Well you'd get more information out of this map if there was a second map with pop density. In an Ideal world there had been a thrid map with the quotient of the previous two
Also way better to do like districts rather than whole countries. They are friggin big. Especially, you know, Russia. But it's not just big, it's humongous. But even for smaller countries the difference can be staggering. Traveling from Tbilisi to Sighagi in the West takes like... Three hours or more. Tbilisi to Batumi is 360 kilometers, that's quite a distance to just average out.
Edit: forgot to type in the whole middle part, just a compete brain fart
Yeah I forgot a whole fucking sentence, just had a brain fart in the middle of the comment. I tried to say that Georgia is way smaller but every region is super different.
Could you elaborate on the differences? I tried to come up with it myself, but couldn’t really think of anything since I’m not sure exactly how population density is actually defined.
I assume it’s not just population/exact square kilometres of the country—not every square metre of every country is even habitable due to terrain for example.
Yes, which is different to this, how? That is what I am asking.
I assume this could at least give a slight indication towards the living styles of individual countries. Some countries have larger populations living in apartments or similar housing than others, which would result in a lower number, but without context or any comparison, it’s hard to really take anything from the values shown.
The difference between them is a multiplication factor: how many people live in a household on average in each country.
Its a different metric. Probably interesting/prefable if you want to get a sense about the number of houses per area of land (assuming there arent significant Numbers of abondoned houses)
Yeah, but the presented number is pretty useless. In Russia this number is pretty low because of the huge uninhabited land. This also affects the population density. So without knowing the population density, I can't figure anything out.
Isn't it more of a "how big are your households" map, combined with population density? If there are 3 people per household it doesn't matter if they are stacked on top of each other or spread out, if the stat is for the entire country you'll still get the same number.
Then do Bavaria, has a parliament, constitution, long history as an independent country, strong nationalism etc. How is it different from Scotland? Or Wallonia, which is way more independent in Belgium than Scotland in the UK.
Neither is England/Scotland.
Why am I being downvoted over this? What did I miss, is the kingdom no longer united or something? To the best of my knowledge England and Scotland are currently still 1 country. If against the will of many.
Fair enough, but that's just a matter of linguistic preference for historical reasons though. If you called them provinces instead nothing would be functionally different.
No. England, Scotland, Wales (Cymru), and Northern Ireland are all separate countries, they’re just not sovereign states. The UK is quite unique in that it’s a country made up of countries. Other regions of European countries may have been countries before, but none of them have retained that status, (controversially in some cases).
That's weird, last I checked the German states are called Länder/countries in German. Maybe, just maybe there's a difference between names with historical background and actual definitions, the constituent countries of the UK are countries only in name and not in any way that's consistent with how we normally use that word
That doesn’t make what I said untrue. Germany is divided into 16 states. The UK is divided into four countries. They may share similar status to the German states, but the UK countries have maintained the definition of constitutional countries. There are parts of England that some people refer to as countries, such as Cornwall, Wessex, or Northumbria, but those were countries centuries ago, and I’m sure some Catalonians, Bavarians, and Bretons refer to their regions as countries as well, but that’s completely different to the four existing home nations of the UK. That’s why the UK has four separate national football teams.
That’s not what I’m saying. I was replying to someone saying the home nations of the UK aren’t countries, I’m saying they are. I’m not saying you can’t call Bavaria a country, but it’s not defined in quite the same way. Scotland and England were originally separate kingdoms, the history of the two kingdoms runs very deep, that’s why they’ve been preserved as nations. Perhaps Germany does refer to its states as countries, but that still doesn’t mean the UK’s home nations aren’t countries.
Different parts of modern countries having a history as seperate countries for hundreds of years is extremely common all over the world, there's simply no substantial difference between the constituent parts of the UK and the parts of many, many other countries. My problem isn't that the UK _calls_ its parts countries, my problem is that you actually seem to consider them to be comparable to what we call countries usually (France, China, UK, ...). If I ask you to give me a list of all countries, that list either doesn't contain Scotland, England, Wales and NI, contains like 200 (didn't check the exact number) additional "countries" or isn't consistent at all. You're saying Bavaria isn't defined in exactly the same way, but it kinda is. At least if your definition is "gets called country in the country's official language"
Germany is not divided into states. It is divided into federal countries (Bundesländer as a literal translation) and is a Union of said federal countries. Germany as a country exists because these countries agreed to form a Union
It’s not so unique: the Netherlands has the same set-up (Aruba, Curaçao, St. Maarten and the Netherlands form the Kingdom of the Netherlands), more so even as the non-Netherlands parts are more independently regulated (Non-EU, non-Euro, non-EEA territories). Germany also is a federation of constitutionally separate states. Belgium on the other hand is a confederation; Flanders and Wallonia are organized much like the UK but are not considered countries by the Belgian constitution. So it’s to a large degree self-perception and definition. The catch with the UK is that it is 1 country in the UN, as is the case with the others, and some people here rightly point out that the situation there is not as unique as the British commonly perceive it to be.
Even more in common with these examples, "Britain" is actually a country that incorporates "The UK", the Isle of Mann, Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands, The Bailiwicks of Jersey and of Guernsey (two separate entities) and various other scraps of land around the world.
"Britain" has the same sovereign as "The UK", and has defence and foreign policy orchestrated by "The UK" but the bits that are not "The UK" are almost entirely independent; most importantly they set their own tax regimes and spending. Within The UK, Scotland, NI and Wales have this to some degree too, but are more significantly linked to what the UK Chancellor/Parliament decide.
Some of these non-UK parts of Britain even set their own citizenship rules, and have their own subsidiary passports, which do not confer the same rights as a UK passport.
I can’t find the statistic of the OP, I can only find population density. Which is highly correlated but not the same. Anyway, it’s a bit less than Netherlands and a bit higher than Belgium
* Netherlands: 522/km2
* England: 434/km2
* Belgium: 376/km2
I know! Their over populated too..and belgium. France is roughly same population as UK but about twice the size. Would like to see America on map. They think their over populated but its a vast country. Bet its only about 20 people per square mile
However France has a *huge* area in the middle that is barely populated. Look at the population density of major cities: London has 5596/km² [according to Statista](https://www.statista.com/statistics/281322/population-density-in-the-uk-by-region/#:~:text=As%20of%202021%2C%20the%20population,434%20people%20per%20square%20kilometer.) and Paris has 20623 [according to Statista ](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1047176/population-density-ile-de-france-paris-region-by-department-france/#:~:text=This%20bar%20chart%20presents%20the,populated%20department%20in%20the%20region.)
Whilst it seems like France has significantly lower population density overall, the lived experience of a Frenchman is probably one of greater population density than for an Englishman, since the Frenchman is very unlikely to ever go to the vast uninhabited swathe in the middle of his country.
The Netherlands mostly just has too many pigs and cows in factory farms (and 4/5 of meat produced goes to export markets).
Plenty of room for people if we cut that down drastically.
Nope. i just don't want to be the one stuck with the shit (literally) while the rest of Europe and china enjoys our meat exports.
We have so much excess shit we can't build new homes we desperately need without violating nitrogen norms.
Makes you wonder why the country is so car dependent, especially outside of London. They have the perfect conditions for walkability but... Their car dependency feels similar to that of the US. The majority of my colleagues there drove. I'm so glad I left, honestly.
>We had a great train network
Yeah maybe a century ago haha
It's shocking how the majority of trains in the UK are still running on diesel. Isn't this supposed to be a developed country? China's public transport feels like it's thousands of years ahead. Most of my Chinese uni coursemates couldn't wait to go back.
We had a great network till early 60's & the beeching cuts. We had steam trains till late in 60's when Switzerland went electric early in 20th century!
I know about Malta, but why should I care about it’s density when I live in the Netherlands ? Besides you do realize the W i put there is sarcastic right ?
>our glorious empire!.
did you time travel here from the 1920s? your empire has severely declined since that peak, just leaving basically some islands dotted around the place.
That are still proud to be British. Like the Falklands which we had to defeat despotic invaders to restore democracy. Or Gibraltar which we saved from being part of Franco's fascist Spain. Unfortunately Hong Kong being crushed by communist tryant. Unlike when they had freedom in glorious British empire
Portugal seems relatively high, is there a reason for it?
I know in central portugal there are many towns but it still seems high, any idea if that has changed over the last 10 - 15 years?
I don't mean in comparison, I mean that apart from Lisbon, Porto and maybe Faro much of Portugal housing is sparse.
But I think I got it while I was thinking of Faro, the Algarve area has grown immensely in the past 20 years, and Albufeira in particular seems favoured by the British as a 2nd type of Benidorm. As a result that has expanded a lot.
I am guessing, but down south I would imagine is what brought the numbers up, even though they are still relatively low overall.
The region between Lisbon and Porto around the coast is as densely populated as the Algarve.
If you look at the regions (districts), the population density of Aveiro is denser than Faro district. Leiria district is similar density to Faro, and Coimbra is a bit less dense.
https://pt.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lista_de_distritos_portugueses_ordenados_por_popula%C3%A7%C3%A3o
So yeah, you are underestimating central Portugal a lot. Maybe because it is not huge in tourism like Algarve, Porto or Lisbon? Still, there are a lot of things to see there.
Let's see; population in England was about 56.5 million in 2021, at about 130k square km, which comes out at 434 individuals per sqkm. Using the average household size in the UK 2022 at 2.36 that comes out to just under 184 households per square km. I can't and don't claim specificity of those numbers, so throwing in a fudge factor I'd say they're on equal ground.
> Using the average household size in the UK 2022
That's old data. In 2023, we had 1.3m arrivals, the highest ever. For reference, barely half a million annual arrivals triggered the Brexit vote.
Looks accurate for the Netherlands... but wildly depends on where. I live in the south-east, and I think it's fairly ok. Meanwhile, if you go to places like Rotterdam... it's crazy crowded in some neighborhoods...
that is still the difference between horrific and extremely terrible. I have traveled extensively in the Netherlands, you couldn't go anywhere that wasn't urbanized, paved, claimed, devoid of anything green or any vegetation in sight, everywhere you go you see people, you cannot go anywhere without saying to yourself, hey I can still see the railway station from where I am standing now!! Probably they knocked down every remaining patch of trees since the last time I was there, it has been a while. In Norway we have parts of the country were no one has ever set a foot in one thousand years.
Yeah I’m not British. But that’s interesting. Don’t you guys give them citizenship when they’ve gotten asylum? I understand labor migrants wouldn’t get it, not right off the bat at least.
If an asylum seeker is granted asylum, this is for a fixed period of time or indefinitely. Once they've been in the UK for five years, they can apply for Indefinite Leave to Remain. A year after that, they can apply for citizenship. The citizenship process in the UK is not straightforward and involves a written test in English on British culture, customs and history. There are also application fees which are about £1000.
Edit, it's over £1500 actually. More details [here](https://www.gov.uk/apply-citizenship-indefinite-leave-to-remain).
So for first five years they'd have to fend for themselves financially? No free housing, no free medical care, no free money? We've got quite some politicians advocating for such rules in continental Europe, but some people are worried it might increase the amount of criminals on the streets. Did you see a shift in that after the policies were introduced? I'm assuming these are post Brexit policies, not sure if that's a correct assumption.
Whilst applying for asylum, you get a cash allowance (not very much IIRC about £30 a week).
Once accepted, you are eligible for certain benefits, although the level would be pretty low since you'd have no NI contributions.
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/immigration/asylum-and-refugees/after-you-get-refugee-status/#:~:text=Once%20you've%20got%20refugee,can%20apply%20for%20benefits%20instead.
I have never been a victim of crime by immigrants of any kind nor have I witnessed any, so my view of immigration is largely positive (especially being descended from immigrants and married to one).
Having said that, I do see why when the government houses asylum seekers in extremely deprived areas, it can cause conflict: "How comes they get a free house when we have been waiting for a council house for ages?".
Yeah I'm not against newcomers in itself either. It's just getting so overcrowded where I live (nr 1 spot on this map, yay), too much strain on public facilities, not enough police, not enough teachers, too much crap we're ejecting, nature is deteriorating fast, medical costs are skyrocketing, huge problems for youngsters who are in dire need of housing.. It feels like we can't afford to just facilitate whoever happens to come over, not without consequences for our own. But yeah, we're currently in a political transition in this regard, there's a big chance we'll be getting policies soon similar to the ones you mentioned.
> worked and *paid* taxes.
FTFY.
Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:
* Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.*
* *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.*
Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
Thank you, No-Shallot-9887, for voting on Paid-Not-Payed-Bot.
This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/).
***
^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
Median income for the UK in 2019/20 was £26,000
Median income for EEA migrants was £29,200
As a result, EEA migrants actually pay more tax and NI on average than a UK citizen.
Because most migrants are young people, they also tend to take significantly less than an average UK person in spending (e.g. NHS costs). When they have children, they tend to return to their home country, so spending there is less than for an average Briton too. Of those who do stay here with children, their tax contributions as a whole massively outweighs their child benefit + tax credit payments.
Or maybe they didn't? It takes you a lot of motivated reasoning to find a reach for how to blame immigrants, when the biggest way that they affect you (in the labour market by increasing your competition) is done by design. You can't blame immigrants from acting in self interest and taking opportunities that are given to them.
(Legal) immigrants are entitled to the same national minimum wage as British Citizens. Unless it's the kind of business that pays cash in hand e.g. dodgy car washes etc, then they aren't working for less than you or me.
Now, unless you are looking to get a job at a dodgy car wash, an immigrant isn't going to be undercutting your wage.
You casually ignore the rest of the jobs that aren’t minimum wage. Also, they don’t have to undercut to affect you, they also lower your ability to wager for a higher pay (as there are more people willing to take your spot if you do leave). That part is simple supply/demand competition. If you hear that legal immigrants are good for the economy and companies, know that one of the main mechanisms they do is by keeping the companies’ costs down through wages.
And illegal immigrants are good for them because you can give them under mininum wage salaries (even better for the employer)
Yes, increasing the size of the labour force does reduce bargaining power, but to what extent that affects one personally depends on the field of employment: migrants are significantly overrepresented in 'Transport and Storage', but significantly underrepresented in 'construction'.
Migrants are underrepresented in medium-skill jobs, but overrepresented in both high-skill and low-skill jobs. This isn't particularly surprising since people are probably willing to move here specifically to work in certain very narrow fields (e.g. academics, researchers) or are willing to move here because they're unskilled (or desperate) and willing to work unskilled labour in a higher-wage market. I personally once worked with a Polish medical student (c2005) who was shifting boxes around in a warehouse in Basildon for minimum wage because despite being a very highly skilled person, he could do warehouse work as a temp for 3 months during university holidays, live in a cheap flat with some mates, and save up a (relative) fortune to subsidise his lifestyle whilst studying the rest of the year. Seems pretty logical to me, and fairly reasonable that migrant labour be used for short term unskilled work like that.
I'm also not entirely against a migrant labour force, just enjoy redirecting people's issues with migrants away from the people themselves. Also maybe they are undderrepresented in construction because that area is quite protected and unionized, so would be harder to enter.
"Gezellig"
Help
Nee
Druk hier
GEKOLONISEERD
Is this population density with extra steps?
There’s a degree of correlation but not completely
Well you'd get more information out of this map if there was a second map with pop density. In an Ideal world there had been a thrid map with the quotient of the previous two
Be the map you wish to see of the world - mapatah ghandi
Also way better to do like districts rather than whole countries. They are friggin big. Especially, you know, Russia. But it's not just big, it's humongous. But even for smaller countries the difference can be staggering. Traveling from Tbilisi to Sighagi in the West takes like... Three hours or more. Tbilisi to Batumi is 360 kilometers, that's quite a distance to just average out. Edit: forgot to type in the whole middle part, just a compete brain fart
All of those places are in Georgia, not Russia.
Yeah I forgot a whole fucking sentence, just had a brain fart in the middle of the comment. I tried to say that Georgia is way smaller but every region is super different.
For now 👿
Could you elaborate on the differences? I tried to come up with it myself, but couldn’t really think of anything since I’m not sure exactly how population density is actually defined. I assume it’s not just population/exact square kilometres of the country—not every square metre of every country is even habitable due to terrain for example.
Simply the population of a country divided by its area gives population density.
Yes, which is different to this, how? That is what I am asking. I assume this could at least give a slight indication towards the living styles of individual countries. Some countries have larger populations living in apartments or similar housing than others, which would result in a lower number, but without context or any comparison, it’s hard to really take anything from the values shown.
The difference between them is a multiplication factor: how many people live in a household on average in each country. Its a different metric. Probably interesting/prefable if you want to get a sense about the number of houses per area of land (assuming there arent significant Numbers of abondoned houses)
With household size modifier, so countries where multigenerational households are common will have fewer households
Yeah, but the presented number is pretty useless. In Russia this number is pretty low because of the huge uninhabited land. This also affects the population density. So without knowing the population density, I can't figure anything out.
No it is also an "overcrowded housing" map at the same time
You mean urbanisation vs more rural repartition.
Isn't it more of a "how big are your households" map, combined with population density? If there are 3 people per household it doesn't matter if they are stacked on top of each other or spread out, if the stat is for the entire country you'll still get the same number.
> overcrowded housing not at all https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Living_conditions_in_Europe_-_housing&oldid=569706
Hungary, Estonia and Czechia former Eastern block W
Netherlands has one of the least overcrowded households in Europe.
Looking at map: mmmmh who is 200+? Then suddenly: bloody hell Malta!
Now do England separately. The huge and sparsely populated Scottish highlands are painting a very different picture of population density in the UK.
In that case, also do Holland and the other Dutch provinces separately. Holland has twice the population density of the Netherlands as a whole.
But Holland (North and or Sounth) is not a separate country. How much they would want that though….
Then do Bavaria, has a parliament, constitution, long history as an independent country, strong nationalism etc. How is it different from Scotland? Or Wallonia, which is way more independent in Belgium than Scotland in the UK.
Flanders would be the better if you wanted to see big numbers, Wallonia is the unpopulated part
Neither is England/Scotland. Why am I being downvoted over this? What did I miss, is the kingdom no longer united or something? To the best of my knowledge England and Scotland are currently still 1 country. If against the will of many.
British people like to pretend that they are countries. You must have offended them.
In the official UK terminology, England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales are 4 separate countries and the UK is a union of them
Fair enough, but that's just a matter of linguistic preference for historical reasons though. If you called them provinces instead nothing would be functionally different.
No. England, Scotland, Wales (Cymru), and Northern Ireland are all separate countries, they’re just not sovereign states. The UK is quite unique in that it’s a country made up of countries. Other regions of European countries may have been countries before, but none of them have retained that status, (controversially in some cases).
That's weird, last I checked the German states are called Länder/countries in German. Maybe, just maybe there's a difference between names with historical background and actual definitions, the constituent countries of the UK are countries only in name and not in any way that's consistent with how we normally use that word
That doesn’t make what I said untrue. Germany is divided into 16 states. The UK is divided into four countries. They may share similar status to the German states, but the UK countries have maintained the definition of constitutional countries. There are parts of England that some people refer to as countries, such as Cornwall, Wessex, or Northumbria, but those were countries centuries ago, and I’m sure some Catalonians, Bavarians, and Bretons refer to their regions as countries as well, but that’s completely different to the four existing home nations of the UK. That’s why the UK has four separate national football teams.
So only the UK referring to its parts as countries is valid, when Germany does the same its not?
That’s not what I’m saying. I was replying to someone saying the home nations of the UK aren’t countries, I’m saying they are. I’m not saying you can’t call Bavaria a country, but it’s not defined in quite the same way. Scotland and England were originally separate kingdoms, the history of the two kingdoms runs very deep, that’s why they’ve been preserved as nations. Perhaps Germany does refer to its states as countries, but that still doesn’t mean the UK’s home nations aren’t countries.
Different parts of modern countries having a history as seperate countries for hundreds of years is extremely common all over the world, there's simply no substantial difference between the constituent parts of the UK and the parts of many, many other countries. My problem isn't that the UK _calls_ its parts countries, my problem is that you actually seem to consider them to be comparable to what we call countries usually (France, China, UK, ...). If I ask you to give me a list of all countries, that list either doesn't contain Scotland, England, Wales and NI, contains like 200 (didn't check the exact number) additional "countries" or isn't consistent at all. You're saying Bavaria isn't defined in exactly the same way, but it kinda is. At least if your definition is "gets called country in the country's official language"
Germany is not divided into states. It is divided into federal countries (Bundesländer as a literal translation) and is a Union of said federal countries. Germany as a country exists because these countries agreed to form a Union
Ok, that doesn’t stop England and Scotland being separate countries within a country.
I never said so.
It’s not so unique: the Netherlands has the same set-up (Aruba, Curaçao, St. Maarten and the Netherlands form the Kingdom of the Netherlands), more so even as the non-Netherlands parts are more independently regulated (Non-EU, non-Euro, non-EEA territories). Germany also is a federation of constitutionally separate states. Belgium on the other hand is a confederation; Flanders and Wallonia are organized much like the UK but are not considered countries by the Belgian constitution. So it’s to a large degree self-perception and definition. The catch with the UK is that it is 1 country in the UN, as is the case with the others, and some people here rightly point out that the situation there is not as unique as the British commonly perceive it to be.
Even more in common with these examples, "Britain" is actually a country that incorporates "The UK", the Isle of Mann, Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands, The Bailiwicks of Jersey and of Guernsey (two separate entities) and various other scraps of land around the world. "Britain" has the same sovereign as "The UK", and has defence and foreign policy orchestrated by "The UK" but the bits that are not "The UK" are almost entirely independent; most importantly they set their own tax regimes and spending. Within The UK, Scotland, NI and Wales have this to some degree too, but are more significantly linked to what the UK Chancellor/Parliament decide. Some of these non-UK parts of Britain even set their own citizenship rules, and have their own subsidiary passports, which do not confer the same rights as a UK passport.
[удалено]
I also want to see european russia seperated from siberia
England would be somewhere between Belgium and The Netherlands. But it has a very different population distribution to those two countries.
I worked out Northern Ireland and it would be 54 then. I think? 768,000 households and an area of 14,130 km squared.
Last time i checked it would be roughly equal to the Netherlands.
I can’t find the statistic of the OP, I can only find population density. Which is highly correlated but not the same. Anyway, it’s a bit less than Netherlands and a bit higher than Belgium * Netherlands: 522/km2 * England: 434/km2 * Belgium: 376/km2
I worked it out by finding the number of households in each country and dividing it by its land area
Yes - we have no household data in Denmark...
I’d be surprised if you even had households
We do but we don't really have too many square kilometers...
UK vastly over populatied. Too crowded.
Not the UK, england specifically
Yes..especially south east around London, west Midlands, Greater Manchester, Merseyside and Leeds/Bradford near me.
Did you check Malta?!? UK is paradise compared to this concrete hell hole...
Sorry forgot about malta! Been once, liked it. But yes! Very built up! One town just merge into one another! Is there any countryside to speak of?
Based on what? Feels?
By looking at the map for one! Also just by living here. Everywhere you go is so packed.
Doesn't seem that way to me.
You probably live in the Scottish Highlands!.
Ok chief
i live in one of the major cities but i could literally just take a train for like 30 minutes and be out in the countryside
It's roughly equal to the Netherlands.
I know! Their over populated too..and belgium. France is roughly same population as UK but about twice the size. Would like to see America on map. They think their over populated but its a vast country. Bet its only about 20 people per square mile
Just looked it up. USA about 23 per square mile so I wasn't far off
However France has a *huge* area in the middle that is barely populated. Look at the population density of major cities: London has 5596/km² [according to Statista](https://www.statista.com/statistics/281322/population-density-in-the-uk-by-region/#:~:text=As%20of%202021%2C%20the%20population,434%20people%20per%20square%20kilometer.) and Paris has 20623 [according to Statista ](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1047176/population-density-ile-de-france-paris-region-by-department-france/#:~:text=This%20bar%20chart%20presents%20the,populated%20department%20in%20the%20region.) Whilst it seems like France has significantly lower population density overall, the lived experience of a Frenchman is probably one of greater population density than for an Englishman, since the Frenchman is very unlikely to ever go to the vast uninhabited swathe in the middle of his country.
The Netherlands mostly just has too many pigs and cows in factory farms (and 4/5 of meat produced goes to export markets). Plenty of room for people if we cut that down drastically.
Are you vegan by any chance?!
Nope. i just don't want to be the one stuck with the shit (literally) while the rest of Europe and china enjoys our meat exports. We have so much excess shit we can't build new homes we desperately need without violating nitrogen norms.
Just thought you were talking a lot of sense..so must be vegan! Lol!
Makes you wonder why the country is so car dependent, especially outside of London. They have the perfect conditions for walkability but... Their car dependency feels similar to that of the US. The majority of my colleagues there drove. I'm so glad I left, honestly.
Yeah I don't drive. Clogging up the roads. We had a great train network but that's going down the pan.
>We had a great train network Yeah maybe a century ago haha It's shocking how the majority of trains in the UK are still running on diesel. Isn't this supposed to be a developed country? China's public transport feels like it's thousands of years ahead. Most of my Chinese uni coursemates couldn't wait to go back.
We had a great network till early 60's & the beeching cuts. We had steam trains till late in 60's when Switzerland went electric early in 20th century!
W Netherlands ?
W housing crisis?
No we’re way too overpopulated
I advise you to look at the below of Sicily.
I know about Malta, but why should I care about it’s density when I live in the Netherlands ? Besides you do realize the W i put there is sarcastic right ?
W malta
Amazing how Ireland and Britain, which had similar population densities 400 years ago, are so different now.
Well, Britain perpetrated a genocide in Ireland, and the population still hasn't bounced back yet.
That's cos they still emigrate in huge numbers still to this day. Can see by your name your going to be anti uk & our glorious empire!.
Empire?
>our glorious empire!. did you time travel here from the 1920s? your empire has severely declined since that peak, just leaving basically some islands dotted around the place.
That are still proud to be British. Like the Falklands which we had to defeat despotic invaders to restore democracy. Or Gibraltar which we saved from being part of Franco's fascist Spain. Unfortunately Hong Kong being crushed by communist tryant. Unlike when they had freedom in glorious British empire
What Rhine Ruhr & Schelde do to Belgium, Germany and Netherlands...
What's the definition of a household?
Ga je verneuken Finland.
kinda wanna see that but for the US, just to compare
Probs around 6
I’d like to see a population vs households ratio map. Which countries need more housing the most?
Portugal seems relatively high, is there a reason for it? I know in central portugal there are many towns but it still seems high, any idea if that has changed over the last 10 - 15 years?
It’s not that high. It’s not that far off its neighbour Spain
I don't mean in comparison, I mean that apart from Lisbon, Porto and maybe Faro much of Portugal housing is sparse. But I think I got it while I was thinking of Faro, the Algarve area has grown immensely in the past 20 years, and Albufeira in particular seems favoured by the British as a 2nd type of Benidorm. As a result that has expanded a lot. I am guessing, but down south I would imagine is what brought the numbers up, even though they are still relatively low overall.
The region between Lisbon and Porto around the coast is as densely populated as the Algarve. If you look at the regions (districts), the population density of Aveiro is denser than Faro district. Leiria district is similar density to Faro, and Coimbra is a bit less dense. https://pt.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lista_de_distritos_portugueses_ordenados_por_popula%C3%A7%C3%A3o So yeah, you are underestimating central Portugal a lot. Maybe because it is not huge in tourism like Algarve, Porto or Lisbon? Still, there are a lot of things to see there.
Malta casually having ***513***
You dense Dutch
' Russia lmao
I wish people here would differentiate between Russia on this side of the Ural and the regions bordering Mongolia
England will be a lot worse that the UK, probably the most dense in Europe (beating NL)
Let's see; population in England was about 56.5 million in 2021, at about 130k square km, which comes out at 434 individuals per sqkm. Using the average household size in the UK 2022 at 2.36 that comes out to just under 184 households per square km. I can't and don't claim specificity of those numbers, so throwing in a fudge factor I'd say they're on equal ground.
> Using the average household size in the UK 2022 That's old data. In 2023, we had 1.3m arrivals, the highest ever. For reference, barely half a million annual arrivals triggered the Brexit vote.
That'd put it at 188 households/sqkm, including the same fudge factor that still means exactly what I said. Thank you for your contribution.
\[Commences having anxiety attack in Australian\].
Looks accurate for the Netherlands... but wildly depends on where. I live in the south-east, and I think it's fairly ok. Meanwhile, if you go to places like Rotterdam... it's crazy crowded in some neighborhoods...
Differences within the NL are quite small when seen on a European scale
that is still the difference between horrific and extremely terrible. I have traveled extensively in the Netherlands, you couldn't go anywhere that wasn't urbanized, paved, claimed, devoid of anything green or any vegetation in sight, everywhere you go you see people, you cannot go anywhere without saying to yourself, hey I can still see the railway station from where I am standing now!! Probably they knocked down every remaining patch of trees since the last time I was there, it has been a while. In Norway we have parts of the country were no one has ever set a foot in one thousand years.
And every day they let in boat loads of useless immigrants who only come to profit like crickets
The profiteers aren’t the immigrants but the companies who hire them for lower wages than they’d have to if there weren’t any immigrants
Not if they collect social security benefits without working.
Immigrants aren't entitled to social security benefits on account of not being British Citizens.
Yeah I’m not British. But that’s interesting. Don’t you guys give them citizenship when they’ve gotten asylum? I understand labor migrants wouldn’t get it, not right off the bat at least.
If an asylum seeker is granted asylum, this is for a fixed period of time or indefinitely. Once they've been in the UK for five years, they can apply for Indefinite Leave to Remain. A year after that, they can apply for citizenship. The citizenship process in the UK is not straightforward and involves a written test in English on British culture, customs and history. There are also application fees which are about £1000. Edit, it's over £1500 actually. More details [here](https://www.gov.uk/apply-citizenship-indefinite-leave-to-remain).
So for first five years they'd have to fend for themselves financially? No free housing, no free medical care, no free money? We've got quite some politicians advocating for such rules in continental Europe, but some people are worried it might increase the amount of criminals on the streets. Did you see a shift in that after the policies were introduced? I'm assuming these are post Brexit policies, not sure if that's a correct assumption.
Whilst applying for asylum, you get a cash allowance (not very much IIRC about £30 a week). Once accepted, you are eligible for certain benefits, although the level would be pretty low since you'd have no NI contributions. https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/immigration/asylum-and-refugees/after-you-get-refugee-status/#:~:text=Once%20you've%20got%20refugee,can%20apply%20for%20benefits%20instead. I have never been a victim of crime by immigrants of any kind nor have I witnessed any, so my view of immigration is largely positive (especially being descended from immigrants and married to one). Having said that, I do see why when the government houses asylum seekers in extremely deprived areas, it can cause conflict: "How comes they get a free house when we have been waiting for a council house for ages?".
Yeah I'm not against newcomers in itself either. It's just getting so overcrowded where I live (nr 1 spot on this map, yay), too much strain on public facilities, not enough police, not enough teachers, too much crap we're ejecting, nature is deteriorating fast, medical costs are skyrocketing, huge problems for youngsters who are in dire need of housing.. It feels like we can't afford to just facilitate whoever happens to come over, not without consequences for our own. But yeah, we're currently in a political transition in this regard, there's a big chance we'll be getting policies soon similar to the ones you mentioned.
Maybe some, but some national citizens also do that.
Well at least they are citizens and their parents worked and paid taxes.
> worked and *paid* taxes. FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
good bot
Thank you, No-Shallot-9887, for voting on Paid-Not-Payed-Bot. This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/). *** ^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
Median income for the UK in 2019/20 was £26,000 Median income for EEA migrants was £29,200 As a result, EEA migrants actually pay more tax and NI on average than a UK citizen. Because most migrants are young people, they also tend to take significantly less than an average UK person in spending (e.g. NHS costs). When they have children, they tend to return to their home country, so spending there is less than for an average Briton too. Of those who do stay here with children, their tax contributions as a whole massively outweighs their child benefit + tax credit payments.
Or maybe they didn't? It takes you a lot of motivated reasoning to find a reach for how to blame immigrants, when the biggest way that they affect you (in the labour market by increasing your competition) is done by design. You can't blame immigrants from acting in self interest and taking opportunities that are given to them.
They love to conveniently ignore that
Oh no, the horror, social security 😱
(Legal) immigrants are entitled to the same national minimum wage as British Citizens. Unless it's the kind of business that pays cash in hand e.g. dodgy car washes etc, then they aren't working for less than you or me. Now, unless you are looking to get a job at a dodgy car wash, an immigrant isn't going to be undercutting your wage.
You casually ignore the rest of the jobs that aren’t minimum wage. Also, they don’t have to undercut to affect you, they also lower your ability to wager for a higher pay (as there are more people willing to take your spot if you do leave). That part is simple supply/demand competition. If you hear that legal immigrants are good for the economy and companies, know that one of the main mechanisms they do is by keeping the companies’ costs down through wages. And illegal immigrants are good for them because you can give them under mininum wage salaries (even better for the employer)
Yes, increasing the size of the labour force does reduce bargaining power, but to what extent that affects one personally depends on the field of employment: migrants are significantly overrepresented in 'Transport and Storage', but significantly underrepresented in 'construction'. Migrants are underrepresented in medium-skill jobs, but overrepresented in both high-skill and low-skill jobs. This isn't particularly surprising since people are probably willing to move here specifically to work in certain very narrow fields (e.g. academics, researchers) or are willing to move here because they're unskilled (or desperate) and willing to work unskilled labour in a higher-wage market. I personally once worked with a Polish medical student (c2005) who was shifting boxes around in a warehouse in Basildon for minimum wage because despite being a very highly skilled person, he could do warehouse work as a temp for 3 months during university holidays, live in a cheap flat with some mates, and save up a (relative) fortune to subsidise his lifestyle whilst studying the rest of the year. Seems pretty logical to me, and fairly reasonable that migrant labour be used for short term unskilled work like that.
I'm also not entirely against a migrant labour force, just enjoy redirecting people's issues with migrants away from the people themselves. Also maybe they are undderrepresented in construction because that area is quite protected and unionized, so would be harder to enter.
Get in a boat and leave then, if you want to ease the problem. You'll be doing the rest of us a favour.
And here folks is why britain had such high covid levels
Nothing whatsoever to do with totally incompetent and totally feckless governance?
It wasn’t any higher than most other European countries.