this post was submitted on 12 Mar 2025
5 points (100.0% liked)

DataBackRibs

58 readers
1 users here now

This is a work in progress since I've never created my own community nor moderated one. Bare with me, but the goal is to create a reference community for data and sources. All logic all the time. While I get this built and you'd like to post something that seems on brand, then go right ahead. However, here are some starter rules

  1. No NSFW
  2. No bigotry (this is a coverall. I'm a stickler for phrasing, so choose your words carefully).
  3. Debate, don't debase
  4. It's another person on the other side of the screen. Golden Rule applies
  5. No bias unless it is part of the data and you remain neutral in any description you create.
  6. Citations are required.
  7. No insults (back-handed or otherwise).
  8. Curse/cuss/swear all you want, BUT curse to people. Not at them.
  9. Trolling, brigading, targeting, harassment will not be tolerated. ZERO tolerance
  10. None of us are perfect, so if your argument in a certain case comes to nothing, admit that. You'll get more respect and appreciation for learning something rather than rage quitting a discussion
  11. It's only me on the mod team so far, so please use best judgement to report things. That way, I can respond to the issues in a timely fashion

founded 4 months ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
5
Refugee host countries by wealth and population (lemmy.world)
submitted 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
7 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I was curious how well wealthy countries do at hosting refugees.

The plots are interactive so its better to view them here: https://www.unhcr.org/refugee-statistics/insights/explainers/refugee-hosting-metrics.html

In the plot, the size of the circle is the number of refugees.

Germany is really doing an amazing job, y'all should be proud.

Compared to Chile, the US has 15x the population and 5x the wealth per capita but hosts fewer refugees. I certainly don't have the full picture but its not a good look.

top 7 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Germany is really doing an amazing job, y'all should be proud. The US is not (top right corner).

Larger circle is better? Or what are the criteria used for ranking?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

The diameter of the circle is the number of refugees that the county hosts.

The wealthier and more populous countries are in the top right corner. The chart doesn't rank them but I think that in a more fair world the wealthy countries would host more.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

in a more fair world the wealthy countries would host more.

Why's that?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Good question.

I'm making a lot of assumptions. I assume that hosting a refugee takes some money, at least initially until they get settled. I assume that refugees don't have a preference in where they live, which is almost certainly wrong.

So I guess in a fair world when there is work that needs to be done the more wealthy would pay more, maybe each country pays a fixed percent of GDP. On that thought, just because a country doesn't host a refugee, doesn't mean that they aren't paying for the refugee to be hosted. It seems like UNHCR probably facilites moving money around to pay for refugees. So a better plot than this plot, to asses "fairness", would be how much of each country pays to have refugees hosted. But that may be a harder number to calculate.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

So I guess in a fair world

In a fair world, wouldn't the party that caused the displacement be responsible for the consequences?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago

That would be the most fair. For sure.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago

Columbia hosts 6x the number of refugees as the US.