Worldwide Demographics

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

^^What does any of this has to do with Eastern European migrations inside the UE?

Belgium, Switzerland, and Luxembourg aren't wealthy countries by U.S. standards. They might be major upgrades for people from the poor countries in Eastern Europe but those same people could likely make more money working in the United States. I can understand people not wanting to work so far away from their families but the bottom line is the U.S. has no trouble attracting people even to obscure parts of the United States. I'm in an uncool state and but about 20 out of the 25 people in my department are H1B visa workers and these people do not care about being in an uncool part of the United States. It's cheap to live here and these people are saving huge amounts of money relative to what they could save in their home countries and likely working in Europe's big cities.

About India, you're oblivious to the fact that English is in retreat in India.

No online query supports this assertion.

which in the past used to be almost only in English, are now largely in Hindi. The more India develops, the more it reasserts its native languages.

I haven't been to India but you can go on Google streetview and see English language advertisements all over pretty much any area of any Indian city.

This is literally the first random spot I picked and...bam:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/India/..._ep=EgoyMDI2MDUxMy4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

Scrolled over to another city, dropped on a random street, and...bam:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/India/..._ep=EgoyMDI2MDUxMy4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Belgium, Switzerland, and Luxembourg aren't wealthy countries by U.S. standards.

Are you serious?

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

This is literally the first random spot I picked and...bam:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/India/..._ep=EgoyMDI2MDUxMy4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

Your view actually contains an advertisement in Gujarati. As well as a sign in Devanagari script (used to write either Hindi or Marathi).

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Scrolled over to another city, dropped on a random street, and...bam:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/India/..._ep=EgoyMDI2MDUxMy4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

And the sign to the left of the gate is entirely in Devanagari. The explanations under the "No parking" sign seem also to be in Devanagari.

Street corner in Osaka. Literally the first street corner I clicked on, I didn't have to look for it. To the left: "Hair Space". Then "Hotel Cargo". Then: "KF-Park". Doesn't mean that Japan is an Anglophone country or that English is particularly strong in Japan.



Typically, you confuse the importance of English in the business world, and also the fact that in many countries it's thought of as stylish or attractive to have an English name, even when it's not needed to communicate information to the locals, you confuse that with the actual use of the English language by the population.

In India, over the years, it's quite visible. More people learn English as a foreign language, but at the same time Hindi has reinforced its position in the country. 40 years ago, less Indian people could speak English, but the elites were largely Anglophone, political life happened largely in English, the visibility of native Indian languages was less than what it is today (except in Tamil Nadu). I remember when the websites of, say, the New Delhi Municipal Corporation, were essentially in English (with just a few token Hindi stuff here and there).

Now it's the opposite. Officials make their announcements in Hindi, not in English anymore. You don't have a Nehru anymore who led most of his life in English and pretended to be a London upper-class gentleman. Hindi is now largely used online in Indian websites. Most read newspapers are now Hindi newspapers (The Times of India is now only the 3rd or 4th most read). Same for television. Same for songs.

The most popular song in India last year was this one, not an English song:

• Video Link

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Belgium, Switzerland, and Luxembourg aren't wealthy countries by U.S. standards.

That's outrageous. Belgium and specially Switzerland are very wealthy by any standards

For instance, Britain is not "poorer" than Mississippi. GDP is not a direct measure of wealth. GDP per capita in the Mississippi is indeed higher, at US$ 55,000 whereas the UK is at US$ 53,000.

Now let's see something like life expectancy, after all, money's most important role is keep us alive: Mississippi 72y/o; Britain 81 y/o. To find places similar to Mississippi, with life expectancy at 72 y/o, we need to go to Honduras (GDP per capita of US$ 3,400), Iraq (US$ 5,700), India (US$ 2,700). Bangladesh is considerably above Mississippi: at 74 y/o with a US$ 2,500 GDP per capita.

People need to drop for good this "Mississippi/West Virginia are richer than a random Western European country/Japan/Canada". No, they're not. They're very desolated places with massive socioeconomic challenges.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

English took off as the international language not because of anything England did on purpose but because The United States became the most important country in the world after WWII.

Yes, not England, but the U.S. However, Europe also needed a language of business for Europe. English worked because it allowed Europeans to speak to each other AND to the United States. Intra-European business is often conducted in English, even between two countries without English as an official language.

[wwmiv]

America would not have had the tools necessary to develop English into the global language had it not been for England laying the groundwork thru centuries of global conquest and trade (including the initial conquest of America herself). Wales, Scotland, Ireland, America pre-1776, Canada, India, Australia, large swaths of Africa, New Zealand, port cities everywhere, and much of Oceania (all of which America had little to do with) [and don’t forget the client states throughout the Middle East, and their constant meddling in continental European affairs] owe their English language use to Britain, not America. America elevated the status even further, institutionalized it via the United Nations and NATO (and arguably by extension the EU), which enabled - mandated, even - the continued use of English in those places and expanded use of English elsewhere. Without America and the global system she developed in the wake of the British Empire disintegrating, English likely would have fallen to the wayside to Spanish or French, but without the groundwork England laid America would not have been able to institutionalize English at all.

Let’s not claim one side mattered more than the other to English’s current linguistic prestige position—they both matter tremendously.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

America would not have had the tools necessary to develop English into the global language had it not been for England laying the groundwork thru centuries of global conquest and trade (including the initial conquest of America herself). Wales, Scotland, Ireland, America pre-1776, Canada, India, Australia, large swaths of Africa, New Zealand, port cities everywhere, and much of Oceania (all of which America had little to do with) [and don’t forget the client states throughout the Middle East, and their constant meddling in continental European affairs] owe their English language use to Britain, not America. America elevated the status even further, institutionalized it via the United Nations and NATO (and arguably by extension the EU), which enabled - mandated, even - the continued use of English in those places and expanded use of English elsewhere. Without America and the global system she developed in the wake of the British Empire disintegrating, English likely would have fallen to the wayside to Spanish or French, but without the groundwork England laid America would not have been able to institutionalize English at all.

Let’s not claim one side mattered more than the other to English’s current linguistic prestige position—they both matter tremendously.

No, Britain is not why English became the predominant international language in the post WW2 era.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

America would not have had the tools necessary to develop English into the global language had it not been for England laying the groundwork thru centuries of global conquest and trade (including the initial conquest of America herself). Wales, Scotland, Ireland, America pre-1776, Canada, India, Australia, large swaths of Africa, New Zealand, port cities everywhere, and much of Oceania (all of which America had little to do with)

Indonesia stopped speaking Dutch and Indochina stopped speaking French, guess why. It's quite obvious that India would have stopped speaking English were it not for the USA.

Without the USA, English would have survived only in those African countries with no other unifying tongue, like Nigeria or Zambia.

[Age of Whamsies]

You guys are thinking about this the wrong way.

The US and Britain are not cleanly separate, and never were, except on paper.

Britain has always been very tightly economically integrated with the US, more so than with most of its own empire. Except for a relatively short stretch of time (around 30-35 years, from the mid 1880s-WW1, when trade with India peaked) the US was always Britain's largest single source of trade, and vice versa. British industrial demand developed the US into an agricultural export powerhouse from the very beginning. London's deep capital markets almost single-handedly financed America's first industrial revolution and the build-out of our railroads, and our ship-building industry.

And likewise, the US helped build the British Empire: New England sailors were prominent in British trade in the Pacific. New England sailors were some of the most hardcore to ever do it, and built essentially their own private global empire, which was fully intertwined with the British. They used to sail around the tip of south america and into the pacific, and collaborated with the British in facilitating trade with China, and in colonizing Hawaii. The port of Honolulu was a British/American joint project. The ports of Sydney and Auckland were heavily frequented by American ships from the very beginning. It was American hard-rock mining firms (using expertise developed in California) who developed the Witwatersrand in South Africa and the Victorian-era gold rushes in Australia (Herbert Hoover, for example, was a prominent mining engineer in Western Australia before becoming president). American heavy industry was also very active in the Empire and became increasingly more prominent over time.. American-built locomotives ran on Indian, Australian, and South African tracks. It was American steel consultants, not Brits, who built the first industrial scale Indian steel works. Mechanized agriculture in all of the British realms was almost entirely American, with International Harvester running manufacturing plants in India and Australia much like Toyota or Ford do today. And needless to say, American expertise developed the global oil industry as we know it.

If you had an "alien's-eye view" of Earth in the 19th century, it would have been basically impossible to tell that Britain and the US were not a single political entity with two capitals, like the later Roman Empire, but far more tightly integrated than the Roman empire ever was. Future historians will separate the British Empire into the formal and informal empire. The informal empire includes places not included in the formal empire, such as the US, Argentina, Iran to varying degrees, and other places. The center of power moving within this empire, from London to Washington/NY in the early 20th century, is actually not uncommon for large empires. At varying times in the Roman empire, Rome, Alexandria, Constantinople, and Antioch were all in the same tier of economic or political or military importance).

So its just not correct to say that the prominence of English is due to the US in the 20th century. The US is just the largest and most successful component (and even the word component is wrong here, because "component" implies something that could in theory be separated out, like a piece of a machine) of a larger system that was built gradually from humble beginnings in the 17th century. You can argue that English would have declined more if not for the US, but that's a pointless point. Like saying "Russian would've declined more if not for half of Russia existing".

[mhays]

The only certainty is that the answer is complex.

My take is that critical mass played a huge role -- the combined heft of the main speaking countries, colonies, tourism destinations/sources, modern business, movies, etc., made it the most popular second language for much of the world. With languages, popularity begets popularity. A big part is to communicate with other non-native English speakers. Breaking out the US from Britain et al gets no clear results.

While the US is huge (with Canada especially), I suspect the UK has had just as much influence even post-WWII. Europeans travel a ton inside Europe, and even work in each other's countries; being able to speak a bit of each language is important (maybe a bit less post-Brexit). Latin America doesn't have the same level of cultural/travel integration.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Age of Whamsies

Britain has always been very tightly economically integrated with the US, more so than with most of its own empire. Except for a relatively short stretch of time (around 30-35 years, from the mid 1880s-WW1, when trade with India peaked) the US was always Britain's largest single source of trade, and vice versa.

Britain's largest economic partner is the EU (and before that the EEC, and before that France, Benelux, Germany).

The US were Britain's largest economic partner perhaps only for a few years after the Treaty of Paris (1783), ironically.

Here from Encyclopedia Britannia 1911 edition. Foreign trade of the UK. In 1909, the UK traded £177,523,943 of goods with the US, but it traded £271,668,344 with France, Benelux, and Germany.

In total the UK traded £283,226,715 with the entire British Empire, but it traded £368,288,780 with the countries making up today's EU.

So even at the peak of the British Empire, the Brexiters were wrong. Continental Europe was, is, and will be the UK's largest trading partner, not the US, not the Empire.

[Age of Whamsies]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Britain's largest economic partner is the EU (and before that the EEC, and before that France, Benelux, Germany).

The US were Britain's largest economic partner perhaps only for a few years after the Treaty of Paris (1783), ironically.

Here from Encyclopedia Britannia 1911 edition. Foreign trade of the UK. In 1909, the UK traded £177,523,943 of goods with the US, but it traded £271,668,344 with France, Benelux, and Germany.

In total the UK traded £283,226,715 with the entire British Empire, but it traded £368,288,780 with the countries making up today's EU.

So even at the peak of the British Empire, the Brexiters were wrong. Continental Europe was, is, and will be the UK's largest trading partner, not the US, not the Empire.

What a ridiculous sleight-of-hand.

First, the EU didnt even exist until the mid-late 20th century, and to this day is struggling to economically integrate its constituent countries. This is part of the reason the EU struggles so much with deploying capital compared to the US (which is one of the main reasons the European tech industry has struggled), and is why the EU now wants to pursue a unified capital market. Europe, whether it likes it or not, is still a continent of separate countries in a lot of the ways that matter, and unified in many ways that don't matter.

So you can't grab a bunch of totally separate countries and then put them together and treat them as a bloc. They werent a bloc then, and even today still arent totally a bloc.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Age of Whamsies

First, the EU didnt even exist until the mid-late 20th century, and to this day is struggling to economically integrate its constituent countries. This is part of the reason the EU struggles so much with deploying capital compared to the US (which is one of the main reasons the European tech industry has struggled), and is why the EU now wants to pursue a unified capital market. Europe, whether it likes it or not, is still a continent of separate countries in a lot of the ways that matter, and unified in many ways that don't matter.

So you can't grab a bunch of totally separate countries and then put them together and treat them as a bloc. They werent a bloc then, and even today still arent totally a bloc.

I think we've found a Brexiter.

Singapore-on-the-Thames anyone?

[Age of Whamsies]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

I think we've found a Brexiter.

Singapore-on-the-Thames anyone?

What?? Where did I ever say I was a brexiter? Is that like a go-to insult now when someone criticises the EU at all?

I'm American, so Brexit doesnt matter much to me either way. Clearly the UK really harmed itself economically by leaving. They were also stupid to think they could work out special treatment from either the US or Europe. That's not at all incompatible with the fact that the EU is highly dysfunctional bordering on kleptocratic.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Indonesia stopped speaking Dutch and Indochina stopped speaking French, guess why. It's quite obvious that India would have stopped speaking English were it not for the USA.

Without the USA, English would have survived only in those African countries with no other unifying tongue, like Nigeria or Zambia.

Did I not literally say this in my post?

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Without America and the global system she developed in the wake of the British Empire disintegrating, English likely would have fallen to the wayside to Spanish or French.

English would not have become the international language, French or Spanish would have. Why? Because the former British colonies would have ceased to speak English in the exact manner you (and I) describe.

Yes, America held it all together, but America held together and expanded what England built.

[mousquet]

Originally Posted by Yuri

People need to drop for good this "Mississippi/West Virginia are richer than a random Western European country/Japan/Canada". No, they're not. They're very desolated places with massive socioeconomic challenges.

I never went down as far south as Mississippi in the US, but yes, life surely can be rough over there.

Again, GDP per capita or median income are certainly significant indicators, but not enough to really assess standards of living by country.
Human Development Index is probably more accurate and reliable in that matter. It compiles gross national income (GNI), mean years of schooling and expected years of schooling and life expectancy in a formula.
I wouldn't like to be obnoxious, but American fellows may not like it, cause their country's not the most enviable, especially once inequality-adjusted.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by mousquet

I never went down as far south as Mississippi in the US, but yes, life surely can be rough over there.

Again, GDP per capita or median income are certainly significant indicators, but not enough to really assess standards of living by country.
Human Development Index is probably more accurate and reliable in that matter. It compiles gross national income (GNI), mean years of schooling and expected years of schooling and life expectancy in a formula.
I wouldn't like to be obnoxious, but American fellows may not like it, cause their country's not the most enviable, especially once inequality-adjusted.

I've been to about a dozen or so countries and all fifty states and the extent of poverty not only in WV and MS but almost every state is astounding. We are truly a third world country cosplaying as a first world country.

[New Brisavoine]

Nah, America is richer. You only have to step inside a house in the US, it's so very visible people are richer than in most of Europe.

Most people in France have houses that would be considered shabby or derelict in the US. My aunt for instance, she hasn't changed the wallpaper in her bedroom perhaps since the... 1980s (or 1970s?). I went into her bedroom last Christmas, first time I was there in a long time, and the wallpaper was so decrepit, even coming out from the wall in places. And the room was very cold because central heating wasn't working properly but she was unwilling to spend the money to repair it.

And that is by no means something unusual in France.

In the US, except for poor people, the interior of houses is usually more modern, more recent, more impeccable. Here in France I'm always shocked. When you visit apartments to rent in Paris, it's just shocking what you see.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

In the US, except for poor people, the interior of houses is usually more modern, more recent, more impeccable. Here in France I'm always shocked. When you visit apartments to rent in Paris, it's just shocking what you see.

Can't tell if this is sarcasm or not lol.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Can't tell if this is sarcasm or not lol.

You have to have lived in both countries to understand.

But a good starting point is this: look for an Airbnb in a random French city, and look at the pictures of the place. And tell me it's not inferior to most houses in America!

[moorhosj1]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

But a good starting point is this: look for an Airbnb in a random French city, and look at the pictures of the place. And tell me it's not inferior to most houses in America!

Couldn't this also be a case of what people in France and America choose to spend their money on?

The average French person has free healthcare and a longer lifespan.

The average American household has $105k of debt versus $30k in France.