People leave New Zealand in record numbers as economy bites

lemme in@lemm.ee to World News@lemmy.world – 131 points –
reuters.com

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.

59

You are viewing a single comment

You baited me by engaging in less-than-good faith. If you didn't want to have a conversation, you could've just not replied!

I did nothing of the sort. I gave you a definition. I never said or even implied anything other than what the definition said. I cannot help what you assume just because I refuse to do what you order me to do.

What's your goal here? What are you trying to accomplish right now?

I'm not trying to accomplish anything. You're the one making demands and getting angry at me about things only you are responsible for.

Why?

I'm sorry, I cannot explain to you why you do the things you do.

Why are you not trying to accomplish anything?

I don't even understand the question. Because... I'm not? It's like asking why I'm not hopping on one leg. It's just not something I'm doing.

But you are continuing to reply. Why?

You keep asking me questions. It seems courteous to answer them.

What changed between now, when it seems courteous to answer questions, and upthread, when you evaded answering my initial one?

I answered your question to begin with too. I told you to read the definition because it already told you the answer. And then you, for some reason, decided I was saying the definition meant the opposite of what it said. Much like I can't control you, I can't help it if you don't accept my answers.

There's a thing called Grice's Maxims that describe the rules of conversations -- specifically, about how things can be implied without being said, yet still be very real and expected to be understood by both parties to the conversation.

I told you to read the definition because it already told you the answer.

By asking the question after having read the definition -- and in fact, reiterating that I wanted an answer after having confirmed to you that I had read the definition -- it was 100% crystal clear to you that claiming the definition answered the question was not adequate. Yet you still claimed it. In other words, you were violating -- not flouting, violating -- the maxims.

You have been continuing to violate those maxims throughout this discussion. Why are you being deliberately uncivil?

1 more...
1 more...
1 more...
1 more...
1 more...
1 more...
1 more...
1 more...
1 more...
1 more...
1 more...
1 more...
1 more...