- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
- news@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
- news@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
(Reposting my comment here for posterity:)
First: The word is “emigration.”
Second: The article itself points out why this article is bullshit:
To be sure, emigration as a percentage of Canada’s overall population touched a high of 0.2% in the mid 1990s, and currently stands at about 0.09%, according to official government data.
The whole time I was reading the article, I’m thinking “Right… if you let in a record number of immigrants, then the number of emigrants is going to rise shortly thereafter. There’s just more people. You need to look at percentages to draw any real conclusion.”
Honestly wasn’t expecting them to give the percentage like that, showing that this article is nothing but fearmongering.I was just going to comment about the word
Somehow it really annoys me that someone who writes for Routers doesn’t know the term and no one who proofreads this article caught this.Given my second point, I’d wager they need the term “immigration” in the headline to drive anger and clicks.
They use the word “emigration” in the article, so clearly it was an intentional choice.
The actual point the article makes is that people who immigrate to Canada are now leaving. What the article is saying is that Canada is becoming less attractive place to immigrate to, and increasing percentage of people who have immigrated to Canada are leaving. The fact that emigration from Canada hasn’t hit the point it was at in the 90s isn’t all that relevant here, it’s the direction of travel that matters.
Furthermore, vast majority of emigration from Canada was to the US, and the fact that less people are moving to US is more of a factor of US becoming unlivable than people choosing to stay in Canada because conditions in Canada are improving. The benefit of moving to US and getting much higher pay than before simply doesn’t exist today.
You mean that tiny uptick in percentage, after an unprecedented drop surrounding a global pandemic? That ~0.02% change? The second-lowest rate of emigration since 1990? The rate, which has actually ticked slightly downward in the last year - going by the graph in the article?
The data in this article only looks bad from one very narrow and very specific angle. From every other perspective, it’s a story of success for immigrants, showing that Canada is retaining newcomers at a rate that hasn’t been seen in over 30 years.
There are two separate statistics here. One is the overall emigration rate from Canada and the second is emigration rate of immigrants. You’re using overall emigration rate which is predominantly Canadians moving to the states.
Actually, the article doesn’t give any other more relevant statistics, besides an offhand mention of a report from the ICC. I’m just going from the data provided here.
This article is recklessly sloppy at best - deliberately misleading at worst.
Care to explain what motivation you believe Reuters has to publish a malicious misleading article about Canada. This frankly sounds like a weird conspiracy theory.
I legitimately don’t know, I normally consider Reuters to be a good source of news, or I wouldn’t have bothered clicking it in the first place.
I don’t think they necessarily have some grand plan, but I can’t just idly accept them telling us our country is in decline when their own data is telling the exact opposite story.
If anything, I guess I question their motives here because I believe they’re competent. If this was some random blog, I’d write it off as ignorance.
Reuters is writing for a grade five or six reading level. Immigrate/emigrate are words that people often mix up. By making it really clear in the title, they’re helping readers who are probably just skimming headlines.
Since the public expects people to immigrate to Canada, the story will garner more traffic. If they want to drive those clicks, they need to make it clear people are leaving.
The data doesn’t seem to support the title of the article.
Am I misreading the data they are sharing in the article?
It shows data that suggests that number of immigrants leaving now is similar to how it’s been for the last decade. And the overall rate now is lower than it’s been most of the last decade, it’s only increased slightly this year for the first time in 4ish years.
Emigration. It’s called fucking emigration.
How do you write articles for a living and not know basic fucking English.
If you keep making mistakes that a fucking AI wouldn’t don’t be sad when no one cares you lost your job.
I’m not sure it truly fits the definition of emigration if the people leaving Canada aren’t from Canada and sometimes haven’t become citizens yet.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Trudeau has made immigration his main weapon to blunt Canada’s big challenge of an aging and slowing population, and it has also helped fuel economic growth.
Cara works three part-time jobs, making Ontario’s minimum wage of C$16.55 per hour, and goes to an adult learning school to earn university credits.
While the numbers are small now, lawyers and immigration consultants warn that a pick-up could cast a shroud over Canada’s appeal as the one of the favoured destinations for newcomers.
On average in Canada about 60% of household income would be needed to cover home ownership costs, a figure that rises to about 98% for Vancouver and 80% for Toronto, RBC said in a September report.
Myo Maung, 55, migrated to Canada from Myanmar over three decades ago and made a successful career as a real estate agent and a restaurateur.
Stankus, who pays C$2,000, including utilities, for a one-bedroom apartment, said increasing living expenses has made it difficult to afford basic necessities.
The original article contains 791 words, the summary contains 163 words. Saved 79%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
