5 ms·

New Zealand does sound pretty incredible. A massive national park, the size of California, with only 5 million people, and very liveable and appealing cities.

by geebee 10y ago

New Zealand does sound pretty incredible. A massive national park, the size of California, with only 5 million people, and very liveable and appealing cities. Here's the thing. Would New Zealand stay that way if it pursued a policy of large scale immigration, they way the US has? The US takes well over a million new immigrants into the country every year. 10 years of our immigration would triple the size of New Zealand. I'm sure they could find takers. Plenty of people would love to move to New Zealand. I do wonder why the US, which takes over a million immigrants a year, takes so much heat for enforcing immigration policy, while New Zealand receives so much praise for being an ideal society. It sounds like New Zealand may use its selectivity to allow in immigrants, but only those likely to contribute significantly to the bottom line. In a way, their exclusivity may actually help them cherry pick the very best. As strategy, I get it. But again, the NYTimes has been immensely critical of deportations in the US. Why do they give NZ a pass on this? And if they're going to praise New Zealand, doesn't that mean they're praising a very limited immigration policy? I mean, how about this last quote: “It’s boom time for the next 10 years,” Mr. Drury said. The more immigrants, the better. “We’ll take a lot. We’ll take hundreds.” Woah, not hundreds?

snowwrestler 10y ago
For decades New Zealand has had trouble attracting immigrants. And they lose a lot of young talented native Kiwi people to places like the U.S., Australia, and Great Britain. There's really no comparison between the US and New Zealand when it comes to immigration. They're opposites. And, let's see how this latest attempt to attract high-skill immigrants goes. It's easy to romanticize New Zealand when you've spent your whole life in big US cities. Moving there is another thing entirely. It is remote and mostly rural. I will not be surprised if most Americans who go there come back within a few years.
qume 10y ago
NZ takes in 50k and have a population of 4mm. So 1 per 80 population. US takes in 1mm per 300mm population, or 1 per 300. NZ takes proportionately much more than the US. A similar calculation can be done for immigrants per area of land.
- pxlpshr 10y ago
  Not saying I disagree with you but... historical immigration policy certainly impacts "today's" population size that you're using to draw your comparison.
  - vacri 10y ago
    The US has an incredibly wealthy continent at its disposal, full of mineral wealth and fertile farmland, with centuries of infrastructure, close to global trading hubs. New Zealand has a couple of mid-sized islands, neither of which are particularly good for agriculture or mineral wealth, are a very long way from trading hubs, and has the shortest history of built infrastructure of all western democracies. But if you want "historical immigration policy", the US's population has tripled since WWI while NZ's has quadrupled; similar growth with NZ having a bit more.
    - geebee 10y ago
      Your point is reasonable, but you are calculating rates from a vastly different denominator. At some point, I do think that sheer scale has to factor into the analysis.
    - EdwardDiego 10y ago
      > New Zealand has a couple of mid-sized islands, neither of which are particularly good for agriculture That sure hasn't stopped us. We're responsible for 30% of the world's dairy exports.
      - wbl 10y ago
        Dairy is what you farm instead of rocks.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
nebabyte 10y ago
> Here's the thing. Would New Zealand stay that way if it pursued a policy of large scale immigration, they way the US has? Probably not. Anyone adopting the "give me your weary" immigration stance would by design attract those who could not "get in" elsewhere, so unless they had a stellar education system and benefits to help those people get up on their feet, they'd probably not do well (not saying the US does) > I do wonder why the US, which takes over a million immigrants a year, takes so much heat for enforcing immigration policy, while New Zealand receives so much praise for being an ideal society For the same reason some people still see reddit as having 'betrayed some principle' - it set itself 'apart' as living up to some purported principle (in the US' case, "anyone can come here and make it") which enforcement policies "seem" like they are against (even if they're implementing a means by which that ideal can be met). Apparently, first impressions w.r.t. companies, countries, and other organizations that center on ideals last. Make sure you're honest and upfront about your ideals, or figure out a way to re-brand, or get ready to 'always be seen as' some kind of 'welcher'. ...shrug
antod 10y ago
>I mean, how about this last quote: “It’s boom time for the next 10 years,” Mr. Drury said. The more immigrants, the better. “We’ll take a lot. We’ll take hundreds.” Woah, not hundreds? That was the CEO taking about his company not the country.
- geebee 10y ago
  Mr Drury's specific quote may be just that company's hiring expectations. Even if that is the case, though consider this context: "A municipal program to fly in 100 developers next month — wine them, dine them and offer them jobs — was expected to draw 2,500 applications. But the recruitment effort, called LookSee Wellington, was besieged with more than 48,000 entries, including workers at Google, Amazon, Facebook, M.I.T. and NASA. At one point so many people checked out the program that the website failed."
vacri 10y ago
> Here's the thing. Would New Zealand stay that way if it pursued a policy of large scale immigration, they way the US has? Both NZ and Australia take in a far higher rate of immigrants than the US. You should change your question to "Imagine if the US took in as many immigrants as NZ". NZ has a serious problem in that because it's easier for an NZ citizen to become Australian, a lot of immigrants use NZ as a 'stepping stone' citizenship - NZ spends resources on integrating the immigrants, and then they hop the ditch. NZ couldn't take in the absolute numbers the US does, simply because of infrastructure. The US has an entire continent, full of roads, houses, and lots of wide flat arable land for agriculture, all of which has been built up over centuries. NZ has a pair of hilly medium-sized islands, one of which isn't great for large-scale habitation, and the country only has a little more than a century worth of infrastructure - and doesn't get the benefits of economies of scale that the US does. In short, NZ gets the reputation it does because it consistently punches above its weight.
- geebee 10y ago
  As mentioned above, keep in mind the US has a higher total population precisely because it has had higher historical levels of immigration. Suppose the US had a total population of 500 million and NZ only 2 million. Would that mean NZ is looking even better? How about a billion? By your way of measuring, the more a country grows through immigration, the more immigrants it is required to take in to meet a per-capita measurement.
  - vacri 10y ago
    ...? Per-capita measurements are the way you look at these things. Putting 1M people per year into a country with the infrastructure and resources to handle 310M people is nothing. Putting 1M people per year into a country with the infrastructure and resources to handle 4M is crippling, to the point of destroying the country's social cohesion. Bridges, housing, agriculture, hospitals... none of these things are brought with immigrants when they move in. Or we can look at resources - the US has 10M square kilometers of land, 16% of which is arable (1.6M sq km), compared to NZ's 250k sq km, 2% of which is arable. (5k sq km). The US is a ridiculously wealthy place and likes to emit lots of bluster about its 'melting pot', and yet it does not match up to its contemporaries when it comes to taking in immigrants. Many decades ago it did, but in recent times it's lost the right to brag about it. Arguing the absolute numbers totally free of any context is the wrong way to go about it.
lacampbell 10y ago
A massive national park, the size of California, with only 5 million people I'm sorry but that's an incredibly ignorant thing to say. NZ is not a massive national park. Take a brief glance at it on google maps. Most of it is light green - farmland. We have about the same forest area % as Idaho. Or is that a massive national park as well?
- jessaustin 10y ago
  Idaho is very nice! Lots of wonderful public lands, although not all of that is forest. [0] It's more agricultural than Utah or Nevada, but it wouldn't really be considered a breadbasket. It's not particularly diverse, but that will probably change eventually. [0] e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craters_of_the_Moon_National_Monument_and_Preserve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craters_of_the_Moon_National_M...
- geebee 10y ago
  I learn a lot from debating on HN. I will avoid saying this in the future. I will agree that the statement is ignorant if taken very literally and, in my opinion, uncharitably. I don't actually think NZ is literally a giant national park, though it is a naturally beautiful and relatively undeveloped place. Still in highly contentious arguments it's best to avoid giving people the opportunity to call you ignorant, so in future iterations I'll certainly be more careful.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

by geebee 10y ago

snowwrestler 10y ago

For decades New Zealand has had trouble attracting immigrants. And they lose a lot of young talented native Kiwi people to places like the U.S., Australia, and Great Britain. There's really no comparison between the US and New Zealand when it comes to immigration. They're opposites. And, let's see how this latest attempt to attract high-skill immigrants goes. It's easy to romanticize New Zealand when you've spent your whole life in big US cities. Moving there is another thing entirely. It is remote and mostly rural. I will not be surprised if most Americans who go there come back within a few years.

qume 10y ago

NZ takes in 50k and have a population of 4mm. So 1 per 80 population. US takes in 1mm per 300mm population, or 1 per 300. NZ takes proportionately much more than the US. A similar calculation can be done for immigrants per area of land.

pxlpshr 10y ago
Not saying I disagree with you but... historical immigration policy certainly impacts "today's" population size that you're using to draw your comparison.
- vacri 10y ago
  The US has an incredibly wealthy continent at its disposal, full of mineral wealth and fertile farmland, with centuries of infrastructure, close to global trading hubs. New Zealand has a couple of mid-sized islands, neither of which are particularly good for agriculture or mineral wealth, are a very long way from trading hubs, and has the shortest history of built infrastructure of all western democracies. But if you want "historical immigration policy", the US's population has tripled since WWI while NZ's has quadrupled; similar growth with NZ having a bit more.
  - geebee 10y ago
    Your point is reasonable, but you are calculating rates from a vastly different denominator. At some point, I do think that sheer scale has to factor into the analysis.
  - EdwardDiego 10y ago
    > New Zealand has a couple of mid-sized islands, neither of which are particularly good for agriculture That sure hasn't stopped us. We're responsible for 30% of the world's dairy exports.
    - wbl 10y ago
      Dairy is what you farm instead of rocks.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

nebabyte 10y ago

> Here's the thing. Would New Zealand stay that way if it pursued a policy of large scale immigration, they way the US has? Probably not. Anyone adopting the "give me your weary" immigration stance would by design attract those who could not "get in" elsewhere, so unless they had a stellar education system and benefits to help those people get up on their feet, they'd probably not do well (not saying the US does) > I do wonder why the US, which takes over a million immigrants a year, takes so much heat for enforcing immigration policy, while New Zealand receives so much praise for being an ideal society For the same reason some people still see reddit as having 'betrayed some principle' - it set itself 'apart' as living up to some purported principle (in the US' case, "anyone can come here and make it") which enforcement policies "seem" like they are against (even if they're implementing a means by which that ideal can be met). Apparently, first impressions w.r.t. companies, countries, and other organizations that center on ideals last. Make sure you're honest and upfront about your ideals, or figure out a way to re-brand, or get ready to 'always be seen as' some kind of 'welcher'. ...shrug

antod 10y ago

>I mean, how about this last quote: “It’s boom time for the next 10 years,” Mr. Drury said. The more immigrants, the better. “We’ll take a lot. We’ll take hundreds.” Woah, not hundreds? That was the CEO taking about his company not the country.

geebee 10y ago
Mr Drury's specific quote may be just that company's hiring expectations. Even if that is the case, though consider this context: "A municipal program to fly in 100 developers next month — wine them, dine them and offer them jobs — was expected to draw 2,500 applications. But the recruitment effort, called LookSee Wellington, was besieged with more than 48,000 entries, including workers at Google, Amazon, Facebook, M.I.T. and NASA. At one point so many people checked out the program that the website failed."

vacri 10y ago

> Here's the thing. Would New Zealand stay that way if it pursued a policy of large scale immigration, they way the US has? Both NZ and Australia take in a far higher rate of immigrants than the US. You should change your question to "Imagine if the US took in as many immigrants as NZ". NZ has a serious problem in that because it's easier for an NZ citizen to become Australian, a lot of immigrants use NZ as a 'stepping stone' citizenship - NZ spends resources on integrating the immigrants, and then they hop the ditch. NZ couldn't take in the absolute numbers the US does, simply because of infrastructure. The US has an entire continent, full of roads, houses, and lots of wide flat arable land for agriculture, all of which has been built up over centuries. NZ has a pair of hilly medium-sized islands, one of which isn't great for large-scale habitation, and the country only has a little more than a century worth of infrastructure - and doesn't get the benefits of economies of scale that the US does. In short, NZ gets the reputation it does because it consistently punches above its weight.

geebee 10y ago
As mentioned above, keep in mind the US has a higher total population precisely because it has had higher historical levels of immigration. Suppose the US had a total population of 500 million and NZ only 2 million. Would that mean NZ is looking even better? How about a billion? By your way of measuring, the more a country grows through immigration, the more immigrants it is required to take in to meet a per-capita measurement.
- vacri 10y ago
  ...? Per-capita measurements are the way you look at these things. Putting 1M people per year into a country with the infrastructure and resources to handle 310M people is nothing. Putting 1M people per year into a country with the infrastructure and resources to handle 4M is crippling, to the point of destroying the country's social cohesion. Bridges, housing, agriculture, hospitals... none of these things are brought with immigrants when they move in. Or we can look at resources - the US has 10M square kilometers of land, 16% of which is arable (1.6M sq km), compared to NZ's 250k sq km, 2% of which is arable. (5k sq km). The US is a ridiculously wealthy place and likes to emit lots of bluster about its 'melting pot', and yet it does not match up to its contemporaries when it comes to taking in immigrants. Many decades ago it did, but in recent times it's lost the right to brag about it. Arguing the absolute numbers totally free of any context is the wrong way to go about it.

lacampbell 10y ago

A massive national park, the size of California, with only 5 million people I'm sorry but that's an incredibly ignorant thing to say. NZ is not a massive national park. Take a brief glance at it on google maps. Most of it is light green - farmland. We have about the same forest area % as Idaho. Or is that a massive national park as well?

jessaustin 10y ago
Idaho is very nice! Lots of wonderful public lands, although not all of that is forest. [0] It's more agricultural than Utah or Nevada, but it wouldn't really be considered a breadbasket. It's not particularly diverse, but that will probably change eventually. [0] e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craters_of_the_Moon_National_Monument_and_Preserve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craters_of_the_Moon_National_M...
geebee 10y ago
I learn a lot from debating on HN. I will avoid saying this in the future. I will agree that the statement is ignorant if taken very literally and, in my opinion, uncharitably. I don't actually think NZ is literally a giant national park, though it is a naturally beautiful and relatively undeveloped place. Still in highly contentious arguments it's best to avoid giving people the opportunity to call you ignorant, so in future iterations I'll certainly be more careful.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]