133
People leave New Zealand in record numbers as economy bites (www.reuters.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/world@lemmy.world
59 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -6 points 2 years ago (1 child)

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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago

    Not following some rules you expect me to follow is not lack of civility.

    Regularly ordering people to do things and then getting angry at them when they don't salute you and say, "sir, yes sir!" is, however, not especially civil.

    Yet again, I have no reason to do what you command me to do.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent