Incoming migrants are a good thing

A commenter asked how many immigrants I thought NZ should allow in (interestingly, on a post about anti-Chinese attitudes).

I certainly don't think we have too many incoming migrants. We need them anyway to balance the departures.

The looming deficit of taxpayers caused by the ageing population is going to create a problem. Increased immigration, especially encouraging foreign students who have studied here to make NZ their home, may be part of a solution.

Frankly, as long as people wanting to come to NZ have a proven work ethic and some usable skills, why turn them away? By developed-world standards, NZ is a sparsely populated nation and looking at the graph below, current levels of migration aren't about to test existing resources.

The more things change....November 24, 2014

Here's a brief piece from The New Zealand Herald, November 24, 1934:

FALSE IDEAS OF CHINA
A booklet disabusing readers of many prejudices and opinions regarding China and its people has been issued oy the British Department of Overseas Trade. It states that the word "Chink" is insulting and should never be used; that even the word "Chinaman" is derogatory and should be avoided; that the Chinese are-no longer "heathen Chinese;" that the sinister, yellow-skinned man of sensational type, found in novels and plays, is a myth; and, greatest surprise of all, that "Pidgin English" is dead, and that good English will carry the tourist everywhere in what used to be called the Celestial Empire. The booklet states that the common idea that Chinese food is strange in composition and repulsive in appearance is also unfounded. It asserts that such dishes as birds' nests, sharks' fins, beche-de-mer—otherwise known as "seaslug"—and even the famous "ancient eggs," have a pleasant and delectable flavour enhanced by the excellence of Chinese cooking.

Eighty years on and anti-Chinese sentiment - though somewhat more sophisticated -  still abounds.

Makes one realise the axiom, "...it takes a generation or more to make real change" may be overly optimistic.

1 in 5 women initiated violence against a violent partner

Yet, with White Ribbon Day tomorrow, all we hear about is "domestic violence against women and children."

Last week TV3 reported on new analysis of data from a decade ago:

"....19 percent of the women surveyed said they initiated violence against their violent partner even though they were not being hit at the time.

Those who did were also more likely to have witnessed their mothers being beaten by their fathers, or experienced abuse at the hands of a previous partner.

Women or partners with alcoholic problems and women with recreational drug use also increases the likelihood of them initiating violence, the study revealed."

Some people believe women are becoming more violent which would suggest a higher incidence ten years later.

As I wrote last week, partner violence is often a two-way street. The broad-brush painting of women as victims and men as perpetrators is dishonest. The reality is far more nuanced.