The table below shows the number of temporary migrant workers in four countries in 2003 and 2006 and the number of these workers per 1,000 people in these countries in 2006.

Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant. Write at least 150 words.

Sample 1:

The table illustrates how many temporary foreign workers there were in four particular nations during 2003 and 2006, and the number of such workers for everyone thousand people in these countries as of 2006.

Overall, all countries saw an increase in the number of temporary migrant workers, with the United States having the largest counts in both years by far. However, it had the lowest number of migrant workers relative to the population, whereas the opposite was true in New Zealand.

In 2003, 577,000 migrants worked in the United States temporarily, compared to 152,000 in Australia and 137,000 in the United Kingdom. Meanwhile, there were only 65,000 temporary migrant workers in New Zealand, the lowest among all nations listed. By 2006, the number of these workers in the United States had climbed to 678,000 while similar rises could also be seen in the figures for Australia, the United Kingdom and New Zealand, reaching 219,000, 266,000 and 86,000 in 2006, respectively.

Despite the smallest absolute numbers, New Zealand showed a significant proportional dependence on temporary migrant labor, with the highest ratio of 21.1 per 1,000 people. This was nearly double that of Australia, which stood at 10.7. Finally, a close similarity was observed in the figures for the United States and the United Kingdom, at 2.3 and 4.4, in that order.

Sample 2:

The table illustrates the total foreign nonpermanent laborers for four different nations in 2003 and 2006, along with the density of such workers in the latter year. Overall, the number of workers in all given countries increased over the surveyed period, with that of the US being constantly the highest. Additionally, New Zealand recorded the highest concentration of laborers per 1,000 inhabitants in 2006.

Regarding the given Oceanian countries, the migrant workforce in Australia comprised 152,000 individuals in 2003, before ascending significantly to 219,000 by 2006, when the density was slightly over 10 workers out of every 1,000 residents. Moreover, the figure for New Zealand was the lowest among the given nations for both years, which started at 65,000 and finished at 87,000, however it experienced the highest concentration in 2006 at 21.1 workers per 1,000 people.

Concerning the remaining countries, the highest number of migrant workers was documented in the US at 577,000 in 2003, which rose moderately to 678,000 by 2006, accounting to 2.3 laborers for every 1,000 people. Finally, the figure for the UK was remarkably lower at 137,000 in 2003, but almost doubled by 2006, which resulted in 4.4 workers for every 1,000 inhabitants.

Sample 3:

The table illustrates the number of short-term foreign workers in four nations in 2003 and 2006 and their ratio to 1000 people in the latter year.

Overall, the quantity of migrant workers in these four countries all witnessed an upward trend in the given period. While the number of United States foreign workers topped the list, New Zealand, with its lowest figure among four nations, had the highest ratio of its immigrants to 1,000 people in 2006 and showed this country was increasingly reliant on foreign workforce.

In 2003, 577,000 people moved to the US to work, followed distantly by 152,000 and 137,000 foreign workers in Australia and the United Kingdom, respectively. While these figures continued to grow at least by 70,000 to 130,000 migrant workers in the next three years, New Zealand solely welcomed around 22,000 newcomers.

Despite employing a relatively high number of migrant workers, the figures in these four countries seemed to differ when it comes to their ratio of the local to foreign workers population. Whilst New Zealand welcomed the lowest new workers worldwide, its proportion was by far the most significant, at 21.1, with other ratios from the other nations being far lower. The immigrant workers population of the US made up slightly 2.3 percent of the total work population of the country in 2006, showing how minimal the foreign workforce was compared to the Americans.

Sample 4:

The table provides insights into the quantities of short-term foreign workers in four specific nations in 2003 and 2006, along with the corresponding figures per one thousand people in 2006.

In general, all countries experienced a surge in the number of impermanent overseas laborers, with the United States taking precedence in both years. Among these countries, the United States displayed the lowest proportion of migrant workers relative to its population, contrasting with New Zealand, which exhibited the highest ratio.

In 2003, the United States welcomed 577,000 temporary migrant workers, witnessing an increase to 678,000 in the subsequent three years. Despite having the highest figures, this country displayed the lowest ratio, with only 2.3 seasonal migrant laborers per 1,000 people. In contrast, New Zealand started with the lowest count at 65,000 temporarily migrating workers, which then rose to 87,000 in 2006; however, this nation achieved the highest ratio of 21.1 per 1,000 people that year.

Australia hosted 152,000 temporary migrant workers, slightly surpassing the UK’s count of 137,000 in 2003. Both nations experienced an increase in 2006, with the former seeing a less pronounced increment than the latter, reaching 219,000 and 266,000 by the end of the period, which translated to ratios of 10.7 and 4.4 per 1,000 people, respectively.

Sample 5:

The given table illustrates the data about the demographic composition of four countries regarding their workforce in 2003 and 2006.

Overall, there was an increase in the number of migrant workers in all countries throughout the period. However, the proportion of migrant workers in the New Zealand population was the highest among the four countries.

In 2003, there were 65,000 migrants in New Zealand's labor force. This number increased by 23,000 migrants in the next three years, which made up 2.11% of the country's population. Similarly, this figure in Australia went up by around 44% in 2006 and accounted for over one-tenth of its population.

The United Kingdom was the country witnessing the most dramatic change in its labor force, whose number of migrant workers almost doubled in 2006, to around 219,000. In addition, this figure in the US was always the highest of all time, which was eight times higher than that in New Zealand in both years. However, on a relative scale, the proportion of these figures in the UK and the US population was much lower than those in the other countries, accounting for only 0.44% and 0.23% respectively.

Sample 6:

The table gives information about how many migrants worked temporarily in four countries in two years (2003 and 2006), along with the number of such workers out of 1000 people in the year 2006. 

Overall, there was a rising trend in the number of short-term migrant laborers in all of the four countries examined, with that of the United Kingdom seeing the most significant growth. It is also noticeable that despite having the majority of temporary migrant workers in both years, out of 1000 these individuals in 2006, the United States had the lowest recorded figure. 

In 2003, the number of people migrating to work temporarily in the United States took the lead, at 577,000, which far outnumbered that of Australia and the United Kingdom, with respective figures being 152,000 and 137,000. By contrast, very few migrants chose to have a short-term job in New Zealand (65,000). Over the following three years, the United Kingdom nearly experienced a twofold growth, rising to 266,000 and overtaking Australia, which saw a slight rise to 219,000. Meanwhile, marginal increases were observed in the United States and New Zealand, whose numbers of temporary migrant workers grew just to 678,000 and 87,000 respectively. Notably, their positions in the table still remained unchanged in comparison to the year 2003. 

21.1 out of 1000 migrants worked for a short time in New Zealand in 2006, which was almost twice as high as Australia, at 10.7 per 1000 people. These figures contrast starkly with those for the remaining countries, which accounted for just 4.4 and 2.3 out of 1000 people in the United Kingdom and United States in that order. 

Sample 7:

The table illustrates how many migrants temporarily worked in four nations in 2003 and 2006, and the number of such workers per 1000 people in these countries specifically for the year 2006.

Overall, there was an upward trend in the number of temporary migrant laborers across all territories, with the United States registering the highest count in both years. It is also notable that New Zealand claimed the top position in terms of the proportion of these workers relative to the population in 2006.  

Looking first at the United States and New Zealand, the temporary migrant workforce in the former increased moderately, reaching 678,000 by 2006. However, this figure only represented 2.3 laborers for every 1,000 people, marking the lowest ratio in the whole chart. In contrast, New Zealand exhibited an opposite pattern. Despite consistently recording the smallest number of temporary migrant workers in both years, it recorded the highest density in 2006 at 21.1 workers per 1,000 people.

Turning to the remaining countries, the number of migrant workers in Australia went up significantly from 152,000 to 219,000 over the period. Moreover, the ratio was slightly over 10 workers out of every 1,000 residents, which nearly doubled that of the UK. Nevertheless, the temporary migrant workforce in the UK underwent a roughly twofold increase by 2006, representing the most pronounced change in the chart.

Sample 8:

The table delineates the influx of temporary migrant workers in four nations during 2003 and 2006, along with the corresponding worker-to-population ratio in 2006.

Overall, although all countries witnessed an upward trend in the number of temporary migrant workers, the US remained as the country with the highest figure. However, in terms of the ratio of these workers compared to the population in 2006, it ranked the lowest while the leading position belonged to New Zealand.

Regarding changes, the number of those who migrated to work temporarily in the US increased moderately, reaching an all-time high of 678.000 workers in 2006. However, the most significant growth was recorded in the UK, as its number doubled to 266.000 workers in 2006. Australia and New Zealand exhibited similar, albeit less pronounced, trends, with respective figures of 219,000 and 87,000 in 2006.

Concerning the comparison between migrant workers and the total population, in first place was New Zealand, with 21.1 workers per 1000 people, approximately double the figure for Australia. Considerably lower were the ratios for the UK and the US, both standing below 5.

Sample 9:

The chart illustrates how many migratory people worked temporarily in four different nations in 2003 and 2006 and the proportion of them to the citizens of these countries in 2006. Overall, the number of these workers increased in each country over the period. It is also noticeable that New Zealand had the highest rateof temporary migrant workers in 2006.

Turning our attention to the details, the number of transient migrant laborers in the United States was head and shoulder above that of the others with 577,000 in 2003 and 678,000 in 2006. On the other hand, the proportion of those workers in this country in 2006 was the lowest among four nations, only 2.3 per 1000 people. By contrast, that rate of New Zealand was the highest with 21.1 per 1000 people, but the total number of those workers in 2003 and 2006 was just 65,000 and 87,000 respectively.

Regarding the two remaining nations, they shared the same pattern as their figure of temporary migrant laborers increased moderately over the three-year period. But it is not the case for the proportion of those workers when there were 10.7 migratory employees per 1000 people in Australia, but that rate of the United Kingdom was just 4.4.