The Great Chinese Exodus

[Obambam]

People need to chill, relax and look at this in the real perspective. Let's use America as example. Their 1% rich is richer than the rest of the country's population combined. Say 64% of that 1% travels, have plans to relocate abroad for work, study or for insurance purposes. Does that 64% of 1% get to represent the rest of the country and be the categorized as majority? For me, the title is extremely misleading.

If this report is purely based on the wealthy majority, then they have not seen nothing yet.

With a population of close to 1.4b, the real exodus will shock and awe the rest of the western world and floodgates will be rapidly be shutting.

China's Kraken is still at home. So no need to worry yourselves just yet.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

People need to chill, relax and look at this in the real perspective. Let's use America as example. Their 1% rich is richer than the rest of the country's population combined. Say 64% of that 1% travels, have plans to relocate abroad for work, study or for insurance purposes. Does that 64% of 1% get to represent the rest of the country and be the categorized as majority? For me, the title is extremely misleading.

If this report is purely based on the wealthy majority, then they have not seen nothing yet.

With a population of close to 1.4b, the real exodus will shock and awe the rest of the western world and floodgates will be rapidly be shutting.

China's Kraken is still at home. So no need to worry yourselves just yet.

Actually, the rest of the world is eager to attract wealthy Chinese (and wealthy Europeans, and wealthy South Americans, etc.). The difference is that while the US wants wealthy Chinese, China doesn't want wealthy Westerners. Other than that, the vitriol provoked by this article is difficult to understand.

 

[Aepsilons]

People need to chill, relax and look at this in the real perspective. Let's use America as example. Their 1% rich is richer than the rest of the country's population combined. Say 64% of that 1% travels, have plans to relocate abroad for work, study or for insurance purposes. Does that 64% of 1% get to represent the rest of the country and be the categorized as majority? For me, the title is extremely misleading.

If this report is purely based on the wealthy majority, then they have not seen nothing yet.

With a population of close to 1.4b, the real exodus will shock and awe the rest of the western world and floodgates will be rapidly be shutting.

China's Kraken is still at home. So no need to worry yourselves just yet.

As i said in my earlier posts in this thread -- I don't think the author is trying to paint the Chinese millionaires who deign to express an intent to migrate to the West as a bad thing. The author cites environmental as well as social catalysts for their decision, and cite the opportunities in the West. In all honesty, im actually in the position that there are countries in the West who are keen to taking them in, per se, the United States and Australia to list a few.

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.

If I may infer. The article isn't saying, at all, that the migration of China's "rich" would cause the collapse of China. The article merely reiterates the findings of the Hurun Report Report 2014. And like what I said in my earlier and previous posts , the statistical reference was taken from an actual report, in this case from the Hurun Report.

Some of the key findings by the Hurun Report 2014 include the following:

• Overall spending by the Chinese high net worth down 15% on last year, whilst spending on gift-giving down a dramatic 25%.

• China’s high net worth individuals (HNWIs) busier than ever, on business trips 8 days a month, up one day on last year. Time for leisure dropped by 20%.

• Average Chinese millionaire took 7.5 days holiday last year.

• The Hurun China Business Confidence Index, an index measuring the confidence in the economy going forward two years, rose for the first time in five years: 3 out of 10 are highly confident in the economy going forward.

• 64% emigrating, or planning to do so, up from 60%, mainly as a result of one third of super-rich now already emigrated.

• Collecting: Watch collecting overtaken for the first time in five years, by traditional Chinese ink painting collecting.

• 28.7% prefer UK as destination to educate children at high school level, slightly ahead of the US at 26%.

• 36% favour US for undergraduate and above education

Methodology

Between June and December 2013, the Hurun Research Institute, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hurun Report Inc, surveyed 393 Mainland Chinese ‘millionaires’, defined as individuals with a personal wealth of RMB 10 million (equivalent to USD 1.6 million / Euro 1.2 million / GBP 1 million). Amongst them were 69 super-rich individuals with wealth of RMB 100 million (USD 16 million / Euro 12 million / GBP 10 million). Their average age was 38 years (39 among the super-rich band); the ratio of men to women surveyed was 6:4. Respondents were from 23 first and second tier cities. The Hurun Research Institute has carried out this survey now for 10 years running, making this the largest and most authoritative survey of its kind in China.


Reference:
胡润百富 - www.hurun.net


@LeveragedBuyout , @JSCh , @Obambam , @Okemos

 

[Aepsilons]

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.

A very good point, @LeveragedBuyout . Those that the United States will be giving the so called "wealth" visas will definitely be part of the upper quartile of Chinese rich expressing desires to migrate abroad. Its also interesting that in the Hurun Report 2014, it shows that 1/3rd of China's super rich have already moved abroad. I'm assuming, with great confidence, that this ordinal scalar measurement refers to the Chinese with assets over 5 million USD.

 

[jkroo]

A recent report showed that 64% of China's rich are either migrating overseas or have plans to leave the country.

64% emigrating, or planning to do so, up from 60%, mainly as a result of one third of super-rich now already emigrated.

Fabricated patterns for misleading or serious comprehension problems founded. The funniest thing is the people (super super rich) are listed in Hurun China index thoroughly have the same nationality - China. Please inform me when these guys change his/her nationality. Thanks.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Actually, the rest of the world is eager to attract wealthy Chinese (and wealthy Europeans, and wealthy South Americans, etc.). The difference is that while the US wants wealthy Chinese, China doesn't want wealthy Westerners. Other than that, the vitriol provoked by this article is difficult to understand.

You mistake disagreeing with you as vitriol. Is that because you think that Chinese people have to agree with everything a you say, otherwise, they're aggressive brainwashed nationalists? If so, stop now.

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?

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.

The expected number of billionaires is a rough estimate driven by a few assumptions. These assumptions simplify the problem, but make it easy to get a rough order of magnitude change in the number of billionaires. In particular, it should be able to say whether the number of billionaires is increasing or decreasing.

The assumptions follow as such: 30% of all wealthy chinese leave each year. I didn't bother looking it up since I hear something close to this all the time but it is very close (27% leave each year). Why China's Rich Want to Leave - The Atlantic

1. Billionaire number is directly proportional to total GDP in most countries.
2. Economic growth increases the number of billionaires.
3. Mobility increases with increasing wealth; the percentage of wealthy leaving should actually be disproportionately skewed towards the more wealthy i.e. billionaires.
4. It is not a particular cohort of billionaires because the article does not say that it is any particular cohort. And why would only a certain subset of billionaires emigrate but not another?
5. It doesn't even matter if I get the details wrong because clearly the number of billionaires should not be increasing if the article was even close to true, since it is almost impossible to become a billionaire without first being a millionaire for a long time and the millionaires have already left.

As i said in my earlier posts in this thread -- I don't think the author is trying to paint the Chinese millionaires who deign to express an intent to migrate to the West as a bad thing. The author cites environmental as well as social catalysts for their decision, and cite the opportunities in the West. In all honesty, im actually in the position that there are countries in the West who are keen to taking them in, per se, the United States and Australia to list a few.



If I may infer. The article isn't saying, at all, that the migration of China's "rich" would cause the collapse of China. The article merely reiterates the findings of the Hurun Report Report 2014. And like what I said in my earlier and previous posts , the statistical reference was taken from an actual report, in this case from the Hurun Report.

Some of the key findings by the Hurun Report 2014 include the following:

• Overall spending by the Chinese high net worth down 15% on last year, whilst spending on gift-giving down a dramatic 25%.

• China’s high net worth individuals (HNWIs) busier than ever, on business trips 8 days a month, up one day on last year. Time for leisure dropped by 20%.

• Average Chinese millionaire took 7.5 days holiday last year.

• The Hurun China Business Confidence Index, an index measuring the confidence in the economy going forward two years, rose for the first time in five years: 3 out of 10 are highly confident in the economy going forward.

• 64% emigrating, or planning to do so, up from 60%, mainly as a result of one third of super-rich now already emigrated.

• Collecting: Watch collecting overtaken for the first time in five years, by traditional Chinese ink painting collecting.

• 28.7% prefer UK as destination to educate children at high school level, slightly ahead of the US at 26%.

• 36% favour US for undergraduate and above education

Methodology

Between June and December 2013, the Hurun Research Institute, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hurun Report Inc, surveyed 393 Mainland Chinese ‘millionaires’, defined as individuals with a personal wealth of RMB 10 million (equivalent to USD 1.6 million / Euro 1.2 million / GBP 1 million). Amongst them were 69 super-rich individuals with wealth of RMB 100 million (USD 16 million / Euro 12 million / GBP 10 million). Their average age was 38 years (39 among the super-rich band); the ratio of men to women surveyed was 6:4. Respondents were from 23 first and second tier cities. The Hurun Research Institute has carried out this survey now for 10 years running, making this the largest and most authoritative survey of its kind in China.


Reference:
胡润百富 - www.hurun.net


@LeveragedBuyout , @JSCh , @Obambam , @Okemos

Hurun's report is very doubtable due to their sampling methods covering 393 "high net worth individuals" yet none of them include a sitting billionaire. What is interesting is that the sample number is in the same order of magnitude size as the billionaire count, yet the spread in surveyed asset value ranges an orders of magnitude from a dollar millionaire to dollar 10 millionaires. This is made even more inaccurate by the fact that the actual possible spread of assets that represent potential emigrants goes from 0.5 million to 1000+ million USD, a range of over 3 orders of magnitude, while their survey covered mostly the lower end.

Again, the question is, if their survey is true, why are there 1.) more billionaires in the list and 2.) the same billionaires from last year still appear on the list without changing their residence

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

You mistake disagreeing with you as vitriol. Is that because you think that Chinese people have to agree with everything a you say, otherwise, they're aggressive brainwashed nationalists? If so, stop now.

Let me help you by teaching you a word you are clearly unfamiliar with:

Vitriol
speech, writing, etc, displaying rancour, vituperation, or bitterness
Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 2012 Digital Edition

Here are examples of vitriol:
my2cents: Just BS article.
karan21: I am calling BS on this article.
Beast: So this is another BS article.
Okemos: Gosh, those writers should really check the readily available data before publishing stupid articles.
JSCh: It is just an excuse to take a dig at China.
Okemos: I used to believe in and welcomed your objectivity, but you are becoming more and more a disappointment.
FairAndUnbiased: Nihonjin, you are intellectually dishonest.... If that is what you think, perhaps your psychology degree needs some remedial math requirements.

I could go on, but I proved my point. I never asked for agreement, and never accused any who disagreed of being brainwashed nationalists. Just ask your imaginary straw man friend, he will confirm that he's the one who said those things, not me.

The expected number of billionaires is a rough estimate driven by a few assumptions. These assumptions simplify the problem, but make it easy to get a rough order of magnitude change in the number of billionaires. In particular, it should be able to say whether the number of billionaires is increasing or decreasing.

The assumptions follow as such: 30% of all wealthy chinese leave each year. I didn't bother looking it up since I hear something close to this all the time but it is very close (27% leave each year). Why China's Rich Want to Leave - The Atlantic

1. Billionaire number is directly proportional to total GDP in most countries.
2. Economic growth increases the number of billionaires.
3. Mobility increases with increasing wealth; the percentage of wealthy leaving should actually be disproportionately skewed towards the more wealthy i.e. billionaires.
4. It is not a particular cohort of billionaires because the article does not say that it is any particular cohort. And why would only a certain subset of billionaires emigrate but not another?
5. It doesn't even matter if I get the details wrong because clearly the number of billionaires should not be increasing if the article was even close to true, since it is almost impossible to become a billionaire without first being a millionaire for a long time and the millionaires have already left.

Sadly, I don't even need to waste any brain power dismantling your argument after the first line. Here is the item in question from "The Atlantic":

"Among those mainland business owners who possess over 100 million RMB (about $16 million), 27 percent have already emigrated, while another 47 percent are considering emigrating."

27 percent of an existing cohort at the time the article was written have already left. Not 27 percent leaving every year. Your assumptions are wrong, your conclusions are wrong, and your vitriol is unjustified. I can only speculate as to the reasons, but let's take another operative sentence from that "The Atlantic" article:

"This wave of emigration has left a bitter taste in the mouths of some who cannot leave."

On a more serious note, it's a wonder that some Chinese users here have such a thin skin. Every comment on China manages to pierce the thin layer of confidence of some users, and display the core of victim-hood and grievance lurking below. Isn't it about time that you received these articles without descending into a hysterical state? China's a great power now, please act like it.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Let me help you by teaching you a word you are clearly unfamiliar with:

Vitriol
speech, writing, etc, displaying rancour, vituperation, or bitterness

FairAndUnbiased: Nihonjin, you are intellectually dishonest.... If that is what you think, perhaps your psychology degree needs some remedial math requirements.

That is not vitriol. It is a fact; if someone is being intellectually dishonest, I call them out. This is not a slander or attack on their characters, it is disagreeing with their ideas. Gambit uses the same terms. Why do you not call him out on vitriol towards Chinese members?

For your other points: Since 4 years ago, the same thing about "mass exodus of the rich" has been repeated. Look at the comments:

Rich Chinese Flee to Avoid Taxes, Anger - The Wealth Report - WSJ

It is not talking about a single cohort. I also have read the original Hurun reports years ago, and the percentages are about the same as now.

LOL at thinking that this has to do with confidence. You are not confident enough to come to your own conclusions and rely on the reports of others. If you were confident, then you would not be attacking me. I am confident enough to use my brain and come to my own conclusions.

 

[XenoEnsi-14]

To keep ourselves pure, undesirables are pushed out.

You only make yourself undesirable that way.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

That is not vitriol. It is a fact; if someone is being intellectually dishonest, I call them out. This is not a slander or attack on their characters, it is disagreeing with their ideas. Gambit uses the same terms. Why do you not call him out on vitriol towards Chinese members?

For your other points: Since 4 years ago, the same thing about "mass exodus of the rich" has been repeated. Look at the comments:

Rich Chinese Flee to Avoid Taxes, Anger - The Wealth Report - WSJ

It is not talking about a single cohort. I also have read the original Hurun reports years ago, and the percentages are about the same as now.

LOL at thinking that this has to do with confidence. You are not confident enough to come to your own conclusions and rely on the reports of others. If you were confident, then you would not be attacking me. I am confident enough to use my brain and come to my own conclusions.

I don't call out Gambit simply because my paths have rarely crossed with Gambit. I think I have posted on fewer than 10 threads that he's also posted on. That, and defense issues are not my forte, so I am not in a position to contradict him.

As far as the WSJ article, it simply proves that the migration of Chinese is a continuing phenomenon. Nothing indicates that those who had migrated by the time that article was written in 2010 were not included in the 27% mentioned in the 2013 The Atlantic article.

Confidence: an insecure commenter (and one lacking in intellectual curiosity) sees an article about migrating citizens and replies, "lies and propaganda!" or "screw all of these other countries to which the citizens are migrating."

A confident (and introspective) commenter sees such an article and thinks, "there might be truth in this. If so, what is causing this phenomenon, and what can we do to reverse it?" For a direct comparison, see the thread about thousands of US citizens renouncing their citizenship because of FATCA/FBAR for an example of this.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

As far as the WSJ article, it simply proves that the migration of Chinese is a continuing phenomenon. Nothing indicates that those who had migrated by the time that article was written in 2010 were not included in the 27% mentioned in the 2013 The Atlantic article.

Confidence: an insecure commenter (and one lacking in intellectual curiosity) sees an article about migrating citizens and replies, "lies and propaganda!" or "screw all of these other countries to which the citizens are migrating."

A confident (and introspective) commenter sees such an article and thinks, "there might be truth in this. If so, what is causing this phenomenon, and what can we do to reverse it?".

I had already addressed many of these issues:

1. there is not a large net outflow of Chinese compared to other countries as a percentage of population, and even in absolute numbers is not top 3.

2. Why not survery South Korean or Filipino rich to see if they are emigrating or not? These surveys exist and yet are not being published for a certain reason. Maybe the net emigration rate of Chinese rich is not so different than other Asian rich? In the lack of this data, all we can use is public data, such as the list of billionaires.

3. I have never said a single negative thing about any other country.

Show me where I have said a single bad thing about any country or where I have said it was lies and propaganda and not merely inaccurate or misunderstood. Indeed, the "100 million" statistic in the ending paragraph indicates severe misunderstanding of what a migrant is. I don't need to discuss this because these are not official statistics, which is different from the US case. I also don't care if it is partially accurate; if you published a journal paper, and it was only half right, it gets junked and if you are at a company and your reports are only right half the time, you are fired. Any inaccuracies in the article call question to its entire validity.