Posts by linger
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
More accurately, arrivals disproportionately affect Auckland; departures less so. Even over the past decade, when NZ as a whole has had relatively low net migration, the Auckland population has still grown through international migration, as well as through internal migration. The 2010 Statistics New Zealand report New Zealand’s International Migration Statistics: 1922-2009 concludes, rather obviously (p8): “Migration flows were influenced by legislative and economic factors in New Zealand and overseas”.
N.B. There is a 2014 Statistics NZ release specifically on migration flows in/out of Auckland: International migration to and from Auckland region: 1996-2013.
-
Hard News: So what now?, in reply to Steve Barnes,
NZ immigration has fairly consistently exceeded emigration over the past few decades, but by wildly variable amounts over that time. The natural increase (births – deaths) is fairly constant, so can be planned for; the net migration is much harder to predict in advance (and disproportionately affects Auckland).
Some sample figures:
Year, Natural increase, Arrivals, Departures, Net migration
1991, 33522, 50578, 44181, +6397
1996, 29025, 79005, 54212, +24793
2001, 27974, 81094, 71368, +9726
2006, 30948, 82732, 68123, +14609NZ’s annual population growth over the period 2006-2013 was about 31000 per year, which is almost entirely accounted for by natural increase, implying net migration was close to zero over that period.
-
Hard News: So what now?, in reply to Joshua Arbury,
Not that anyone would suggest the NZ economy should be deliberately* downsized in order to force more Kiwis to emigrate – not least because Auckland would be the last place to be affected.
[* it's a purely accidental result of existing policies.]
-
Hard News: So what now?, in reply to Marc C,
Nah, I was referring only to the continual trumpeting of elephants (Asian or otherwise). Packing away the pachyderms (presumably, into a massive trunk):
Immigration is an important factor for population planning, and deserves mention in that context. I'm interested in what you see as being the council's or the government's options. -
How were these surveys conducted, and what motivation did those surveyed have to provide accurate information? Given that the ballot box is supposed to be confidential, and that survey-takers’ identity has to be known in order to follow up the same person later, we shouldn’t necessarily expect voters to give pollsters honest answers, so 30% disagreement on a follow-up survey doesn’t sound quite so unlikely.
(But, to the extent that disagreement results from deliberate misinformation in one or both surveys, rather than forgetfulness, one might expect a correlation with variables related to concern for privacy. Was anything like that measured?) -
Hard News: So what now?, in reply to Marc C,
the elephant in the room, […] high level immigration
Phrasing it that way so often (this is, what, the fourth time now?)
negates the usual meaning of “avoided topic”
and just starts to sound slightly anti-Asian. -
Hard News: The Sharing Man, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
Oh, I am ashamed to have missed that obvious one. Of course.
Court disaster with Jestar, the fool’s choice.
Where the customer service is a joke. -
Hard News: The Sharing Man, in reply to Jason Kemp,
Not so long ago a sub editor might have made a pun out of the mistake
as in, Jestar = son of Virgin?
-
OnPoint: Yeah nah, but what *do* we…, in reply to Sacha,
Or indeed whether they still have voting rights under Prymincer For Life Maximillion Key II.
-
OnPoint: Yeah nah, but what *do* we…, in reply to Matthew Hooton,
we’ll head to the 22nd century with current flag
but 2 months ago, right here you were opining
For the fern to lose, turnout will have to exceed that of the 2014 election, and pretty much all the non-voters in the first referendum will need to back the Union Jack
Which is it? (Or, what changed your mind?)