The Great Chinese Exodus

[Aepsilons]

This is not a scientific study. It has not been published in a peer reviewed journal. You are intellectually dishonest and misrepresenting what a study actually is.

"Great exodus" implies something extraordinarily large. The truth is the opposite, however; the "Chinese exodus" is actually disproportionately small.

This is an example of a quasi observational study. Again you don't have any information or proof discrediting that the writer could have taken information from a mixed qualitative-quantitative data sampling.

....

 

[TaiShang]

This is not a scientific study. It has not been published in a peer reviewed journal. You are intellectually dishonest and misrepresenting what a study actually is.

That's it, unfortunately.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

This is an example of a quasi observational study. Again you don't have any information or proof that the writer could have taken information from a mixed qualitative-quantitative data sampling.

That is irrelevant because the data is not properly cited, if it was taken from elsewhere.

The Author's premise is specifically focusing on the Chinese diaspora of its millionaires. Not Koreans. You, dear incompetent friend, are using diversionary tactic and arguing for the sake of argument. I've stripped your argument(s), as unfounded and baseless. You can't even comprehend the meaning of ordinal scalar measurement.

You have not stripped anything but your own honor and intellectual integrity. It is self evident that you are trying to change the subject and are purposely not grasping or incapable of grasping that the writer is purposely inflating Chinese population outflow with fake, misleading and/or vague numbers.

 

[Aepsilons]

That is irrelevant because the data is not properly cited, if it was taken from elsewhere.

Of course it was taken from somewhere else, there's no way the author could have statistically come up with 64% without proper citation. Now, if you are so interested, you may email the author to inquire about his citation .

You have not stripped anything but your own honor and intellectual integrity. It is self evident that you are trying to change the subject and are purposely not grasping or incapable of grasping that the writer is purposely inflating Chinese population outflow with fake, misleading and/or vague numbers.

Trust me, my honor and my intellectual integrity is not based on your subjective bias, clearly exposed with your comprehension issues and your diversionary tactic(s). Won't work. The numbers that I've provided are from the article, which I'm sure, comes from research conducted prior.

Clearly we've come at a crossroads and I don't appreciate the personal insult(s) being hurled.

Let's now redirect our energies into the subject matter. I've nothing else to say to you.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

There is nothing to say about the subject matter because it is not real. It is like talking about pink elephants and saying anything other than they're not real - it simply makes no sense.

 

[DarkElf]

Yeah. I get that its the minimum benchmark for those who are emigrating. But I was talking about those who were emigrating with just this much.

I was just wondering from a lifestyle point of view. That $1.6 million is not sufficient for a decent lifestyle and assured income in the US/Canada

Generally rich Indians(Chinese as well) tend to invest in property for their assured incomes. $1.6 million worth of property is not going to fetch them enough in US and Canada to have a good lifestyle.

Again, these are my assumptions. Let me know if I am wrong.

Depend, if you are expecting third world upper middle class life style with helper, obviously it's not sufficient. Unless you are very rich, the wage cost of helper will bankrupt you. But if you have realistic expectation, something similar like middle class lifestyle in your new country, it's enough.

Read this for example how to profit from property in new york,
Airbnb in New York: Sharing Startup Fights for Largest Market - Businessweek

 

[Aepsilons]

Rich moving out is not much of worry,but their money moving out is the main problem

That would , indeed, pose a problem if they were to bring all their assets with them to their new host nation(s). I don't know if it is possible to have dual Chinese and American citizenship; if it is possible, they could maintain their properties in China whilst living abroad. But definitely something worthy to ponder about.

 

[Echo_419]

That would , indeed, pose a problem if they were to bring all their assets with them to their new host nation(s). I don't know if it is possible to have dual Chinese and American citizenship; if it is possible, they could maintain their properties in China whilst living abroad. But definitely something worthy to ponder about.

Since majority of these Rich folks are 1st category,A$$Holes they surely will take every single penny with them

 

[Aepsilons]

Yeah. I get that its the minimum benchmark for those who are emigrating. But I was talking about those who were emigrating with just this much.

I was just wondering from a lifestyle point of view. That $1.6 million is not sufficient for a decent lifestyle and assured income in the US/Canada

Generally rich Indians(Chinese as well) tend to invest in property for their assured incomes. $1.6 million worth of property is not going to fetch them enough in US and Canada to have a good lifestyle.

Again, these are my assumptions. Let me know if I am wrong.

In the case that if these individuals were coming with only that set amount, then yes. They may not be considered "rich" in the United States , but upper middle class.

If they were to come to the United States with this said amount, they could still make do. An average 3-4 bedroom house in the United States in the East Coast (at a decent neighborhood) will cost any where between $250-300k. So if we subtract that from $1.6 million, they still will have $1,300,000. Let's say they invest in a restaurant business -- that will probably cost them around $300,000. That leaves them with $1,000,000 with liquid capital. They could do well to buy property and rent it out, or they can invest that capital in bonds, in the market.

The opportunities is still there for them.

Since majority of these Rich folks are 1st category,A$$Holes they surely will take every single penny with them

Well, then, if this is true, it would hurt China.

 

[jkroo]

I just cant imagine why so many people are so negative though this article dont show the facts. Its a good thing, business is there, opportunity is there, it ease society's pressure. Local people have more chances to succeed.
Hate rich man just cant make you rich.
Move around earth village is ok. They do not emigrated to Mars

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

I just cant imagine why so many people are so negative though this article dont show the facts.

I'm just correcting inaccuracies and state the facts. Sometimes the facts are uncomfortable and sometimes the facts are biased towards one side, but they are still facts.

 

[tonyget]

Well, then, if this is true, it would hurt China.

It actually helps in relieving China's domestic inflation and housing bubble

 

[Globenim]

Sorry 'China exodus' myth has to wait..

First Chinese political collapse e from Japanese, Indian and U.S. approved "experts" from past 40 years has to happen.
Then Chinese economical collapse from Japanese, Indian and U.S. approved "experts" from past 20 years has to happen.
Your new 'fact' seeking and 'objective' Chinese exodus report from 'experts' has to wait in line after all the other China bashing propaganda.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

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.

This speculation about "expected number of billionaires" doesn't make any sense. What does the number of existing billionaires, and the growth of their wealth, have to do with the number of new billionaires created every year, and the growth of their wealth?

Also, where did you get the calculation of 30% of billionaires leaving every year, as opposed to a cumulative 30% of a particular cohort of billionaires leaving?

Yeah. I get that its the minimum benchmark for those who are emigrating. But I was talking about those who were emigrating with just this much.

I was just wondering from a lifestyle point of view. That $1.6 million is not sufficient for a decent lifestyle and assured income in the US/Canada

Generally rich Indians(Chinese as well) tend to invest in property for their assured incomes. $1.6 million worth of property is not going to fetch them enough in US and Canada to have a good lifestyle.

Again, these are my assumptions. Let me know if I am wrong.

Moreover, $500,000 must be invested in a business, and the business must employ at least 10 full-time employees within 2 years. $1.6mm isn't going to cut it to reach these requirements, let alone achieve this and provide a good standard of living for the immigrant, especially if he has a family.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

In the case that if these individuals were coming with only that set amount, then yes. They may not be considered "rich" in the United States , but upper middle class.

If they were to come to the United States with this said amount, they could still make do. An average 3-4 bedroom house in the United States in the East Coast (at a decent neighborhood) will cost any where between $250-300k. So if we subtract that from $1.6 million, they still will have $1,300,000. Let's say they invest in a restaurant business -- that will probably cost them around $300,000. That leaves them with $1,000,000 with liquid capital. They could do well to buy property and rent it out, or they can invest that capital in bonds, in the market.

The opportunities is still there for them.



Well, then, if this is true, it would hurt China.

The visa doesn't work that way. $500k must be invested in a business, and the business must employ 10 full time employees within 2 years. $1.6mm is not going to be able to achieve that and also a comfortable lifestyle for the investor, especially if he has a family. This visa will only appeal to (and be viable for) those with significantly more wealth.