How many people do you want to share NZ with

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › How many people do you want to share NZ with

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2680873 26-Mar-2021 08:19

GV27:
Handle9:

Not really. Internationally in every case increasing wealth and reduction in child mortality results in a decrease in birth rates. You don't need as many people to have a viable economic unit and you don't need excess kids as it limits your ability to capitalise on the available wealth in society.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility

We have been about where we are at in terms of social development in NZ for some time now. At some point, escalating living costs and housing pressures will contributing to ongoing declines in the size of families more than anything else.

I know it's easy to fall back on conventional wisdom but conventional wisdom says house prices should never have gotten to where they are, and pretending that hasn't had massive flow on effects would be ignoring an elephant in the room when it comes to future demographics. Otherwise we risk papering over symptoms instead of fixing the actual underlying problems.

It's hardly conventional wisdom. It's fairly basic economics.

GV27

5978 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2680878 26-Mar-2021 08:36

Handle9:

It's hardly conventional wisdom. It's fairly basic economics.

It's basic economics when comparing first world and third world countries. I get that.

But within the context of an advanced economy, compared to one that is not really that more advanced but with massive additional living costs, are you really saying you think there's no meaningful downward pressure on birth rates?

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2680881 26-Mar-2021 08:44

GV27:
Handle9:

It's hardly conventional wisdom. It's fairly basic economics.

It's basic economics when comparing first world and third world countries. I get that.

But within the context of an advanced economy, compared to one that is not really that more advanced but with massive additional living costs, are you really saying you think there's no meaningful downward pressure on birth rates?

If you can identify a statistically significant trend then please point it out. NZ birthrates seem within what would be expected and similar to countries like the US and UK.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2680884 26-Mar-2021 08:45

Handle9:

Not really. Internationally in every case increasing wealth and reduction in child mortality results in a decrease in birth rates. You don't need as many people to have a viable economic unit and you don't need excess kids as it limits your ability to capitalise on the available wealth in society.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility

@Handle9 I spoke to my son last night his reaction was "ok, how many pages to you want this to be" In short he said yes that *ahem*the Wikipedia paper covers just one factor. Socio economic at the higher level. It does not drill down into regional, community, individual, belief system, moral system etc etc etc. "To say it economics is simplistic and wrong but not surprising for a tech forum" In short he agreed with my statement that it is a very complex subject and then he go blunt he is not going to waste energy trying to explain this for a tech forum. He suggested that anyone with a genuine interest the Ministry of Social Development has a wealth of information that one can source.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2680886 26-Mar-2021 08:50

MikeB4:
Handle9:

Not really. Internationally in every case increasing wealth and reduction in child mortality results in a decrease in birth rates. You don't need as many people to have a viable economic unit and you don't need excess kids as it limits your ability to capitalise on the available wealth in society.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility

@Handle9 I spoke to my son last night his reaction was "ok, how many pages to you want this to be" In short he said yes that *ahem*the Wikipedia paper covers just one factor. Socio economic at the higher level. It does not drill down into regional, community, individual, belief system, moral system etc etc etc. "To say it economics is simplistic and wrong but not surprising for a tech forum" In short he agreed with my statement that it is a very complex subject and then he go blunt he is not going to waste energy trying to explain this for a tech forum. He suggested that anyone with a genuine interest the Ministry of Social Development has a wealth of information that one can source.

Okey dokey. Please explain the wealth of information.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2680887 26-Mar-2021 08:52

@Handle9 your keyboard is your friend 😄

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

GV27

5978 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2680893 26-Mar-2021 09:07

Handle9:

If you can identify a statistically significant trend then please point it out. NZ birthrates seem within what would be expected and similar to countries like the US and UK.

It doesn't look like our birth rate has been below Australia's since the 1980s. In the late 201Xs, it looks like it has dropped below Australia. I'd say for two broadly and culturally similar countries, that's somewhat noteworthy.

alasta

6891 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3365

Trusted

Subscriber

#2680945 26-Mar-2021 10:44

GV27:

Handle9:

If you can identify a statistically significant trend then please point it out. NZ birthrates seem within what would be expected and similar to countries like the US and UK.

It doesn't look like our birth rate has been below Australia's since the 1980s. In the late 201Xs, it looks like it has dropped below Australia. I'd say for two broadly and culturally similar countries, that's somewhat noteworthy.

Interestingly the podcast that I linked above noted that for some time NZ's birth rate declined at a slower rate than the rest of the developed world, but it dropped dramatically in recent years.

VirtualKiwi

29 posts

Geek
+1 received by user: 7

#2681026 26-Mar-2021 13:18

Comparing NZ to the UK based on size is not all that helpful as the geography and geology is quite different. New Zealand is a mountainous, earthquake prone country with areas that suffer severe drought. The UK is considerably flatter, geologically stable, wetter, and very close to major markets for both imports and exports. Comparing apples with apples, NZ isn't likely to be able to support a population the size of the UK even if it wanted to, (and plenty of UK people seem to want to come here because we don't have a UK sized population).

Another aspect, as a geek who likes to abstract things, is the Treaty of Waitangi. There has been lots of discussion around this from different angles, but at the most abstract, it's an agreement between the people who wanted to come and live here and those people who historically lived here, setting out ground rules for how the people who had built up a history of living here could have their traditions and values respected by newcomers while allowing for an orderly system for other people who want to come here.

Although it's usually looked at from the perspective of Pākehā and Māori, if it's abstracted to who was here first vs who wants to come here, then I think it can set a precedent that could apply regardless of 'race', (which from a genetic perspective is not a particularly good measure of overall uniqueness anyway).

Here is an example of how that precedent might apply.

I'm Pākehā (as far as I know), and my first ancestors arrived here 5 generations ago. I personally want to be able to afford to enjoy the tradition of a quarter acre section, being able to go into the bush without being overwhelmed with crowds of people, but I have no objection if other people want to live in small apartments, go clubbing, and generally lead a highly urban lifestyle as long as I can continue to enjoy the lifestyle I've grown up with, and has been part of my family for several generations.

What I object to, is if someone says to me, to allow population growth, you've got to give up your quarter acre, you've got to accept the only way to live is in high density housing, urban sprawl into rural areas, and overcrowding of wilderness areas for the sake of economic growth. That premise in different words is basically what was forced on Māori, and I entirely sympathise with their angst.

Today the term NIMBY seems to have replaced the term savages, but it's used in the same condescending way to suggest that anyone who wants to maintain their traditions is primitive and against progress.

In actual fact, looking at the Māori precedent, they weren't against progress, but wanted it on their terms, and at their pace, and when they were comfortable with change, they were quick to embrace it.

Coming back to the question of population, I'm not sure I can put a number on it, but I do know that I want any population conversation to have community input so that communities feel like they're in control, and any new members of a community feel welcome because their community willingly chooses to have them. Actually, I think there's a word for decentralised leadership and decision making - Rangatiratanga.

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2681193 26-Mar-2021 16:13

GV27:
Handle9:

If you can identify a statistically significant trend then please point it out. NZ birthrates seem within what would be expected and similar to countries like the US and UK.

It doesn't look like our birth rate has been below Australia's since the 1980s. In the late 201Xs, it looks like it has dropped below Australia. I'd say for two broadly and culturally similar countries, that's somewhat noteworthy.

The birth rates are basically the same. The point I made remains valid.