|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On October 25 2015 02:22 Nyxisto wrote:
France actually is more productive than Germany, and actually did grow reasonably fast especially during the end of the 90's and early 2000s. After the financial crisis it's a different story but I wouldn't exactly attribute this to immigration. Also Lebanon has now one million refugees. That's 25% of their population. You can't seriously compare this to what we've been talking about. Also why is Sweden in an economic crisis?
Again you're switching horses, as productivity and GDP are not the same thing (while related). France has not been growing, despite a high productivity and a good demography, for reasons that we will not discuss : the point is that an increase in labor factor does not lead to an increase in GDP everywhere and always.
Lebanon was just another way to point out that your reasonning does not stand : arguing that an increase in labor (the arrival of refugee) will instantly create GDP is ridiculous : you have to consider the number of people that arrive and the situation of the country that receive them. In a depressed economy, there is no way that the refugee will instantly create jobs from nothing and instantly contribute.
Saying that this simple and obvious fact is untrue is like pissing a violin : it's useless and make it seem like the people you are discussing with are stupid. The main reason as to why we need to help those refugees have nothing to do with the economy, and more to do with the fact that asylum is a constitutional right and that is part of our value (since the constitution that the french revolution gave us actually).
But don't tell the people that already suffer from an economic crisis that this sudden increase in migrants will be instantly beneficial to them : it is untrue and everybody knows it. This hypocrisy is astonishing, and it's the main reason why the extremist party will be (are) the winner from this influx of migrants.
In the extremist left, some people actually believe that this influx of migrants will force the europe from changing their economic policies, because they need to invest more in order to help those migrants - with formation for language, with housing, with healthcare, etc. They are right from a rational standpoint, but stupidly wrong because the europe does not give a shit about the living condition of those migrants.
Those migrants, if you want them to be productive, should be seen as an investment, and not a source of labor that you could exploit instantly and create wealth with (which they could be if we didn't already had such a high unemployment and a rising poverty everywhere throughout europe).
|
On October 25 2015 05:05 WhiteDog wrote:
Saying that this simple and obvious fact is untrue is like pissing a violin : it's useless and make it seem like the people you are discussing with are stupid. The main reason as to why we need to help those refugees have nothing to do with the economy, and more to do with the fact that asylum is a constitutional right and that is part of our value (since the constitution that the french revolution gave us actually).
Now you are inconsistent! Not so long ago you demanded vulgar historical materialism and said that Germany's policies are in line with capitalism needing cheap work-force and that it's an important rationale for our current policies that we 'force on' Europe and now you've discovered Humanism suddenly!
But don't tell the people that already suffer from an economic crisis that this sudden increase in migrants will be instantly beneficial to them : it is untrue and everybody knows it. This hypocrisy is astonishing, and it's the main reason why the extremist party will be (are) the winner from this influx of migrants.
If it is true that we in the middle- and long run need those workers and that they stabilize our social system then it's legitimate to say that the poor who rely on those systems benefit, too. Btw I don't think that economical arguments are going to sway them into either direction anyway. They are afraid of immigration because they fear of their identity. Not all people marching through Dresden are poor or uneducated but most of them are old, white and male. It's demand for law & order, anti-Muslim sentiment and so on at the moment that scores the voting points for these parties, at least in Denmark, Germany and I guess in France, too.
|
Those migrants, if you want them to be productive, should be seen as an investment, and not a source of labor that you could exploit instantly and create wealth with (which they could be if we didn't already had such a high unemployment and a rising poverty everywhere throughout europe).
Quite literally actually. Without proper training, education, apprenticeships etc, many refugees don't even qualify as auxiliary workers.
In fact, the federal minister of labour in germany recently said, that as is, less than one out of ten refugees would be able to get to work after he arrived in germany.
In the end, yes - the refugees can be beneficial (only in the long run though). If, and that's a big if, you manage to: educate and train them properly and fast, and get them to work rather quickly. And it is by no means a guaranteed process, like our preachers here make it sound.
|
On October 25 2015 05:20 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2015 05:05 WhiteDog wrote:
Saying that this simple and obvious fact is untrue is like pissing a violin : it's useless and make it seem like the people you are discussing with are stupid. The main reason as to why we need to help those refugees have nothing to do with the economy, and more to do with the fact that asylum is a constitutional right and that is part of our value (since the constitution that the french revolution gave us actually).
Now you are inconsistent! Not so long ago you demanded vulgar historical materialism and said that Germany's policies are in line with capitalism needing cheap work-force and that it's an important rationale for our current policies that we 'force on' Europe and now you've discovered Humanism suddenly! Show nested quote +But don't tell the people that already suffer from an economic crisis that this sudden increase in migrants will be instantly beneficial to them : it is untrue and everybody knows it. This hypocrisy is astonishing, and it's the main reason why the extremist party will be (are) the winner from this influx of migrants. If it is true that we in the middle- and long run need those workers and that they stabilize our social system then it's legitimate to say that the poor who rely on those systems benefit, too. Btw I don't think that economical arguments are going to sway them into either direction anyway. They are afraid of immigration because they fear of their identity. Not all people marching through Dresden are poor or uneducated but most of them are old, white and male. It's demand for law & order, anti-Muslim sentiment and so on at the moment that scores the voting points for these parties, at least in Denmark, Germany and I guess in France, too.
I am perfectly consistent : refugee will most likely weight on wage, like all immigration, and thus are beneficial for the capital. But as to say that this inevitably result in a higher growth and an increase in living condition ? The question in itself is a farce.
Again, your vision is piss poor. The idea that people coming from Syria or somewhere else, who do not know the language, who have no social link, who do not understand the culture or the value, will be beneficial to our social system when we have already 10 % unemployment, especially in the youth, is fucking ridiculous. I don't understand how you can continue arguing the same thing over and over and refuse to take into account the reality of europe today. The problem is not that there are too many old people, it is first and foremost that a tenth (more in fact if we count the inactive that are inactive due to the lack of jobs) of the people in age of working are not able to.
As for your whole vision of what is happening in Europe, it is like reading a blind describing colors. "Old white and male" continue believe in that, and you will be really shocked at the national front electorate. Do you know the youth vote Le Pen ? The worker class ? Your vision of the extreme right was right ten or twenty years ago.
|
On October 25 2015 04:19 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2015 02:54 xM(Z wrote:
@Nyxisto - you did not answer my question. people(and you) started throwing around numbers regarding the ratio of natives vs immigrants. where did that number came from?. whats is the golden ratio?. based on what it was calculated?.
I'm confused. Where did I get what number from? we know roughly how huge the influx of refugees and immigration is. We know how many citizens we have. That's enough information to calculate a percentage. There is no certain 'golden ratio', but one good idea would be to have at least so much immigration that the ratio of workforce and retired population at least stays the same because else we're going to get into social trouble. In Germany, if I remember correctly, it was about half a million immigrants per year until 2050.
oh wow, so you're the confused one...
well let me help you there buddy - you entered a conversation in which i was asking a frenchman based on what, he is telling a swede that 2%of their population in migrants is fine and your reply was: but this is what Germany is doing to itself.
no one cares what Germany does to itself but ever since you invented those damn quotas, everyone stated telling everyone else that they should receive X% amount of refugees.
you told me to take in close to 7k refugees+ Show Spoiler + because i'll be fine, based on what?.
|
I don't really get what else you want. Germany is not a border state, if were to close our borders all the countries close to the migration routes will be unable to cope. If we all were to implement nationalist policies Germany would not be the country having any trouble, but we're not doing that. All what Germany is demanding is at least some degree of responsibility from the other EU countries which don't ask twice when it is EU funds being delegated to their country, Romania being one of the biggest benefactors. I'll tell you you'll be fine with 7000 refugees because that's one refugee per 2900 citizens. That sounds pretty manageable.
|
Just as a point nyquisto, Germans are much more familiar with dragging large populations out of poverty and assimilating them than almost any other country in Europe because of reunification. Following that, Germany was (unfairly IMO) called the sick man of Europe (because people don't seem to understand that having a third of your country come from 1/3 your GDP per capita is a challenge). Only America and Canada are similarly versed in incorporating impoverished people into a country and dragging them into prosperity (and even then, there are great differences in this based on religion, ethnicity, etc).
|
On October 26 2015 01:51 Nyxisto wrote:
... because that's one refugee per 2900 citizens. That sounds pretty manageable.
what the fuck is that dude?. who comes up with that stuff and based on what?.
that's just he said she said...
and about the funds, you don't know jack. the EU puts funds at your disposal, they don't give you funds. you'll have to absorb those funds via projects, business ideas and so on. if you don't, you get nothing and there were a good amount of years when we payed more to the EU in taxes than we got from those funds.
|
Just as a point nyquisto, Germans are much more familiar with dragging large populations out of poverty and assimilating them than almost any other country in Europe because of reunification. Following that, Germany was (unfairly IMO) called the sick man of Europe (because people don't seem to understand that having a third of your country come from 1/3 your GDP per capita is a challenge).
Not entirely sure if i understand correctly, but germany won't be able to do that again with the refugees, if that's what you were arguing. Reunification with people who share the same values, are partially family and friends etc is one thing, "assimilating" or "integrating" people that don't give a shit about your values, constitution etc, which don't even speak your language and are impossible to integrate into the labor market for years (that's a fact) is an entirely different one.
|
On October 26 2015 02:26 cLutZ wrote:
Just as a point nyquisto, Germans are much more familiar with dragging large populations out of poverty and assimilating them than almost any other country in Europe because of reunification. Following that, Germany was (unfairly IMO) called the sick man of Europe (because people don't seem to understand that having a third of your country come from 1/3 your GDP per capita is a challenge). Only America and Canada are similarly versed in incorporating impoverished people into a country and dragging them into prosperity (and even then, there are great differences in this based on religion, ethnicity, etc).
The idea that the reunification was a bad thing for germany, or that only germany paid is a joke in itself. The reunification was greatly positive for the west of germany, more than for the east actually : it was like a keynesian investment that directly funded the west into building the east. It created some debt and needed some time, but that's it.
And, the whole europe paid the cost for the reunification - it actually created a crisis and put a few thousands people in unemployment.
Also, Germany on has had a few moment throughout history where it had to manage a huge immigration - or something akin like the reunification. France and Great Britain has had a constant flow of immigration for a very long time now. France history, even its language, is the proof of its multicultural and diverse influence ("the most germanic of romane language"). The idea that Germany is somehow more familiar than France and the UK, or even Spain just cracks me up. But well if that's your vision of history.
eidt: corrected
|
On October 26 2015 03:32 WhiteDog wrote:
France history, even its language, is the proof of its multicultural and diverse influence ("the most roman of latine language").
Would you care to elaborate please?
|
On October 26 2015 03:52 Saumure wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2015 03:32 WhiteDog wrote:
France history, even its language, is the proof of its multicultural and diverse influence ("the most roman of latine language"). Would you care to elaborate please?
That's actually a typo... it's the most germanic of roman language (roman means vulgar latin). Since we've had many frontiers with germanic people, knowing two language was the rule in many part of france throughout history, and the result is that we have a bastard language, with a romane basis, but also many influences from german language, both in the vocabulary and in the phonetic. That's just the effect of geography, since we're at the middle, but it greatly influenced our history.
|
I think there are two different things. France is a country with a lot of immigration, true, but France also has put a strong emphasis on building a national identity through assimilation. Once you live in France you're supposed to be 'French' first and foremost, the French take on secularism for example is very different from what you have in Germany. Post WW-II Germany is much more American in that regard. I'm not sure if France has more immigration on paper, but I can understand why people would think that Germany is more 'multicultural' in general. People here have moved away from assimilation.
Just to take Houellebecq's Soumission as an example. If something like that had been published by a German intellectual you couldn't imagine the shitstorm.
|
Because it didn't cause any in France I guess ?
|
On October 26 2015 04:11 Nyxisto wrote:
I think there are two different things. France is a country with a lot of immigration, true, but France also has put a strong emphasis on building a national identity through assimilation. Once you live in France you're supposed to be 'French' first and foremost, the French take on secularism for example is very different from what you have in Germany. Post WW-II Germany is much more American in that regard. I'm not sure if France has more immigration on paper, but I can understand why people would think that Germany is more 'multicultural' in general. People here have moved away from assimilation.
Well it's a huge simplification. Anyway, that was not the subject : the subject was that Germany knows better than other european countries how to manage immigration due to its history.
Just Great Britain has been a huge place for migrants since the end of WW2, and those migrants comes from almost the entire globe (while Germany has a huge turkish population, and very few of the rest). Migration in Germany is pretty new compared to France and the UK, altho it is indeed more important today.
Just to give a little body to all that :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_France
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_immigration_to_the_United_Kingdom
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Germany
|
On October 26 2015 04:11 Nyxisto wrote:
I think there are two different things. France is a country with a lot of immigration, true, but France also has put a strong emphasis on building a national identity through assimilation. Once you live in France you're supposed to be 'French' first and foremost, the French take on secularism for example is very different from what you have in Germany. Post WW-II Germany is much more American in that regard. I'm not sure if France has more immigration on paper, but I can understand why people would think that Germany is more 'multicultural' in general. People here have moved away from assimilation.
Just to take Houellebecq's Soumission as an example. If something like that had been published by a German intellectual you couldn't imagine the shitstorm.
Didn't one of the French posters in this thread say that he (or his friend) is teaching immigrant kids in France and that they don't feel French at all?
|
On October 26 2015 04:33 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2015 04:11 Nyxisto wrote:
I think there are two different things. France is a country with a lot of immigration, true, but France also has put a strong emphasis on building a national identity through assimilation. Once you live in France you're supposed to be 'French' first and foremost, the French take on secularism for example is very different from what you have in Germany. Post WW-II Germany is much more American in that regard. I'm not sure if France has more immigration on paper, but I can understand why people would think that Germany is more 'multicultural' in general. People here have moved away from assimilation.
Just to take Houellebecq's Soumission as an example. If something like that had been published by a German intellectual you couldn't imagine the shitstorm. Didn't one of the French posters in this thread say that he (or his friend) is teaching immigrant kids in France and that they don't feel French at all?
It was me. I teach in the area with the most migrants (the "93" - seine saint denis). This idea that assimilation is still our way of dealing with immigration is greatly outdated. In the wiki I linked, they even argue that we stopped doing it in the 80s (altho I'm not sure I completly agree).
Seeing itself as an inclusive nation with universal values, France has always valued and strongly advocated assimilation where immigrants were expected to adhere to French traditional values and cultural norms. However, despite the success of such assimilation, the French Government abandoned it in the mid-1980s encouraging immigrants to retain their distinctive cultures and traditions and requiring from them a mere integration. This "integrationist" policy has recently been called into question, for example, following the 2005 French riots in some troubled and impoverished immigrant suburbs.
Just to take Houellebecq's Soumission as an example. If something like that had been published by a German intellectual you couldn't imagine the shitstorm.
Houellebecq actually sold a lot in Germany 
|
So polish parlimentary elections are finished. Looks like PiS (the right wing guys that some call populists) will be able to govern unoposed. They have around ~51% of seats in lower house. I wonder how it will impact polish-german relations.
|
On October 26 2015 06:04 Silvanel wrote:
So polish parlimentary elections are finished. Looks like PiS (the right wing guys that some call populists) will be able to govern unoposed. They have around ~51% of seats in lower house. I wonder how it will impact polish-german relations.
More harsh language, thats all.
|
@Nyxisto
Roots even go before nationalism aka French Revolution, Napoleon vs all European monarchies (slaughters a lot of people and after spreads weird ideas about equality=citizenship). Same apply for immigration, it goes back to colonization(vs english) cause borders are water. Immigration in Germany is relatively new, same for nationalism (Franco-Prussian War 1870)
The idea of assimilation came after this war like all others country, either your french/german or you out/dead^^. Today this process is not very effective as forcing people to be something they're not is not considered a good thing so it's harder to impose it.
@Silvanel
I am bit more afraid about their relation with russia :S
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
