Is growth a good thing?

[Davo36]

Wonderful.
It took a while but you've finally joined in.

A large population has more choices.
If you don't want to experience anything new, then live in a small town.
This suits some people.
Equally, if you want to experience more than you currently have, travel to a bigger place.

Wow, yes I guess I could move to China or India to experience new things. They then must automatically be better countries. They're all rich in those countries right?

Oh but of course as many of them as can are moving here! What? That can't be right! Their bigger countries are obviously better than our teeny tiny one, by your definition.

Could it be that you're 100% wrong and most people are coming to NZ precisely because it's underpopulated?

[Bob Kane]

To contribute, do you think that the tens of thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands?) of people that move to NZ or want to move to NZ move here (or want to move here) because they enjoy living in countries with large populations so much? I don't think so......

I think the majority of people who move here do so to escape the corruption and related matters in the country where they reside.
Population doesn't come into it.
NZ is a safe place.
Remember I said all things being equal?
When that is the case then a larger population gives more choices.

[Bob Kane]

Could it be that you're 100% wrong and most people are coming to NZ precisely because it's underpopulated?

No, I don't think I'm wrong.
Most of the immigrants are coming here to escape worse conditions where they are.
That's why they come to NZ.
But when they arrive - where do they choose to live?
In a small town or the largest city in NZ?
That's right, the largest city they can find.
They want to take advantage of the opportunities that a large population gives.
They're not stupid.

[McDuck]

Restricting the number of immigrants has been mentioned a lot lately.
The most common view expressed has been to stop all immigrants coming to NZ.
This leads me to the question about population growth.
Is it better to have an increasing population or a decreasing population?
Or better to have a static population?
I'm currently thinking in favour of an increasing population.
I think a country improves in many ways with population growth.
Of course, that country would have to have a wise government to handle the growth in a positive way.

Hi Bob.
I've spent quite a lot of time considering that question.
I'll probably spend even more time looking for more examples to consolidate my ideas.

I think growth is neither good or bad.
Immigration is not growth.
It's just moving people.
Like moving all things, it can be good and bad.
If you put the right amount of the right stuff in the right place, then it will ne a benefit.
If you get it wrong, then it will be a hazard.

Sometimes moving stuff will benefit someone at the cost of someone else.

Depending who you ask, the movement of stuff may be good and bad simultaneously.

My general impression at the moment is that there is a short term benefit, and very dramatic longer term loss.
and that people are generally either stupid or self delusional.
probably both.
I include myself in that.
ha.

[Bob Kane]

Immigration is not growth.
It's just moving people.

People moving within a country may not be growth.
But people moving between countries is.
"Did the country's population change?"

[Bob Kane]

Could it be that you're 100% wrong and most people are coming to NZ precisely because it's underpopulated?

Dave, can you show any data to back up this claim?
It's often claimed that people flock to NZ because of the low population and the wide open spaces but I've never seen any evidence that this is the reason people settle in NZ.
I suspect this is an urban myth.

[Perry]

Is growth a good thing?

Restricting the number of immigrants has been mentioned a lot lately.
The most common view expressed has been to stop all immigrants coming to NZ.

I think the idea was to have a moratorium for a while.

This leads me to the question about population growth.
Is it better to have an increasing population or a decreasing population?
Or better to have a static population?
I'm currently thinking in favour of an increasing population.
I think a country improves in many ways with population growth.

Have you provided a list of all these improvements which you perceive?

[Bob Kane]

Have you provided a list of all these improvements which you perceive?

It comes down to more opportunities - more people = more jobs available, more efficiencies available (public transport works better in large populations), more choices available - wider range of hospital care, more choices in selecting schools - the list is endless.
I don't understand anyone who thinks a wider choice is a bad thing.
Do you?

[Davo36]

It comes down to more opportunities - more people = more jobs available, more efficiencies available (public transport works better in large populations), more choices available - wider range of hospital care, more choices in selecting schools - the list is endless.
I don't understand anyone who thinks a wider choice is a bad thing.
Do you?

Yes, I do. I have friends who think.

So answer me this: Why then are countries with more people no better off? Take the UK for example, is everything peachy over there? Or so they have all the same problems, just on a bigger scale?

[Bob Kane]

So answer me this: Why then are countries with more people no better off? Take the UK for example, is everything peachy over there? Or so they have all the same problems, just on a bigger scale?

Oh, I think they are (better off).
Larger cities have more opportunities - I think I've already said that a few times?
A place with more opportunities is better than a place with less opportunities.
Do you accept that to be true?