People are leaving New Zealand in record numbers as unemployment rises, interest rates remain high and economic growth is anaemic, government statistics show.

Data released by Statistics New Zealand on Tuesday showed that 131,200 people departed New Zealand in the year ended June 2024, provisionally the highest on record for an annual period. Around a third of these were headed to Australia.

While net migration, the number of those arriving minus those leaving, remains at high levels, economists also expect this to wane as the number of foreign nationals wanting to move to New Zealand falls due to the softer economy.

The data showed of those departing 80,174 were citizens, which was almost double the numbers seen leaving prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.

  • dogslayeggs@lemmy.worldEnglish
    744·
    4 months ago

    Record number of people are leaving because things are so bad!!!

    Wait, record number of people are arriving because things are worse elsewhere making net migration in positive? Let’s downplay that because predictions show that MIGHT slow down and it hurts our story about how bad things are.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldMEnglish
    455·
    4 months ago

    Based on all of the pictures I have seen of how beautiful New Zealand is, I volunteer to replace any of them.

  • auzy@lemmy.worldEnglish
    361·
    4 months ago

    Just to play devils advocate though… awesome people and awesome country.

    I’ve always wondered if I’d rather live there and be poor honestly than live here in Australia (which is basically at least 50% redneck at this point)

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldMEnglish
      207·
      4 months ago

      It was so weird as an American to find out that country music is huge in Australia.

      It reminds me of how Mexican music was (and maybe still is) really popular in the Balkans because they were so closed off from most of the world when they were united as Yugoslavia.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldMEnglish
          245·
          4 months ago

          Because it’s a very American form of music. In fact, a lot of it involves a bunch of jingoistic patriotic bullshit.

          • BestTestInTheWest@lemmy.worldEnglish
            8·
            4 months ago

            You should look into Australian country music, it’s different from American. American country music is still popular here but we’ve had a rich history of country music that is our own unique style.

          • GiveMemes@jlai.luEnglish
            8·
            4 months ago

            Some does. A lot does even, but not the best country music, not by a long shot.

            “Your flag decal won’t get you into heaven anymore”

            Edit:

            Figured I should share some tunes:

            Cruel world - Willie Nelson for rdr2

            Angel from Montgomery - John Prine, cover by Daniel Donato is also excellent

            Boombox, hogkill blues, 1922 blues - all by Charlie Parr, all excellent. Hogkill blues is abt a strike in which union workers were killed by counter-strikers.

            Prison Trilogy - Joan Baez - makes reference to the term wetback to refer to an immigrant (“his back was wet, but he thought he could get, some things to start a life”) but is otherwise an excellent song abt the fucked up American prison system

            Lots of love, hope you enjoy at least one of these!!

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldMEnglish
              91·
              4 months ago

              I get that. It just seemed to me, at least before I found that out, that it was a uniquely American form of music.

              Like imagine if you were from Mongolia, and someone was like, “throat-singing? We love that shit in Paraguay!” You’d probably think like I did about country music.

              • fine_sandy_bottom@lemmy.federate.ccEnglish
                61·
                4 months ago

                I guess so.

                I think you can safely assume that most American culture is imported into Australia, the good and the bad.

                Some ass-hats are trying to ban books about non-binary sexuality from our library. I had thought that was uniquely American.

  • rumschlumpel@feddit.orgEnglish
    28·
    4 months ago

    People are leaving New Zealand in record numbers as unemployment rises, interest rates remain high and economic growth is anaemic

    AFAIK they also have a somewhat severe housing crisis. No idea whether it’s actually worse than e.g. in Australia, though - who doesn’t have a housing crisis these days?

    • andyburke@fedia.io
      122·
      4 months ago

      China has a different flavor? 🤷‍♂️

      Think maybe as humans we just forgot how to build houses or something.

      • No_Eponym@lemmy.caEnglish
        30·
        4 months ago

        we just forgot how to build houses or something.

        Or something, yep. We financialized housing.

        • Instead of building houses to live in, we turned them into investment vehicles to justify the mortgages and expense of owning/maintaining them.
        • A house is now a pension, or a retirement savings account; primarily a place for capital to live (people living there isn’t necessary).
        • As such, housing value needs to continuously grow and anything that threatens that value growth is evil.
        • Since houses are now a place to park money and the growth in value is always supported, increasing amounts of money are moved into housing. Individuals justify larger and larger mortgages and investors start to move money into housing from other productive forms of investment.
        • Industries grow and are created to move money into, and extract money from, housing; investors also invest in these industries.
        • As housing becomes more and more expensive, it outpaces the growth in wages of homeowners; increasingly in successive years those who would have been homeowners in previous years can only afford to be renters or own smaller and smaller homes.
        • International investment and institutional investment, speculators and criminals looking to launder money get interested, since the value of housing has exploded so much it now looks attractive to these players; home values increase further as this additional capital comes into the market.
        • primarily land, but also raw materials and labour become more expensive as a direct or indirect result of the inflation of housing market; increasingly homeowners are priced out of new builds, and investors are necessary to finance the building of new housing.
        • because investors are financing new housing, it is built for them; cheap, small units that can be disposed of more easily and allow capital to be spread more effectively across a number of houses instead of lumped into just in one.
        • the humans living in the houses increasingly become renters, useful to investors only as a means of paying some of their costs via rent; protections for renters threaten the value of the investment, so rental protections are blocked or eroded.
        • in the end, houses are built but by investors, for investors, and in a manner that ensures the value of current investments cannot meaningfully decline.

        We know how to build houses, but we built a system that builds houses for investors to house money, and not for people to house themselves.

      • rumschlumpel@feddit.orgEnglish
        41·
        4 months ago

        China has a different flavor? 🤷‍♂️

        ?

        Think maybe as humans we just forgot how to build houses or something.

        There’s some legitimate issues (e.g. investors buying up housing and trying to squeeze out as much short-term profit as possible, increasing prices for raw materials), but the main issue seems to be that most governments refuse to take effective measures for whatever reason. IDK, maybe they’re just all strapped for cash after the recent pandemic.

    • flambonksciousEnglish
      2·
      4 months ago

      Yeah, housing is fucked. We have ignored any infrastructure investment in …40 years?

      Education is fucked

      Health is fucked

      Tourism got fucked by COVID

      That pretty much leaves farmers and tenants

  • FarraigePlaisteach@lemmy.worldEnglish
    67·
    4 months ago

    When I see headlines like this about colonised places I like to dream that the indigenous people get their land back and eventually wave goodbye to the last settler/colonizer.

    • grue@lemmy.worldEnglish
      91·
      4 months ago

      I understand and, in principle, agree with the sentiment, but I feel like “indigenous” implies people who’ve been there since prehistory and Aotearoa was uninhabited by humans until about 1320 CE. The “indigenous” Maori only beat the Europeans there by a few hundred years.

      Like Vin Diesel said, “winning is winning,” but still, we’re not exactly talking about the kind of margin people like the Aboriginal Australians or the Native Americans had.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldMEnglish
        611·
        4 months ago

        The Aztec Empire was founded in 1428 by people who migrated from the north to the Valley of Mexico.

        By your reasoning, the Aztecs should not be counted as the indigenous people of the Valley of Mexico. They certainly are considered as such.

        Similarly, the Inuit in Greenland only got there after the Vikings. The Vikings died out, the Inuit stayed. Again, they are considered indigenous.

        In all three cases- the Aztecs, the Inuit and the Maori, they had developed unique cultures. In the case of the Aztecs and the Maori, Europeans then arrived and destroyed those cultures.

        I mean if you really want to be technical, the only place humans are indigenous is the East African Rift Valley.

        I would also suggest you look at the second definition here:

        • grue@lemmy.worldEnglish
          8·
          4 months ago

          The Aztec Empire was founded in 1428 by people who migrated from the north to the Valley of Mexico.

          By your reasoning, the Aztecs should not be counted as the indigenous people of the Valley of Mexico. They certainly are considered as such.

          There are two ways of looking at your argument:

          1. Consider the Aztecs narrowly as a fully separate and distinct people. In that case, no, they don’t count as “indigenous” because there were other peoples (e.g. Teotihuacan people and Toltecs) there before them.

          2. Consider the Aztecs broadly, meaning you’re really talking about the Nahua people as a whole. Then yes, they do count as “indigenous,” but were also there way before 1428.

          You don’t get to have it both ways, with Schrödinger’s “indigenous” being simultaneously the first and not arriving until 1428.

          Your argument is like claiming that the Romans were the “indigenous” people of central Italy and have been there since 753 BCE and not a minute before, because (for some reason) the Latins and Sabines (and the Italic tribes they descended from) don’t count.

          Here’s a question for you: who are the “indigenous” people of the Falkland Islands? Is it Europeans, or nobody?

                • grue@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  91·
                  4 months ago

                  I want you to say it. There are two possibilities, and the conversation can’t move forward until I know which one you think it is. Quit dancing around the issue.

    • Wanderer@lemm.eeEnglish
      53·
      4 months ago

      I don’t think anyone alive is a coloniser.

      The only people that live in new Zealand are locals and immigrants. Even if you removed all the immigrants it would still be full of full blooded white kiwis that have never lived anywhere else and potentially never even met a relative that has lived anywhere else. They are a New Zealander.