2006 census results published

jd

is_that_so wrote:

When will we see the meaty stuff on population growth per region, including towns and so forth?

Next month , I think.
Volume 1 - Population Classified by Area

26 Apr 07

Hobbes

MontgomeryClift wrote:

How come? I don't see how you can apply the same ratio to the unreturned forms as the returned, if a certain group is less likely to participate than another.

Because when a sample is at a certain size they can make an almost accurate answer with a smaller deviation of error. Any extra data is unlikely to deviate wildly.

Really this whole thing is a science in itself. Google it.

ardmacha

'Apparently' !!! I find it hard to believe that 2 in every 3 Poles that came to ireland to work legally, have since left.

What proportion of Irish people issued with UK tax numbers are actually currently still in the UK?

Civilian_Target

I'd say the figure's about right. Perhaps a better guide are the figures for religion: there's 86% catholic in Ireland. Given the small number (5%-10%) of non-Catholic Irish, and that maybe 1/4 immigrants mark themselves as catholic, that gives you about 11% foreigners, which is reasonably consistant with the stats. These are then concentrated usually into the major towns and cities, which combined with the high visitor/tourism figures, gives an impression of many more foreigners than there actually are.

InFront

'Apparently' !!! I find it hard to believe that 2 in every 3 Poles that came to ireland to work legally, have since left.

Even if you ignore the pretty obvious ethical barrier to using census information to target individuals who may have come to work here illegally, I'm not sure why you think there would be a cover up on their behalf? Poles have no problems locating here, nor should they, and they have nothing to gain (or lose ftm) by not filling out the form. That's my understanding anyway, maybe I'm mistaken.

Isn't it the case that Polish people (like the other E/ Europeans) have pretty much free economic migration rights into Ireland, along with most other EU states?
Apart from a paranoia about the Government, which isn't itself a Polish phenomenon, I'm not sure what motives you think they'd have in not filing census forms.

fly_agaric

Hobbes wrote:

Any extra data is unlikely to deviate wildly.

Hobbes, I'm no statistician but aren't you just assuming the extra data has a similar distribution to the rest of the population...which was kind of the point wasn't it?
(They are giving reasons as to why they think that a particular sub-population excluded by the sample taken [the census] may not be representative of the rest of the population...)

KosmaPL

as a member of Polish minority in Eire I have to say that we were also surprised that there are only 60k Poles working in here. i would say that the figure is a little higher than that ,but not as high as 200k.


IMHO the reason is just like Thaedydal said that the most are here for a few years and then they go back home to pay they mortgage quicker.


pozdrawiam - take care

sceptre

Delboy05 wrote:

And only 63,000 poles!!! despite near 200,000 of them applying for PPS numbers!!! I did'nt know that Polands economy had taken off to such an extent that there were now jobs galore over there and everybody was returning home!!!

Over half the Polish people I've been working with in the past two years ago have gone home. The upside is that I'll never have to pay for a hotel in Poland. Which should make all of you very happy.

Tha Gopher

oscarBravo wrote:

Doubtless you'll now produce a study that was more exactingly performed than the national census, complete with methodology, to back up that assertion.

Right?

It has to be said that people on one side are accused of assumptions while people on another who make statements like "most only come here for a short while and head home" are not asked for any evidence to back this up. Didnt the chinese themselves estimate 100,000 were living in Ireland, or maybe even Dublin (Id go with the Ireland figure, it varies by area of Dublin but Id reckon theyre about 5% of the total)

As for the Nigerian figure, Id reckon there is at least three quarter that amt in Dublin 15 alone (awaits the "you can tell Nigerians apart from other Africans?" comment).

As for the motivation for the clearly inaccurate figures, Id put it down less to a conspiracy and more to a mix of lack of sufficient English to fill it out, perhaps paranoia by some groups re governments holding their personal details, and the CSO being just another useless government dept.

oscarBravo

Tha Gopher wrote:

It has to be said that people on one side are accused of assumptions while people on another who make statements like "most only come here for a short while and head home" are not asked for any evidence to back this up.

Um, no. In this particular case, the national census is the evidence to back it up.

Tha Gopher wrote:

Didnt the chinese themselves estimate 100,000 were living in Ireland, or maybe even Dublin (Id go with the Ireland figure, it varies by area of Dublin but Id reckon theyre about 5% of the total)

That's nice. What methodology was used to arrive at this figure? Obviously it was a more exacting, thorough and scientific study than the census. Right?

Tha Gopher wrote:

As for the Nigerian figure, Id reckon there is at least three quarter that amt in Dublin 15 alone

Interesting. What methology did you use to arrive at that number?

Tha Gopher wrote:

(awaits the "you can tell Nigerians apart from other Africans?" comment).

Good question - can you?

Hobbes

Tha Gopher wrote:

As for the motivation for the clearly inaccurate figures, Id put it down less to a conspiracy and more to a mix of lack of sufficient English to fill it out

You do know that the census forms were supplied in Arabic, Chinese, Czech, French, Latvian, Lithuanian, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Russian, Spanish and English.

Also the official language of Nigeria is English.

brianthebard

InFront wrote:

Even if you ignore the pretty obvious ethical barrier to using census information to target individuals who may have come to work here illegally, I'm not sure why you think there would be a cover up on their behalf? Poles have no problems locating here, nor should they, and they have nothing to gain (or lose ftm) by not filling out the form. That's my understanding anyway, maybe I'm mistaken.

Isn't it the case that Polish people (like the other E/ Europeans) have pretty much free economic migration rights into Ireland, along with most other EU states?
Apart from a paranoia about the Government, which isn't itself a Polish phenomenon, I'm not sure what motives you think they'd have in not filing census forms.

Yes we put no restrictions on immigration from the newer member states but only Ireland, the Uk and Spain or Italy (can't remember which) did this, all other "old EU" states have some restrictions, some states have quite a few.

Victor

On the Chinese thing, you might get that impression fromthe number of cashiers in shops, etc., but looking in a pub earlier, all the faces were very white, customers and staff.

Delboy05

Tha Gopher wrote:

Didnt the chinese themselves estimate 100,000 were living in Ireland, or maybe even Dublin (Id go with the Ireland figure, it varies by area of Dublin but Id reckon theyre about 5% of the total)

at the chinese new year celebrations in dublin a few weeks back, the organisers and communtiy leaders said that there were about 100,000 chinese now living in ireland.
I would love to see how many visas are issued to Chinese every year, especially students. Anywhere where those stats could be obtained?

Tha Gopher

oscarBravo wrote:

Um, no. In this particular case, the national census is the evidence to back it up. That's nice. What methodology was used to arrive at this figure? Obviously it was a more exacting, thorough and scientific study than the census. Right? Interesting. What methology did you use to arrive at that number? Good question - can you?

Im sorry but the pettyness in that response is simply too much. Im sorry Oscar but I really have to ask, do you believe that the census is reasonably accurate?

Anyway, in response

1- Yes, the census would appear to suggest that it would be the case. Government reports have suggested lots of things over the years. In the past they have suggested Iraq had WMDs, and that British beef in the 90s was safe to eat. Hell, most government surveys seem to suggest that the proportion of people who have ever taken an illegal drug is still under 50%. Go figure.

2- Common sense

3- As above

4- Well, the immigration figures would seem to suggest most West Aficans here are Nigerian. Seeing as West Africans look about as much like Somalis or South Africans as Swedes look like Greeks, again its common sense call. Particularly seeing that of all the West Africans Ive worked with, went to school with, hung out with, been neighbours with, you name it with, a grand total of one was not Nigerian (Sierra Leone). Therefore, if you reckon that around 10% of an area of Dublin is West African, it is probably correct to assume, based on the above evidence, that the majority are from Nigeria . Certainly there are older working class areas of Dublin which seem to have barely any foreigners (Finglas, Cabra, Ballyfermot etc), but in terms of the day to day visual evidence in the newer suburbs the census is years out.


Vctor- I worked with alot of Chinese back in the day. Generally speaking their only vices are smoking and gambling. Apart from the odd bottle of wine most of them didnt go out drinking more than twice per year. Also, alot more Chinese than other groups work minimum wage jobs (food service etc) and therefore dont have the spending money if they want to take a lump home (as well as the obvious cost difference in a Chinese man visiting home compared to a Pole etc)


Hobbes- I didnt know that. However IIRC the standard form was in English and Irish, and presumably you had to make some special effort by calling up the CSO if the person delivering had dropped the standard one in the door. Which tbh I doubt most people bothered doing.

oscarBravo

Tha Gopher wrote:

Im sorry but the pettyness in that response is simply too much. Im sorry Oscar but I really have to ask, do you believe that the census is reasonably accurate?

Yes. Why? For the simple reason that a census is, by definition, a more methodical (and therefore more likely to be accurate) method of assessing population statistics than:

Tha Gopher wrote:

...the day to day visual evidence in the newer suburbs...

I'm reminded vaguely of the cheese ad: "There's literally millions of things you can do with it - sandwiches, on toast... sandwiches..."

Tha Gopher wrote:

Government reports have suggested lots of things over the years.

You keep suggesting that the CSO have deliberately falsified the census results, without bothering to offering anything that remotely resembles evidence.

Tha Gopher wrote:

2- Common sense

3- As above

That's a wonderfully thorough and scientific methodology you're using there. Let's not bother with a census in future; we'll just ask a few randoms in the street what their common sense tells them about the population.

Tha Gopher

Oh Jesus H Christ

If you bothered reading my first post in this thread I said that I wasnt of the opinion that the survey had been falsified by the government (although with your defensive posts I am now wondering whether you are the director of the CSO and you actually are hdiing something :rolleyes: ) As said previously, I think its less conspiracy and more just laziness by the CSO.

So observation counts for nothing? If someone were were to ask you what proportion of your workplace is foreign, would you give a rough answer percentage wise or refuse to answer the question on account that management has never done a survey of the national origins of staff? Im sorry but I have to be honest and say outright that I do not believe you when you say you largely believe the results of the census, as I simply find it impossible to fathom that anyone with an ounce of wit could think it is accurate. You dont have to review the met office annual reports 2002-2006 to deduce Ireland has rough winters and occasionally great summers. You know it from common sense. So use it.

oscarBravo

Tha Gopher wrote:

If you bothered reading my first post in this thread I said that I wasnt of the opinion that the survey had been falsified by the government (although with your defensive posts I am now wondering whether you are the director of the CSO and you actually are hdiing something :rolleyes: ) As said previously, I think its less conspiracy and more just laziness by the CSO.

You can keep saying it and saying it and saying it, but it's not going to become true until you produce something more concrete than a gut feeling to contradict a detailed study.

Tha Gopher wrote:

So observation counts for nothing? If someone were were to ask you what proportion of your workplace is foreign, would you give a rough answer percentage wise or refuse to answer the question on account that management has never done a survey of the national origins of staff?

My workplace consists of 28.6% English people, with the remainder being Irish. I don't need to give a rough answer; I've counted them.

Now, if someone was to tell me that surely that couldn't be right based on the fact that they've met two of my English colleagues and me, and sure can't the dogs in the street use their common sense and figure out that the company is obviously two thirds English - how many times would they have to repeat it before it becomes true?

Tha Gopher wrote:

Im sorry but I have to be honest and say outright that I do not believe you when you say you largely believe the results of the census, as I simply find it impossible to fathom that anyone with an ounce of wit could think it is accurate.

I'm not sure whether I'm being accused of lying or stupidity, but I'm not going to pass too much heed either way until you offer some factual evidence to back up your position.

Tha Gopher wrote:

You dont have to review the met office annual reports 2002-2006 to deduce Ireland has rough winters and occasionally great summers. You know it from common sense. So use it.

Suppose I want to know exactly how many days of rain there were in Belmullet in the period 2002-2006. What answer does your common sense give you? If you were to guesstimate the answer, and I got a different answer by researching it through Met Éireann, would you accuse Met Éireann of laziness?

LouiseIV

There are two points that I don't think have been considered so far. For a start, the census is about a year old and so it really only covers the population as it was a year ago. As the population is increasing so rapidly, any census carried out now is likely to be out of date after only a few months. To get a more up to date snapshot of the population we're going to have to wait until the past year's immigration figures are released and then add those to the non-national figure in this census.

Another point, in working out the non-national figure, I don't think the census includes the Irish-born children of the non-nationals in the non-national figure itself. It would be interesting to know whether they're included in the Irish category.

gurramok wrote:

British (including N.I.) - 122,000

God almighty! Since when has an ROI government started considering people up in the north as British? Gerry must be fuming.

Even more unforgivable - they're included under the Non-Irish category!

Not stated- 44,000

That's interesting. Why would someone a) not state their nationality and b) get away with not stating their nationality. I can understand people not stating their religion but why would they have reason not to state their nationality?

Chinese - 11,000

That cannot be right. 11,000 out of a population of 4.1 million? That would mean only one Chinese person out of every around 370 people in the country. For some reason it just seems a lot more than that.

Nigerian - 16,000

Something tells me that that figure of 44,000 non-stated people is made up of alot of Poles and Nigerians.

What astounds me, where did the media get their figures of 200,000 Poles from?..Sensationalism??

I think those figures probably comes from all the PPS numbers issued to non-nationals.

lisnageragh wrote:

Around 1 million Migrants here upto 2006 alone.

The Census states it.

I wasn't able to find that 1 million figure in the report you linked to but you might not be entirely off the mark either.

There's a book out now with information on the issues behind the coming general election. You probably know the one - it has Bertie Ahern's beautiful face on the front. I was in a bookshop the other week and I was having a quick flick through it. It has a chapter on immigration and it mentioned a figure of 750 thousand immigrants coming here over the last few years.

Tha Gopher

oscarBravo wrote:

You can keep saying it and saying it and saying it, but it's not going to become true until you produce something more concrete than a gut feeling to contradict a detailed study. My workplace consists of 28.6% English people, with the remainder being Irish. I don't need to give a rough answer; I've counted them.

Good for you. I could be troll like and demand to see a copy of a proper survey carried out by managemen using yadda yadda methodology but Ill accept your headcount.

oscarBravo wrote:

Now, if someone was to tell me that surely that couldn't be right based on the fact that they've met two of my English colleagues and me, and sure can't the dogs in the street use their common sense and figure out that the company is obviously two thirds English - how many times would they have to repeat it before it becomes true?

Anyone who would judge on having seen two people is clearly an idiot. That example is so far out it doesnt even deserve reading.

oscarBravo wrote:

I'm not sure whether I'm being accused of lying or stupidity?

With all due respect I am of the personal opinion it is the first. Im sorry but I fail to see how anyone with common sense could honestly, truly believe the results.

Tha Gopher

LouiseIV wrote:

There are two points that I don't think have been considered so far. For a start, the census is about a year old and so it really only covers the population as it was a year ago. As the population is increasing so rapidly, any census carried out now is likely to be out of date after only a few months. To get a more up to date snapshot of the population we're going to have to wait until the past year's immigration figures are released and then add those to the non-national figure in this census.

Another point, in working out the non-national figure, I don't think the census includes the Irish-born children of the non-nationals in the non-national figure itself. It would be interesting to know whether they're included in the Irish category.

That's interesting. Why would someone a) not state their nationality and b) get away with not stating their nationality. I can understand people not stating their religion but why would they have reason not to state their nationality?

That cannot be right. 11,000 out of a population of 4.1 million? That would mean only one Chinese person out of every around 370 people in the country. For some reason it just seems a lot more than that.

Something tells me that that figure of 44,000 non-stated people is made up of alot of Poles and Nigerians.

I think those figures probably comes from all the PPS numbers issued to non-nationals.

re the children, I would think they would be put down as Irish unless their parents mistakenly filled them in as foreign born. However, iirc there was a race section on it, white irish, black irish, asian irish etc. Maybe alot of those surveyed who were born abroad filled in this section instead. Id assume the "non stated" forms were forms returned not fully filled in.

re your assumption of the Chinese figure Louise, careful now, you are using common sense rather than a clearly inaccurate government report

tha gopher banned for 2 weeks for calling a mod a liar
This is a debating chamber and not a ranting soap box insult hurling chamber.
Have a bit of cop on.

LouiseIV

Tristrame wrote:

tha gopher banned for 2 weeks for calling a mod a liar
This is a debating chamber and not a ranting soap box insult hurling chamber.
Have a bit of cop on.

Can you get banned for calling a moderator an asshole? I feel a strong urge now to call one moderator an asshole so I just wanted to check before I do in case I suffer the same fate as Tha Gopher.

Hobbes

You can get banned for calling anyone an asshole. The mod bit just got him an extra week most likely.

back on topic. This whole "feelings" rather then census reminded me of Colbert.

Colbert wrote:

We go straight from the gut, right sir? That's where the truth lies, right down here in the gut. Do you know you have more nerve endings in your gut than you have in your head? You can look it up. I know some of you are going to say I did look it up, and that's not true. That's cause you looked it up in a book.

LouiseIV

Hobbes wrote:

You can get banned for calling anyone an asshole. The mod bit just got him an extra week most likely.

Tha Gopher didn't call anyone an asshole, nor did he call anyone a liar. If you don't believe me, do a Control+F and search for the word 'liar' in any of the three pages of this thread. You'll notice that the first time it's used is by that moderator above.

back on topic. This whole "feelings" rather then census reminded me of Colbert.

I trust the CSO enough that I'm willing to accept their census results, but you have to admit at the same time that some of their figures do seem a bit surprising. Only 11,000 Chinese, does that really seem to be accurate?

Hobbes

LouiseIV wrote:

nor did he call anyone a liar.

Actually he did, and you don't need control-F.

I trust the CSO enough that I'm willing to accept their census results, but you have to admit at the same time that some of their figures do seem a bit surprising. Only 11,000 Chinese, does that really seem to be accurate?

Until you can prove something other then your gut I'll be more then willing to listen. Maybe you have statistics from Immigration?

LouiseIV

Hobbes wrote:

Actually he did

Actually he didn't, but if you can provide the quote showing where he used the word 'liar' I'd be more than willing to listen.

and you don't need control-F.

I don't need to find the evidence? Strange, coming from someone who's so big into people providing proof to back up what they say.

Until you can prove something other then your gut I'll be more then willing to listen. Maybe you have statistics from Immigration?

This is taken from BusinessWeek online. It contains a quote from the Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao when he was on a visit to Ireland back in 2004.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_30/b3893085_mz054.htm

As many as 60,000 Chinese now live in Ireland, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao noted during a visit to Dublin in May.

Another quote from the same article that may be of interest:

And the official data underestimate the true scale of immigration.

Rebel Racer Dan

Surely we all know that the figures here are not totally correct. How many poles actually filled out the census form? I used to live in a house wit 1 around census time and i know for a fact he did not fill it out

LouiseIV

I just noticed another interesting link from that main business week article.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_30/b3893087_mz054.htm

It just shows the increase in Chinese student numbers in Ireland up to 2004. I think it's significant because it provides the sources for the data i.e. the Chinese embassy and the Garda immigration bureau. Yes, I know the 30,000 figure is an estimate, but it's an estimate from fairly authoritative sources.

Bear in mind, this doesn't include all Chinese, just the number of Chinese enrolled in colleges. If 30,000 Chinese were enrolled just in colleges alone back in 2004, isn't it a bit strange that the number of Chinese people in the country could have fallen so drastically by last year?

Victor

LouiseIV wrote:

God almighty! Since when has an ROI government started considering people up in the north as British? Gerry must be fuming.

But what would Ian say? Who are you to say that Ian isn't British?