NationStates Jolt Archive


Voting with the feet: how popular is your country?

West Spartiala
20-01-2007, 06:44
I found out recently that the CIA World Factbook (https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html) keeps tabs on the net migration rates of various countries. Net migration is the number of people entering the country minus the number of people leaving the country for every 1000 residents of the country. Now, it seems to me that this might make a pretty good indicator for how good the standards of living are within a country; after all, if more people are coming in than going out, surely the nation must be doing something right.

Unfortunately, the CIA doesn't seem to have a ranking page for net migration, so you have to go to each individual country's page in order to see what its net migration is. I checked out the figures for a few of the countries that I personally would be most comfortable living in, and here's what I got:


Net migration rate (per 1000)
Canada 5.85
Iceland 4.89
Ireland 4.87
Australia 3.85
NZ 3.63
US 3.18
Switzerland 3.12
Netherlands 2.72
UK 2.18
Germany 2.18
Austria 1.94
Iceland 1.74
Norway 1.73
Sweden 1.66
Belgium 1.22
Finland 0.84
France 0.35
Japan 0
S. Korea 0


For some reason, Japan and South Korea (along with a few other nations I looked at) reported net migration of 0. I would almost think this means there is no data available for these nations, but why they wouldn't have just reported N/A is beyond me.

It should go without saying that this isn't a perfect indicator, since sometimes people will choose to emigrate to a nation based on factors like how close it is to them or how similar its culture is to their own rather than on more objective criteria. As an example of this, Afghanistan is listed as having a net migration rate of 0.42/1000. I don't know why this is, but I am reasonably sure that this doesn't mean Afghanistan has a higher standard of living than France.

At any rate, I'm happy to see Canada (my home country) on top of the chart, and I'd like to hear what everyone else things of this ranking system.
UnHoly Smite
20-01-2007, 06:54
Japan has a history of creating a false sense of a 100% homogenous country..or atleast as close as they can get to it. I still think they don't acknowledge all of their minorities. But those numbers seem odd, Germany should be higher, and I am not sure Canada's population goes up enough to justify that high a immigration rate. Why is iceland there twice?
The South Islands
20-01-2007, 07:04
Did they only count legal immigration?
Socialist Pyrates
20-01-2007, 07:42
Japan has a history of creating a false sense of a 100% homogenous country..or atleast as close as they can get to it. I still think they don't acknowledge all of their minorities. But those numbers seem odd, Germany should be higher, and I am not sure Canada's population goes up enough to justify that high a immigration rate. Why is iceland there twice?

Canada's population would be less than ZPG, if it were not for immigration the population would be falling.

Canada accepts more immigrants per capita than any other western country and will soon raise the amount of immigrants from 1% to 1.5% per year.

The USA immigration including illegals is at .5%.
Laerod
20-01-2007, 08:58
Net migration rate (per 1000)
Canada 5.85
Iceland 4.89
Ireland 4.87
Australia 3.85
NZ 3.63
US 3.18
Switzerland 3.12
Netherlands 2.72
UK 2.18
Germany 2.18
Austria 1.94
Iceland 1.74
Norway 1.73
Sweden 1.66
Belgium 1.22
Finland 0.84
France 0.35
Japan 0
S. Korea 0
Your chart is wrong.
UnHoly Smite
20-01-2007, 09:00
Your chart is wrong.


I already pointed that out. :rolleyes:
Laerod
20-01-2007, 09:02
I already pointed that out. :rolleyes:You weren't obvious enough about it ;)
UnHoly Smite
20-01-2007, 09:07
You weren't obvious enough about it ;)


I didn't feel like it. :p
The Infinite Dunes
20-01-2007, 11:46
Unfortunately, the CIA doesn't seem to have a ranking page for net migration, so you have to go to each individual country's page in order to see what its net migration is.

For some reason, Japan and South Korea (along with a few other nations I looked at) reported net migration of 0. I would almost think this means there is no data available for these nations, but why they wouldn't have just reported N/A is beyond me.

It should go without saying that this isn't a perfect indicator, since sometimes people will choose to emigrate to a nation based on factors like how close it is to them or how similar its culture is to their own rather than on more objective criteria. As an example of this, Afghanistan is listed as having a net migration rate of 0.42/1000. I don't know why this is, but I am reasonably sure that this doesn't mean Afghanistan has a higher standard of living than France.

At any rate, I'm happy to see Canada (my home country) on top of the chart, and I'd like to hear what everyone else things of this ranking system.Oh my... you have completely misunderstood these figures. Go read the definition they give for net migration...
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/docs/notesanddefs.html#2112
This entry includes the figure for the difference between the number of persons entering and leaving a country during the year per 1,000 persons (based on midyear population). An excess of persons entering the country is referred to as net immigration (e.g., 3.56 migrants/1,000 population); an excess of persons leaving the country as net emigration (e.g., -9.26 migrants/1,000 population). The net migration rate indicates the contribution of migration to the overall level of population change. High levels of migration can cause problems such as increasing unemployment and potential ethnic strife (if people are coming in) or a reduction in the labor force, perhaps in certain key sectors (if people are leaving).Ergo a figure of 0 means that there was no net migration. But it could be that 10ppl/1000 left the country and 10ppl/1000 entered the country.
Proggresica
20-01-2007, 12:33
<snip>

If you want to measure standard of living and the like, I suggest using the HDI. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index)
Swilatia
20-01-2007, 13:03
i don't trust the CIA factbook for finding out anything about a country besides whether or not it exists.
Whereyouthinkyougoing
20-01-2007, 15:56
Oh my... you have completely misunderstood these figures. Go read the definition they give for net migration...
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/docs/notesanddefs.html#2112


Ergo a figure of 0 means that there was no net migration. But it could be that 10ppl/1000 left the country and 10ppl/1000 entered the country.^ what he said
Chamoi
20-01-2007, 16:02
Did they only count legal immigration?

How exactly do you count illegal Immigration?
The Blaatschapen
20-01-2007, 16:04
but I am reasonably sure that this doesn't mean Afghanistan has a higher standard of living than France.

Ever been to France? ;)
Whereyouthinkyougoing
20-01-2007, 16:06
Ever been to France? ;)
That's why they drink so much wine. To forget. :p
The Infinite Dunes
20-01-2007, 16:06
That's why they drink so much wine. To forget. :pforget what? *hic*
West Spartiala
21-01-2007, 07:57
Why is iceland there twice?

My mistake. Iceland has a net migration rate of 1.74 per 1000. The other figure must belong to another country whose name got deleted by me copying and pasting the information.

Oh my... you have completely misunderstood these figures. Go read the definition they give for net migration...

Ergo a figure of 0 means that there was no net migration. But it could be that 10ppl/1000 left the country and 10ppl/1000 entered the country.

I said Net migration is the number of people entering the country minus the number of people leaving the country for every 1000 residents of the country. That pretty much says exactly the same thing as the CIA's own definition.

As to the bit about high migration rates (in either the positive or negative direction) potentially causing social problems, I never claimed otherwise. I simply stated that the net number of people entering a country might indicate how popular it is.

You seem to have completely misunderstood my post.

i don't trust the CIA factbook for finding out anything about a country besides whether or not it exists.

Any suggestions for a better source?
Andaras Prime
21-01-2007, 08:02
Wow Australia is up there, what a great example of multicultural integration we are.:) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Cronulla_riots)
The South Islands
21-01-2007, 08:08
How exactly do you count illegal Immigration?

One can estimate.
UnHoly Smite
21-01-2007, 08:22
Wow Australia is up there, what a great example of multicultural integration we are.:) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Cronulla_riots)


What a good day.....:D
Andaras Prime
21-01-2007, 08:26
LOL
--------------
Wow New Zealand is in there, another example of Johnny Foriegner getting Dole Checks.

Hey, you watching the cricket?
Hehehehe:)
Harlesburg
21-01-2007, 08:28
Your chart is wrong.
LOL
--------------
Wow New Zealand is in there, another example of Johnny Foriegner getting Dole Checks.
Harlesburg
21-01-2007, 12:18
Hey, you watching the cricket?
Hehehehe:)
Yes i have been, i am not ammused.
The Pacifist Womble
21-01-2007, 12:26
As an example of this, Afghanistan is listed as having a net migration rate of 0.42/1000. I don't know why this is, but I am reasonably sure that this doesn't mean Afghanistan has a higher standard of living than France.
Afghanistan has all those warriors of Allah flooding in from Pakistan.
NERVUN
21-01-2007, 12:35
For some reason, Japan and South Korea (along with a few other nations I looked at) reported net migration of 0. I would almost think this means there is no data available for these nations, but why they wouldn't have just reported N/A is beyond me.
Simple, Japan allows very few immigrants in and most Japanese never immigrate out. It probably ends up balancing out then.
Chamoi
21-01-2007, 13:39
One can estimate.

How exactly?

That's the thing with it being Illegal, the authorities do not know...of course most states have boarder police and they do stop Illegals from time to time, but trying to estimate the size of the problem from that data is impossible...
Nobel Hobos
21-01-2007, 13:57
i don't trust the CIA factbook for finding out anything about a country besides whether or not it exists.

They don't have Sealand listed, so I'm not sure I'd trust them for that either.

I like how they encrypt everything, though, even their front page. Bit of a hint for the rest of us ...
United Beleriand
21-01-2007, 14:03
Afghanistan has all those warriors of Allah flooding in from Pakistan.i thought they came from the US...
[NS::::]Olmedreca
21-01-2007, 15:39
Now, it seems to me that this might make a pretty good indicator for how good the standards of living are within a country...

No. It only shows how much immigrants that country allows in. Japan doesn't allow any serious immigration but that doesn't mean that Japan would have bad standards of living.
Swilatia
21-01-2007, 17:36
They don't have Sealand listed, so I'm not sure I'd trust them for that either.

yes. they don't list the warsaw sith base either.
Nobel Hobos
21-01-2007, 18:44
yes. they don't list the warsaw sith base either.

With the greatest appropriate respect, the Warsaw Sith Base appears to only be recognized by Google as an invention of one Jolt user, someone called Swilatia. Whereas Sealand is recognized formally or de jure by several European nations.

Acknowledging that Google is not impartial, and not wanting to mess with the Sith, but ... are you taking the piss here?

EDIT: Actually, Google cites NERVUN, but anyway.
Johnny B Goode
21-01-2007, 18:47
I found out recently that the CIA World Factbook (https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html) keeps tabs on the net migration rates of various countries. Net migration is the number of people entering the country minus the number of people leaving the country for every 1000 residents of the country. Now, it seems to me that this might make a pretty good indicator for how good the standards of living are within a country; after all, if more people are coming in than going out, surely the nation must be doing something right.

Unfortunately, the CIA doesn't seem to have a ranking page for net migration, so you have to go to each individual country's page in order to see what its net migration is. I checked out the figures for a few of the countries that I personally would be most comfortable living in, and here's what I got:


Net migration rate (per 1000)
Canada 5.85
Iceland 4.89
Ireland 4.87
Australia 3.85
NZ 3.63
US 3.18
Switzerland 3.12
Netherlands 2.72
UK 2.18
Germany 2.18
Austria 1.94
Iceland 1.74
Norway 1.73
Sweden 1.66
Belgium 1.22
Finland 0.84
France 0.35
Japan 0
S. Korea 0


For some reason, Japan and South Korea (along with a few other nations I looked at) reported net migration of 0. I would almost think this means there is no data available for these nations, but why they wouldn't have just reported N/A is beyond me.

It should go without saying that this isn't a perfect indicator, since sometimes people will choose to emigrate to a nation based on factors like how close it is to them or how similar its culture is to their own rather than on more objective criteria. As an example of this, Afghanistan is listed as having a net migration rate of 0.42/1000. I don't know why this is, but I am reasonably sure that this doesn't mean Afghanistan has a higher standard of living than France.

At any rate, I'm happy to see Canada (my home country) on top of the chart, and I'd like to hear what everyone else things of this ranking system.

As long as the Canadians don't lord it over us Americans, we'll all live. If this happens, George Bush and Paul Martin are probably gonna go to war.
NERVUN
22-01-2007, 02:15
EDIT: Actually, Google cites NERVUN, but anyway.
Google did wha..?
Rainbowwws
22-01-2007, 02:29
More cute immagrant boys to Canada plz kthxbai