The Great Chinese Exodus

[Aepsilons]

Thanks for scientifically debunking a poor attempt of China bashing, sir!

He debunked nothing. He has been focusing on a graphical posit i made about asian ethnic population composition in the US population. He had not touched any of my main points, but rather, chose to focus on semantics and outlandish argument about a tertiary point i had with another member.

Come now, lol.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

The core of the argument is 2fold:

1. There is already a disproportionately large amount of Chinese immigrants in other countries.
2. The rate of immigration of Chinese is disproportionately large compared to those of other countries.

My counterpoints:

1. There is not, because as a fraction of total population, there are less Chinese than others in the US. Most of the Chinese disaspora is in countries poorer than or equal to China in Southeast Asia.

2. The rate of immigration of Chinese is not disporportionately large because it is declining while other nations are increasing; the integrated rate of immigration is the total population overseas, and since it is proportionally smaller than that of other countries, the rate could not have possibly been the highest one at any past point in time.

The rate is not increasing because the actual number of billionaires is greater than the expected number given the assumed emigration rate.

 

[Aepsilons]

The problem is you are diverging from a valid comparison of populations and have claimed that the Korean population in the US is insignificant compared to the Chinese one. That was inaccurate, and the entirety of your premise that Chinese held a disproportionately large number of immigrants in other countries falls apart.

The Korean population in the United States is statistically and numerically inferior to the number of Chinese-Americans, to Filipino-Americans, to Indian-Americans.

Let me refer to the graph i had presented earlier:

---

The population of Korean Americans is 44% that of the Chinese population, it is 50% of the Filipino population, and 54% of the Indian population.

To refer back to my posit , they not as numerous as the Chinese - Americans. This is not even considering the Taiwanese population, which is also an additional 230,000. If we were to combine the Chinese a + Taiwanese population in the United States it exceeds 4 million. Making it ,definitely, the largest asian ethnic group in the United States. And this number would further increase if we take into consideration the trend of more and more Chinese migrating to the United States, as expressed in this article.

 

[Cossack25A1]

You were Malay migrants to these islands renamed as "Las Islas de Filipinas" later known as the Philippines.

Chinese came in by sea like Malays. So we are all in equal footing. Both migrant people both trying to make a living in peace and prosperity. As I can see the reasons of your jealously is because of our success in society. You must be a disgusting failure in life. Don't be an inggetero and a despicable accuser but does nothing about it. You are not only stupid but an idiot, as well.

Says the one who has no idea about the situation about the Philippines and would rather be duped by the Yellow-media.

FYI, I am not an inggitero but I have personal reason why I hate Fil-Chinese.

 

[Contrarian]

Good enough for the investor residence permit, only need $500k-$1million. Buy one home/apartment, invest in some business or open small business, and you are good.

It really isn't. The author's reference to the $1.6 million is used as a minimum. This number is , thus, an example of a lower outlier. The maximum could refer to in the hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars.

Yeah. I get that its the minimum benchmark for those who are emigrating. But I was talking about those who were emigrating with just this much.

I was just wondering from a lifestyle point of view. That $1.6 million is not sufficient for a decent lifestyle and assured income in the US/Canada

Generally rich Indians(Chinese as well) tend to invest in property for their assured incomes. $1.6 million worth of property is not going to fetch them enough in US and Canada to have a good lifestyle.

Again, these are my assumptions. Let me know if I am wrong.

 

[jkroo]

If you read the article -- this refers to individuals with a minimum of $1.6 million worth of assets. Meaning, anyone with assets worth greater than or equal to $1.6 million.

Almost 7 out of 10 with only $1.6 million want to migrate abroad. In my city its just insane. Anywhere else can make money easier than China?
Every country man has his right to move outside China. Its normal and can ease society pressure. Good enough IF they have done well enough for having been a citizen of China.(tax for example)
One person want migrate outside always mean the whole family have the willingness. Its not easy and also good for local society.
So the only one question that I have is the crazy percentage figures. Its just a dishonest advertising gimmickry to me. That's all.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

To refer back to my posit , they not as numerous as the Chinese - Americans. This is not even considering the Taiwanese population, which is also an additional 230,000. If we were to combine the Chinese a + Taiwanese population in the United States it exceeds 4 million. Making it ,definitely, the largest asian ethnic group in the United States. And this number would further increase if we take into consideration the trend of more and more Chinese migrating to the United States, as expressed in this article.

1. Your assumption is that all Chinese are recent immigrants and that they are born in China and Taiwan. That is not true. Many are from Southeast Asia or were born in the US. The recent immigrant assumption, however, is valid for Koreans.

2. Having less Koreans is irrelevant, because it is still higher as a proportion of the originating nation's population than Chinese as a proportion of the originating nation's population. When talking about an "exodus", the proportion of the originating nation's population leaving is the important number.

3. The article is irrelevant because it is inaccurate. Chinese are not the largest nationality being issued PRs, which determines immigration.

www.voanews.com/ content/ us-issues-million-green-cards-and-naturalizes-757000-in-2012/ 1627155.html

 

[Aepsilons]

1. There is not, because as a fraction of total population, there are less Chinese than others in the US. Most of the Chinese disaspora is in countries poorer than or equal to China in Southeast Asia.

The United States and other Western countries are not providing visas to foreign nationals based on proportion to the population of the foreign national's native country. The United States distributes a set amount of visas to individuals from China, Korea, Philippines, Japan, etc. Your argument, by its inception is already flawed.

The rate of immigration of Chinese is not disporportionately large because it is declining while other nations are increasing; the integrated rate of immigration is the total population overseas, and since it is proportionally smaller than that of other countries, the rate could not have possibly been the highest one at any past point in time.

But when did the author state this, the antithesis to this? When did I or others? It appears to me that you're making your own counterpoints to points that have not been addressed by anyone here, lol.

Oy Vey!

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

The United States and other Western countries are not providing visas to foreign nationals based on proportion to the population of the foreign national's native country. The United States distributes a set amount of visas to individuals from China, Korea, Philippines, Japan, etc. Your argument, by its inception is already flawed.




But when did the author state this, the antithesis to this? When did I or others? It appears to me that you're making your own counterpoints to points that have not been addressed by anyone here, lol.

That is irrelevant because the term exodus refers to leaving; where they are going is irrelevant. If a lesser proportion of the population is leaving than another country who is not having an exodus, then the entire term is inaccurate.

 

[Aepsilons]

1. Your assumption is that all Chinese are recent immigrants and that they are born in China and Taiwan. That is not true. Many are from Southeast Asia or were born in the US. The recent immigrant assumption, however, is valid for Koreans.

No I did not. I did not once say that the Chinese population in the united states are due to recent immigration.

I did , however, state that the current trend of Chinese millionaires coming to the Untied States will further increase the Chinese American population. You can quote me here, too. lol.

2. Having less Koreans is irrelevant, because it is still higher as a proportion of the originating nation's population than Chinese as a proportion of the originating nation's population. When talking about an "exodus", the proportion of the originating nation's population leaving is the important number.

Of course it is RELEVANT because it illustrates, quantitatively, that the Chinese are the largest Asian ethnic group in the United States. Bar none. The Koreans are not even equivalent to the Vietnamese Americans. lol

Oy Vey!

3. The article is irrelevant because it is inaccurate. Chinese are not the largest nationality being issued PRs, which determines immigration.

And Voila ! The reader's bias manifests itself, lol.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

No I did not. I did not once say that the Chinese population in the united states are due to recent immigration.

I did , however, state that the current trend of Chinese millionaires coming to the Untied States will further increase the Chinese American population. You can quote me here, too. lol.



Of course it is RELEVANT because it illustrates, quantitatively, that the Chinese are the largest Asian ethnic group in the United States. Bar none. The Koreans are not even equivalent to the Vietnamese Americans. lol

Oy Vey!

Unfortunately you are not grasping the concept that when talking about an exodus, the important number to consider is the proportion of people leaving the originating nation. If the percentage of Chinese who are leaving their nation is less than the percentage of Koreans leaving their nation, then why is the Korean emigration is not called an exodus, and the Chinese emigration is an exodus?

 

[Aepsilons]

That is irrelevant because the term exodus refers to leaving; where they are going is irrelevant. If a lesser proportion of the population is leaving than another country who is not having an exodus, then the entire term is inaccurate.

Of course it is. The article is a study conducted to observe a Chinese phenomena. There was no discussion , discourse, about the immigration patterns of rich Koreans , Japanese et al.

Again, you're manifesting and showing to me and others here of your reading comprehension issues, albeit, purposely done.

 

[Echo_419]

Actually China is facing serious population aging issue (also brain drain issue). China wants old/poor/untalented people get out while rich/young/talented stay.

Really,I didn't knew that,perhaps it is time to relax that 1 child policy

 

[Aepsilons]

Unfortunately you are not grasping the concept that when talking about an exodus, the important number to consider is the proportion of people leaving the originating nation. If the percentage of Chinese who are leaving their nation is less than the percentage of Koreans leaving their nation, then why is the Korean emigration is not called an exodus, and the Chinese emigration is an exodus?

The Author's premise is specifically focusing on the Chinese diaspora of its millionaires. Not Koreans. You, dear incompetent friend, are using diversionary tactic and arguing for the sake of argument. I've stripped your argument(s), as unfounded and baseless. You can't even comprehend the meaning of ordinal scalar measurement.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Of course it is. The article is a study conducting a Chinese phenomena. There was no discussion , discourse, about the immigration patterns of rich Koreans , Japanese et al.

Again, you're manifesting and showing to me and others here of your reading comprehension issues, albeit, purposely done.

This is not a scientific study. It has not been published in a peer reviewed journal. You are intellectually dishonest and misrepresenting what a study actually is.

"Great exodus" implies something extraordinarily large. The truth is the opposite, however; the "Chinese exodus" is actually disproportionately small.