What's new

The Great Chinese Exodus

So, you come up with a hypothesis on the writer behalf? I search through the article, and I did not find the word exodus anywhere.

Besides the 100 millions that was mentioned twice, one in the conclusion of the article, there is also a figure of 48 millions that is total no. of Chinese diaspora.

So in China thousand years old history, 48 millions of Chinese ethnicity are living oversea, that is about 3-4%, BIG DEAL.

The writer also lump immigration, people that get PR as an potential option, studying oversea, and tourism together with the word exodus, that is sensationalist journalism.

It is just an excuse to take a dig at China, we have seen enough to know what it is.

During the Chinese spring festival, which is the most important festival in China, people travel home to be with their family. Every year, during that period, there are about 2 billion passenger-journey since 2006.

It is the largest annual human migration in the world.

If you read the article carefully, this article is more like China threat, esp. with the ending like 10 million people are coming to get you.

The title of the article is "The Great Chinese Exodus"
Reference: http://online.wsj.com/articles/the-great-chinese-exodus-1408120906




It is in my opinion, in regards to the author's premise, that the Chinese people are not foreign to the notion of looking for greener pastures, even if these pastures are ...foreign lands. The author's emphasis of the migratory patterns abroad is indicative of eventual proclivity to migrate permanently due to exposure of the West's resources and demographic opportunities. I think the author's opinion carries weight considering that even in the United States, the most numerous Asian ethnic group are -- Chinese.

I think the most numerous ethnic group in the new world are Europeans, so I guess the Europeans are not foreign to the notion of looking for greener pastures, even if these pastures are ...foreign lands. The author's emphasis of the migratory patterns abroad is indicative of eventual proclivity to migrate permanently due to exposure of the new world's resources and demographic opportunities.

I think a tiny Mexico has more immigrants in the U.S. than Chinese with 1.4b population, a tiny Vietnam, Korea and Philipines have about 1/3-2/3 of Chinese immigrants. I don't think the author's opinion carries weight. And I have done too much thinking this evening already. lol
 
Last edited:
If you read the article carefully, this article is more like China threat, esp. with the ending like 10 million people are coming to get you.

@Okemos ,

I don't think the author is showing any negative connotation towards Chinese immigration to the West. From any researcher's vantage point, this report is utilizing an Observational type study, particularly a liberalized prospective cohort study.

I think a tiny Mexico has more immigrants in the U.S. than Chinese with 1.4b population, a tiny Vietnam, Korea and Philipines have about 1/3-2/3 of Chinese immigrants. I don't think the author's opinion carries weight. And I have done too much thinking this evening already. lol

This is where I'm loosing you; the author does not , at all, collude Chinese immigration to the United States , Australia et al, as a bad thing. In fact, the author specifies that those who are migrating abroad are considered "rich" -- having property over $1.6 million. The author also notes that Chinese immigrants to the United States that are given residency visas are required by the United States to invest $500,000 into the US economy. I think that this is the "type" of immigrant that the United States is looking for.

There is no comparison between the Chinese bourgeois moving to the United States with the illegal Mexican / Latin Americans who come with neither money and education. The former contributes to the US economy , whereas the latter takes advantage of it through social services -- which eventually costs the American Government and American tax payer -- billions upon billions of dollars.

The author is actually, contrary to your opinion, arguing for Chinese immigration. lol.

;)
 
@Okemos ,

I don't think the author is showing any negative connotation towards Chinese immigration to the West. From any researcher's vantage point, this report is utilizing an Observational type study, particularly a liberalized prospective cohort study.

The author should study Korean immigrants first and ask why South Korea, a developed country, has so many immigrants to the U.S. What's their motivation and what are they seeking in the U.S. that South Korea doesn't have. Vietnam and the Philippines annually have about 1/2 to 2/3 as much as Chinese immigrants to the U.S. How can those two tiny countries retain their talents when such large proportion of their elites migrate. lol Anyway, I used to believe in and welcomed your objectivity, but you are becoming more and more a disappointment. Good luck.
 
The author should study Korean immigrants first and ask why South Korea, a developed country, has so many immigrants to the U.S. What's their motivation and what are they seeking the U.S. that South Korea doesn't have. Vietnam and the Philippines annually have about 1/2 to 2/3 as much as Chinese immigrants to the U.S. How can those two tiny countries retain their talents when such large proportion of their elites migrate. lol Anyway, I used to believe in and welcomed your objectivity, but you are more becoming more and more a disappointment. Good luck.

You have a potent suggestion, however, the interest is not on Koreans (who are arguably one of the lowest -- numerically speaking -- in Asian-American demographic composition). The Chinese are the most numerous of all Asian ethnicity that make up the United States population. This study only elucidates upon the growing number of Chinese migrants, and the positives of this -- considering that most of the Chinese immigrants abroad are considered "rich" with an average property worth of $1.6 million.
 
@Okemos ,

I don't think the author is showing any negative connotation towards Chinese immigration to the West. From any researcher's vantage point, this report is utilizing an Observational type study, particularly a liberalized prospective cohort study.



This is where I'm loosing you; the author does not , at all, collude Chinese immigration to the United States , Australia et al, as a bad thing. In fact, the author specifies that those who are migrating abroad are considered "rich" -- having property over $1.6 million. The author also notes that Chinese immigrants to the United States that are given residency visas are required by the United States to invest $500,000 into the US economy. I think that this is the "type" of immigrant that the United States is looking for.

There is no comparison between the Chinese bourgeois moving to the United States with the illegal Mexican / Latin Americans who come with neither money and education. The former contributes to the US economy , whereas the latter takes advantage of it through social services -- which eventually costs the American Government and American tax payer -- billions upon billions of dollars.

The author is actually, contrary to your opinion, arguing for Chinese immigration. lol.

;)
I hope you know Canada's shift of immigration policies. They are now turning down rich Chinese immigrants, citing reasons such as rising property prices, etc, ete. Not all people welcome a rich neighbor moving in your community. I won't argue with you any further on this article.

You have a potent suggestion, however, the interest is not on Koreans (who are arguably one of the lowest -- numerically speaking -- in Asian-American demographic composition). The Chinese are the most numerous of all Asian ethnicity that make up the United States population. This study only elucidates upon the growing number of Chinese migrants, and the positives of this -- considering that most of the Chinese immigrants abroad are considered "rich" with an average property worth of $1.6 million.

Koreans are one of the lowest? lol Can you just take a minute to check immigration data first before making bold claim? Oh btw, Germans are the most populous European immigrants in the U.S. Guess what, Germany also has largest population in Europe (excluding Russia). I guess we should do a research on why Luxembourg didn't have as many immigrants as Germany. lol
 
Last edited:
Actually Chinese civilization is a sedentary agrarian one. We love our family and our home.

The migration start by
Coolie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Chinese word (pinyin: kǔlì) literally means "bitterly hard (use of) strength", in the Mandarin pronunciation.

History of the Coolie trade
An early trade in Asian labourers is believed to have begun sometime in or around the 16th century. Social and political pressure led to the abolition of the slave trade throughout the British Empire in 1807, with other European nations following suit. Labour-intensive industries, such as cotton and sugar plantations, mines and railway construction, in the colonies were left without a cheap source of manpower.[7] As a consequence, a large scale slavery-like trade in Asian (primarily Indian and Chinese) indentured labourers began in the 1820s to fill this vacuum. Some of these labourers signed contracts based on misleading promises, some were kidnapped and sold into the trade, some were victims of clan violence whose captors sold them to coolie brokers, while others sold themselves to pay off gambling debts.[8][9] The British were the first to experiment with this potential new form of cheap labour in 1807, when they imported 200 Chinese men to work in Trinidad.

The coolie trade was often compared to the earlier slave trade and they accomplished very similar things.[10][11][12] However, there were significant differences between the Coolie trade and the African slave trade. Firstly, despite the many recorded cases of deceiving and kidnapping coolies, many coolies were voluntary labourers, although it is difficult to know what percentage of the total was represented by voluntary coolies. Owing to famines, wars, and shortages of land, many Asians also chose to go overseas to seek a better life. Secondly, coolies were not kept in bondage for life; they became free after serving out their contracts and could return to their country of origin although a large majority were believed to have served as labourers/slaves long after their contracts had expired. Coolies also received wages, although usually they were paid much less than local workers. Although there are reports of ships for Asian coolies carrying women and children, the great majority of them were men. Finally, regulations were put in place, as early as 1837 by the British authorities in India to safeguard these principles of voluntary, contractual work and safe and sanitary transportation although in practice this rarely occurred especially during examples such as the Pacific Passage or the Guano Pits of Peru. The Chinese government also made efforts to secure the well-being of their nation's workers, with representations being made to relevant governments around the world.

====================================================================
Compare to them, the Chinese today is a lot luckier and have much better option.
 
Last edited:
Koreans are one of the lowest? lol Can you just take a minute to check immigration data first before making bold claim? Oh btw, Germans are the most populous European immigrants in the U.S. Guess what, Germany also has largest population in Europe (excluding Russia). I guess we should do a research on why Luxembourg didn't have as many immigrants as Germany. lol

Koreans are considered one of the lowest. The 3 most numerous Asian group in the United States are: 1) Chinese , 2) Filipino and 3) Indian.

census4-ethnic-groups.png


Oh btw, Germans are the most populous European immigrants in the U.S.

Dear,

We're not talking about German Americans, we're sticking to the subject matter and the body of lit that the author had made to us. Again, I'm loosing you in this discussion. Stick to the subject. lol.

I hope you know Canada's shift of immigration policies. They are now turning down rich Chinese immigrants, citing reasons such as rising property prices, etc, ete. Not all people welcome a rich neighbor moving in your community. I won't argue with you any further on this article.

That may be so, however, that is not stopping them from coming to the United States,

China’s millionaire exodus as wealthy flee with America the preferred destination - Asia - World - The Independent

Nor is that stopping them from migrating to Australia,
Australia Targets China’s Rich With ‘Millionaire’ Visa - Deal Journal Australia - WSJ
 
It is in my opinion, in regards to the author's premise, that the Chinese people are not foreign to the notion of looking for greener pastures, even if these pastures are ...foreign lands. The author's emphasis of the migratory patterns abroad is indicative of eventual proclivity to migrate permanently due to exposure of the West's resources and demographic opportunities. I think the author's opinion carries weight considering that even in the United States, the most numerous Asian ethnic group are -- Chinese.

I'd like to add an observation and I'm not sure if it is relevant or not.

Back in the late 1980's when I was in college there was obviously not a lot of foreign Chinese students in my class (in fact I don't remember any). However there were TONS of rich people from South America. One guy had this beautiful Ferrari Testarossa. So I'd chat with him and ask him what his big plans were when he goes back. He said he'd never go back.

I was a bit confused. Why would you not go back? Help his country...be successful...etc. His answer basically was his country is not catching up fast enough for him. I was like "What?"

He said while its growing and expanding on the outside; behind the pretty scenes the society was still backwards and poor. He felt like he was a time traveler when he arrived here. Here is where his country could be in a few decades if all goes right...and he hopes it does. But he rather live in the present than the past...so he wasn't going to go back.

So maybe that may be a motive.
 
I'd like to add an observation and I'm not sure if it is relevant or not.

Back in the late 1980's when I was in college there was obviously not a lot of foreign Chinese students in my class (in fact I don't remember any). However there were TONS of rich people from South America. One guy had this beautiful Ferrari Testarossa. So I'd chat with him and ask him what his big plans were when he goes back. He said he'd never go back.

I was a bit confused. Why would you not go back? Help his country...be successful...etc. His answer basically was his country is not catching up fast enough for him. I was like "What?"

He said while its growing and expanding on the outside; behind the pretty scenes the society was still backwards and poor. He felt like he was a time traveler when he arrived here. Here is where his country could be in a few decades if all goes right...and he hopes it does. But he rather live in the present than the past...so he wasn't going to go back.

So maybe that may be a motive.


Sir,

To be honest with you, one of the reasons why many foreign Ph.D students come to the United States to study is because of the quality graduate level education found in the United States. The numerous research grant(s) made readily available for graduate and doctoral students, the numerous internship(s) readily available for graduate and doctoral students. The opportunities in the academe as well as in the industrial sector after post-doctoral research cannot be expressed enough.

For a foreign Ph.D student -- to be given a H1B visa is , literally, a dream come true. The opportunities here in the United States, despite what anti-American detractors say, are second to none.
 
What s the definition of Chinese richer? 64%? The so called statistics data will defenitely do good to their business in China. 3.79 million ethnic Chinese in US? not enough. We should migrate 3% of Chinese citizens to US that will help us to solve many problems.:D
 
Nihonjin, you are intellectually dishonest. Why are you citing absolute values when the topic is exodus, the definition of which is a large PERCENT value of the population? Perhaps you have trouble with basic math and confuse percents with absolute values and think that 500 out of 1000000000 is bigger than 1 out of 2. If that is what you think, perhaps your psychology degree needs some remedial math requirements.

Also, I don't know what the 100 million refers to. Is that tourist numbers?

Ever since 2011, it was said that 30% of the rich have migrated. If that were true, then today 24% of the rich are remaining in China. Assuming that migration is uniformly distributed (not true; the rich actually more mobile) here are the expected numbers of billionaires in China:

2011: 115 (World's Billionaires 2011: A Record Year In Numbers, Money And Impact - Forbes)
2014: real number of billionaires is 152.

If 30% left per year, number left is 28 if there was no economic growth.

If the 115 billionaires in 2011 had their wealth grow at triple the rate of economic growth at 21% (which is more unequal than China actually is) then there should be 70 billionaires in 2014.

However there are 152 billionaires.

Unless the wealth growth of billionaires was seven times that the normal economic growth rate, it is not possible for the stated migration rate to be correct.
 
What s the definition of Chinese richer?

If you read the article -- this refers to individuals with a minimum of $1.6 million worth of assets. Meaning, anyone with assets worth greater than or equal to $1.6 million.
 
If you read the article -- this refers to individuals with a minimum of $1.6 million worth of assets. Meaning, anyone with assets worth greater than or equal to $1.6 million.
$1.6 million is not much if they wish to emigrate to US/Canada.

Or is it?
 
Nihonjin, you are intellectually dishonest

Are you bereft of basic reading skills?

Why are you citing absolute values when the topic is exodus, the definition of which is a large PERCENT value of the population?

Please indicate when, in my post, I cited absolute value. Thanks.

Ever since 2011, it was said that 30% of the rich have migrated. If that were true, then today 24% of the rich are remaining in China. Assuming that migration is uniformly distributed (not true; the rich actually more mobile) here are the expected numbers of billionaires in China:
2011: 115 (World's Billionaires 2011: A Record Year In Numbers, Money And Impact - Forbes)
2014: real number of billionaires is 152.
If 30% left per year, number left is 28 if there was no economic growth.
If the 115 billionaires in 2011 had their wealth grow at triple the rate of economic growth at 21% (which is more unequal than China actually is) then there should be 70 billionaires in 2014.
However there are 152 billionaires.
Unless the wealth growth of billionaires was seven times that the normal economic growth rate, it is not possible for the stated migration rate to be correct.

The body of lit didn't go into the development of billionaires , however, since billionaires have a net asset of greater than $1.6 million, we can assume through fait accompli that these population(s) were included in the 64% value that the author had cited. lol.

$1.6 million is not much if they wish to emigrate to US/Canada.

Or is it?

It really isn't. The author's reference to the $1.6 million is used as a minimum. This number is , thus, an example of a lower outlier. The maximum could refer to in the hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars.
 
I'd like to add an observation and I'm not sure if it is relevant or not.

Back in the late 1980's when I was in college there was obviously not a lot of foreign Chinese students in my class (in fact I don't remember any). However there were TONS of rich people from South America. One guy had this beautiful Ferrari Testarossa. So I'd chat with him and ask him what his big plans were when he goes back. He said he'd never go back.

I was a bit confused. Why would you not go back? Help his country...be successful...etc. His answer basically was his country is not catching up fast enough for him. I was like "What?"

He said while its growing and expanding on the outside; behind the pretty scenes the society was still backwards and poor. He felt like he was a time traveler when he arrived here. Here is where his country could be in a few decades if all goes right...and he hopes it does. But he rather live in the present than the past...so he wasn't going to go back.

Actually, in most of developing countries, it's the elites like to stay and the poors like to migrate.

China is a special case, riches don't feel secure.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom