Brain drain getting younger

82 comments on “Brain drain getting younger ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Kotahi Tane Huna 1

   15 April 2012 at 10:36 am

   Can you see what market forces think of your shit policies, righties? Can you see how your lies about unions and economics and education and every other thing under the sun have been utterly exposed?

   The rot started with the fourth Labour (1st ACT) government. These wasteful destructive policies must be abandoned wholesale before anything will change. The next government must aggressively reject and reverse the revolting agenda they will inherit, before the right-wing remakes New Zealand in its own image: stupid, afraid and delusional.
   • aerobubble 1.1

     16 April 2012 at 12:20 pm

     National have never understood the market, they merely respond to market changes by claiming them as due to their right-wing foresight and wisdom. What is after all neo-liberalism but let the markets run their course, and deregulate them asap so more change can be claimed as rewarding (since vulture capitalists can be held up as the new saviors of the economy).

     There is nothing wrong with capitalism, its a tool, the problem is arrogant stupid elites who have festered off the boomer population bulge during a time of cheap oil and easy credit. Its nothing more than just smart people learning to ape stupid simplicities,and it has to change if we are to have a brighter future.
2. Sanctuary 2

   15 April 2012 at 11:01 am

   I had never even heard of this phenomena, until just recently when suddenly three straight A, straight out of school smarty pants surfaced on Facebook studying in Sydney and Melbourne.
3. Barry 3

   15 April 2012 at 11:23 am

   For some of these kids it is cheaper to go overseas to study. The scholarships on offer are more generous, and they won’t finish their study in so much debt as if they studied in NZ.
4. ghostwhowalksnz 4

   15 April 2012 at 11:23 am

   What has changed is the very top students are offered full scholarships to study , mostly from Australian universities.

   The other side of the coin, is that children of Kiwis who live in OZ but dont have permanent residence, arent themselves eligible for Austudy allowances.
5. ochocinco 5

   15 April 2012 at 11:27 am

   I have to ask myself: does it matter?

   If an individual puts his/her advancement over the good of the country, do we want them to stay? For me, left-wing politics is about the collective – doing what’s best for New Zealand. If someone wants to go to Australia or the UK to earn more dollars (and I deliberately separate that motive from (a) going overseas for a degree then returning or (b) going overseas and sending all wages back), then I don’t think they’re the sort of person we really need.

   JFK once asked us to consider what we could do for our country, not what our country could do for us. Everybody who goes overseas to earn more dollars, deep down, loves themselves more than they love NZ, A true Kiwi should prefer cleaning toilets in NZ to working in finance in the UK.

   (obviously I’m a socialism-in-one-country rather than withering-of-the-state lefty)
   • burt 5.1

     15 April 2012 at 11:39 am

     What has changed is the very top students are offered full scholarships to study , mostly from Australian universities.

     The answer to this problem is here; http://www.asg.co.nz

     It’s not the government – it’s the parents that need to take responsibility for their children’s study costs.

     There is no such thing as a free lunch and it’s time dim-bulb socialists stopped expecting the government to take care of ever detail for their future. Socialists need to wake up and notice they can’t always rely on other peoples money.
     • Uturn 5.1.1

       15 April 2012 at 12:38 pm

       Burt, I know you can’t hear me, but other people not so stupid as you might. So I’m talking past you, rather than too you.

       Understand this:

       The reason capitalism exists is because public resources have been reduced to money and transferred to private hands. I think that’s an explicitly simple way of putting it. Somewhere along the line, people start thinking they exist in a vacuum and own everything they can see, that value and worth are the same thing, that people are financial units, that gain and use defines a human life… and then become capitalists. So the idea of socialists needing “other people’s money” is hogwash. Capitalists, using the cover of culture and tradition, STEAL other people’s resources and turn it into money. Money is the result of turning public resources into private property. So tell me again who needs what?

       Socialists, of the kind that initiate political and societal change, do not need to steal your money, or the money of the bourgeoisie, because money itself only represents the energy and resources of the many. It’s basic theory. Read a book some time. If they needed “other people’s money”, if they needed capitalism to exist, they wouldn’t be useful at all.

       If you think like Burt, the people you’re targeting are bourgeois “socialists” and frankly, target them all you want, because they have to go as much as the neo-libs have to go. The reason NZ is descending into such a cluster fuck is that bourgeois socialism is something of an oxymoron. Dangle a dollar in front of those kinds and they’ll do anything and justify it anyway they can.

       Second point: socialists are not interested in the government taking care of anything for them. Socialists are people transforming from traditional culture/class based governance to self governance, in the present, with regard to the collective. Traditions and class govern to maintain the past for the few; socialist policy addresses the needs of the many in the present. How could a socialist be called one and not know that? There are dim bulbs everywhere you go, self-interest dims anyone’s bulb, but useful socialists are never dim-bulbs because they necessarily must know their direction. It’s possible once again that it’s the bourgeois “socialists” that Burt calls dim.
       • burt 5.1.1.1

         15 April 2012 at 1:05 pm

         uturn

         I can hear you, I can absolutely hear you. Although I’m struggling to stop laughing at this;

         socialists are not interested in the government taking care of anything for them. Socialists are people transforming from traditional culture/class based governance to self governance.

         Socialism from Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

         Socialism /ˈsoʊʃəlɪzəm/ is an economic system characterised by social ownership and control of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy,[1] and a political philosophy advocating such a system. “Social ownership” may refer to any one of, or a combination of, the following: cooperative enterprises, common ownership, direct public ownership or autonomous state enterprises.

         autonomous state enterprises….
         autonomous state enterprises….

         Shall I repeat it again…..

         Ha ha ha … self governance…. You really need to stop talking about shit you simply have no concept of uturn.
         • felix 5.1.1.1.1

           15 April 2012 at 1:12 pm

           Yay, burt found two words which, if you ignore all the other words before them, could be taken to mean something he agrees with.

           Well done burt!

           Now while you’re looking up words, try “any” and “or”.
           • burt 5.1.1.1.1.1

             15 April 2012 at 1:47 pm

             I note you just shoot the messenger rather than comment on the accuracy of uturn’s description of socialism. Can I assume you are laughing at him/her as well but can’t get past you normal MO of cheap shots and un-witty one liners?
             • felix …

               15 April 2012 at 2:45 pm

               I’m laughing at you because you don’t seem to be able to read.

               Maybe if you’d paid a bit more attention to the “academic elites” when you were at school, eh?
               • burt …

                 15 April 2012 at 2:55 pm

                 It’s all relative felix;

                 To a 40 year old labourer earning $20/hour a grad stepping into a job at $50K-$70K is an academic elite.

                 Perhaps I should have not used the word ‘elite’ – that obviously means something more serious to you than I intended. Sorry.

                 (disclosure: I’m over 40 and I’m not a labourer)
                 • felix …

                   15 April 2012 at 3:35 pm

                   lolwut? What do you think “academic” means?
                   • burt …

                     15 April 2012 at 3:42 pm

                     felix

                     From your staring point of “Yay, burt found two words which, if you ignore all the other words before them …”

                     Your current fixation with ‘elite’ and ‘academic’ is rather entertaining for me.

                     Still nothing to say about Uturn’s description of socialism ?
                   • felix …

                     15 April 2012 at 3:47 pm

                     The funny bit burt, was that you quoted a definition which you thought was refuting what Uturn had written when actually it didn’t.

                     It was funny because you were all gloaty and bold about it but you appear not to have understood the passage you quoted at all.

                     I don’t really care about your argument but I do like laughing at you slapping yourself in the face.
                   • McFlock …

                     15 April 2012 at 3:49 pm

                     “able to remember what the start of a sentence was when you finish reading the last word”?
                   • felix …

                     15 April 2012 at 3:49 pm

                     “Your current fixation with ‘elite’ and ‘academic’ is rather entertaining for me. “

                     Err no, I’m laughing at you not knowing what words mean. There are no particular words that are funnier than others in this regard.

                     McF: in burt’s case that applies to sentences he’s writing too lol.
         • Matt 5.1.1.1.2

           15 April 2012 at 2:10 pm

           “You really need to stop talking about shit you simply have no concept of uturn.”

           Ha, that hasn’t stopped you. Run into any trees with your head recently? 
           • burt 5.1.1.1.2.1

             15 April 2012 at 2:18 pm

             Matt

             You a right, I’ve regularly talked about shit that I’m less informed about than others. Yeah I get it wrong some times.

             But hey, what’s you take on Uturn’s description of socialism?
             • Matt …

               15 April 2012 at 3:54 pm

               Hm, I’m not really concerned with someone else’s definition of something. Who has that kind of time? Oh sorry.

               Well, I’m maybe concerned about National’s definition of what “51%” and “ownership” means.
       • burt 5.1.1.2

         15 April 2012 at 1:11 pm

         It’s possible once again that it’s the bourgeois “socialists” that Burt calls dim.

         It’s more the Chardonnay socialists I call dim… The classic Labour voters – possibly one in the same with the bourgeois socialists… The academic elite and the union leaders getting paid more than the workers they represent.
         • felix 5.1.1.2.1

           15 April 2012 at 1:14 pm

           Really burt?

           How many people in NZ do you reckon are “academic elite and union leaders”?
           • burt 5.1.1.2.1.1

             15 April 2012 at 1:45 pm

             There is enough Chardonnay socialists to form the Labour party. Enough Chardonnay socialists to pretend they care about workers rights and fool about 30% of the public they are a viable form of governance.

             Funny how after every time they get more than a single term in government we end up with a a recession and a slash and burn National government – The Chardonnay socialists don’t realise it’s the failed policies of Chardonnay socialism that are to blame. Dim bulbs indeed.

             So the short answer to how many – too many !
             • felix …

               15 April 2012 at 2:42 pm

               Ah, so when you said “The classic Labour voters” did you mean a small group of academic elites and union leaders or not?
             • muzza …

               15 April 2012 at 2:47 pm

               You don’t really understand much do you Burt!

               Its the simple concepts that you just can’t wrap your head around eh!

               Being stuck in a left right scam must be difficult, you are not alone, the sheep are many.

               I particularly like this “Funny how after every time they get more than a single term in government we end up with a a recession and a slash and burn National government” – As an indication of just how dim your bulb must be!

               When you say “we” , do you mean the country, or “your team” being in charge. Do you see politics like a sport that can be won? Do you realise that we are all losing, apart from a very small number, whose time will also run out as the trickle up continues, and they find that comfort which they were used to is no longer available. That could be you one day Burt, you just never know..

               Your understanding of basic financial, monetary and political concepts is frankly poor, and your social compass as a result, out of order!

               Maybe head over to Joburg, if you fancy having a look at what the future might hold in NZ should we not halt the decline!
               • burt …

                 15 April 2012 at 2:52 pm

                 muzza

                 I’ve long advocated that the simple partisan flip flop of red flag blue flag is crap and not serving the people of NZ.

                 I’ve noted before I’m happy that Labour are circa 30% and I’ve also said I wish National would join them at that level.

                 I don’t think we actually disagree much with regard to your last comment.
           • Robert M 5.1.1.2.1.2

             18 April 2012 at 1:38 pm

             Most of the academic elite have always gone overseas-just like a lot of the best sportsmen. The brightest minds have always been inclined never to return to NZ. Survey’s indicate that two thirds of New Zealanders who went to Oxford University did not return to NZ for any significant length of time. Of those who did including my father and grandfather who were educated at Balliol, my view is that they were mistaken to come back here. In terms of my grandfather it was a disaster for his screen star wife to be brought back to backwater Wellington. In terms of my father he should have followed Bob Hawke example and brought his future wife over to Oxford, because Hawke and many others only found the harsh, cold, socially exclusive Oxford enviroment survivable if they had permanent female company. My father was certainly invited and advised to return to Oxford, by Balliol after a short temporary illness, due to extreme cold of Oxford in1950 and very austere conditions in the UK at the time which were unimaginably different from the Oxford of Brideshead or the golden summer. But the success of a number of Oxford graduates in NZ has not been particularly remarkable given that intelligence,irony, political comedy or detatchment are certainly not appreciated here.
             Most top class NZ students and my experience of such relates in the 2000s to law students and history students at Canterbury- generally have social interests centred on sex,drugs and possibly to a lesser degree alcohol. Overseas regimes were the police generally ignore drugs and indulugent sex among the beautiful, intelligent and middle class are generally much more attractive.
         • Te Reo Putake 5.1.1.2.2

           15 April 2012 at 2:00 pm

           Burt, is the members’ incomes the only determinant in setting a union official’s salary? I know some unions do link the two, but others look at the job as a professional role and pay in line with what the market determines.
            
           A quick trawl through Seek shows most HR grads would expect $50-70 for their first job, experienced operatives from there on up into the hundred plus bracket. Where do you think a union organiser would fit on that scale, Burt, given that they have similar responsibilities and skills?
           • burt 5.1.1.2.2.1

             15 April 2012 at 2:15 pm

             Te Reo Putake

             I personally have no issues with workers negotiating salaries of what every they can command.

             A quick trawl through Seek shows most HR grads would expect $50-70 for their first job

             This highlights the concept of Chardonnay socialism. Under taxation we seem to say $70K is a lot of money…. Yet a well educated person can expect this as a starting salary. Can you see the quandary here ?

             So sure, tell me it’s about solidarity, a collective and being equal etc OR tell me it’s a market and the attempt to blend old traditions with current market operational models is romantic folly at best. It can’t be both or it’s no more than Chardonnay socialism.
     • Olwyn 5.1.2

       15 April 2012 at 1:34 pm

       Burt, I am so weary of you chanting “other people’s money.” Whose money are the POAL bosses using in their attempts to break the union? That’s right, the Auckland rate payers’ money. Whose money pays them their fat salaries? The same. Whose money is propping up house prices? Tax dollars, in the form of rental supplements, along with immigration and underinvestment. Whose money bridges the difference between high prices and low wages, in the form of WFF? Tax dollars. We could go on and list the consultancy fees etc that arise from government contracts, the necessities such as water, and now power, that are systematically being handed over. The pittances paid to solo mothers, etc pale in comparison. What is more, they would not need to be paid if these people who have got their claws on large chunks of other people’s money actually invested the said money in productive enterprises. Basically you can sum up the past 30 years as beginning with the bleat, “We need to cut wages, taxes, etc, so we will be rich enough to invest in real enterprises,” followed by “Well, now that we’ve got the money, we don’t need to invest in real enterprises. We can, however, afford a stake in a power company or two.” You need pressure coming from the bottom up for a successful creative society, our society has done its darnedest to ensure that pressure is solely from the top down. Wake up Burt.
       • burt 5.1.2.1

         15 April 2012 at 1:55 pm

         Right, so what you are telling me is a ‘council’ (state) owned business is using other peoples money.

         Fantastic – you get it !
         • Olwyn 5.1.2.1.1

           15 April 2012 at 2:09 pm

           My point is that many of the people who lead the charge against the unions, the beneficiaries, etc, are firmly attached to the state tit themselves, but with high enough wages to construe themselves as Randian captains of industry. Dr Brash, that well known opponent of the state, has been paid by the state for his entire working life, and now collects a pension from it.
           • burt 5.1.2.1.1.1

             15 April 2012 at 2:27 pm

             My point is that many of the people who lead the charge against the unions, the beneficiaries, etc, are firmly attached to the state tit themselves

             Yes, absolutely. This is fundamentally why I have been saying all along I don’t take sides in the POAL debacle. It’s complete and utter bullshit from the get go. It’s a pile of people all squabbling over how they carve up a big slice of state money via a mandated local monopoly.

             This is the issue – state monopoly – something that is fundermental to socialism … It’s not working is it!
           • burt 5.1.2.1.1.2

             15 April 2012 at 2:30 pm

             Dr Brash, that well known opponent of the state, has been paid by the state for his entire working life, and now collects a pension from it.

             This is true. But to prevent this we would require a state only provides the legal and regulatory framework. Absolutely no operational business intervention. No state provision or supply – only funding.

             Are you sure you are really upset about having the likes of Dr Brash balancing the free hand of the state in it’s current implementation?
       • burt 5.1.2.2

         15 April 2012 at 2:06 pm

         Olwyn

         I don’t disagree with much of what you say. However my position is simple enough although somewhat unpalatable to people who get comfort from big government.

         Tax dollars. We could go on and list the consultancy fees etc that arise from government contracts, the necessities such as water, and now power

         Why stop there, what about health, education, banking, taxation, airlines, & workplace accident insurance.

         If the government want to own and run business then public money will be made and lost on those businesses. It’s that simple. You can’t get around it….And that is the problem, the state has the power and the will to try and get around that. So when it wants to build a new power station it hikes power prices to build capital… because it can – because it has no competition to stop it doing exactly that.

         Oh, and when it has a cash shortage in health it might also hike power prices to pay for that – because having no competition it can. We saw this well demonstrated with the billions of profit taken from state generators under Labour.
         • Olwyn 5.1.2.2.1

           15 April 2012 at 2:28 pm

           What you are talking about for the most part is imprudence or short-sightedness on the part of governments. There are no perfect answers, but I think that certain necessities, such as water and power are best kept out of private hands, where they foster an unproductive, rentier mentality. Big government arises as an attempt to counter the potential tyranny of big business, but things become difficult when big government and big business become allies against the rest of the population. Out of such circumstances you get such things as the tea party movement on one hand and the occupy movement on the other. Both feel much the same pain but one attributes it to the government while the other attributes it to big business, when the problem lies with the tyranny resulting from their allegiance.
           • burt 5.1.2.2.1.1

             15 April 2012 at 2:33 pm

             Olwyn

             Both feel much the same pain but one attributes it to the government while the other attributes it to big business, when the problem lies with the tyranny resulting from their allegiance.

             That nails it really. Well said.
           • burt 5.1.2.2.1.2

             15 April 2012 at 2:47 pm

             Olwyn

             What you are talking about for the most part is imprudence or short-sightedness on the part of governments.

             Yes, correct. The current way we seek to recuperate funds loaded to students in conjunction with our current income taxation thresholds highlights this also.

             Te Reo Putaki noted before “A quick trawl through Seek shows most HR grads would expect $50-70 for their first job”

             So that educated person is immediately hit with both the top tax threshold and an extra 10% to pay off their loan. Circa 43% taxation for a person just starting their first job.

             People vote for this ????????
             • just saying …

               15 April 2012 at 3:48 pm

               So that educated person is immediately hit with both the top tax threshold and an extra 10% to pay off their loan. Circa 43% taxation for a person just starting their first job.

               My heart bleeds for the poor poppets. They might, in effect, have to start their careers on not much more than the minimum wage. But with a whole shit-load of privilege.

               However, you are being disingenuous Burt. Student loans are not taxation. And a free-marketeer like you should be insisting they pay for their whole tertiary education, not just a small portion of it, as well as full interest. And as you know perfectly well, tax thresholds kick-in on money earned over the threshold. Everyone in theory* pays the same tax on money earned up to the different thresholds.

               So your example falls flat on its face.

               *In reality the wealthy and privileged pay SFA tax and are often paying less than their cleaning staff.
             • Colonial Viper …

               15 April 2012 at 3:54 pm

               Te Reo Putaki noted before “A quick trawl through Seek shows most HR grads would expect $50-70 for their first job”

               $50K pa is absolute top dollar for a new HR grad, and probably then only if they have had prior work experience.

               There are very few “fresh” new grads who are worth $50K pa.
             • Colonial Viper …

               15 April 2012 at 4:01 pm

               So that educated person is immediately hit with both the top tax threshold and an extra 10% to pay off their loan. Circa 43% taxation for a person just starting their first job.

               Don’t be a dick. Such a tax rate would only apply to the last few dollars that they earn.

               At a threshold of almost 3x the country’s median income.
               • burt …

                 15 April 2012 at 4:04 pm

                 Don’t be a dick. Such a tax rate would only apply to some of their earnings as they are only just creeping over the top tax threshold… in their first job…. Dooooh!
                 • Colonial Viper …

                   15 April 2012 at 4:04 pm

                   As I said before new grads have no hope of earning that kind of money without prior professional experience.
                   • burt …

                     15 April 2012 at 4:09 pm

                     Te Reo Putake

                     CV has issues with the details you provided from seek.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     15 April 2012 at 4:16 pm

                     That’s right. New grads in any business discipline are very very lucky to get $40K pa at the moment.
         • Draco T Bastard 5.1.2.2.2

           15 April 2012 at 2:32 pm

           It’s got nothing to do with competition but with available resources. As I’ve pointed out before, competition makes things more expensive. The only thing that competition can do is decrease profit and the government doesn’t need profit. What it needs to do is direct the resources of the community and to do that it uses money which it should print and then regather through taxes.
           • burt 5.1.2.2.2.1

             15 April 2012 at 2:36 pm

             Draco T Bastard

             It’s got nothing to do with competition but with available resources.

             If I were to write a definition for competition I might, among other things, say something like;

             A fight for a greater share of available resources.

             Put a single pie in the middle of a room where 20 people haven’t eaten for 2 days and see what happens………

             Have I missed something in what you have said or are you just making shit up to slag of the natural order of human nature because it’s ugly?
             • Draco T Bastard …

               15 April 2012 at 3:02 pm

               Human nature isn’t that ugly – unless the RWNJs take control for awhile.

               Competition makes things more expensive because it causes unnecessary duplication and thus increasing use of the limited resources available. What we need to be doing is working together to ensure that people get enough of those resources to live a reasonable life. There is never any need for anyone to go hungry as long as we live within those hard physical limits.

               What we have is massive amounts of competition using up resources hand over fist so as to make a few people richer. This is unsustainable and it will collapse.

               Or, other in words, competition is destroying society and the world.
             • Puddleglum …

               15 April 2012 at 10:09 pm

               burt, I don’t think you understand human nature.

               Humans have been in the scenario you describe (not literally over pies, of course) since the beginnings of the species. The standard mechanisms that evolved to deal with that situation were various, sometimes complicated, but tended to involve a sharing of food (no matter who hunted or gathered it). The evolution of these sharing mechanisms was for thoroughly practical and understandable reasons, as the link explains.

               There are also extremely strong and deep emotional, motivational and other social psychological propensities and predispositions that support just such cooperative sharing. There are also, obviously, strong social sanctions that have evolved against those who will not share at least some of the time.

               It happened that way for tens upon tens of millenia. Individual versus individual competition of the kind you describe/assume in your competitive pie-grabbing scenario just hasn’t been a feature of the human social world until relatively recently in our species’ history.

               So, please, don’t claim it’s ‘human nature’ that you’re defending. What you’re defending is actually a non-ordinary, ‘mutant’ form of behaviour that arises when humans are taken out of their ‘natural’ environment of evolutionary adaptedness (the so-called EEA) – principally, once they are taken out of a closely interconnected, complex social world.

               In some ways, it is your position that is dismissive of evolved human social nature – perhaps because you want to “slag off the natural order of human nature” because it isn’t quite as ugly as you wish it was so that it could justify your own position?

               What you describe is more analogous to what happens when cells in the body are no longer under the regulation of the wider system of the body – that is, it’s analogous to a cancer and so could be called a cancerous form of ‘social’ behaviour.

               If you like, you can call that ‘natural’ in the same way that cancer is ‘natural’ – but I don’t think that’s what you meant when you referred to ‘human nature’.
     • Draco T Bastard 5.1.3

       15 April 2012 at 2:21 pm

       There’s no such thing as “other peoples money”, The money always belongs to the community. You have it temporarily due to work that you’ve done for the community. Unfortunately, the process by which you get that money has been skewed in favor of psychopathic parasites.
   • Uturn 5.2

     15 April 2012 at 12:04 pm

     “Watching the peer groups of both my kids navigating the school-university transition, it isn’t the quality of tertiary education that they’re unhappy with. It’s the overwhelming sense that they don’t see a future for themselves here…”

     The kids you mention might be the first late-teen, early twenties geniuses know to earth, or possibly you could be watching the same no-nothing teens we all were once. Really, what the hell does a kid know about “their future”? If they knew anything about either futures or themselves, they’d have considered that their future contains other people, that their past contained other people and the reason they can fly away now is because of other people. Conclusion: they know fuck all. It is the mindset of of self-interested children taught to be social climbers.

     Eventually, someone has to stand and fight back, with no back-up, at their own cost and with everything to lose. Clearly it isn’t going to be rich kids flying away to find “their future”. Once again, the people who could not escape will not only take the punishment of the nasties who hold power now, but will have to the face the losses and battles of wrestling the country back from neo-liberal scumbags and do all the work to rebuild a place where people can live and let live. It may not be a palce with sky tv and three late model cars in the drive. You may not be able to buy McDonalds at 2am on a Sunday. But maybe we end up trading that so that there is no poverty, no kids with respiratory illnesses from overcrowding in rotting houses and no old people, alone and confined to daily cold hell on their ass because the waiting list they’re on for their hip keeps getting reshuffled and the cost of power for heating is too much.

     And then the rich kids will flit back here, once it’s safe again, thinking they’ll be the next beemers, bach and boat crowd, thinking they belong here, thinking the nostalgic picture of the past is what we’ll be living, thinking they have something so fuckin’ precious to offer us that we can’t do without. Boy, will they get a shock because we won’t recognise them or need them by then.

     Wake up kids, this is real life, not a Disney TV family reality.
   • Jim in Tokyo 5.3

     15 April 2012 at 6:35 pm

     But we still voted! Which is more than can be said of the remaining NZ left who haven’t already upped sticks…
   • thomas 5.4

     15 April 2012 at 10:03 pm

     @ ochocinco
     A voice of truth and honesty here. Although I agree the question remains; If an individual puts his/her advancement over the good of the planet, do we want them to stay?
6. Colonial Viper 6

   15 April 2012 at 11:34 am

   Rich parents have been sending their kids to Oz to study for a while now. (The first I heard of this was 3-4 years ago). The lack of Austudy support doesn’t bother them as they just pay the same Aussie fees, but in cash.

   Rich parents see the much larger range of specialist courses available in Australia, far better facilities and equipment for medical/engineering/scientific degrees, the availability of generous post grad scholarships, and better Australian job opportunities for their children straight out of graduating from an Australian uni.

   Basically we’re fucked on our current track, but why worry as our beamer, bachs and boats crowd are still creaming it.

   Oh yeah, a handful of people I know have left their NZ academic positions for 40%-50% higher pay at Queensland and NSW universities, great perks like generous research time and lower teaching workload, paid tutors who do the grunt work of the marking etc for you, why stay realistically if you don’t have immovable family ties here and so many of your friends and family are already over there.

   PS Australian economy is running out of steam big fast.
   • burt 6.1

     15 April 2012 at 3:18 pm

     Rich parents have been sending their kids to Oz to study for a while now.

     And like rich parents sending their kids to private schools their taxes are funding capacity they are not using. I’m surprised you are against these ‘rich’ people being taxed to supply something that a) they are not using and b) benefits the entire country.

     Basically we’re fucked on our current track

     That ‘current track’ with regard to tertiary education and education funding is today virtually unchanged from the system you said was perfect under Labour. How does that work CV ?
     • Colonial Viper 6.1.1

       15 April 2012 at 3:56 pm

       That ‘current track’ with regard to tertiary education and education funding is today virtually unchanged from the system you said was perfect under Labour. How does that work CV ?

       It is changed – departmental budget cuts are occurring in virtually every university area.
   • ghostwhowalksnz 6.2

     16 April 2012 at 8:51 am

     Your comment doesnt make sense. These courses are highly selective, 98.9% average grade and you miss out. You are not even sitting the Australian secondary exams if you go to High School in NZ

     There are some ‘full fees’ courses ( which even Australians can apply for) which this doesnt apply, but these would be $75,000 per year in fees for a medicine course, maybe less for a law degree. NZ doesnt have full fee courses for locals that Im aware off.
7. Jim Nald 7

   15 April 2012 at 11:42 am

   It’s the overwhelming sense that they don’t see a future for themselves here…

   Yes, quite.

   My nephew who isn’t as smart to jump ship now and is just part way through his degree is already talking about leaving for Oz. He is not even giving a thought of doing a year or two here to see what might develop next.

   I will suggest to him there will be plenty of opportunities being the new Sky City-Stephen Joyce Convention Centre employee, ….. or being outdoors building Roads of National’s Significance, ….. or working the pokie machines, ….. or failing all of that, milk a few cows.

   The future is stunningly bright here in NZ and we must offer up our gratitude to John Key and Bill English. On top of that, our future gets even more blindingly bright thanks to reporters like Fran Sullivan who churn out astoundingly enlightening pieces like her latest one at
   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10798675).

   And oh, at this rate, let’s suggest to my nephew to save the next generation from the trouble of moving to Oz – just make babies there and don’t bother to come back. We’re ambitious for future generations.
8. Psycho Milt 8

   15 April 2012 at 11:55 am

   New Zealand has some excellent universities (though it is true that most of them are slipping backwards under National)…

   There’s no “under National” about that, they were slipping backwards due to under-investment under the last Labour govt as well – it’s not something that suddenly started happening four years ago. National’s merely continuing Labour’s under-investment in universities.

   The story also doesn’t give numbers – a “higher number” of school leavers are enrolling at overseas universities, but how much higher? From what base? If 100 left annually 5 years ago and 105 are leaving annually now, it’s a higher number but probably not worth getting all worked up about. Without the actual numbers, it’s a story about nothing.
   • burt 8.1

     15 April 2012 at 1:08 pm

     Psycho Milt

     Well said.

     That’s a key point – There’s no “under National” about that, they were slipping backwards due to under-investment under the last Labour govt as well

     Keep the petty point scoring out of this and we might get real change.
     • Colonial Viper 8.1.1

       15 April 2012 at 3:57 pm

       nah, we’ll stop when National goes out under a TKO.
9. Craig Glen Eden 9

   15 April 2012 at 12:03 pm

   As a father who’s is about to loose a child to studying overseas I think some of the posts hear miss an important point. Lots of kids are going overseas because the field they want to practice in is either not big enough in NZ / Australia and they need to study in a overseas institution to get better quicker access to their professional field.

   I am pleased that my sons education is not going to be effected by Nationals/Acts meddling in education but I despair for those who follow, say kids who are currently in primary school now.
   NZ education system is actually very good sadly National/Act continue their attacks on teachers and their Unions with ideological blindness just as we have seen at the Ports of Auckland.
   • burt 9.1

     15 April 2012 at 4:01 pm

     Craig Glen Eden

     The fact that your child needs (or wants) to leave NZ for reasons of specialisation highlights a very critical thing about state education in NZ. It can’t be all things to all people. One size simply can’t fit all.

     What I find interesting though is that being comfortable to have your own children leave our education system for better options you feel comfortable to claim it will be worse in the future. Can you elaborate on that?
     • Colonial Viper 9.1.1

       15 April 2012 at 4:03 pm

       The fact that your child needs (or wants) to leave NZ for reasons of specialisation highlights a very critical thing about state education in NZ. It can’t be all things to all people. One size simply can’t fit all.

       Nonsensical assertion. Your statement applies to everything under the heavens.
       • burt 9.1.1.1

         15 April 2012 at 4:06 pm

         OK, tell that to Craig Glen Eden for saying such silly things as this;

         As a father who’s is about to loose a child to studying overseas I think some of the posts hear miss an important point. Lots of kids are going overseas because the field they want to practice in is either not big enough in NZ / Australia and they need to study in a overseas institution to get better quicker access to their professional field.

         How dare he make that shit up – it’s a nonsensical assertion……
         • Colonial Viper 9.1.1.1.1

           15 April 2012 at 4:08 pm

           Jeeeezus man I was talking about your comments about “state education”, not CGE’s.
         • Craig Glen Eden 9.1.1.1.2

           15 April 2012 at 4:41 pm

           Burt you are a total dork, for a start Im not making any shit up. My child is choosing to enter a field in the arts that very few people can make a career in in NZ. There are limited places in the world let alone NZ/Ausralia. Luckily my child is very bright and is able to match it academically with anyone his age they have been totally educated in NZ publics schools!

           Secondly Burt lots of NZ kids are going into careers such as the arts or sports that really requires them to get their education/training in Countries like England or the USA. When Gluckman digs a little deeper I am sure this is what he is going to find. Many of these Fields require you to not only have the right training and qualifications but you also have to get known in order to create their career. So burt before you start making assertions you should really know what it is you are actually talking about. Your nonsensical assertion about my post is total crap like most of your ill informed bullshit posts.
           • burt 9.1.1.1.2.1

             15 April 2012 at 8:13 pm

             Craig Geln Eden

             Burt you are a total dork, for a start Im not making any shit up.

             OK, look you seem to have missed the point i was taking the piss out of CV saying that “one size fits all”.

             Luckily my child is very bright and is able to match it academically with anyone his age they have been totally educated in NZ publics schools!

             That’s great to hear – pity the NZ universities are not good enough but lucky you have better options elsewhere. Good on you and your child.

             Secondly Burt lots of NZ kids are going into careers such as the arts or sports that really requires them to get their education/training in Countries like England or the USA.

             No argument, I’m not the one saying our education system is sufficient for everyone.

             I’m sorry I got you so wound up Craig, I was really taking the piss out of CV.
             • Craig Glen Eden …

               15 April 2012 at 9:35 pm

               Burt its not that NZ Uni’s are not good enough as institutions its just some degrees are stronger than others in respective areas and careers.Due to our small population their are some degrees that simply cant be catered for in NZ. The NZ education system has served me well it wasnt perfect but it has given me the education necessary to complete a secondary degree at a private institution, the second degree I have is not available in a Public Uni in NZ.

               I am very concerned however with the damage that is being done already with the time Teachers and Principles are having to spend with National Standards. National standards is a total dog which is going to do nothing to improve NZ children’s education.
     • Draco T Bastard 9.1.2

       15 April 2012 at 6:02 pm

       It can’t be all things to all people.

       Doesn’t need to be, just needs to cater to all the individuals specific needs and it can do that – if we fund it correctly. Unfortunately we’ve had governments over the last few decades that believed that all society needed was more farms.
10. Dr Terry 10

    15 April 2012 at 12:33 pm

    Given sold-out Tories like Fran O’Sullivan, how is it that Australians are not emigrating to New Zealand in their thousands? How odd that the very opposite is the case! I guess the Aussies simply have to wake up to the enormous advantages of residing here.
    As concerns our emigrants being disloyal to their country, what of a country that is disloyal to them? One gathers that they are too much in love with themselves (above). Why should not people love themselves, where love entails self-respect and a desire to see their talents flourish?
    In connection with the virtues of a “business-focussed” government, is it not time that a little concern be devoted to humanitarian causes? (For M.J. Savage “applied Christianity”).

    Relations with Australia surely must not be constructed around the notion of “envy” either way, nothing good will come of that. What is called for is healthy and constructive inter-relating. This cuts both ways in the end.
    Finally, does the N.Z. Prime Minister take serious note of his hand-picked advisors (Knighthoods and all)? At least some of what Gluckman says contains truth and value. Why can I never find a reported and positive response to such advice (and warning), from John Key?
11. burt 11

    15 April 2012 at 3:26 pm

    rOb

    I do agree there is a large unintended consequence of student loans. Saddling people at the start of their earning life with a large debt is a rather peculiar form of state assistance.

    However my take on it is that student loans should be seen like welfare, IE: A safety net – not a natural choice.

    I’m my world that involves a combination of state subsidies provided via general taxation and a responsibility on the parents to also stop saddling their kids with debt at a young age.

    I linked to the ASG site earlier. From your position of much more closely associated with tertiary education than myself I would be interested in your take on such schemes. To be more specific I’m interested in your take on the public/private funding mix for education rather than just ASG itself.
    • Colonial Viper 11.1

      15 April 2012 at 3:58 pm

      I’m my world that involves a combination of state subsidies provided via general taxation and a responsibility on the parents to also stop saddling their kids with debt at a young age.

      Yeah, parents should have the option to send their kids to work in the mines from 12 years of age. The blighters can pay their own way through uni.
    • Draco T Bastard 11.2

      15 April 2012 at 6:04 pm

      I’m my world that involves a combination of state subsidies provided via general taxation and a responsibility on the parents to also stop saddling their kids with debt at a young age.

      And what about the young that don’t have parents?

      Study should never be charged for as it’s a social good.
      • burt 11.2.1

        15 April 2012 at 8:15 pm

        And what about the young that don’t have parents?

        That’s where the safety net aspect of the state scheme kicks in…. This is not rocket science Draco but it’s also not one size fits all so perhaps that’s where you are failing to get what I’m saying.

        Study should never be charged for as it’s a social good.

        It’s also very much a personal benefit.
        • Draco T Bastard 11.2.1.1

          15 April 2012 at 9:02 pm

          …failing to get what I’m saying.

          Or perhaps that you’re just not saying anything.

          It’s also very much a personal benefit.

          Oh noes, people might actually be able to do the work that they want to do rather than being stuck on the dole or working in a dead place such as Maccers.
12. Robert Atack 12

    15 April 2012 at 4:26 pm

    When this shit storm really kicks in the less people living in NZ the better, so keep going people, just don’t start crying when the ability to return a million or so xpats has gone along with the avgas and bunker oil.
    I don’t envy the hell hole most people are going to find themselves in once Europe implodes.
13. prism 13

    15 April 2012 at 6:29 pm

    I have just remembered that the firm my son of over 30 works for in Christchurch has large numbers of overseas software developers about half or more I think. Why aren’t NZs getting these jobs I wonder? I am sure the talent is there. Overseas experience can be good but my son has managed well without it, though he has been overseas briefly as part of his job.

    I think your point is well made and the main reason for the flight.

    What it doesn’t have is excellent prospects for young people. Watching the peer groups of both my kids navigating the school-university transition, it isn’t the quality of tertiary education that they’re unhappy with. It’s the overwhelming sense that they don’t see a future for themselves here…
    • Colonial Viper 13.1

      15 April 2012 at 6:32 pm

      What’s interesting is that those s/w guys can get way more money elsewhere. The ones I know in the industry are often in NZ for personal and lifestyle reasons, sometimes seeking refuge from political trouble etc. in their home country.
14. tc 14

    15 April 2012 at 8:21 pm

    Charter schools and mining along with selling all our power companies should sort this one out.
15. web developer 15

    15 April 2012 at 8:35 pm

    very nice blog I like to share this to all my friend thanks to being with us

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS