7 ms·

Migration is a significant part of many countries growth. If Australia and New Zealand, for example, did not have such massive migration they would be effective

Migration is a significant part of many countries growth. If Australia and New Zealand, for example, did not have such massive migration they would be effectively in serious depression. In both countries migration has added more than 1% to GDP growth for the last 30 years. Merely in recession is kind of surprising as for many other countries with such stagnant or declining population growth (low birthrates and barely any immigration) they would be in a much worse situation.

alphaalpha101 9y ago
As someone from NZ: we have an election in about 4 weeks, and this is a serious issue here. We know that this immigration-driven growth is not real growth.
- matt4077 9y ago
  > We know that this immigration-driven growth is not real growth. Do you? Here's a list of US companies founded by immigrants: Google, Apple (2nd gen), Intel, Tesla, ebay, Yahoo
  - alphaalpha101 9y ago
    Lol. I'm not anti-immigration, don't be so defensive, and I'm also not talking about the US. Stop bringing up the US. This is a thread about Japan and I'm talking about New Zealand. The New Zealand government really wants people to believe that we're experiencing 'economic growth'. But while they might be technically right, they're effectively wrong. Economic growth that is so much entirely from immigration that we're effectively in per-capita-GDP recession is not real, useful, good growth.
    - matt4077 9y ago
      Lol yourself, and don't be so wrong. Here's per-capita GDP growth in New Zealand, showing that there is real growth after normalising for changes in population: https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=ny_gdp_pcap_cd&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:USA:AUS:NZL&ifdim=region&hl=en&dl=en&ind=false&icfg https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&...
      - flukus 9y ago
        Here is the GDP per capita growth: https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=ny_gdp_pcap_cd&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:USA:AUS:NZL&ifdim=region&hl=en&dl=en&ind=false&icfg#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=ny_gnp_pcap_kd_zg&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:USA:AUS:NZL&ifdim=region&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&... . When you shave ~1% off to account for immigration, then shave off another ~1% for inflation and you can see the hidden recessions. And then you get into where that economic growth is going, which isn't to the bottom 80% of society. The end result looks a lot like the US median household income: https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=c8op9mhgodplq_&ctype=l&met_y=median_income_constant&hl=en&dl=en https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=c8op9mhgodplq_&...
        matt4077 9y ago
        I'm sorry, but I don't think you're arguing in good faith here. "Per capita" means "per head", i. e. per person. That means that any population growth due to immigration is already factored in. If you click on the little question mark, you'll also learn that inflation is also factored in already: "Aggregates are based on constant 2010 U.S. dollars."
        flukus 9y ago
        The real point is that last one. GDP growth, economic growth, etc are all meaningless because for most of the population it is not reality, they are getting poorer. That big house and two cars that my father could afford as a single income earner is now out of reach for most of the population.
      - alphaalpha101 9y ago
        1% growth is completely irrelevant. That's what I said: effectively in recession. The difference between 1% growth and 1% shrink is nothing. There's no reason we shouldn't be growing much more quickly. But we're not going to do so in a neoliberal world. That's just not going to happen. Draining the wealth of society to a small group of people that spend little money just doesn't drive growth. People can't spend and drive the economy when they're dirt poor.
- Tsagadai 9y ago
  But it really is. You get a resource (human in this case) that usually comes with education and healthcare paid for in the X years before they came. Usually immigrant X has a higher level of education than the general population due to restrictions. Not to mention that said person has money (usually also a requirement), which adds to the economy in the same way that tourism does. How is that not adding growth to an economy? Conversely, a mass exodus of educated citizens emigrating from a country negatively impacts growth.

alphaalpha101 9y ago

As someone from NZ: we have an election in about 4 weeks, and this is a serious issue here. We know that this immigration-driven growth is not real growth.

matt4077 9y ago
> We know that this immigration-driven growth is not real growth. Do you? Here's a list of US companies founded by immigrants: Google, Apple (2nd gen), Intel, Tesla, ebay, Yahoo
- alphaalpha101 9y ago
  Lol. I'm not anti-immigration, don't be so defensive, and I'm also not talking about the US. Stop bringing up the US. This is a thread about Japan and I'm talking about New Zealand. The New Zealand government really wants people to believe that we're experiencing 'economic growth'. But while they might be technically right, they're effectively wrong. Economic growth that is so much entirely from immigration that we're effectively in per-capita-GDP recession is not real, useful, good growth.
  - matt4077 9y ago
    Lol yourself, and don't be so wrong. Here's per-capita GDP growth in New Zealand, showing that there is real growth after normalising for changes in population: https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=ny_gdp_pcap_cd&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:USA:AUS:NZL&ifdim=region&hl=en&dl=en&ind=false&icfg https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&...
    - flukus 9y ago
      Here is the GDP per capita growth: https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=ny_gdp_pcap_cd&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:USA:AUS:NZL&ifdim=region&hl=en&dl=en&ind=false&icfg#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=ny_gnp_pcap_kd_zg&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:USA:AUS:NZL&ifdim=region&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&... . When you shave ~1% off to account for immigration, then shave off another ~1% for inflation and you can see the hidden recessions. And then you get into where that economic growth is going, which isn't to the bottom 80% of society. The end result looks a lot like the US median household income: https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=c8op9mhgodplq_&ctype=l&met_y=median_income_constant&hl=en&dl=en https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=c8op9mhgodplq_&...
      - matt4077 9y ago
        I'm sorry, but I don't think you're arguing in good faith here. "Per capita" means "per head", i. e. per person. That means that any population growth due to immigration is already factored in. If you click on the little question mark, you'll also learn that inflation is also factored in already: "Aggregates are based on constant 2010 U.S. dollars."
        flukus 9y ago
        The real point is that last one. GDP growth, economic growth, etc are all meaningless because for most of the population it is not reality, they are getting poorer. That big house and two cars that my father could afford as a single income earner is now out of reach for most of the population.
    - alphaalpha101 9y ago
      1% growth is completely irrelevant. That's what I said: effectively in recession. The difference between 1% growth and 1% shrink is nothing. There's no reason we shouldn't be growing much more quickly. But we're not going to do so in a neoliberal world. That's just not going to happen. Draining the wealth of society to a small group of people that spend little money just doesn't drive growth. People can't spend and drive the economy when they're dirt poor.
Tsagadai 9y ago
But it really is. You get a resource (human in this case) that usually comes with education and healthcare paid for in the X years before they came. Usually immigrant X has a higher level of education than the general population due to restrictions. Not to mention that said person has money (usually also a requirement), which adds to the economy in the same way that tourism does. How is that not adding growth to an economy? Conversely, a mass exodus of educated citizens emigrating from a country negatively impacts growth.