Did you read the reasons why that were listed on that page you got the numbers from?
There are more jobs here. Taxes are lower here. Weather is milder here. That doesn’t make the country better. It’s just more attractive for some reasons.
People aren’t moving to Canada because it’s so damned hard. I tried. I don’t want to live in the US anymore but I’m too old to just pick up and move. You act like it’s so easy.
Canadian here. I think the USA can be described as the “greatest” country on earth if one includes the disclaimer “if you are successful.” America rewards success and punishes failure disproportionately and this is not a bug but a feature. The American Dream is by no means guaranteed to all (or any for that matter) but when someone does manage to achieve it they are on top of the world.
Regarding the US Military, I think they are almost absurdly overpowered but can be brought low by determined locals with AK-47s. The Battle of Mogadishu is a prime example of this. Because each and every US soldier is an expensive investment, losing 18 of them in a single battle is a humiliating defeat. But Task Force Ranger kicked the absolute shit out of the whole city, sending 3000 or so Somalis home after a dinner of lead salad. The US said “fuck this, we’re out” because of those expensive, painful losses. But they didn’t lose. They left.
Leaving *was *losing.
From your own cite (my emphasis and link):
result
pyrrhictactical us/un victory
strategic sna victory
Again, killing people has never been the goal or the victory metric of combat. “War is the continuation of politics by other means” - Bernie Sanders. The ultimate objective of a war (or a street brawl) is to deplete the opponent’s will to continue fighting and opposing your own goals. That’s it. Killing people, crippling infrastructure, dropping leaflets and what have you are simply means to that end. Victory or defeat is gauged by how much of the objectives you’d set for yourself at the onset of the war you have accomplished. Everything else is horrifying window dressing.
As a trained urban geographer (yeah, I know - that was money well spent…:rolleyes:), I gotta call ‘bullshit’ on this claim.
Migration flows, like many other observable phenomena, tend to occur in recognizable patterns. Geographers have often codified these patterns into analytical and/or descriptive models. One such model is the gravity model of migration:
Don’t believe me? Here’s a quick case study for you: emigration from Bangladesh to India relative to that to the US. There are over 3 million persons of Bangladeshi descent living in India, whereas there are fewer than 200,000 such persons living in the US.
By your reasoning, India must be a far greater place to live than the US. Is that really what you believe? Color me dubious…
A far simpler explanation for the higher number of immigrants the US attracts relative to many other nations is due to its sheer size (demographic, economic, geographic) and NOT due to any inherent “greatness”.
First of all, using Newtonian physics to explain migration does indeed put into question the value of a discipline that uses such, for the simple reason that gravity has exactly nothing to do with migration. The notion that migration is significantly more likely to a place close-by makes perfect sense without having to resort to involving Newton.
Bangladeshi moving to India means India is a better place than Bangladesh. Whether or not the US is better than India would be defined by relative migration between those two countries: proportionally, do Americans move to India more than vice-versa? I’m not even going to look up numbers before stating the vice-versa the overwhelming winner.
My point, again, is that it is easy to have an opinion. But I pose that action is a more meaningful arbiter. If I say that McDonald’s fries are the best in the world, the path to true happiness and the obvious sine-qua-non expression of culinary artistry, but I never go and get any, my opinion on this, then, is largely irrelevant.
Saying “it is hard to migrate, I would if I could, but I just can’t because reasons” Fine. But there are those who do. We can look at where they go. I posit that for most any country, when looked at bi-laterally, winner USA.
:smack:
Conceptual models need not adhere to the specific nature of the underlying phenomena being described to prove of value in understanding said concepts. This is prevalent in not only the social sciences which you disparage, but also in the physical sciences as well. For example, consider the Bohr model:
Again - :smack:
It’s not a matter of “having to resort” to a Newtonian model; it’s more a matter that the observed data comports with Newtonian gravitation, i.e. the strength of the effect falls off with the square of the distance between the attractors.
Variations of the Newtonian model are used by urban geographers in the real world to make decisions as to where to locate retail establishments or how to efficiently allocate transportation resources.
Then why don’t they move to the US? After all, according to you, the US is better than India. And yet, millions more choose India over the US as a destination.
Hmm… so I guess by that metric, between 2009 and 2014, Mexico was “better” than the US. :dubious:
Or, utilizing another metric which excludes population size as a variable (since you have scoffed at the gravitational model), we find that lowly Belgium (which you dismissed in Post 196 of this thread) has a higher net migration per capita than the US.
Yes it is. And there’s nothing wrong with that. It’s when you try and dress up your personal prejudices and judgments as something other than that, something “objective”, that you rightly draw the ire of myself and others in this thread.
A countries greatness is determined by the number of migrants into that country.
Therefore the more migrants that enter the country the greater than country is.
Trump is trying to restrict the number of migrants that are entering the country.
Therefore Trump is trying to make the country less great.
Therefore Trump hates America
QED 
No offense but this is a lazy analysis.
Simply moving to another country in no way indicates how ‘great’ it is in the mind of the person moving there. Most likely they’re moving to a new place because a) living conditions are better than their home country, and b) it’s doable. People could move to America as a short term plan while they figure out ways to move somewhere else, or back home once they’re more optimistic about returning home.
To be fair, and just to show I’m not a self-hating American, there are many things about this place that are great. There’s no denying that, for certain skill sets, the sky is the limit in terms of opportunity. But most people, including our ancestors, moved here because they saw opportunities that didn’t exist at home or elsewhere.
You are clearly missing my point, but enjoy your righteous ire.
To recap: OP called finding the USA the greatest “delusional”.
In order for it to be delusional, countries which are obviously greater must exist.
I, and others, stated that with what we believed metrics for greatness to be (military and economic power) such countries do not exist.
Arguments were made that other metrics should apply. Like healthcare, others. And that with those metrics, other counties are consistently and/or obviously better.
At which point my argument is, that if those counties are clearly better, this should be visible in migration patterns. In other words, the Netherlands are a very nice country, but if a larger proportion of the Dutch population hies hither than Americans hie thither, those living in that possibly “better” country do not agree.
So, if anything, I’m doing the opposite of dressing “up personal prejudices and judgements” - I’m proposing an objective metric to test assertions on countries’ relative desirability. When the outcome of that doesn’t match your judgements and predjudices, it may draw your ire, but it doesn’t change the facts on the ground.
So, between their home country, and America, at that time, America is better. It doesn’t necessarily mean that America is better than every country, but it is better than that one. Now, if we do this analysis for every country proposed as better than the US, and find that none of them show an opposite effect, the starement that claiming America as greates is delusional is incorrect.
Please note, again, this does not mean that I believe that America is even remotely perfect. There are many things wrong with this country. We have militarized police, marginalized chunks of our society, and are reaping the fruits of hanging on to a screwed-up binary party system, for starters. I, personally, could think of places I might prefer to move to, had I sufficient money. But that’s irrelevant as it is just another opinion.
I think your second paragraph is inconsistent with your first one. There can only be one “greatest” country in the world. We’re not talking about whether America is “great” or whether it’s better than many countries or even better than most - I don’t think any person would disagree that America has a lot going for it, relative to other places.
The question is whether it’s delusional for Americans to assume that their country is THE greatest. I propose that it is delusional to make that assumption for the simple reason that, like you, many Americans might live elsewhere if they had the money to do so, if they could take their family and friends with them, and if other circumstances were different.
You don’t have to have a low opinion of America to acknowledge that we’re not really the greatest country on earth. Which country is? I have no idea, and I don’t care. I’m here for the long haul.
Quite understandable, and even more of you should follow the path of venting Canadian frustration in being overlooked, in letters to the editor to our newspapers and similar venues. Especially our failure to recognize Canadian achievements, such as being one of the fattest countries in the world.
Not nearly as fat as Americans (you’ve got a ways to go there), but your B.M.I.s are still pretty darn spectacular.
No, I got your point just fine. Not particularly enjoying my ire, either; it’d be more accurately described as “exasperated” than “righteous”, but whatever.
Not necessarily. One could find the entire concept of a “greatest nation” to be delusional, as several others in this thread have already noted at length. This sidesteps entirely the need for metrics (see below).
Quite unnecessary, as noted above.
At which point my rebuttal to your argument is: Mexico was “greater” than the US for five years. By your own logic and your own metric.
:rolleyes: Says the guy who says statistics “prove” American greatness - except when they don’t.
Well, your argument is, then, that no country is the greatest. In which case my points don’t pertain to you, since my argument specifically addresses the concept that some other country is greatest.
As to the Mexican thing: I don’t think that people returning to their home countries necessarily counts: they were visitors, if of extended duration, rather than migrants. But I could see a net migration to Belize, for example, occur in the near future - in which case if someone were to hold up Belize as the greatest, my counter-argument wouldn’t hold.
But so far, the countries held up, for various reasons, were Denmark, Canada, Netherlands and some others, iirc, and for all those I believe my counter-argument sufficiently answers the claim.
Well, your argument is, then, that no country is the greatest. In which case my points don’t pertain to you, since my argument specifically addresses the concept that some other country is greatest.
As to the Mexican thing: I don’t think that people returning to their home countries necessarily counts: they were visitors, if of extended duration, rather than migrants. But I could see a net migration to Belize, for example, occur in the near future - in which case if someone were to hold up Belize as the greatest, my counter-argument wouldn’t hold.
But so far, the countries held up, for various reasons, were Denmark, Canada, Netherlands and some others, iirc, and for all those I believe my counter-argument sufficiently answers the claim.
If you can’t enjoy your ire, I guess enjoy your Eire
ETA sorry for double post, connection issues. There are countries with better internet than here.
Come on - that’s just climatic adaptation.
I lol’d.
You seem obsessed about this migration thing, which I find interesting because I know more than a few professionals who have moved from Canada to the US, and I’m pretty sure from first-hand knowledge that not a single one of them would claim “greatest country in the world” as the reason they were doing it.
They would instead have offered a variety of career-oriented reasons that basically boil down to various combinations of making a lot of money, managing resources worth a lot of money, or the opportunity to be involved in or manage research facilities that cost a lot of money. There is an obvious commonality here, and for lack of a better term we might call this the Big Bags of Money explanation (BBM). It seems extraordinarily myopic to me to regard the narrow metric of bags of money as a measure of national greatness, any more than one would regard a person’s bank balance as a measure of their personal greatness. Is there no such thing as a rich, shallow asshole? Sure there is – I believe one of them is currently the president of your country.
And the Big Bags of Money explanation gets further credence if one compares the US with any other first-world nation on just about any other metric:
[ul]
[li]Income and wealth inequality? The US is the worst among all advanced developed nations, so those Big Bags of Money are distributed with much more disparity and unfairness than in any other rich country in the world.[/li][/ul]
[ul]
[li]Health care? The current system is a joke and essentially unsustainable; outcomes are no better than most other advanced countries, but it’s absurdly costly and quality and access is unconscionably based on financial means – the only advanced country in the world where this is the case, and the only one that doesn’t have universal health care. This is no mere academic point. An estimated 45,000 Americans die every year from lack of adequate health care, and thousands more are driven to bankruptcy by its costs.[/li][/ul]
[ul]
[li]The above is probably one of many reasons that the US also ranks very poorly in measures of general population happiness, but very high on measures of employees being overworked and over-stressed – no surprise considering that losing your job typically means losing your health care, and possibly being at the mercy of one of the weakest social support systems among advanced countries. The USDA states that 40 million Americans, including 12 million children, suffer from food insecurity, defined as not having enough to eat to sustain a normal active life.[/li][/ul]
[ul]
[li]You have higher crime rates than most advanced countries.[/li][/ul]
[ul]
[li]You have a uniquely extreme and intractable gun violence problem, completely beyond what is found in any other first-world nation on earth.[/li][/ul]
[ul]
[li]You have a virtually dysfunctional federal government. After the shootings in New Zealand, the New Zealand parliament was able to pass gun laws in ten days that the US has not been able to pass in 85 years.[/li][/ul]
[ul]
[li]And the Republican party appears to have lost its collective mind.[/li][/ul]
So yeah, lots of people immigrate to the US for Big Bags of Money. I know some of them. I’m related to some of them. And your rationalization for why they moved to the US is bullshit.
I have not rationalized any of their motivation by the simple expedient of not speaking to them. But your money-bag chasing friends decided to move because it was better for them. They may hate the lack of Canadian Tyre stores, bu it was outweighed, sufficiently to impel action.
Again, I’m countering the argument that country x is better for reason y. If so, you’d expect people to move there, certainly not people moving from there. “But, but… they’re moving for other reasons!” Well, then, reason y doesn’t seem a valid metric.