Yes, that’s what I mean. Immigration is a net positive in “gaining population” when it happens from elsewhere/outside. Moving from one place with a declining birth-rate, to another place with a declining birth-rate within the same organisation seems like a gimmick.
How so?
I don’t think I understand.
People moving from a place with not enough jobs to somewhere with vacancies seems sensible. I don’t get how birth rate has anything to do with it.
We are slowly running out of planet for that strategy.
It has everything to do with it because it means that they people moving out from one place are still needed there. For example, more than 300000 Greeks (with some studies claiming even more) - in a young productive and family-making age - have moved out of Greece in the past decade, mostly going to somewhere in the EU.
Now the countries receiving those people might have gained some workers and potential new families, but the country they left lost all that. Since they just moved from one place in the EU to another place in the EU, it could be argued that there was no real positive gain there in terms of people. On the other hand the people moving in propped up the local economy of the destination, but the same people moving out tanked the economy of their place of origin.
Ironically you can see this “bigger picture” of how detrimental that is, if you zoom in to a similar problem of in-country centrification/urbanisation. The first step of that process - before you immigrate to another country - is internal migration, going out of your village and heading to the big cities. This way you have a decrepit result of a country where half its population is in its capital, while another significan portion is in the other big cities and the rest of the country is practically empty.
This leads to a fantastic array of economic problems and struggles (the decline of productivity in certain sectors like farming or manufacturing, with the rapid increase of rents being the most prominent ones) and a declining birth rate, which creates a vicious circle that makes each year worse than the previous one.
The birth rates are the main pillars that can make this model even remotely sustainable. You might not have reached the breaking point in the pensions and care systems in your country, but we have. Why wait till it happens to you too and not learn from the plight of othes?
Looks like population is still growing, at least :
Visualisations - Population et démographie - Eurostat (europa.eu)
That is a very interesting link, however in that exact page there is a “detailed report” with more data:
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/interactive-publications/demography-2024
The population chart you posted talked about population as a whole, thus it included immigrants (and even so it barely shows an average of a 0.4% increase per year in total population)
Here is the rate of natural population change (births and deaths combined):
We are in a perfect condition to “export workforce”, as you can see 
Meta trying again to make Facebook great again?
It just gives me a twisted joy to watch all those powerful men getting into knots trying to please other powerful men in this endless carousel.
I feel like some of these are just fun facts about 45
3) 45 is not prime
6) 45 is a triangle number
7) 45 is a triangle number
Then this one’s true of all squares:
8) N² = sum(first N odds)
I assume a similar thing could be done with any year, finding cool math trivia involving it
Well maybe, but probably not so many facts regarding perfect squares~
Also 4) holds for about 75% of numbers, 5) for about 83% of numbers (in terms of asymptotic density).
Also trivially 1) implies 4) implies 5), since 02 is a square.
It’s good they didn’t include that it is the sum of four squares, because every number ≥0 is.
(2025 = 92 + 222 + 262 + 262, among many other solutions).
Most of the listed properties are true for numbers of the form (x(x+1)/2)2 where x>2 is an integer.
Well, 2025=452+02+02+02.
That looks like a trivial solution™
Clearly, but I tried to find some nonzero terms.
What I meant is that the assertion “every ≥0 number is a sum of four squares” is only true if you allow 02.
Well, yes
2025 = 2024 + 1
How does one distinguish that a mathematical statement is interesting?
What’s the term for math linguistics? Because that’s it.
