From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: US as No. 1 (3 data books)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 15:46:31 GMT

In article <CINDY.93Jan24141023@solan10.solan.unit.no> cindy@solan10.solan.unit.no (Cynthia Kandolf) writes:
>
>I'd like to make some observations here... i suppose i'm going to step
>on some toes, which is definitely not my intention, but which is
>probably inevitable. 

join the club... :^)

>Furthermore, a person's needs, desires, and priorities are subject to
>change over time.  What seems wonderful when one is a young college
>student may not be as welcome when one is older and has a job, family,
>and other responsibilities.  These changes can affect their beliefs
>about the best place for them to live.  A country also changes with
>time.  New leaders, changing population, and changing opportunities
>may make a country seem like more or less of an attractive place for
>an individual.

agreed. and all of these factors are boiled down into life decisions
such as where to live.

>Another point to consider is that no one country is "No. 1" in all
>areas, or even in all areas you might consider important.  
>
>Therefore, bandying around statistics to "prove" that your country of
>choice is somehow better than my country of choice or Mr. X's country
>of choice is pointless and rather silly (IMHO).  Your facts, accurate
>or not, are not likely to change my needs, desires, and priorities.
>What you "require" in a country may not even be relevant to Mr. X.

but the "facts" might help you realize that there might be a better
fit to your needs about which you were previously not aware. i agree
that a general "we're #1" is rather useless at doing that, though.
it has to include reasons and qualifications.

>I find both sides of the "who has the largest immigration rate" debate
>to be silly.  Immigration rate is dependent on a number of factors,
>not all of which have to do with anything that could be called
>"desirability".  Therefore, the immigration rate of Canada by itself
>is even less useful than other statistics mentioned - and the claims
>that "total number is more important than per capita rate" or "illegal
>immigration should be counted in the rate" are also not useful, and
>end up as irrelevant commentaries to an irrelevant statistic.

what are these factors other than desirability? to me, i see net
immigration (i.e. minus emigration) as a very reasonable collective
representation of the total factors determining where people want to live.
it is a "market expression" -- people putting their "money where their
mouths are". what could be a better way of looking at the question
of "where is it best to live"?

the only problem with the argument about absolute numbers vs. per
capita rate is that the existing population, to some extent, determines
the ability of the country to absorb new immigrants.

>That's really all i had to say.  If you are happy where you are, then
>consider yourself lucky - but don't try to convince me i would be
>happier there!

life is about seeking improvement. if you don't want to improve,
or you think that where you are is as good as it gets for you, then
that's fine. i personally think that discussion about what may be
better than something else (including how it is better, and why)
is useful.

p.s. what a strange language we have. why is immigration spelled with
     two "m"s and emigration with one? i'll never figure out English.
--
charles
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa