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.
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
Corporate India is facing way too many weird problems, not just 90-day notice periods:
1. Refusal to provide leaving documents if you leave on less than excellent terms, but you absolutely need pristine docs and sometimes multiple references when joining
2. Salary expectations as compulsory form fields during job applications, but no salary ranges provided in job descriptions
3. An unhealthy approach to leaves - need doctor certificates, way too early notices for leaves more than a few days, too few leaves, etc.
4. A sudden leap in "immediate joining" requirements - you need to come at once, but you can only leave after at least 90 days
5. Playing games with insurance, salary deductions and compulsory contribution requirements to management's favorite CSR pots
In the past few years I've become so frustrated that I just don't bother with large company job applications, or messages from Indian recruiters, because there's a 99% chance there's a really crappy process involved. Smaller firms with good founders / non-Indian consulting roles are a lot more relaxing, and most of the times pay is higher as well.
In many EU countries it's common to have 3-6-month notice period and contacts with unlimited term. And somehow people are moving between companies. If you are not willing to wait 6 months for a new employee - just get a contractor.
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.
That isn't to their long term benefit. A similar argument would be that consumers should be aiming for an economy like South Sudan. GDP per capita of around $400/annum. Consumers like to minimise spending and so if the South Sudanese only spend a few hundred dollars a year on average that must be great for them...
The thing the low wages argument misses is that employers don't actually want to minimise labour spending, they optimise by increasing budget for labour all the time. They want to minimise wasteful and unproductive labour spending. If people will take less money, they'll offer less money. If a role doesn't add value, they'll cut the role. If a role is adding money on the margins though, they're enthusiastic about hiring more people even if the wages paid are a bit higher, because it is a win-win situation where the workers make more money and the business makes more profit.
Long story short - it isn't at all clear that low wages driven by hiring impediments are a long term win for businesses. It might just be a lose-lose situation where they happen to offer a worse deal to workers as a byproduct of being unable to maximise their profits.
That's really hardly an incentive at all. We Kiwis have always been granted a special category visa which gives us permanent residency in Australia. Unless you want to vote, commit crimes without being deported or milk the welfare system there's little benefit to citizenship.
It’s because of high cost of living and a stagnating economy, particularly the job market. Kiwis find their skillsets valued more highly elsewhere. (And their housing, food and medical costs go down too)
It was in the article.
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.
Allowing employers to fire people at will leads to abuse of their employees. There's also the problem that sexism/racism will be a driver of those sackings too.
The other side of the coin: if it's hard to fire employee, company will not hire extra people and it's hard to get a permanent position in such circumstances.
Yes, but in general, abusive employers are far more common than employers that don't hire people. Companies that are reluctant to employ people due to employee protection laws are very likely to be abusive employers.
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.)
With NZ cost of living if you factor in higher labor costs it will make everything even more expensive relative to income. Cheap temporary labor is great not only for the companies, it's good for the consumers too, bringing prices down and availability up. The backpacker is in and out, dosen't need medical care, social security and other services.
Many of the jobs that are low paid backpacker frendly, the locals aren't to keen to do. If you don't have them there, many busineses will close down, because margins can't support 100% local staff.
It's crazy capitalism is now at the point where no one having jobs is a good thing, and local job creation not going to locals is actually good for the locals because it brings prices down for non-local tourists. Cheap temporary labor bringing prices down for tourists benefits locals how?
How are people supposed to live in this world?
Not to mention when I travel I go to meet locals and see the local culture.
It's not the capitalism fault. It's the limitation of the physical world. You barter your skills for other's products/services.
More people in the tribe = more people to swap with (larger market).
More people who take the shitty low paid job = cheaper products.
If you don't have the cheap backpackers working shitty jobs in the hotels you won't get the tourists, who bring a lot of money in in places like Queenstown. Less money = less businesses = less jobs.
Offline world is a hard and unforgiving place. Either we find how to barter our skills/products or we rely on the taxes from the ones who are productive.
The real world is not a highschool econ classroom. It is far more complex than supply and demand. Beyond barter for labor, workers give up vast abilities to live in a society that protects them from abuse. Part of that is allowing them to create and enforce rules to protect them from known evils.
you can't cheat the supply/demand of atoms with social constructs.
You might be able to change the way the pie is sliced, but not grow it that way. Productivity is something in the realm of the real world not just philosophical categories of good/bad.
It seems to be a grass-is-greener thing, except that when you get to Australia you find that most of the grass is brown. Or a politicians-fallacy relocation, life is tough, we'll move somewhere else which is mostly the same but at least we'll have done something.
Another thing not covered in the article: Some people are leaving. OK, good luck to them, and I hope things work out. Now what? Do you lose points if people leave? What difference does it make?
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.
the capital gains tax system in nz is complicated and inconsistent compared to most countries, bright line tests
the way that nz taxes foreign sourced income is also very complex with 'deeming rules' etc
it results that rich people probably pay 10% total tax and normal people pay 20%+ income tax, and then normal people cant afford real estate and move to australia.
... have you never been to another country? I've lived in the UK, USA and Denmark, and NZ has, by far, the simplest and easiest tax system. Especially for running a business. The UK and USA are especially complex with so many rules and carve outs.
My first job in the UK involved reading through mountains of tax laws to write a payroll system.
Not that that's necessarily the best thing in the world, I believe there was some trouble a few years ago because being easy and cheap to register a business led to a lot of dodgy shell companies.
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.
It's mostly a no-brainer. Cost of living is higher than AU and wages are lower. Across the Tasman sea the market is 5 times bigger with real earning power around +30%. (but the weather is much more hot and from Brisbane up to the south the fauna tries to eat/sting/kill/bite you).
Housing in Australia is still one of the worst thing about the country, but in NZ is not much better, may be even worse. So New Zealand will become like Switzerland of the Oceania. It's the most beautiful country in the world and the Southern Island is a magical place.
Also, now it's less than 50% white, so it is a very diverse place, especially bigger cities like Auckland and Wellington. So in the bigger cities you can find a lot of good international food and culture too.
I think from a HN prespective if you have an internet business and don't mind the time zone difference and you're earining enough, NZ iz a fantastic place that is safe, clean, first world country, diverse and super beautiful, outdoor lover's paradise.
OT: from Brisbane up to the south the fauna... made me scratch my head for a millisecond until I thought about it from a southern hemisphere standpoint. As a northerner I think of Oz and the likes as being 'down under (unsaid: the equator)' so I suspect you southerners think of Europe and the likes as 'down under' as well.
It might be an intentional 'non-northern-hemisphere-centric' construct. I had not heard it before but in a way it does make sense given that a sphere does not have a defined 'top' and 'bottom'. Then again the one we live on has a defined 'north' and 'south' and north tends to be thought of as 'up'.
I've been thinking, it could mean it doesn't matter which direction you go, cause I'd think north or south of Brisbane is same, wildlife is gonna try to eat/kill/sting you
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.
> We find it really difficult to hire good developers, especially seniors
From what I understand, Spain offers pitiful salaries even to senior developers. And prices for property in the areas where they're being hired are not cheap at all.
So decent developers have options, they can move to Ireland, Amsterdam, anywhere else in the EU where they can earn more.
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.
Note also that the population has grown around 30% since 2001, so the rate is probably lower than in the 2000s.
NZ is a small country, cities are small, it can be expensive, and the job market is relatively limited. For some it's made up for by the abundance of nature, the laid back attitudes, etc. but that's never going to be everyone's cup of tea.
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.
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'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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Well for a start, he outright lied about the introduction of the GST. Not once, but twice. First that he would never introduce one, second that it would replace other sales taxes to simplify the system.
Well, neither of those were true, and gst we got was used to cut taxes to the wealthy and as a bargaining chip to reduce the power of the states. It is inherently regressive, the implementation increases the tax burden on businesses, and it did't even raise enough revenue to allow them to simplify the tax system.
For all your words, you have dodged the only question of my last post.
By the late 80s, the wholesale sales tax was creaking at the seams. Toys were taxed at 24% but luxury goods at 0%. Also it was complex and expensive to administer. The wholesales sales tax was awful public policy.
Keating knew the GST was good policy, but lacked the conviction to stand up to “jellyback” Hawke (Walsh’s characterisation) and his caucus for it. Keating had taken it to the Tax Summit as his preferred policy “Option C”. Lacking meaningful policies of his own, Keating won the 93 election on a platform of opposing the GST and could not engage in reform as a result.
In the aftermath of the 93 election, Howard said never ever to a GST. Then, during government, cabinet and treasury looked at the indirect taxation mess and concluded that the GST was the optimal policy.
They could have done several things at this point. They could have done nothing, and focused on holding onto power, as Keating had done. They could have dressed it up as a VAT. Or they could have just introduced it with their majority. Instead, Howard gave a speech where he plainly recognised that he had said never, and said he had made a mistake, and his conviction was it was the right policy.
He then called an early election, in full knowledge that he was bad in the polls, and made the GST cause the centrepiece of that campaign.
This was the greatest act of political courage and decency of our lifetime. They risked everything on that conviction. Costello then ran a meticulous publicity campaign in which he made not a single mistake to open ground to the rerun of the ALP scare campaign. Against those odds, the Coalition won the election and made the reform, which now has bipartisan support.
But if you think there was a better reform to the indirect tax system available, let’s hear it.
Howard may have talked a lot about decreasing the size of government, cutting red tape, and reducing legislation and the cost of government. But all these increased under his terms.
Most of the early economic gain was due to the opening up of Australia in the nineties along with the floating of the dollar.
Dude was a dog whistling neo con, so I never liked him. But what is really telling is that the shitshow that is the current Australian housing crisis was foretold and discussed at length in the late nineties when he introduced the changes to cgt and ng.
He and everyone else knew what would happen even then with these changes. The liberal party thesis, openly discussed, was to prioritise legislation that would promote individualisation in order to break unions and get people to vote against their interests.
Plenty written about the other two you mention. Maybe you should read some of it.
arden is indefensible, but you like pinochet? your barometer for a good right wing government improving the quality of life is an actual dictator who tortured and murdered thousands of people?
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 politically-difficult but structurally-easy growth-pie macro reforms as treasurer, but did not follow through for the politically-difficult and structurally-hard reforms, like wholesale sales tax, and then became a fixed-pie prime minister. Walsh was gone by then.
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.
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.
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.