 First I would like to tell you about Gallup World Poll as a true researcher. So in 2006 Gallup, from 2006 Gallup conducts an annual world poll representing 98 percent of all the adult population. We collect data on hundreds of world and region specific issues to allow leaders to monitor key measures worldwide. So in each country we have nationally representative sample of adults 15 years and older. And we use the same methodology and we ask identical questions from year to year in each country and it gives us tremendous power of analysis. We can transfer data from year to year. We can combine countries in two regions. We can combine several years worth of data. And that's what we did for this report. We took data, three years worth of data, 2009-2011 and as it was told already, we split all countries into two regions, south and north. We ended up with more than 400,000 native born and about 25,000 of first generation migrants. Then we split migrants into two groups. One we call long-timers. It's migrants who have been in a new country for more than five years. Another group we call newcomers and those are migrants who spend in a new country less than five years. Our analysis is two-fold. First, we wanted to know if migrants are better off or worse off than native born in their new countries. And second question we ask ourselves is if migrants are better off or worse off if they had stayed in their country, home country and they did not migrate. Basically, we wanted to know, we wanted to answer a big question. Is migration gain or loss for migrants? I have to mention a few limitations of our study due to the reason that this data was not collected specifically for this analysis. We do not identify some groups which would be nice to identify. For example, we don't know if migrants are regularly regular. We don't know if there are migrants who return migrants. We don't interview in refugee camps or other group quarters. But of course, all this is doable in future Gallup-Waltpole data collections. If you talk to migrants, every one of us will tell you his or her unique story. For example, I migrated from Russia to United States 22 years ago for one reason, to find a better job. And there are a lot of migrants who will tell you also that they migrated for career well-being or that they are entrepreneurs at heart and it's impossible in their home country to build a safe business. Other migrants will tell you that they migrated for social well-being. For example, they want to reunite with their family, with their loved ones. Some migrants will tell you that they were tired to live in dangerous places and they dream about raising their kids in a safe community. Some migrate to be able to have access to better quality health care. And some will tell you that they just wanted to increase the overall financial situation. And all these elements I mentioned, they are all interconnected and they all contribute to a person's subjective well-being. That's basically the whole idea of our research. And improvement in any of these five elements show an improvement in subjective well-being of a person. Well our metrics, Gallup metrics developed with extensive input from Nobel Prize laureate Daniel Kahneman from Princeton University. These metrics focus on well-being which is more than just happiness because it is a broader measure of all different dimensions of human development. Whether or not to keep you here for the whole day, we will show you just a few numbers. But I want to briefly mention what we actually measure under each dimension in hope that you will read our report eventually. So subjective well-being, so if all aspects of life are working well, then a person has a good overall subjective well-being which consists of two parts. One is evaluative well-being, so it's how people evaluate their life overall. And experiential well-being, it's about the way people feel about their experiences over time. So what contribute to this subjective well-being? Financial well-being. It's about personal finances. We measure income, household income. We also ask about people's ability to live on existing income if they feel comfortable or not with the present income. We ask about the ability to cover basic needs like food and shelter, about satisfaction with standard of living and if the standard of living are getting better or not, remittances and also about economic situation in the city or area where they live. Of course, employment is a big part of our survey. We also ask about how they use their jobs and we measure entrepreneurship. Ownership of businesses as well as thought about starting business or plan to start business in the next year and also business climate, what's very important, business climate in the country for starting and managing business. Social well-being, it's about quality of individual personal health as well as access to quality healthcare and health insurance. Social well-being refers to personal relationship and social network. So we ask how many friends people have, how many hours they spend with friends, if they have opportunity to meet new friends and if they have people who they can count on if they are in trouble. Social well-being encompasses a lot of things. It's from personal safety to confidence in national institution, corruption in the area where they live. It's about the people's attachment to community where they live and civic engagement. So you can see that our approach is to look at migrants' life from their point of view, from the patient's point of view. And we not only measure employment rate or incidence of crime but we also ask people if the job they have is the right fit for them or if they feel safe working at night. We do care about questions like if they believe, people can believe that they can achieve something in their country by working hard. So it's not only about hard stuff, it's about feelings too. So results, when we compare migrants with similar people in their countries of origin, we call them mage stares, what we see is that migrants in the north make the largest game than if they had not migrated. So the overall life evaluation increases, they are better off financially, especially north migrants, and they are satisfied with their personal health and health care. What's interesting is that migrants who move from south to north, they feel that they now live in a safer community with less corruption than in their home country. But at the same time, they lose on social network and they are less likely to be employed. So when people move to north or from south, they lose on some things. So the whole outcome is that we can see right away that there are some gains, but there are some losses too. When migrants live in the south, they tend to raise their life similarly or worse than in their home countries. They have great difficulties to get adequate housing, so it's a basic need. They have worse on health care and other health outcomes. But at the same time, south-south migrants are more likely to be employed than in their home countries, and they are less likely to say that they are safe than in the home country. So again, there are some gains and there are actually more losses. Now compared to native born, many migrants report poor level of well-being than native born, and it's true for both north and south. But it's different for north and south. Migrants in the north have higher unemployment than native born. South-north migrants have low income. At the same time, they have higher confidence in national institutions than native born, and when it comes to health care, they're staying on the same ground basically. South, migrants in the south, they have more health problems. They have lower trust in national institutions. They are poor performances on personal safety. But unemployment, unemployment, they're at the same level with native born. What we also found is that duration of stay matters. So usually what we see is that newcomers are worse than long-timers. So people live longer and they improve on, for example, covering basic needs. Or we see differences like sometimes newcomers are more positive about confidence in national institutions than long-timers. Or newcomers are less safe than long-timers. Evaluity will be... Oh, I think I moved a little bit. It's probably hard for you to see, so I will walk you through how we put our slides. You see we have four quadrants. Up left, it's for migrants who move from north to north. Top right quadrant, migrants who move from south to north. Bottom left, migrants who move from north to south. And bottom right, migrants who move from south to south. All our graphs will look like this. When we compare migrants with matched stairs, so with a potential abstract situation that they did not migrate, our first column is always long-timers. Right column is matched stairs. By the way, we excluded from this analysis newcomers. And the reason for this is because we strongly believe that any move, even if you move from one street to another street in your home city, takes time for adjustment. You need to get used to your new situation. So that's why we thought it's more fair comparison when we just compare long-timers who spend more than five years already in the country with their situation at home. So for subjective well-being, we ask at the beginning of survey, we all ask a very simple question. Imagine a ladder with steps from zero to ten, where zero is the best possible scenario for your life. And zero is the worst possible scenario. Ten is the best possible scenario on which step of the ladder you stay now at present time and at which step you believe you will stay in five years. So you see it's very obvious that migrants in the north rate their lives better than if they had not migrated. And it's true for both, north, north and south, north migrants. Migrants in the south rate their lives similarly or less favorably than if they had not migrated. In case if I still did not convince you about the fact how all elements of well-being are interconnected, I want to mention a couple numbers. So our research shows that being able to afford basics of food and shelter increase your standing on the ladder on 0.5. Increase. And having the right job, meaning the job you like and where you do the best every day, increase your standing on the ladder on 1.5, on 10 points scale. So it's a pretty dramatic improvement. So experiential well-being. With experiential well-being, we ask a series of questions about emotions people experience a lot of the day yesterday. That's what we call real time. They are positive and negative emotions. So here it's the first time you see our comparison of native born is the first column. Second column is long timers. Third column bar is newcomers. So what you see in the north, actually in all four quadrants, all migrants are more likely to experience sadness. It's a negative emotions. But like with all our measurement, there are regional disparities. For example, for north-south migrants, we found out that they have highest prevalence of all negative emotions among all groups. So it can be anger, worry, stress. And when we look at positive emotions, what we see that north-north migrants actually are the only one which are at the same level on positive emotions like enjoyment or happiness with native born. The rest of migrants group are not as happy, I could say, than native born. Financial well-being. So we see a significant income disparity between migrants and native born in south to north direction. On the other hand, over time north-north migrants fare equally well or even better financially than native born. And it's true for all type of measures under financial well-being. It's not only about income, it's also about soft measures. For example, if they feel like they can live comfortably on present income. So without a doubt, north-north migrants appear to have the greatest financial success among all migrants group. We also notice that newcomers are struggling the most and over time situation improves. But for the hardest situation of course is for migrants originating in south. Whether they go to north or they go to south, they continue to face difficulties, financial difficulties more than native born. They are better than newcomers but still worse than native born. Now let's look at financial well-being comparing migrants with hypothetical situations that they did not migrate. So when we talk about basic needs, we ask two questions. If they have enough money in the last 12 months to cover basic needs on food and shelter. So in the north, migrants are better off, right? So for example, if you don't see the numbers, north-north migrants, right now, 13% of them say they didn't have enough money to provide food. And 22% if they did not migrate. In the south, situation is not as good. They don't improve their standing on covering basic needs for food and they're actually even worse off on shelter than if they did not migrate. Career well-being. We are measuring employment around the world and we include to this measurement all respondents 12, 15 years and older. So what we see is that globally, migrants have higher rate of labor force participation. What we mean by labor force participation is if they are working or actively looking for work and ready to begin work, right? So 66% of migrants around the world are in labor force and 62% of native born. Around the world, migrants are more likely to be unemployed than native born. 13% for migrants, 8% for native born. And under-employment figures goes in the same direction. Under-employed, meaning they are either unemployed or working part-time or want to work full-time. So it's 25 and 18. And let's quickly look at unemployment rate by regions. So you can see that migrants in the north are more likely to be unemployed than native born, especially south-north migrants. 15% of south-north migrants are unemployed and 8% of native born are unemployed. And when we look at the employment situation from our second perspective, hypothetical life, if they did not migrate, it's also a sad situation. So migrants who move from south to north, they are less likely to be employed than if they stayed at home. Employment is definitely a loss for south-north. In the south, all migrants are at the same level of unemployment as native born. And south-south migrants, actually, it's their gain, as I mentioned before. They are less likely to be unemployed if we compare the situation when they did not migrate. Physical well-being. Migrants in the north gain in health outcome if we compare them with mage stairs. South situation is not as good. Especially south-south migrants, they are more likely now in their new country to report that they have health problems and restrict them from normal activities that other people of their age can do. They are less satisfied with personal health. They are less likely to say that they are satisfied with the availability of quality healthcare and they are less likely to have health insurance. Similarly, when we compare them with native born, what we see is that actually migrants in the north are doing very well. All health outcomes accept health insurance at the same level. And south-north migrants are less likely to have health insurance. That's only minus than native born. In the south, they are worse and they are less likely to have insurance. Community well-being. One of our biggest findings is that migrants are generally less secure than native born. And this difference is more pronounced in the south. All migrants in the south are less likely to say that they feel safe and they are more likely to say that in the last 12 months, they have been assaulted or mugged and that in the last 12 months, manual property was stolen. When we look at their confidence in national institutions, actually again, migrants in the north are very positive, as positive or more positive than native born on different national institutions. It can be confidence in police, confidence in judicial system, confidence in financial institution, honesty of election, leadership of the country. And the interesting thing is that it looks like newcomers are always more positive. And over years, we call it rose-colored glasses come off and long-timers are less positive, but they are still more positive than native born. And in the south, situation is vice-versa. They are definitely less positive about all national institutions than native born. One more thing I want to mention that it's interesting that in the north, migrants and native born report equally high satisfaction with their local community. And migrants believe as much as native born that local leadership represents their interest. And it's not the case in the south. In the last slide, social well-being. North, north and south-south migrants are as well-networked socially as native born. But migrants who move from developed country to developing or vice-versa report fewer social connections than native born, and they definitely need help building support network in their new country. And this situation is particularly hard for south-north migrants. It looks like they lose connections and they cannot find new connections. So their social well-being definitely suffer. I will stop at this point. Thank you very much. And I hope you will read our report because what I was able to show you today is just a tip of the iceberg. Thank you.