
An Incredibly Detailed Map of Europe's Population Shifts - cawel
http://www.citylab.com/politics/2015/06/incredibly-detailed-map-europes-population-shifts/396497
======
s_dev
Ireland is interesting. It's long been the sick man in terms of population
growth since 1845 up until the late 1980s and now is the odd man out in Europe
as being one of the few countries that can grow its population.

Ireland has had a recession since 2008 but ended last year with a return to
slow growth and during this time had high unemployment and high emigration.
It's expected to be the fastest growing European economy by far over the next
12 months. Still Irelands prosperity, high minimum wage and generous welfare
benefits are attracting immigration from Eastern Europe and North Africa in
particular. This compounded with Irelands high fertility rate accentuates her
population growth above her neighbours.

These trends are expected to continue even as Europe exits recession and
returns to growth.

The images surprised me though - it suggests all of Ireland is growing
somewhat evenly when the truth is that while most if is growing Dublin and her
surrounding area and Cork are growing much faster than the rest and the
picture doesn't indicate that though I'm sure the data will.

~~~
Terr_
> It's long been the sick man in terms of population growth since 1845

That reminds me of a section from the book "1493", discussing the introduction
of the potato to Europe and later the potato-famine:

> Today Ireland has the melancholy distinction of being the only nation in
> Europe, and perhaps the world, to have fewer people within the same
> boundaries than it did more than 150 years ago.

~~~
s_dev
The Famine made Ireland "Irish" in the sense that we understand it today. The
famine caused people to become more pious in their Catholicism, even more
impoverished and detest the British even more than what they previously did.
It probably was the single most important factor in shaping modern Ireland.

Many here are probably aware that Ireland had in 1845 a population of 9
Million but only 6 Million today (all Island pop). The entirety of the UK at
the time had a population of 22 Million people. This means the Britain
(Scotland, England and Wales) was only 25% bigger than Ireland at that time
which is completely different today with the UK having >60 Million people and
Ireland (Republic) having 4.5 Million. Ireland had a similar agricultural
output compared to Britain which is at least three time larger.

If the famine didn't happen Ireland could easily have a population of over 30
Million. However it did happen and alternate realities are hard to predict.

~~~
guard-of-terra
"If the famine didn't happen Ireland could easily have a population of over 30
Million"

Would you really want to become Bangladesh? 30 Million seems an awfully high
number for a country of such size and latitude.

~~~
jameshart
If Ireland had similar population density to Southeast England, it would have
a population of around 39 million.

~~~
guard-of-terra
England has forests, nature reserves, fjords elsewhere. That's why this region
can be so dense? Why would you want to build up everything? Where's the gain I
wonder?

~~~
jameshart
Setting questionable English 'fjords' aside, the point isn't that it would be
_desirable_ to have a population of 30 million in Ireland, but that it would
be _possible_ , without having the population density (and presumably poverty)
of Bangladesh. You asked how a small island in the north atlantic could
sustain more than 30 million people - well, South East England has a
population density of about 1200 people per square mile, at a similar
latitude. Transplant that same population density to Ireland and you'd fit 39
million people. So, if you want to know what an Ireland with 30 million people
in it would look like, don't imagine Bangladesh, think of Southeast England.

And Southeast England is still considered a pretty beautiful, green part of
the world. It contains the South Downs and New Forest national parks, the
Chiltern hills, and about 60% of the land in the region is actively farmed. Of
course, in the middle of it you've got London, which accounts for the overall
density. So yes, a populated Ireland would be _different_ ; Dublin and Belfast
would be vastly different cities; - but it wouldn't have stopped being the
emerald isle if in an alternate history its population had reached 30m.

~~~
guard-of-terra
Yes it is possible, but why would you ever want that?

Why want Dublin faster grown and thus soulless? Why want Irish spirit to be
abolished and replaced with hive mentality?

I could totally understand you if Ireland would be declining, but it's
thriving, attracting people, growing naturally when most nations struggle at
that. You're in a perfect position and you want to replace it with something
random?

~~~
chad_oliver
Why would anyone ever want that? Because people have different opinions about
what is best. You are absolutely entitled to think that a more populous
Ireland would be a bad thing, but you're being downvoted because you can't
seem to see that that's just a personal preference, not an absolute truth.

Personally, I live in New Zealand (population: 4.5 million), and I'd strongly
prefer it if we had twice as many people. A bigger population can sustain a
healthier economy, with more opportunities for everyone. However, I'm well
aware that I'm an outlier; most people think differently and I respect that.

------
mxfh
Links to high-res downloads from BBSR:

JPEG:
[http://www.bbsr.bund.de/BBSR/DE/Home/Topthemen/Downloads/bev...](http://www.bbsr.bund.de/BBSR/DE/Home/Topthemen/Downloads/bevoelkerungsentwicklung.html)

PDF:
[http://www.bbsr.bund.de/BBSR/DE/Home/Topthemen/Downloads/Bil...](http://www.bbsr.bund.de/BBSR/DE/Home/Topthemen/Downloads/Bild.html)

------
maelito
Here's a dynamic map I've made on the same subject, showing a macro view,
country-level shifts :
[http://laem.github.io/eurpop/](http://laem.github.io/eurpop/)

------
arethuza
"Scotland’s Northeast shows remarkable population gains, a likely result of
the North Sea oil industry concentrated in Aberdeen."

I think you can probably explain the two red blobs near Aberdeen on oil and
the wealth it has brought to that area but at least one of the other red blobs
further west must be the Aviemore/Strathspey area which has become incredibly
popular for outdoor sports and general high quality of life.

Amusingly, although Aviemore is described as a "boom town" it's population
only grew by 36% in the decade to 2011 adding an extra 956 people :-)

[http://www.strathspey-herald.co.uk/News/Aviemore-hailed-
as-a...](http://www.strathspey-herald.co.uk/News/Aviemore-hailed-as-a-boom-
town-17012014.htm)

------
wahsd
There are some really interesting things on that map. The apparent huge influx
of people into France and the UK is one. Another amazing thing is that after
what I think is around $1 trillion dollars spent in former east German states
post reunification, the outflow of people still looks to be strong.

~~~
Someone
_" still looks to be strong"_

As you know, you can't tell that from this picture. An area that has had large
annual population decreases for the first 5 years, and slower growth for the
second 5 will still show up as red.

Also, quite a bit of the population decreases in the countryside will be of
people moving into the cities.

Because of differences in population density, that can give the impression of
population decline where there is none.

Looking at Germany, for me the picture 'confirms' that their population is
shrinking (no growth in the west, apparent decrease in the east) that makes
the strong growth of their economy in the past years even more of a miracle.

~~~
merb
Why should the growth of economy be a miracle if the population is shrinking?

Mostly that's why the population is shrinking, people who live in the better
economies, mostly have less kids, mostly due to the fact that they don't have
the time and mostly working harder than others.

Also our economy grown mostly cause of the fact that our strong export got a
huge increase since we had a european currency ("Deutsche Mark" or "DM" was
just too good for the export market), while the Euro is / was way better since
other countries brought it to a lower level.

~~~
Someone
If your population grows, you get some growth 'for free' in the sense that it
doesn't require productivity to increase.

If the population shrinks, keeping the economy flat already requires
productivity improvements. Growing it at a time where other economies with
growing populations can't is a bit of a miracle. Those increased exports still
have to be produced.

~~~
crdb
He's partly correct: German growth is by design.

First, enter a monetary union with weaker economies with dubious credit, at a
really advantageous rate for these economies but effectively substantially
depressing the new Deutsche Mark.

Second, lend like crazy to these countries whilst markets believe Greek paper
to have the same default risk as German.

Third, as the neighbouring countries are using the newly available borrowing
and their strong new euros to go on a spending binge, provide the products.

With both guaranteed demand in Europe guaranteeing large volume, and an
effective 40% discount on German exports vs where they should be with the
Deutsche Mark, you can take market share from the Korean and Japanese let
alone Americans and even avoid having your manufacturing sector destroyed by
Chinese competition. In Europe it's even worse, VW thrives as Rover goes
under.

The best part is that when Southern European credit finally catches up with
where it should be trading, you get to brag about your wunderbar Mittelstand
values and insult those pesky lazy Southerners, whilst reinforcing the very
actions that guarantee you the continuation of de facto devaluation policies
without being responsible for them (and therefore getting booted out of office
by an angry German electorate annoyed at being underpaid on a global basis).
Invisible tax FTW. Even those Germans who might have pieced it together will
hesitate before putting any real pressure towards, say, a Grexit, because
their pension fund is invested to the neck in Greek paper. Meinen Kinder will
sort it out, but I arbeit so hard all my life, surely I deserve to enjoy my
pension...

So, not a miracle, it is by design, a rather magnificent one too. One that,
long term, seems to beat sending the Fallschirmjaeger on Kreta.

------
solve
Shows percent change... but not the magnitude of the change.

Seeing a map that combined both percentage and magnitude to compute the colors
(perhaps similar to the Tf–idf calculation?) would be much more interpretable.
50% of people leaving the middle of a forest doesn't really tell me much,
versus 50% change in a dense city.

~~~
zzleeper
True.. I see the big blue shades between Portugal and Spain and imagine those
areas growing, but that region is basically rural

------
nly
Anyone know of anything like this for the States?

~~~
munificent
Here's a county-by-county map showing population change in the 2010 census:

[http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/map](http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/map)

------
e2e4
It is interesting that many NH posters have a negative view on immigration
from eastern europe. However, the effect on the countries from which people
emigrate (I am somewhat familiar with Baltics) is quite tough. Imagine having
a large portion of hard working energetic people suddenly leave.

~~~
userulluipeste
I imagine (and see it daily all around me actually). This poses to local
authorities a hard problem, the outcome of which will either be a spiral down
or a remedy of some sort.

------
imaginenore
Looks like people are moving to the coastal areas. And I can't blame them.
Once you live next to a large body of water, being land-locked is suffocating.

Another obvious trend is people moving to large cities.

------
sgt101
They've left the Falklands off the map! How come? I mean, Guyane's there!

~~~
Symbiote
Guyane is considered part of France (so part of the EU), but the Falklands
(and other overseas territories, there are a few) aren't part of the UK, or
the EU.

~~~
sgt101
Ahh I see, excellent answer, very informative. Thanks for taking the time to
help :)

------
notNow
Anyone have any idea why in the countries most hit by the recession (Spain,
Italy and Greece to name a few) there's striking divergence between population
growth specifically decreasing Greece on one hand while increasing in Italy
and Spain in general despite the three of them share the same dynamics at play
and especially Greece and Spain?

~~~
locacorten
Eastern Europeans are much more likely to migrate to Italy and Spain than to
Greece. Romanians especially. One reason is that Romanian is closer to Italian
and Spanish than to Greek.

~~~
userulluipeste
It's true that the language plays a role in deciding where one prefers to go,
but there are also the somewhat more prosaic considerations like the
economical ones. The state of Greek economy is nothing like that of Italy or
Spain. I have a romanian relative that left Greece after seven years (time in
which she learned Greek, accommodated herself and everything) and settled for
Italy recently. The hardships exist and this move wasn't easy (from an
economical point of view, compared to her previous pre-recession Greece
settling experience), but with all that it seems that it still does worth it.

