
Millionaire migration in 2015 [pdf] - randomname2
https://nebula.wsimg.com/6e5712bf40ffe85cc116a52402d5a7d7?AccessKeyId=70E2D0A589B97BD675FB&disposition=0&alloworigin=1
======
tomp
Interesting:

> In our view , a Brexit w ill not result in an outflow of millionaires from
> the UK. On the contrary, we believe that wealthy UK citizens are more likely
> to stay in the UK if there is a Brexit. This view is backed up by the fact
> that most of the wealthy British people we interviewed voiced concern over
> the UK’s open border policy with Europe .

~~~
johnchristopher
I really want to see what would happen to that theory after a Brexit. Would
the economical/financial benefits of a closed border policy outweighs the
economical/financial benefits of being a member of the European Union ? If so
then that's really bad for Europe image, if not then that's really bad for
those financial super powers to realize their judgments are really biased.

The third option being: the analysts here really messed up and shouldn't make
a connection between a stance on open border policy and an outflow as
consequence.

------
imperialdrive
Thanks for posting - very interesting read for someone thinking of moving due
to, well, changing times...

------
mavdi
Frankly I'm not surprised. Europe really seems to be in deep trouble from
rising religious and racial tensions, slowing economy and lack of security. I
would indeed emigrate if I had the cash and a wife that wasn't completely numb
to what goes on in the world.

------
hebdo
I've been seriously contemplating it for about a year now: is it the time to
abandon Europe and find new life elsewhere? Asking for the honest HN opinion,
is the old continent already the sinking ship? On one hand it is comforting to
consider that there is ~1000 years of history of civilized Europe behind us,
with rich culture, the discovery and development of science and, in general,
prosperity. On the other, it took less than a century for the Western Roman
Empire to collapse.

~~~
tomp
Where would you want to go?

In the US, you're more likely to be killed by a cop than by a terrorist in
Europe.

Japan is peaceful for now, but has its own problems - rising tensions with
China, proximity of North Korea, low economic opportunity. Same goes for most
other developed Asian countries.

Africa, Middle East, Russia, most of Asia and South America are less developed
(AFAIK), in terms of social cohesion, healthcare, economic opportunity.

The best options seem to be Australia and New Zealand, they are English-
speaking, highly developed, peaceful, lawful and, most importantly, far away -
a problem for some (e.g. if you have family members in other countries), but
in case of major conflict, it will probably be a good idea.

All in all, some perspective is in order. Europe is probably the strongest
it's been in the past 100 years. There are 300 million inhabitants, so even 1M
migrants is a drop in the bucket. There are no immediate threats from other
nation-states, except possibly for a few countries bordering Russia - although
even they seem focused more on the Middle East recently. Most European
countries still have the strongest social security.

On the other hand, the unexpected is just that, by definition. Chances are
low, but it's possible that some crazy person does something crazy (Putin?
Erdogan? A right-wing EU leader?). But that's true pretty much anywhere in the
world.

~~~
linkregister
Of developed countries, Australia is expected to be one of the most impacted
by climate change. Already crop yields are being affected; drought (in the
west and interior), floods (in the north and east), and heat waves
(everywhere) are posing challenges to Australians.

Most of North and Central Europe is less likely to suffer from such drastic
effects.

------
loeber
Parts of this study seem dubious. Neither 'city' nor 'millionaire' is defined.
The authors allege that rising religious tensions and a lack of opportunities
are to blame for the French millionaire outflow. Is that the whole story?
Could the aggressive tax rates and hurdles posed by regulation have more to do
with it?

Here's a fun fact: when Hollande's 75% tax rate was announced, waiting lists
at some of the more expensive francophone Swiss boarding schools ballooned
overnight. Make of that what you will. (NB this tax rate was introduced in
2013 and dropped in 2014.)

~~~
filereaper
Millionaire is defined at the bottom under "Notes and Definitions"

Here's the relevant text: “Millionaires” otherwise known as “high net worth
individuals” or “HNWIs” refer to individuals with net assets of US$1 million
or more excluding their primary residences

~~~
loeber
Oof, didn't catch that, sorry. I normally expect definitions etc. at the very
start.

------
ameyamk
why are so many rich people moving to Australia?

~~~
usert1763
I moved to Australia around 10 years ago (originally from Poland but traveled
the world extensively) and worked in tech since then wishing I did a course in
welding or heavy machinery operation instead. Even mining laundry service
workers here get 120,000/year salary!

The tide is turning though and world's biggest quarry is in trouble.....since
China problems are looming more profoundly on Australian economy (China
sneezes and Australia catches a nasty cold) more people are looking towards
other industries i.e. services, tech, medical and those who used to make a
tidy profit in the mines are being let go due to slumping iron ore pricing and
weakened demand. In the space of last 12 months iron ore price was cut in
half.

Add world's most expensive housing prices, climate issues, stalling economy,
bogan attitudes (less so with the influx of educated migrants) etc. and
Australia has its own share of issues to deal with. All things considered
though, I would never want to go back to Europe or move to US. Why? To name a
few: stable democratic government, great lifestyle, far away from some of the
the loony bins e.g. Putin or not sharing borders with other countries (can get
pretty lonely here at times though as to get anywhere is a minimum 10 hours
flight), good pay and social support system, lots of nationalities in bigger
cities so racial tensions are rare (we all just seem to get along), warm
weather etc. Why would I want to live anywhere else? Yes, I could make more
money in US, be more culturally aware/inspired in Europe, have cheaper
lifestyle in Asia (south-east) etc. but when you look at what's really
important in life and narrow it down to a dozen or so factors, especially if
having a family is a prospect, nothing comes close to living Downunder. Even
Kiwis want to live here. And that comes from someone who lived (at least 16
months) on every continent, except Antarctica and Africa.

------
cbeach
Several of my smartest and most ambitious friends have emigrated from London
to Aus and Japan. Destinations that have sensible immigration policies, and
which have maintained their cultural integrity.

A country is not a country without borders. When I emigrate I will choose a
country based on its singular culture, and crucially, how well it maintains
that culture. Why would I choose a country that's right for me now but risks
changing in the future when I have kids there?

Multi-ethnicity in London is great. Multiculturalism in London is a sickness.
No one chooses to move here for "London's culture," because it doesn't have an
identifiable culture. So people come here expecting to maintain their own
culture in a bubble instead, resulting in ghettos, self-segregation and rising
tension.

~~~
caseydurfee
Is "sensible" a euphemism for "don't allow brown people in"? I've never heard
Japan's immigration policies described as sensible before. Japan as a country
is dying because of their low birthrate and overly restrictive immigration
policies. What's sensible about that?

~~~
cbeach
"Sensible" is a euphemism for "don't allow religious fundamentalists with a
deep-seated hatred of the West in"

Additionally, this demographic (I won't name the religion - I'm sure you know
the one I'm describing) has a male unemployment rate of 50% and female
unemployment rate of 75% in the UK.

You don't die as a country through low birthrates - this could only happen in
a bygone era that required massive labourforce, agriculture, factory work etc.
No - the modern economy does not require "throwing bodies at the problem." We
are entering the age of automation, a having more humans in a country is not
as important as having the smartest humans to build the automation.

In fact having more humans in the country just creates an aging population
timebomb. This problem is confounded by immigration. Not resolved by
immigration. Immigrants age just like the rest of us.

~~~
mavdi
Literally every statement in this comment of yours needs a reliable source.

~~~
cbeach
Happy to oblige:

[http://examine-islam.org/islam-and-the-uk-some-facts/](http://examine-
islam.org/islam-and-the-uk-some-facts/)

~~~
mavdi
Yes but that includes none of the the statements you made. You said
unemployment rate of Muslim women is 75%. According to this 29% of Muslim
women are in full time employment compared to 50% of general population. Yet,
unemployment rate of general population is not 50%. There is a huge different
between lack of full time employment and unemployment.

Every other statement after that is also utter nonsense pseudo opinion.

~~~
cbeach
"More than half of Muslim men and three quarters of Muslim women are
unemployed."

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8054436/Indians-
and-C...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8054436/Indians-and-Chinese-
get-better-jobs-than-white-British-men.html)

~~~
mavdi
You're just pointing to the statistical bias in British media. There is a huge
different between not being in FULL time employment and being unemployed.

Since we're pointing at random articles:
[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-
musli...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-muslim-
women-71-more-likely-to-be-unemployed-due-to-workplace-
discrimination-10179033.html)

"The recent national Labour Force survey showed the unemployment rate among
Muslim women was 18 per cent, compared with 9 per cent for Hindu women and 4
per cent for white Christian women."

No doubt unemployment rate is higher for Muslim women, and it is a problem.
But citing figures that out of your pocket isn't gonna help.

~~~
cbeach
Your article is showing a different type of measure, but it's showing the same
glaring problem - Muslim women are not working in this country - not nearly as
many of them as other demographics. I don't care whether a Muslim commentator
thinks the cause for this is anti-Muslim "bias." There isn't an
institutionalised anti-Muslim bias in our workplaces, and if there was you'd
have to ask "why?" \- is it the five-times-a-day prayer breaks? The 30 days of
fasting leaving workers unable to properly function? The subjugation of women
in Muslim society? All of these factors could explain the figures we see, and
they're all the fault of Islam. Not of Western employers.

~~~
chris_wot
Your sources are second hand, and old. The article you picked was from The
Telegraph and was published in 2010, about the government report "Is Britain
Fairer?", which was also published in 2010.

The latest report, from 2015, makes for interesting reading. It shows that:

a. White people have a higher rate of employment than for ethnic minorities
generally (74.7% vs. 59.3%)

b. Men have a higher rate of employment than women, and women are more likely
to be in part-time work and less likely to be in senior management positions.

c. Religious minorities are more likely to be unemployed, and in particular
Muslim men experience the highest levels of unemployment.

There's no analysis though of why any of this is the case though. All the
things you highlight aren't necessarily issues that can't be overcome. But you
have selectively cherry-picked what you want to see, and I can't see that you
can provide any sources that back up your assertions about why Muslims face
high unemployment.

------
Retric
Millionaire means little, if you have 1.0 million @ 4% your below the median
US income. In large part this is tracking the migration of retired people.

~~~
linkregister
I agree, they should change it to 10 million or qualify it with "1 million in
assets excluding primary residence".

~~~
Retric
They do exclude their primary residences. But, many retired people downsize
and they are looking at people who are moving anyway.

------
vm
15%+ of the San Francisco population are millionaires! No wonder this city is
outrageously expensive.

San Francisco millionaires: 129,000. Population: 837,442 (2013)

------
julie1
Millionaires are fleeing their country to avoid penal liability.

I am french, I have read Clinton's email, and I think they try to avoid
investigations. And some have a lot on their plate.

On one hand I think the country will be better without them, on the other one
I still hope justice will be made. And I would like the welcoming countries to
be aware some millionaires are rich by bending rules.

