NZ | Population Statistics Thread

[Richard7666]

Originally Posted by jarden

I say spread the 15 million around for all to benefit:

Auckland 3
Wellington 1.5
Christchurch 1.5
Hamilton 1
Dunedin 1
Tauranga 1
Napier/Hastings 1
Palm North 0.75
Nelson 0.6
New Plymouth 0.5
Invercargill 0.4
Whangarei 0.3

Unlikely to happen as its already the fastest growing district, But prefer Queenstown to stay under 50,000 too may people would spoil that tranquility of the place.

How does one fit a million people in Dunedin, or half a million in Nelson? Lots of apartments? Dunedin would become a satellite of Mosgiel!

Could probably pretty happily put a lot of people in Christchurch, Hamilton, Palmerston North, Invercargill, Napier/Hastings.
The likes of Invercargill and Palmerston North were even intended to become large cities when planned.

[UglyBob]

Originally Posted by Richard7666

How does one fit a million people in Dunedin, or half a million in Nelson? Lots of apartments? Dunedin would become a satellite of Mosgiel!

No more than Wellington is a satellite of the Hutt Valley, Porirua and the Kapiti Coast.

In the highly unlikely situation that Dunedin ever grew to 1mil in the foreseeable future there would probably be lots of apartments and urbanisation from Oamaru to Milton.

[otumoetaiNZ]

Originally Posted by jarden

I say spread the 15 million around for all to benefit:

Auckland 3
Wellington 1.5
Christchurch 1.5
Hamilton 1
Dunedin 1
Tauranga 1
Napier/Hastings 1
Palm North 0.75
Nelson 0.6
New Plymouth 0.5
Invercargill 0.4
Whangarei 0.3
.

Yeah but i dont think it will ever work out like that. With all the infrastructure being invested in the auckland hamilton tauranga region by labour and national, the opportunities will always mostly be there. Wellington will continue to grow albeit slowly and i think christchurch will too and perhaps dunedin but in the long term who knows what will happen with the provincial places?

There was an article in the nzherald on saturday that talked about long term cuts to police, hospitals etc in the small provincial towns that will probably mean people start retiring to the cities more than they are now.

[metroman]

The Auckland Hamilton Tauranga and Marsden area is a big growth area, how would it compare in density to SEQ?

[IThomas]

Optimal size for New Zealand, 15 million

With just 4,447,369 of us rattling around in 268,000 square kilometres of this green and pleasant land, there's plenty of space for everyone in New Zealand. Space for our traditional quarter-acre empire, for the bach, for the lifestyle block, for all those sheep, for beer and cheese commercials to mythologise our great rural existence. But the world's population is growing. And more people brings economic prosperity, the old argument goes. The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research believes we'd be better off with 15 million of us. The Green Party argues those of us who are here are already doing enough environmental damage. Actually, say demographers, it's hard to control your population, but they expect ours to climb to at least 5.4 million by 2036. Good news, then? Not exactly. Those people will be older, much older. The number of Kiwis over 65 will almost double in the next two decades. And the worldwide population boom is actually ending - and when it levels out, we will find ourselves in an increasingly tough race against other western countries to attract skilled migrants to fill the gaps. Persuading young Kiwis not to head to London or Sydney will only get harder - but more important. Globally, people are fleeing to the big smoke. Last year was the first time in human history more people lived in cities than rurally.

In New Zealand, they are moving faster than most, and to just one city. Three out of four "new" New Zealanders - by birth or migration - are Aucklanders. It's predicted the City of Sails' population share will rise from one-third to more than 40 per cent - making it vital that we find answers now to how to live together in our biggest city. And while everyone is cheek-by-jowl in Auckland, the provinces face the opposite problem: it's entirely possible smaller towns could become "grey towns", entirely populated by retirees, or even ghost towns, where so many have fled to Auckland the place simply closes down. Traditionally, those who argued against over-population, like the 18th-century thinker Thomas Malthus, worried about famine and mortality; now, it's more likely to be about a longer commute, less chance of finding a parking spot, or, for some, fear your neighbours are more likely to be immigrants. In Auckland, it may mean giving up your weekend game of soccer: in a decade's time, it's predicted there could be a 3000 hours a week shortfall of available sportsfields.

How to convince a nation wedded to the quarter-acre to live differently will be a challenge. Auckland must change its ways. "Some of it is quite frightening and challenging to people," admits the city's deputy mayor, Penny Hulse. "And I guess our job is to be brave: that's what leadership is about, and say let's look at a new way." Imagine the tumbleweed blowing down the main street of provincial New Zealand. "Ghost towns" are going to happen, says Natalie Jackson, professor of demography and director of Waikato University's Population Studies Centre. "Absolutely, they are not too far away at all," says Jackson. "We will already be seeing [the start of] them. Towns do grow and they decline but we do expect to see them survive our lifetimes." The young are expected to move to Auckland. Jackson says this drift will be compounded by the loss of their "reproductive potential" and the growing number of old people completes the imbalance. The trend also becomes self-perpetuating: if there aren't enough children left for a school, teachers lose their jobs and have to go too. Towns relying on a single primary industry such as forestry may be first to close - think places like Kawerau.

While Japan already plans to close 500 redundant regional towns within the next five years, here it's likely to be more subtle: the slow withdrawal of services like driver-licensing or the local policeman. And the big issue, Jackson says, will be the age of those left behind, so if it's not a ghost town, it will be a grey town. While about half of New Zealand's provinces will have fewer people in 20 years' time than they do now, in several other provinces, the only expected growth is in old people. "It is hard to say it is growth," she says. As the baby boom generation reaches retirement, they may shift to the Coromandel, Northland and Nelson, but they are likely to move back to major centres as they become elderly and need services.

Immigration won't help: migrants are attracted to Auckland, and it's proven hard to persuade them to live elsewhere, while our emigrants tend to be from the regions. The Green Party has a policy on "regional optimal populations" but its population spokesman Kennedy Graham admits he's not sure how you can encourage or compel people to stay in the provinces. One uncertainty is over what will happen in Christchurch - whether the recovery will lead to a permanent population (and if so, how they will be accommodated) or merely a bunch of Fifos (Fly in, fly out) who will leave once the job is done. Some countries like Ireland, faced with one city dwarfing the rest, respond by sending government departments to smaller cities - but New Zealand already has its civil service in Wellington, and Wellington's own tight geography and ongoing government austerity measures means it is unlikely to grow substantially. "We are good people in Auckland, we are not there to cannibalise them," protests Hulse gamely. "We are part of NZ Inc . . . part of the big picture. There's only 4.5 million of us, it's NZ against the rest of the world, not Auckland against New Plymouth or Dunedin . . . we're not doing it on purpose." Aucklanders are petrified of living in skyscrapers. A remarkable survey of the world's youth by the World Health Organisation found our young people's biggest fear was not crime or poverty or climate change but living in an apartment.

Persuading them that "higher-density" living (that's more people in the same space) isn't a bad thing is a challenge, but one that must be faced. The art photographer Patrick Reynolds, who blogs authoritatively on Auckland's infrastructure, puts it this way: "It's about the quality of the growth, rather than whether it's a good thing or whether we can stop it . . . the planet is urbanising at a vast rate, what's happening here [in Auckland] is child's play compared to, say, China." After 10 years in London and Dublin, urban designer Greg McBride says he returned home "looking at the place with new eyes, and understanding how people can live in denser situations, and happily so".

McBride, principal urban designer at infrastructure specialists AECOM, would love to build beautiful, sophisticated modern terraced housing and low-rise apartments in Auckland, but is finding resistance. "The biggest issue in urban design is public understanding of how we can live better in a more dense setting . . . it hasn't been properly communicated to the public yet." And, he admits, it hasn't been properly done: while he can show me some great examples of modern, intelligent medium-density buildings in London, there are few Kiwi examples he can walk people through. This has to change, agrees Hulse: "We want to draw a line under bad development and say we're not having it any more, it won't happen." Hulse, who describes herself as "an eternal optimist", is confident developers are poised to begin designing and building good medium-density housing, "and people will change their minds about urban living".

This seems particularly optimistic given the barbed exchange of letters she's currently engaged in via the local North Shore Times newspaper over possible intensification of the suburb of Birkenhead, but Hulse says not everyone still wants a four-bedroom suburban villa. Reynolds says amid the "great panic" around the loss of the quarter-acre block, mainly predicated on nostalgic fantasy, people have simply misunderstood: "It's not ripping down Freeman's Bay and Mt Albert to put in towerblocks, that is ludicrous and alarming." But it alarms Dushko Bogunovich, who lectures in urban design at Unitec. Bogunovich says the suggestion of the council's masterplan, the Auckland Plan, that 70 per cent of new homes are contained within the existing city boundary is ridiculous: "Maybe the other way around: 70 outside the city, only 30 would fit within." Bogunovich says Auckland's appeal is its low-density, character suburbs and describes high-rise plans for the beachside suburb of Takapuna as "outrageous". The alternative is to relax the urban limits. But sprawl is expensive - it requires more sewerage, powerlines, roading, public transport - and Hulse is unequivocal: "Successful cities do not sprawl. We're already one of the world's most sprawled cities, why would you do more? It simply doesn't make economic sense." But Bogunovich says sprawl is already here, was unavoidable because of Auckland's strange geography - particularly its narrow central isthmus - and isn't the issue."

That geography, coupled with the city's "short history and short budget", calls for a bespoke solution, arranging better transport and more homes around a central spine from Warkworth to Huntly. On the idea of amassing population around railway stations, he and Reynolds agree. But Reynolds wants a "more deliberate and compact" city. "Does anybody think it is a good idea if Hamilton becomes South Auckland?" asks Reynolds. McBride believes there are several reasons why Auckland finds itself so ill-prepared for more people: that European settlers escaping squalid cities wanted space; that our growth came during the period when car was king; and that the leaky homes furore strengthened a suspicion of modern-style homes. That means making some significant decisions right now, around issues like transport, to ensure a good quality of life for its expanding populace. Massey University professor Paul Spoonley says the question is whether Auckland can "catch up" with these demands.

If Auckland gets bigger successfully, there will be benefits. The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research's John Ballingall says there's economic advantages to so many people in one place, while the American economist Edward Glaeser's work argues city-dwellers are healthier, greener, and have better prospects. "An Auckland of three million could have a much more efficient economy and still be the world's most liveable city, I really believe that," says Bogunovich. "I'll be a little bit provocative," concludes Hulse. "We actually need to stop being frightened of growth. If New Zealand is going to go ahead, whether the rest of New Zealand like it or not, I am afraid Auckland does need to be a powerhouse. Growth can fuel that. Growth is neither good nor bad, it's what you do with it. That's why we need to get it right." One impact of our ageing nation, an ageing planet, and the end of worldwide growth will be a desperate scramble for young talent. "Young people will be more in demand," says Jackson. She says we may struggle to keep ours here. Last year, worryingly, was our biggest-ever exodus to Australia: 54,000 Kiwis crossed the Tasman.

And although the Greens' Graham notes that, as a temperate island, we may become very attractive to climate change refugees, Spoonley - who specialises in studying immigration - says overall, the competition for migrants will only increase. "One of the major strategies for nearly all OECD countries is going to have to be migration: you want to recruit skills, but it is also a form of population replacement," he says, especially for countries like Australia, Japan and Italy, which have already dropped below the birth rate necessary to sustain their existing populations. And here's the bad news: Spoonley says the two big talent pools in our region, India and China, will face the same challenges and want to keep more young people at home, forcing us to try new markets.

That makes it even more vital we accommodate the population we have in the right way. "When we do surveys of immigrants and why they come to New Zealand, they all mention quality of lifestyle . . . so is growth going to compromise our major brand advantage?" he asks. There's also the thorny question of how we all get along. A significant growth in our Asian population could cause tensions, says Jackson, "as people, especially Pakeha, look around and realise they are not quite the dominant group they once were". So how many Kiwis should there be? Debate on the issue is relatively scant. The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research used a paper compiled for Export NZ in January - "Scale Up or Die" - to declare New Zealand's optimal population should be 15 million. "There's a massive gap in public policy debate around this, and what we're trying to do is prompt discussion," says Ballingall, who admits 15 million was an "arbitrary choice" designed to illustrate their argument that New Zealand can only be truly economically successful offshore if we upsize. "We're not saying this would be easy, and not saying it would be cost-free, we're just saying population is an important economic debate that needs to be had," he says. "A lot of people have put it in the too-hard basket. If as a country we decide that we prefer to stay small then so be it, at least we had a well-informed debate."

Rather proving Ballingall's assertion that politicians have steered clear of population debate because it touches upon such sensitivities as immigration, the Greens remain the only party with a population policy. Theirs is based on New Zealand's "ecological carrying capacity", basically how many people per hectare the environment can sustain. Kennedy Graham says 5.7 million has been suggested as a possible population limit. Graham says the world's ecological footprint is already 50 per cent over-capacity; New Zealand requires 4.9 hectares per person when we should need only 1.8, making us the 32nd worst country in the world. Therefore, says Graham, you could argue there are already enough of us. Jackson's view is that when so many places have already stopped growing, we ought to "make more investment into the people we have". What's clear is some debate is necessary about how many people we want on these two islands, even if it's just to work out how we fund the pensions of our burgeoning number of superannuitants. "I understand these things are scary," says Jackson cheerfully. "But it's also a good long-term warning: the tsunami bell's ringing but it won't hit for a long time."

[SYDNEY]

A futurist from The Economist this morning said that NZ should have 7 million by 2050 and not get too big. He also said that we are going to be one of only a few Countries that will prosper from all that is happening in the World and that people are going to be knocking down the door to get into the Country (predictions for 2050). Self sustainability will be key, especially food and water

[natfat madd fucker]

Originally Posted by SYDNEY

A futurist from The Economist this morning said that NZ should have 7 million by 2050 and not get too big. He also said that we are going to be one of only a few Countries that will prosper from all that is happening in the World and that people are going to be knocking down the door to get into the Country (predictions for 2050). Self sustainability will be key, especially food and water

Though im not a Kiwi, 15 Million people in New zealand wouldnt necessarily be a bad thing. you got 268,000 sqkm of green, rich land to grow food, housing and plenty of water for 15 million people. the UK is only 243,000 sqkm and it has 63 million people all in one little country! you guys are having a huge number of your citizens crossing the ditch over here to Australia each year which out numbers your population growth and yet you want the population to keep growing for economical reasons. there are dozens of boat people a minute, who come from 3rd world and war torn countries coming to Australian shores, dying to find a better life here and yet our Pollies and even our people are trying to stop them coz we dont want them. they get put in detention centres when they arrive here and get treated badly in them. then we send them off to these 3rd world pacific island nations to be slaves and where they are treated even more badly. if you guys want the population over there to grow abit more than what it is now, whether it be 15 million or even just 7 million by 2050-60, then why not consider taking some of our boat people. or you could just do what helped build Australia and i even think it helped New zealands population as well, do something like the 'Ten pound pom'. encourage people from England, Ireland, Scotland and even other parts of Europe to come find a better lifestyle in New zealand. While Australia could focus on its 35 million people target, New zealand could focus on its 15 million target.

[metroman]

While I wouldn't exactly describe New Zealand as having negative population growth, I agree that New Zealand should be focussing on a bigger population. There are likely to be a million kiwis living in Australia over the next decade. It is unlikely to be as bad as what happens in island nations where most of the population lives abroad. New Zealand still has the prospect of opening new oil fields and some degree of mining is likely to occur which will be lucrative. Sure it is not going to be an Aussie like mining book, one like Norway is not that unrealistic. Christchurch could become a growth area, if all goes to plan. I like the idea of the Supercity in Christchurch where cheap housing is used to encourage new migrants from Europe.

[SYDNEY]

Originally Posted by natfat madd fucker

Though im not a Kiwi, 15 Million people in New zealand wouldnt necessarily be a bad thing. you got 268,000 sqkm of green, rich land to grow food, housing and plenty of water for 15 million people. the UK is only 243,000 sqkm and it has 63 million people all in one little country! you guys are having a huge number of your citizens crossing the ditch over here to Australia each year which out numbers your population growth and yet you want the population to keep growing for economical reasons. there are dozens of boat people a minute, who come from 3rd world and war torn countries coming to Australian shores, dying to find a better life here and yet our Pollies and even our people are trying to stop them coz we dont want them. they get put in detention centres when they arrive here and get treated badly in them. then we send them off to these 3rd world pacific island nations to be slaves and where they are treated even more badly. if you guys want the population over there to grow abit more than what it is now, whether it be 15 million or even just 7 million by 2050-60, then why not consider taking some of our boat people. or you could just do what helped build Australia and i even think it helped New zealands population as well, do something like the 'Ten pound pom'. encourage people from England, Ireland, Scotland and even other parts of Europe to come find a better lifestyle in New zealand. While Australia could focus on its 35 million people target, New zealand could focus on its 15 million target.

1.
Thanks but no thanks
2.
I would hardly call 0.8% of people leaving NZ for Australia huge numbers
3.
New Zealand had a seasonally adjusted net gain (more arrivals than departures) of 300 migrants in October 2012. There have been net gains in this series for four of the last six months.
4.
NZ's population is not declining it is growing by both immigration and natural births
5.
More people, more problems. The rate that NZ is growing right now is sustainable and manageable for the future of the islands.

[archisimon]

Originally Posted by natfat madd fucker

Though im not a Kiwi, 15 Million people in New zealand wouldnt necessarily be a bad thing. you got 268,000 sqkm of green, rich land to grow food, housing and plenty of water for 15 million people. the UK is only 243,000 sqkm and it has 63 million people all in one little country! you guys are having a huge number of your citizens crossing the ditch over here to Australia each year which out numbers your population growth and yet you want the population to keep growing for economical reasons. there are dozens of boat people a minute, who come from 3rd world and war torn countries coming to Australian shores, dying to find a better life here and yet our Pollies and even our people are trying to stop them coz we dont want them. they get put in detention centres when they arrive here and get treated badly in them. then we send them off to these 3rd world pacific island nations to be slaves and where they are treated even more badly. if you guys want the population over there to grow abit more than what it is now, whether it be 15 million or even just 7 million by 2050-60, then why not consider taking some of our boat people. or you could just do what helped build Australia and i even think it helped New zealands population as well, do something like the 'Ten pound pom'. encourage people from England, Ireland, Scotland and even other parts of Europe to come find a better lifestyle in New zealand. While Australia could focus on its 35 million people target, New zealand could focus on its 15 million target.

No thank you. We're not that desperate. I am sure New Zealand is able to make it's own decisions as to which SKILLED immigrants it allows into it's shores. New Zealand already has a GROWING population aided by internal births, SKILLED immigration and refugees (no, we don't send them to detention centres).

Also, not everyone is New Zealand is not waiting for their flight to Australia.

[natfat madd fucker]

Originally Posted by archisimon

No thank you. We're not that desperate. I am sure New Zealand is able to make it's own decisions as to which SKILLED immigrants it allows into it's shores. New Zealand already has a GROWING population aided by internal births, SKILLED immigration and refugees (no, we don't send them to detention centres).

Also, not everyone is New Zealand is not waiting for their flight to Australia.

Oh no i know that, but all im saying is New Zealand has alot of potential having such beautiful scenery, plenty of room, water and food. but in someways i do agree with SYDNEY. More people, more crime, more environmental issues and even more congestion, but 15 million people isnt alot. by the way i did mention to encourage more skilled immigrants as well you know like Europeans and that, but immigrants from poorer countries have proven to be skilled workers as well. there are lots of them here that sit on the dole, but you'll find alot that are powering ahead against us Anglos here in Aus.

[archisimon]

Yes, which is why we have an existing skills based immigration policy regardless of a person being from Europe, Indonesia or Zimbabwe. We don't need Australia's "boat people" just because. Australia has it's own issues to sort out as far as immigration and refugees are concerned.

Getting New Zealand's population to 15 million in the next 40-50 years would require dramatic cultural change and I am not sure if that would ever happen as nice as the numbers sound.

[Indictable]

I'd be happy if there were 15 million Kiwi's New Zealander's are so much more chill and nicer than people in any other country I've been to.

[SYDNEY]

I wonder if there is an updated list ...

NZ third on list of migrants' choice

New Zealand's adult population would balloon to more than 11 million if it were to take in all adults who wish to settle here, a global survey by Gallup shows. Using what it calls the Potential Net Migration Index (PNMI), New Zealand registered third, behind only Singapore and Saudi Arabia, as immigration destinations. The index is calculated on the number of adults wishing to leave a country permanently subtracted from the estimated number who wish to immigrate to the country, as a proportion of the total population. A higher positive PNMI value means the larger the potential for net population gain proportional to the country's population size. New Zealand posts the third-highest positive PNMI across 135 countries surveyed, with a net migration index value of 175 per cent, behind Singapore's 260 per cent and Saudi Arabia's 180 per cent. Canada registered fourth on 170 per cent and Australia had 145 per cent. Massey University Professor Paul Spoonley, head of a major research project on immigrants, said the results were interesting but not surprising, given global sentiments. "Economic migrants see countries like Singapore as a centre for opportunities, but lifestyle migrants will choose New Zealand for the quality of life, education and peace that it offers," Professor Spoonley said. "New Zealanders [are] perceived overseas to be friendly and welcoming, and in the wake of a global terrorism threat, the fact that we rank highly on the peace scale makes it even more attractive to be living here." New Zealand was ranked the world's most peaceful country in this year's Global Peace Index, which lists 140 countries in terms of a variety of factors reflecting domestic peacefulness and international relations. At the bottom end of the Gallup scale, the Democratic Republic of Congo scored minus 60 per cent, meaning more than half of its people want to leave the country permanently than settle in it. The poll interviewed about 260,000 people aged 15 and older in 135 countries. The survey found that around 700 million people, or 16 per cent of the world's population, wanted to migrate permanently if they had the chance. "This translates to more than the entire adult population of North and South America combined," the report said. With 165 million saying they would like to move to America permanently if they could, the United States was the most desired destination overall in terms of absolute numbers. Other destinations include Britain, Canada and France (around 45 million each), Spain (35 million) and Saudi Arabia (30 million). Sub-Saharan Africa was the region with the highest percentage of people who would like to emigrate, at 38 per cent, and those living in Asia were the least likely to move, with only 10 per cent expressing a desire to emigrate. Annual immigration to New Zealand is about 20,000, and the Department of Labour estimates that to be worth $1.9 billion a year to GDP and $1000 per capita to GDP. A study released by the department this week says increasing immigration numbers will boost the economy, reduce production costs, increase goods and services competitiveness and benefit exporters, domestic investment and consumer spending.

Countries with highest PNMI*
1.Singapore (+260 per cent)
2.Saudi Arabia (+180 per cent)
3.New Zealand (+175 per cent)
4.Canada (+170 per cent)
5.Australia (+145 per cent)

Top desired destinations
1.United States
2.Canada
3.Britain
4.France
5.Spain

Top sources for potential migrants by region
1.Sub-Saharan Africa
2.Middle East and North Africa
3.Europe
4.Americas
5.Asia

[KiwiGuy]

Originally Posted by otumoetaiNZ

Yeah but i dont think it will ever work out like that. With all the infrastructure being invested in the auckland hamilton tauranga region by labour and national, the opportunities will always mostly be there. Wellington will continue to grow albeit slowly and i think christchurch will too and perhaps dunedin but in the long term who knows what will happen with the provincial places?

There was an article in the nzherald on saturday that talked about long term cuts to police, hospitals etc in the small provincial towns that will probably mean people start retiring to the cities more than they are now.

Is this going to turn into yet another "the provinces are dying" thread?

[SYDNEY]

More Overseas Than Local Applicants Applying for Some Jobs

More than 70% of executive level job applicants wanting roles in specific sectors are coming from overseas according to leading Christchurch recruiters Decipher Group. Decipher partners, Sarcha Feary and Leanne Crozier say they are currently receiving considerably more overseas applicants than those from Christchurch or New Zealand for management level jobs specifically in IT software development, higher level IT / web design and in particular construction fields like Quantity Surveyors. For example, three IT roles for which Decipher is currently recruiting has attracted more than 50 applicants across the three roles with around 12 applications from New Zealanders. “The applicants are primarily from Ireland, India and Asia, with a few from Australia and the UK. They are “fresh” and excited about how Christchurch will grow and develop in the next few years and want to be a part of it,” says Leanne Crozier. Specific examples of overseas applicants include one man from Singapore who arrived in New Zealand at the end of November, and another from India. Many bring families with them. A number of new arrivals will be experiencing their first southern hemisphere Christmas, which will be interesting especially for those used to the snow and cold! Sarcha Feary adds that there are still plenty of local applicants for executive level roles in Christchurch. “When it comes to many other roles we recruit including CFO’s, Business Development Managers, CEO’s, and Operations Managers, our most substantial pool of candidates is based in Christchurch or elsewhere in New Zealand with only a handful coming from the international market,” she says.

[otumoetaiNZ]

Originally Posted by KiwiGuy

Is this going to turn into yet another "the provinces are dying" thread?

Nope but everything points to them stagnating or turning into retirement villages. The statistics clearly show the younger population in the provinces is being replaced by older population as the young ones move to Auckland to work. The older people dont want huge sections which will cause the property market in the provinces to collapse.

[KiwiGuy]

Originally Posted by otumoetaiNZ

Nope but everything points to them stagnating or turning into retirement villages. The statistics clearly show the younger population in the provinces is being replaced by older population as the young ones move to Auckland to work. The older people dont want huge sections which will cause the property market in the provinces to collapse.

What makes you think every single young person wants to move to Auckland? Most of them would rather be in Australia under the idea that life is somehow better over there than it is here, purely because they'd be paid more over there than they would anywhere in NZ.

And you are incredibly wrong about the housing market. Those who are actually informed and know how the property market works are more worried about the housing bubble in Auckland than they are about any "collapse" here.

Of course, everything you say is all shit anyway. Houses around here are selling like hotcakes and those potential buyers than can't get one are building.

[natfat madd fucker]

Originally Posted by KiwiGuy

What makes you think every single young person wants to move to Auckland? Most of them would rather be in Australia under the idea that life is somehow better over there than it is here, purely because they'd be paid more over there than they would anywhere in NZ.

And you are incredibly wrong about the housing market. Those who are actually informed and know how the property market works are more worried about the housing bubble in Auckland than they are about any "collapse" here.

Of course, everything you say is all shit anyway. Houses around here are selling like hotcakes and those potential buyers than can't get one are building.

40% of kiwis that come here move back to NZ anyway. so they basically use us as a cash cow for a few years probably to pay off a mortgage or save up to buy a house then move back. good thing is though they still boost our economy no matter how long they stay

[otumoetaiNZ]

Originally Posted by KiwiGuy

What makes you think every single young person wants to move to Auckland? Most of them would rather be in Australia under the idea that life is somehow better over there than it is here, purely because they'd be paid more over there than they would anywhere in NZ.

And you are incredibly wrong about the housing market. Those who are actually informed and know how the property market works are more worried about the housing bubble in Auckland than they are about any "collapse" here.

Of course, everything you say is all shit anyway. Houses around here are selling like hotcakes and those potential buyers than can't get one are building.

Have you bothered to read the stuff coming out of statistics new zealand that shows the population of the provinces having a greater percentage of older people and most of the youth moving to Auckland?

How about the stuff coming waikato university national institute of demographic and economic analysis? They are pretty clear about the trend which is moving to auckland with the youth not returning back to provincial life because there wont be any jobs there. Theyre also the ones talking about the coming housing collapse in the provences due to no younger couples there to buy large properties from older people as they move to smaller places.