Sweden is a lucky nordic special conditions social democracy debunked by data

[Milos Uzelac]

2.  Consider if the citizens only paid taxes to the state government instead of federal income tax.  (Claim for EU member states) 

Data from 2016 for Sweden:

Sweden

Population 9,851,017

GDP EUR 465,201 mil.

GDP per capita EUR 47,224

Share in imports of goods to the EU 2.10 %

Net contribution to the EUEUR 2,130.59 mil.

Net contribution to the EU in % of GDP 0.46 %

Net contribution to the EU per capita 216.28

In 2016 the taxpayers of Sweden contributed to the European Union  216 euros per head over what they received. Since its accession to the EU the country has paid to the European Union EUR 33707 million over what it has received. Select a year in the upper right-hand corner to see details for other years.

Note that this breakdown compares fiscal transfers only and does not include other costs and benefits connected with membership in the EU (administrative costs, co-funding of EU projects, effects of EU legislation on domestic prices etc.).

Kingdom of Sweden is a member of the European Union since 1995 when it left the European Free Trade Association (EFTA). Sweden's Accession Treaty is available here.

https://www.money-go-round.eu/Country.aspx?id=SE

Data from 2011:  

"With an annual budget of over €129bn, the EU is an economic power in its own right, more significant than many countries. So, how do those finances break down? This latest detailed data - from 2011 - shows where the hard cash goes - and where it flows from. We wanted to look at how the figures break down.

Extracted from the EU budget site, we've gone for the most detailed recent numbers.

Most of the EU's money comes from member nation contributions, €103.2bn in 2011. It's not completely straightforward - especially if you use the UK as an example.

So, where does the money go? €118.4bn of it is spent inside the EU - the rest goes on aid and development outside the community. These are the official definitions - and what they really mean.

• Administration Running the EU in each country
• The EU as a global partner International aid, activities outside the EU
• Citizenship, freedom, security and justice Asylum, education and culture
• Preservation and management of natural resources Common agricultural policy, environment, fishing

2. Nor would they be paying for poor state's social programs just as Scandinavians don't pay 

• Cohesion for growth and employment Helping poorer regions of Europe
• Competitiveness for growth and employment Economic growth grants to small business, science and research

Germany, as the biggest economy, is also the biggest contributor, Poland is the biggest receiver. The UK contributes much more than it receives too, about €4.7bn more. Why the gap? The UK is a rich country and the EU points out that although it spends less in the UK than the national contribution, the British economy gains much more from access to European markets and contracts.

How much does each country give and receive per person? If you look at national contributions from and spending in each country, Luxembourg is the biggest receiver in Europe. However, those figures are skewed by its tiny population of 502,000 people and the fact that it is home to several EU institutions, including the European Court of Justice, the European Court of Auditors, Eurostat and the Secretariat of the European Parliament.

EU total contributions and spending:

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/nov/22/eu-budget-spending-contributions-european-union#data

Sweden's contribution to the EU as of today:

"Sweden's contribution to the EU is approx. SEK 24–44 billion of the central government budget. Sweden gets back approx. SEK 10–13 billion in the form of various kinds of support from the EU." 

From Wikipedia

Sweden's contribution from European Union 2009-2019

Published by Statista Research Department, Jul 23, 2020

"In 2019, the Swedish government received roughly 12.6 billion Swedish kronor from the European Union. That was the second highest amount during the time under consideration. The highest contribution from the EU was made in 2010, reaching nearly 13 billion kronor."

https://www.statista.com/statistics/530450/sweden-budget-receipts-from-eu/

 

Edited June 27, 2021 by Milos Uzelac

[Milos Uzelac]

1. Take nearly any mostly white US state such as Minnesota.

These countries tend to be 90% white since they don't bring in new poor people like the US does. At least they haven't for very long

They're selfish. (Claim) 

"25.9% As of 2020, the percentage inhabitants with a foreign background in Sweden had risen to 25.9%.

As of 2010, 1.33 million people or 14.3% of the inhabitants of Sweden were foreign-born. Of these individuals, 859,000 (64.6%) were born outside the European Union and 477,000 (35.4%) were born in another EU member state.[3] Sweden has evolved from a nation of net emigration ending after World War I to a nation of net immigration from World War II onward. In 2013, immigration reached its highest level since records began, with 115,845 people migrating to Sweden while the total population grew by 88,971."

In 2020, people with a foreign background accounted for 98.8% (51,073 people) and persons with a Swedish background accounted for only 1.2% (633 persons) of the population increase.[6] The official definition of foreign background (sv:utländsk bakgrund) comprises individuals either born abroad or having both parents born abroad.[7] In 2017, majorities in three municipalities had foreign backgrounds: Botkyrka (58.6%) Södertälje (53.0%) and Haparanda (51.7%).[7]

In 2014, 81,300 individuals applied for asylum in Sweden, which was an increase of 50% compared to 2013 and the most since 1992. 47% of them came from Syria, followed by 21% from the Horn of Africa (mostly Eritrea and Somalia). 77% (63,000) requests were approved but it differs greatly between different groups. Nearly two weeks into October 2015, a record figure of 86,223 asylum applications was reached, and in the remaining weeks of the year that figure rose to 162,877. In 2016, 28,939 people applied for asylum,[8] after temporary border ID controls had been initiated and been in effect during 2016.[9] As of 2014, according to Statistics Sweden, there were around 17,000 total asylum immigrants from Syria, 10,000 from Iraq, 4,500 from Eritrea, 1,900 from Afghanistan, and 1,100 from Somalia.[10] In the year 2017, most asylum seekers come from Syria (267), Eritrea (263), Iraq (117), and Georgia (106).[11]

According to an official report by the governmental Swedish Pensions Agency, total immigration to Sweden for 2017 was expected to be roughly 180,000 individuals, and thereafter to number 110,000 persons every year.[12][13]

Immigrants in Sweden are mostly concentrated in the urban areas of Svealand and Götaland. The largest foreign-born populations residing in Sweden come from Finland, Iraq, formerly Yugoslavian countries, Poland, Iran, and Syria."

from Wikipedia

 

Edited June 27, 2021 by Milos Uzelac

[StarfoxEpiphany]

Quote

Net contribution to the EU in % of GDP 0.46 %

1.  That's nothing. In Connecticut, the citizens pay about 10-38% of their wealth to the US government instead of the state government.  All of the corporations pay their taxes to Washington as well.  That's like 40% of the GDP.  Imagine if all that was pumped back into Connecticut

2.  Sweden only spends 1% of its GDP on military while the Connecticut has to spend 3.4% of to defend Sweden

14 minutes ago, Milos Uzelac said:

Of these individuals, 859,000 were born outside the EU

3.  That's cute.  Half of Texas alone is latino.

Edited June 27, 2021 by StarfoxEpiphany

[Nahm]

Threads with a country being lucky or not in the title preface details to follow, triggering nationalism etc. Proceed if y’all want to, but please choose to withdrawal your attention vs reporting comments to mods. 

[StarfoxEpiphany]

@Nahm Sounds like we already know this will deteriorate to namecalling

[Milos Uzelac]

1 hour ago, StarfoxEpiphany said:

1.  That's nothing. In Connecticut, the citizens pay about 10-38% of their wealth to the US government instead of the state government. 

 

2 hours ago, Milos Uzelac said:

In 2016 the taxpayers of Sweden contributed to the European Union  216 euros per head over what they received. Since its accession to the EU the country has paid to the European Union EUR 33707 million over what it has received.

What's that percentage-wise in terms of the averages Swede's wealth and in terms of their average income? Besides, the biggest contributors are the EU member state countries that have/had the biggest economies and economic stake in the EU such as Germany and the former U.K.

1 hour ago, StarfoxEpiphany said:

All of the corporations pay their taxes to Washington as well.  That's like 40% of the GDP.  Imagine if all that was pumped back into Connecticut

I presuppose there is a difference between a federal government and its spending in the countries like the U.S. and a monetary union with some supranational executive bodies, councils, parliament, and a central bank just managing a sliver of the member countries of those Unions finance and economies and investing also a sliver in some shared public combined projects in terms of all those countries combined economy.

I don't think a parallel and an allegory between an EU member state and a federal state in the U.S. is a good comparison to make for example of equating a federal state like Connecticut and an EU member state country like Sweden. I don't think, given the data you yourself supplied that comparison is apt in regards to the relationship between the federal government of the U.S. with U.S. states and the EU as a monetary union and its supranational bodies with an EU member state such as Sweden who has its own independent economy and system in regards to the EU that still uses Swedish krona as it's currency. 

1 hour ago, StarfoxEpiphany said:

2.  Sweden only spends 1% of its GDP on military while the Connecticut has to spend 3.4% of to defend Sweden

Sweden is not in NATO first and foremost.

''In 1949 Sweden chose not to join NATO and declared a security policy aiming for non-alignment in peace and neutrality in war. A modified version now qualifies non-alignment in peace for possible neutrality in war. As such, the Swedish government decided not to participate in the membership of NATO because they wanted to remain neutral in a potential war. This position was maintained without much discussion during the Cold War. Since the 1990s however there has been an active debate in Sweden on the question of NATO membership in the post–Cold War world. Sweden joined Partnership for Peace in 1994. These ideological divides were visible again in November 2006 when Sweden could either buy two new transport planes or join NATO's plane pool, and in December 2006, when Sweden was invited to join the NATO Response Force. While the governing parties in Sweden have opposed membership, they have participated in NATO-led missions in Bosnia (IFOR and SFOR), Kosovo (KFOR), Afghanistan (ISAF), and Libya (Operation Unified Protector).

 

The Swedish left bloc, including the Social Democratic party, the Green party, and the Left party have remained in favor of non-alignment. The Alliance, including the Moderate Party, the Centre Party, the conservative Christian Democrats as well as the Liberal party make up the Swedish parties with representation in the parliament today that are in favor of NATO membership. Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt stated on 18 September 2007 that Swedish membership in NATO would require a "very wide" majority in Parliament, including the social democrats, and coordination with Finland. Sweden signed in 2014, and ratified in 2016, a host country agreement with NATO allowing for NATO forces to conduct joint training exercises on Swedish soil and for NATO member states' forces to be deployed in Sweden in response to threats to Sweden's national security. In October 2014, an opinion poll found for the first time more Swedes in favor of NATO membership (37%) than opposed (36%).

If the situation in and around the Baltic countries were to escalate, Swedish NATO membership, possibly together with Finland, would reduce barriers to NATO intervention in the region. NATO reported in 2015 that Russia simulated a nuclear attack on Sweden in 2013. The Swedish government questioned Sweden's neutral status after the Russian intervention in Ukraine. Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov threatened in 2016 to "take necessary measures" to prevent Swedish NATO membership. According to a poll conducted by Sifo in June 2016, more Swedes are against a Swedish NATO membership than in favor of one. A government-sponsored report on the future of Sweden's NATO membership was released in September 2016.''

from Wikipedia

Yet it contributes as part of one of six countries (known as 'Enhanced Opportunity Partners'¹ under the Partnership Interoperability Initiative) that make particularly significant contributions to NATO operations and other Alliance objectives. As such, the country has enhanced opportunities for dialogue and cooperation with the Allies:

''Support for NATO-led operations and missions

Sweden first contributed to a NATO-led operation in 1995 when it sent a battalion to the NATO-led peacekeeping force in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Sweden has supported the peacekeeping force in Kosovo (KFOR) since 1999.

Swedish personnel worked alongside Allied forces as part of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan from 2003 to the completion of ISAF's mission in 2014. Sweden is currently supporting the follow-on Resolute Support Mission (RSM) to further train, assist and advise the Afghan security forces and institutions. Sweden has also contributed over USD 13 million to the Afghan National Army Trust Fund.

In April 2011, Sweden contributed to Operation Unified Protector (OUP), NATO's military operation in Libya under UN Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973.

Sweden also participates in NATO Mission Iraq (NMI), NATO’s advisory, training and capacity-building mission in Iraq.

Wider cooperation

Sweden engages with NATO's Civil Emergency Planning Committee and cooperates with Allies on regional assessments, critical infrastructure protection, and providing support in dealing with the consequences of a major accident or disaster in the Euro-Atlantic area.

Sweden has participated in numerous NATO crisis management exercises, and Swedish civil resources have been listed with the Euro-Atlantic Disaster Response Coordination Centre (EADRCC), including search and rescue teams, medical experts, and protection and decontamination units. Sweden regularly conducts major multifunctional civil-military-police exercises (the Viking exercises), which involve many other nations as well as participants from international organizations, non-governmental organizations, and agencies.

Under NATO's Science for Peace and Security (SPS) Programme, Swedish scientists are actively contributing to a number of activities pertaining to counter-terrorism, chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) defense, and environmental security. Notably, experts from Sweden are involved in a top-down project with the primary objective of building long-term capacity for the evaluation of programs to counter violent extremism.

Sweden actively supports the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace, and Security (WPS), and since 2012 has hosted the Nordic Centre for Gender in Military Operations at the Swedish Armed Forces International Centre, to make sure that gender perspectives continue to be integrated into military operations.

Sweden supports a number of NATO Trust Fund projects in other partner countries, focused on areas such as training and evaluation of military units; medical rehabilitation of injured military personnel; explosive ordnance disposal and countering improvised explosive devices; and professional development of security sector employees.''

from https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_52535.htm

1 hour ago, StarfoxEpiphany said:

2.  Sweden only spends 1% of its GDP on military while the Connecticut has to spend 3.4% of to defend Sweden

That's the issue of the massive military spending by the federal government of your country that goes from the state's taxes to a bloated military budget of over 700 billion dollars that is more than the other large military spending countries at the top of the list combined and that is running a huge deficit on the U.S. as a whole.

If the U.S can spend 700 billion dollars on its military and runs a huge deficit on it no surprise it has to contribute more than some other countries combined to the shared military spending in NATO.

''Allies make direct and indirect contributions to the costs of running NATO and implementing its policies and activities. NATO common-funded budgets and programs are funded by direct contributions and equate to only 0.3% of total Allied defense spending, an equivalent of around EUR 2.5 billion to run the entirety of the Organization, its commands, and military infrastructure.

Indirect – or national – contributions are the largest and come, for instance, when a member commits capabilities and/or troops to a military operation and bears the costs of the decision to do so.

Direct contributions are made to finance the NATO budgets and programs for requirements that serve the interests of all 30 members – and cannot reasonably be borne by any single member – such as NATO-wide air defense or command and control systems.

All 30 Allies contribute to the NATO budget on an agreed cost-share formula based on Gross National Income, which represents a small percentage of each member’s defense budget. This is the principle of common funding and demonstrates burden-sharing in action.

Common funding arrangements are used to finance NATO’s principal budgets: the civil budget (NATO HQ running costs), the military budget (costs of the integrated Command Structure), and the NATO Security Investment Programme (military infrastructure and certain capabilities).

Projects can also be jointly funded, which means that the participating countries can identify the requirements, the priorities, and the funding arrangements, while NATO provides political oversight.

NATO’s budget has strong governance and oversight mechanisms, with Allies deciding together what is eligible for common funding, deciding how much is spent each year and setting planning figures for the medium term.

The funding process is overseen by the North Atlantic Council, managed by the Resource Policy and Planning Board, and implemented by the Budget Committee and the Investment Committee.''

''In all cases, NATO (as an organization) does not have its own armed forces, so Allies commit troops and equipment.''

In 2006, NATO Defence Ministers agreed to commit a minimum of 2% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to defense spending to continue to ensure the Alliance’s military readiness. This guideline also serves as an indicator of a country’s political will to contribute to NATO’s common defense efforts since the defense capacity of each member has an impact on the overall perception of the Alliance’s credibility as a politico-military organization.

The combined wealth of the non-US Allies, measured in GDP, exceeds that of the United States. However, non-US Allies together spend less than half of what the United States spends on defense. This imbalance has been a constant, with variations, throughout the history of the Alliance and more so since the tragic events of 11 September 2001, after which the United States significantly increased its defense spending. Today, the volume of US defense expenditure represents more than two-thirds of the defense spending of the Alliance as a whole. However, this is not the amount the United States contributes to the operational running of NATO, which is shared with all Allies according to the principle of common funding. Moreover, US defense spending also covers commitments outside the Euro-Atlantic area. It should be noted, nonetheless, that the Alliance relies on the United States for the provision of some essential capabilities, regarding, for instance, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; air-to-air refueling; ballistic missile defense; and airborne electronic warfare.

The effects of the 2007-2008 financial crisis and the declining share of resources devoted to defense in many Allied countries, up to 2014, have exacerbated this imbalance and also revealed growing asymmetries in capability among European Allies. France, Germany, and the United Kingdom together represent more than 50% of the non-US Allies' defense spending. At the Wales Summit in 2014, in response to Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea and the turmoil in the Middle East, NATO Leaders agreed to reverse the trend of declining defense budgets and decided:

Allies currently meeting the 2% guideline on defense spending will aim to continue to do so;

Allies whose current proportion of GDP spent on defense is below this level will: halt any decline; aim to increase defense expenditure in real terms as GDP grows; and aim to move towards the 2% guideline within a decade with a view to meeting their NATO Capability Targets and filling NATO’s capability shortfalls.

While the 2% of GDP guideline alone is no guarantee that money will be spent in the most effective and efficient way to acquire and deploy modern capabilities, it remains, nonetheless, an important indicator of the political resolve of individual Allies to devote to defense a relatively small but still significant level of resources. In 2014, three Allies spent 2% of GDP or more on defense; this went up to 11 Allies in 2020 and a majority of Allies have national plans in place to meet this target by 2024.''

''At the Wales Summit in 2014, NATO Leaders agreed that, within a decade, Allies who are spending less than 20% of their annual defense spending on major equipment will aim to increase their annual investments to 20% or more of total defense expenditures. In 2021, 24 of the 30 Allies will meet this guideline.

All Allies will also ensure that their forces meet NATO-agreed guidelines for deployability and sustainability and other agreed output metrics; and they will see to it that their armed forces can operate together effectively, including through the implementation of agreed NATO standards and doctrines.''

''NATO has annual budgets and programs worth around EUR 2.5 billion, which inter alia support its permanent military command structure, its current operations, and missions, and provide essential military infrastructure (including air and naval basing facilities, satellite communications, fuel pipelines, and command and control systems). This represents 0.3% of total Allied defense spending. This direct funding comes principally in two forms: common funding and joint funding. It can also come in the form of trust funds, contributions in kind, ad hoc sharing arrangements, and donations.

Several factors influence the choice of funding source to address a given priority. These include the required level of integration or interoperability, affordability at the national level, the complexity of the system involved, and the potential for economies of scale. Often, a combination of funding sources is used.''

from: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm

$3.1 trillion.  The federal government ran a deficit of $3.1 trillion in the fiscal year 2020, more than triple the deficit for the fiscal year 2019. This year's deficit amounted to 15.2% of GDP, the greatest deficit as a share of the economy since 1945.

A large part of this deficit is because of the bloated military spending.

Guess who also has to pay for that deficit apart from the citizenry and the taxpayer, the central banks of European countries that have to buy U.S. government bonds. So the U.S. is not only paying for Sweden's defense via its NATO contribution, Sweden is also paying for the U.S. military deficit.

1 hour ago, StarfoxEpiphany said:

3.  That's cute.  Half of Texas alone is latino.

It seems to me that you think, correct me if I am wrong, that immigrants from neighbouring Central and Latin American countries such as Mexico Guatemala Nicaragua Honduras, etc. aren't obliged to become or even arent Latino-American citizens of the U.S. but are some foreign immigrants that makeup just half the population of the state of Texas. What's wrong with Texas not being a non-majority white population and Sweden having 24% of foreign-born citizens?

 

Edited June 27, 2021 by Milos Uzelac

[StarfoxEpiphany]

No one needs you to copy/paste wikipedia articles. 

Try to make your posts smaller than a book.

[Milos Uzelac]

Didn't respond to the content of my post or my arguments though. I even bolded the most important aspects of the article so it's readable and can be easily skimmed through and responded to.

And yes also:

They would not be paying for the free world's defense (as the US is).

Is a codeword for U.S. imperialism, white supremacy, and military hegemony across the globe (I wonder if those Palestinians in Israel are free as second-class citizens in an apartheid state that's engaged in the systemic ethnic cleansing of them and their children and with a barbaric bombing campaign in Gaza with the U.S. supplied weapons and military annual budget aid of 4 billion to the Israeli military).

3) It's a joke to call people from the EU or from brain draining other countries as an immigrant burden.  It's not an economic inconvenience.

You're not special.  Almost any USA state doing this would leave the rest of the country behind.

This is exactly what the U.S. and other Western countries did up till the end of the original Cold War.

''The term "brain drain" was coined by the Royal Society to describe the emigration of "scientists and technologists" to North America from post-war Europe.

The myth of brain drain effects:

''A 2017 study of Mexican immigrant households in the United States found that by virtue of moving to the United States, the households increase their incomes more than fivefold immediately. The study also found that the "average gains accruing to migrants surpass those of even the most successful current programs of economic development.''

''Research also finds that migration leads to greater trade in goods and services between the sending and receiving countries. Using 130 years of data on historical migrations to the United States, one study finds "that a doubling of the number of residents with ancestry from a given foreign country relative to the mean increases by 4.2 percentage points the probability that at least one local firm invests in that country, and increases by 31% the number of employees at domestic recipients of FDI from that country. The size of these effects increases with the ethnic diversity of the local population, the geographic distance to the origin country, and the ethnolinguistic fractionalization of the origin country."

''A 2019 study in the Journal of Political Economy found that Swedish emigration to the United States during the late 19th and early 20th century strengthened the labor movement and increased left-wing politics and voting trends. The authors argue that the ability to emigrate strengthened the bargaining position of labor, as well as provided exit options for political dissidents who might have been oppressed.''

"A 2017 paper found that the emigration opportunities to the United States for high-skilled Indians provided by the H-1B visa program surprisingly contributed to the growth of the Indian IT sector. A greater number of Indians were induced to enroll in computer science programs in order to move to the United States; however, a large number of these Indians never moved to the United States (due to caps in the H-1B program) or returned to India after the completion of their visas."

''Research also suggests that emigration, remittances, and return migration can have a positive impact on political institutions and democratization in the country of origin.

''Migration leads to lower levels of terrorism. Return migration from countries with liberal gender norms has been associated with the transfer of liberal gender norms to the home country. A 2009 study finds that foreigners educated in democracies foster democracy in their home countries. Studies find that leaders who were educated in the West are significantly more likely to improve their country's prospects of implementing democracy. A 2016 study found that Chinese immigrants exposed to Western media censored in China became more critical of their home government's performance on the issues covered in the media and less trusting in official discourse. A 2014 study found that remittances decreased corruption in democratic states.''

So why is it an inconvenience for non-whites to move to the U.S and Western European countries if they can bring benefits back to their home countries of origin?

This is exactly what the U.S. and other Western countries did up till the end of the original Cold War:

''Human capital flight in Europe fits into two distinct trends. The first is an outflow of highly qualified scientists from Western Europe mostly to the United States. The second is a migration of skilled workers from Central and Southeastern Europe into Western Europe, within the EU. While in some countries the trend may be slowing, certain South European countries such as Italy continue to experience extremely high rates of human capital flight. The European Union has noted a net loss of highly skilled workers and introduced a "blue card" policy – much like the American green card – which "seeks to draw an additional 20 million workers from Asia, Africa, and the Americas in the next two decades".

Although the EU recognizes a need for extensive immigration to mitigate the effects of an aging population, national populist political parties have gained support in many European countries by calling for stronger laws restricting immigration. Immigrants are perceived both as a burden on the state and the cause of social problems such as increased crime rates and the introduction of major cultural differences.''

and brain-drain trends within the U.S. itself:

''Perhaps the biggest problem afflicting America is its widening geographic divide between the winners and losers of the knowledge economy. A raft of studies has documented the growing divergence between places based on their ability to attract, retain, and cluster highly educated and skilled workers and to develop high-tech startup companies.

Talented and skilled Americans are the most likely to move by far. While the overall rate of mobility among Americans has declined over the past decade or so, still, between one-quarter and one-third of U.S. adults have moved within the previous five years, a higher rate of mobility than just about any other country on the globe. But behind this lies a tale of two migrations: the skilled and educated “mobile” on the one hand and the less educated “stuck” on the other.''

''Over the past 50 years, the United States has experienced major shifts in geographic mobility patterns among its highly-educated citizens. Some states today are keeping and receiving a greater share of these adults than they used to, while many others are both hemorrhaging their homegrown talent and failing to attract out-of-staters who are highly educated. This phenomenon has far-reaching implications for our collective social and political life, extending beyond the economic problems for states that lose highly-educated adults.

This report describes what this so-called “brain drain” looks like across the 50 U.S. states. We use data from the 1940 through 2000 decennial censuses and the 2010 and 2017 American Community Surveys to measure brain drain in each state.

We define a highly-educated “leaver” as someone in the top third of the national education distribution who resides in a state other than her birth state between the ages of 31 and 40. We then analyze brain drain using two measures: “gross” brain drain and “net” brain drain. Gross brain drain is defined as the share of leavers who are highly educated minus the share of adults who remain in their birth state (“stayers”) who are highly educated. Net brain drain is the share of leavers who are highly educated minus the share of entrants to a state who are highly educated.

We find that brain drain (and brain gain) states tend to fall along regional lines, although there are a number of exceptions to this general rule. Overall, dynamic states along the Boston-Washington corridor (Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and Maryland), on the West Coast (California, Oregon, Washington), and in other parts of the country (Illinois, Texas, Colorado, Arizona, and Hawaii) are the best at retaining and attracting highly-educated adults. Meanwhile, states in northern New England (New Hampshire and Vermont), the Rust Belt (Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Missouri), the Plains (North and South Dakota and Iowa), and the Southeast (West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana), as well as Delaware, fare the worst on both counts.

We also find that most of the top-performing, brain gain states experienced improvements in terms of the gross drain, net drain, or both from 1970 to 2017. On the other hand, many brain drain states, especially in the Southeast, have seen declining fortunes on one or both of these measures during this period. Others, including most of the Rust Belt states, have consistently faced high gross drain and net drain over the past half-century.

Our report provides evidence that highly-educated adults flowing to dynamic states with major metropolitan areas are, to a significant extent, leaving behind more rural and post-industrial states. This geographic sorting of the nation’s most-educated citizens may be among the factors driving economic stagnation—and declining social capital—in certain areas of the country. If we are connecting less with communities and people who are different than us, we could be more likely to see adversaries among those in whom we might otherwise find a neighbor.''

from: https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/republicans/2019/4/losing-our-minds-brain-drain-across-the-united-states

 

Edited June 27, 2021 by Milos Uzelac