than USD $50k, and these people can get the EB3 greencard or just move to EU/ Australia
I'll give you most of those criticisms, but I'm a little surprised you think our tax system is overly complicated. For the vast majority of people it's pretty much just a progressive PAYE income tax handled by your employer and a flat 15% GST/VAT on purchases without all the carve outs that seem common elsewhere.
NZ could have the similar issue as the "developed" countries of the EU (/ + UK) that seem to operate under a very mistaken belief that it's possible to stay "developed" without also being "developing" all the time.
In times past, Oz dislike of Kiwi property acquisition along the Gold Coast was possibly more pointed than the expected anti Japanese and anti Chinese racism. It doesn't do us any credit how quickly we fall back on these petty differences.
I do feel very sorry for people struggling in the NZ economy and I can see why making the jump works for them, but it's got strong qualities of "you don't know what you've got 'till it's gone" -yes, Australia is a bigger more resilient economy overall by comparison but things can go pear shaped here fast too.
I like NZ. I have family there. Some have made the jump back over here, some remain. I can believe I'd be happy there, and in that totally perverse outcome the Kiwi misfortune might mean more Australians my age moved over there, if inflation/deflation works out the right (wrong?) way. It's not likely right now, cost of living in NZ is a lot higher.
I think during the pandemic a lot of kiwis returned from overseas. Once it was over they slowly started migrating as the economy wasn't really good.
I did the same also to stay close to my wife's family for a few years before returning.
It is pretty common I'd say, not big news. And living here in Spain, apparently the exact same happens.
Young people normally study and work here. Many choose an Erasmus program or find job that pay 2 or 3 times more, especially in Germany, The Netherlands, Poland. We find it really difficult to hire good developers, especially seniors. Juniors are not too hard.
Most seem like hard working individuals aged 30+. So maybe the tax payers grew tired of the progressive taxes and subsidizing the welfare state and they seek places they think will be more fair to them.
I think this “story” started when The Economist did a filler article about it. The Economist article was based on some pretty weak understanding and knowledge of Kiwis and their culture of spending time abroad.
From there the usual YouTube “experts” started stories on it. You know the type - they sound authoritative but they are basically regurgitating stuff from Wikipedia (or some Economist article) with some pretty screens and clickbaity thumbnails.
Ultimately, there’s nothing behind this story. As has been the case since Pakehas arrived, lots of Kiwis go abroad and spend lots of time abroad, some go back, and some don’t, and meanwhile NZ’s population continues to grow.
The trends grow and shrink based on relative health of the Aus and NZ economies.
Typically, Kiwis would leave after graduating university or in their mid-20s. That Kiwis 30 - 50 are leaving now is a relatively recent phenomena (18 -> 43K in 4 years).
It feels like people do this to Canada to get in to the USA as well.
Ireland->UK seems to be increasing as well because of the Common Travel Area.
I think a lot of historical agreements of this nature will not hold up in the era of mass international migration. The CTA is obviously a complex example.
Don’t worry Peter Thiel will help change that after he destroys the functionality of most of the global economy since he’s basically asserted that New Zealand is his break glass refuge.
It's not quite that simple. A NZ citizen needs to be resident in Australia for a period of time before applying for Australian citizenship. But it is certainly a lot easier than many other countries.
And another feature of the system: if an Australian has any connection to NZ or knows where NZ is located, they’ll be deported to NZ if they turn out to be a criminal.
Not really. More like a permanent resident, which is still pretty nice. In the past they were closer to citizens (and many older NZers who come over can be grandfathered into these privileges to one extent or another, with some extra red tape), but that has more to do with the legacy of the Commonwealth than current agreements.
Sadly predictable that Jacinda Ardern, the moronic do-gooder architect of this, is also leaving NZ for Australia.
She's yet another trendy lefty who has now discovered that fucking up your country's economy to "do good" does nobody any good.
From 2019:
"
New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern criticized the tendency among countries to measure success by economic growth and gross domestic product at the 2019 Goalkeepers event on Wednesday, hosted by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Ardern said that governments should instead focus on the general welfare of citizens and make investments in areas that unlock human potential. She pointed to New Zealand's new well-being budget that seeks to expand mental health services, reduce child poverty and homelessness, promote Indigenous rights, fight climate change, and expand opportunities.
"Economic growth accompanied by worsening social outcomes is not success," Ardern said. "It is failure."
"
I find this quite interesting. Am left leaning myself but I am aware you can do left right (eg current Australian govt) and left wrong (NZ always) - why is that?
Since you criticize Ardern's left-wing management, what countries and time periods can you point to in which a right-wing government massively improved quality of life?
This would primarily mean higher wages, lower inflation, and general social well-being.
Howard/Costello era in Australia. Reagan 80s. Pinochet - fits your criteria.
Arden is indefensible. She increased the size of government, decreased social cohesion via critical theory, housing promises went nowhere. Worse balance sheet, worse outcomes, across the board.
>Howard/Costello era in Australia. Reagan 80s. Pinochet - fits your criteria.
Ok, no one really needed NBN and Howard didn't destroy the housing market completely to name just two lasting legacies of the Howard era. Lets not leave out GST either.
Chile. At least starting from the second decade onward Chilean growth significantly outpaced South America generally.
Taiwan. South Korea. Many others. Generally, right-wing governments almost by definition tend to be more free market oriented relative to leftist governments, while leftist governments tend to be more populist. You can get alot of graft and corruption either way, but the path to growth and out of poverty, if you can get there at all, is generally more right-wing, certainly at least for developing economies.
In poor countries, left-wing and right-wing, the rich hoard wealth, and they generally see the competition for wealth as a zero sum game. Leftism tends toward always seeing a zero-sum game, i.e. class struggle over a fixed pie. It's only certain strains of right-leaning governments that figure out you can grow the pie so rich and poor alike become wealthier. (Second-order inequality, i.e. growing wealth gap despite everybody becoming wealthier, is a thornier problem, but relatively recent in historical terms, and I'm not sure the old left/right dichotomy of political economy schools is useful here.)
But relative to historical exemplars, I'm not sure any advanced economy can truly be called leftist, rhetoric notwithstanding. Full throated leftist governments end up like Venezuela. New Zealand is hardly leftist by comparison.
> It's only certain strains of right-leaning governments that
> figure out you can grow the pie so rich and poor alike become
> wealthier.
Credit to a few. Roger Douglas in New Zealand. Contemporary Peter Walsh in Australia, the Hawke finance minister, also got it. Keating somewhat got it, and put his neck on the line for difficult growth-pie macro reforms as treasurer, but did not follow through for the difficult-detail reforms, like wholesale sales tax, and then became a fixed-pie prime minister. Walsh was gone by then.
Your question was sane and sounded like it was genuine until that. That is an invisible goalpost that can be moved by the question-asker at will to negate any disliked answer, to allow one to create an illusion that no answer exists.
Like Ardern, they put pushing their stupid populist views to an ignorant electorate ahead of the harder job of making unpopular decisions to manage a country.
When a populist Prime Minister outrageously states that they don't care about their country's economy, it is obvious what will happen to that economy under their rule.
These articles like to throw out random economic statistics as though they have explanatory power, but they really don't. What exactly are the policies at play here?
> “Our wages are similar in Australia and employment law means longer probation periods, but the pros definitely outweigh the cons”
It is just a minor point, but really. If a country has an employment problem, short probation periods are a terrible idea. To get employers to employ people the easiest strategy is to make it easy and safe for them to employ people. Let them hire and fire at will. What is it with people and this instinct to immediately make life harder for the only person willing to offer someone a job. If people are leaving the island and a contributing factor is they don't have jobs, make it easy to give them a job. Don't make it harder then do this mild surprise routine when they move somewhere where people can actually employ them.
I think that’s a pretty big incentive to move from New Zealand to Australia.
India is facing a weird problem. Everyone keeps increasing the notice period. Unlike the US where you can quit on the spot, Indian firms, almost all, have a 90 day notice period.
But they rarely give offer letters to anyone who isn't already on notice period.
So becomes the vicious cycle. Be on NP to get an offer letter. But who will risk resigning before getting an offer
And then HRs as stupid questions like "you already have an offer why are you still looking for a change" while having zero self awareness that they are contributing to the cycle.
If everyone made NP to be 15 days or 20 days then people will not get time to attend 100 interviews
Moral of the story: nobody wants to take meaningful decisions. Everything thinks exclusively of the short term
New Zealand is not silicon valley. Two things: tourism and agriculture. These are seasonal industries. New Zealand might not want to deal with thousands of companies hiring staff for only a season, or using visiting backpackers to cheaply cover jobs that should go to locals. And they probably dont want to hear about import temp labor from asia.
I remember visiting Whistler BC a few years back during the ski season. All the hotel staff seemed to be auzzi or kiwi. The actual locals couldnt find proper jobs with so many backpackers willing to live communally for a few months and then disappear. While certainly a boon for local businesses, the people who actually vote on stuff were not happy. (Canada is too big and diverse to change its labor laws for this issue. New Zealand is not.)
they also have a big problem with alcoholism and domestic violence, and an absurdly complicated tax system. 15% first nations and 15% asian immigrants, the 70% euro population is skewed elderly and contributes most of the tax receipts, and that includes a lot of brit retirees
the problem is they run the country like canada/norway/australia/alaska, except those places all have enormous resource exports that pay for the welfare state. nz just has milk farms
the median salary is less than USD $50k, and these people can get the EB3 greencard or just move to EU/ Australia
Genuinely curious what I'm missing.
I do feel very sorry for people struggling in the NZ economy and I can see why making the jump works for them, but it's got strong qualities of "you don't know what you've got 'till it's gone" -yes, Australia is a bigger more resilient economy overall by comparison but things can go pear shaped here fast too.
I like NZ. I have family there. Some have made the jump back over here, some remain. I can believe I'd be happy there, and in that totally perverse outcome the Kiwi misfortune might mean more Australians my age moved over there, if inflation/deflation works out the right (wrong?) way. It's not likely right now, cost of living in NZ is a lot higher.
I did the same also to stay close to my wife's family for a few years before returning.
It is pretty common I'd say, not big news. And living here in Spain, apparently the exact same happens.
Young people normally study and work here. Many choose an Erasmus program or find job that pay 2 or 3 times more, especially in Germany, The Netherlands, Poland. We find it really difficult to hire good developers, especially seniors. Juniors are not too hard.
From there the usual YouTube “experts” started stories on it. You know the type - they sound authoritative but they are basically regurgitating stuff from Wikipedia (or some Economist article) with some pretty screens and clickbaity thumbnails.
Ultimately, there’s nothing behind this story. As has been the case since Pakehas arrived, lots of Kiwis go abroad and spend lots of time abroad, some go back, and some don’t, and meanwhile NZ’s population continues to grow.
The trends grow and shrink based on relative health of the Aus and NZ economies.
https://www.mercatornet.com/raising_the_iq_of_both_countries
Even immigrants are just using New Zealand as a stepping-stone country to later move to Australia.
Ireland->UK seems to be increasing as well because of the Common Travel Area.
I think a lot of historical agreements of this nature will not hold up in the era of mass international migration. The CTA is obviously a complex example.
The bigger factor is that Australia and NZ have free movement between the countries for those who are a citizen of either.
https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/entering-and-leaving-austral...
>… please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize.
She's yet another trendy lefty who has now discovered that fucking up your country's economy to "do good" does nobody any good.
From 2019: " New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern criticized the tendency among countries to measure success by economic growth and gross domestic product at the 2019 Goalkeepers event on Wednesday, hosted by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Ardern said that governments should instead focus on the general welfare of citizens and make investments in areas that unlock human potential. She pointed to New Zealand's new well-being budget that seeks to expand mental health services, reduce child poverty and homelessness, promote Indigenous rights, fight climate change, and expand opportunities.
"Economic growth accompanied by worsening social outcomes is not success," Ardern said. "It is failure." "
https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/jacinda-ardern-goal...
This would primarily mean higher wages, lower inflation, and general social well-being.
Arden is indefensible. She increased the size of government, decreased social cohesion via critical theory, housing promises went nowhere. Worse balance sheet, worse outcomes, across the board.
Ok, no one really needed NBN and Howard didn't destroy the housing market completely to name just two lasting legacies of the Howard era. Lets not leave out GST either.
Taiwan. South Korea. Many others. Generally, right-wing governments almost by definition tend to be more free market oriented relative to leftist governments, while leftist governments tend to be more populist. You can get alot of graft and corruption either way, but the path to growth and out of poverty, if you can get there at all, is generally more right-wing, certainly at least for developing economies.
In poor countries, left-wing and right-wing, the rich hoard wealth, and they generally see the competition for wealth as a zero sum game. Leftism tends toward always seeing a zero-sum game, i.e. class struggle over a fixed pie. It's only certain strains of right-leaning governments that figure out you can grow the pie so rich and poor alike become wealthier. (Second-order inequality, i.e. growing wealth gap despite everybody becoming wealthier, is a thornier problem, but relatively recent in historical terms, and I'm not sure the old left/right dichotomy of political economy schools is useful here.)
But relative to historical exemplars, I'm not sure any advanced economy can truly be called leftist, rhetoric notwithstanding. Full throated leftist governments end up like Venezuela. New Zealand is hardly leftist by comparison.
Credit to a few. Roger Douglas in New Zealand. Contemporary Peter Walsh in Australia, the Hawke finance minister, also got it. Keating somewhat got it, and put his neck on the line for difficult growth-pie macro reforms as treasurer, but did not follow through for the difficult-detail reforms, like wholesale sales tax, and then became a fixed-pie prime minister. Walsh was gone by then.
This might have been true once, it’s not true now.
Your question was sane and sounded like it was genuine until that. That is an invisible goalpost that can be moved by the question-asker at will to negate any disliked answer, to allow one to create an illusion that no answer exists.
Like Ardern, they put pushing their stupid populist views to an ignorant electorate ahead of the harder job of making unpopular decisions to manage a country.
When a populist Prime Minister outrageously states that they don't care about their country's economy, it is obvious what will happen to that economy under their rule.
And it did.
And then she left that country.
Disgusting.