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 December 19 2015 02:29 Nyxisto wrote: You have it the wrong way around, the biggest threat to our social security is a shrinking workforce and an aging population. There is overwhelming consensus among economists that at least in terms of social security immigrants will not be a long or mid-term burden but a huge net benefit.
That's not even what I was saying. I'm saying the programs of social security are already massive burdens and don't get reformed without crisis. I see the assertion that an analogous program for immigrants would be reformed if its a problem overly optimistic based on past and current experiences with analogous special interest programs.
Also, how do immigrants fix the long term budget? Do they not age and then receive benefits just as the natives do? What I've read is that they generally have incomes below the median in EU when they get there. So, short and mid term they may be a budget plus (because young people don't get as many benefits) but long term they contribute less tax revenue than a native while getting the same benefits at 60+.
You can read the WSJ article, at least in Germany that hasn't been true, foreigners are paying in more than they are taking out, by a huge margin. Also obviously they age, but immigrants are generally young (especially in the context of the current refugee situation) so with a constant stream of immigration you can slow or reverse the demographic development.
Also if our decisions are based on past experiences they're by definition not overly optimistic but adequate.
That is true, but is also that is 30+ years from now if the average immigrant is 30ish. I don't think anyone is expecting this to be the longer term solution that solves all budget problems forever.
On December 19 2015 02:29 Nyxisto wrote: You have it the wrong way around, the biggest threat to our social security is a shrinking workforce and an aging population. There is overwhelming consensus among economists that at least in terms of social security immigrants will not be a long or mid-term burden but a huge net benefit.
That's not even what I was saying. I'm saying the programs of social security are already massive burdens and don't get reformed without crisis. I see the assertion that an analogous program for immigrants would be reformed if its a problem overly optimistic based on past and current experiences with analogous special interest programs.
Also, how do immigrants fix the long term budget? Do they not age and then receive benefits just as the natives do? What I've read is that they generally have incomes below the median in EU when they get there. So, short and mid term they may be a budget plus (because young people don't get as many benefits) but long term they contribute less tax revenue than a native while getting the same benefits at 60+.
You can read the WSJ article, at least in Germany that hasn't been true, foreigners are paying in more than they are taking out, by a huge margin. Also obviously they age, but immigrants are generally young (especially in the context of the current refugee situation) so with a constant stream of immigration you can slow or reverse the demographic development.
Also if our decisions are based on past experiences they're by definition not overly optimistic but adequate.
Can you copy the key portions? On mobile and no WSJ sub. The other reports I've read on that same study paint it, to me, as a 20ish year solution until the immigrants start to age into retirement, and then you have the same crisis, except worse because the retirees on average pay in less to the system than a German of the same age. So, its kicking the can down the road, which Plansix seems to agree with.
Personally, my problem is with the assumptions you all are making about politics. That is you seem to be greatly overestimating the ability to reform entitlements before a sovereign credit crisis.
But, perhaps you subscribe to Keynes greatest (and only) wisdom: In the end, we are all dead.
Germany is making a “considerable” financial profit from the surge in immigrants, with its 6.6 million foreigners helping to fund the aging country’s costly welfare system, a study published Thursday showed.
Foreigners paid on average €3,300 ($4,127) more in taxes and social security contributions in 2012 than they took out in benefits, generating a €22 billion surplus for the public coffers that year, according to a study by the nonpartisan ZEW economic institute which was commissioned by the Bertelsmann Foundation.
The study offers a strong rebuttal to the thesis of Germany’s anti-immigration parties and segments of the political mainstream—and the belief of many Germans—that fast-rising immigration is becoming too heavy a drain on the country’s finances. ....
Immigration to Germany surged over the past years, reaching a 20-year high of 1,226,000 last year. Germany has become the second most popular destination for economic migrants after the U.S., according to a report by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development published earlier this year.“The crisis in southern European countries has brought a well-educated workforce to Germany. The numbers won’t stay so high permanently,” said Jörg Dräger, board member of the Bertelsmann Foundation. “Germany must become an attractive immigration country permanently because its social security systems, public budgets and the labor market will get under pressure due to the demographic changes.” ....
Thursday’s study stressed the need for Germany’s labor market to be made more accessible to foreigners if the country was to continue benefiting from migration.
“The better qualified the immigrants are, the higher their contribution to public budgets,” said Mr. Bonin.
Bertelsmann Foundation said Germany must embrace a new immigration policy if it wants to be able to keep its welfare system. Low unemployment means several sectors of the economy are facing acute skills shortages.
So, basically, what I said about long term is correct, unless Germany shows long term fiscal/political planning more prudent than any EU country currently or histprically had demonstrated. Or the immigrants are not culturally susceptible to Westernization of birth rates, for many generations.
On December 19 2015 02:29 Nyxisto wrote: You have it the wrong way around, the biggest threat to our social security is a shrinking workforce and an aging population. There is overwhelming consensus among economists that at least in terms of social security immigrants will not be a long or mid-term burden but a huge net benefit.
That's not even what I was saying. I'm saying the programs of social security are already massive burdens and don't get reformed without crisis. I see the assertion that an analogous program for immigrants would be reformed if its a problem overly optimistic based on past and current experiences with analogous special interest programs.
Also, how do immigrants fix the long term budget? Do they not age and then receive benefits just as the natives do? What I've read is that they generally have incomes below the median in EU when they get there. So, short and mid term they may be a budget plus (because young people don't get as many benefits) but long term they contribute less tax revenue than a native while getting the same benefits at 60+.
You can read the WSJ article, at least in Germany that hasn't been true, foreigners are paying in more than they are taking out, by a huge margin. Also obviously they age, but immigrants are generally young (especially in the context of the current refugee situation) so with a constant stream of immigration you can slow or reverse the demographic development.
Also if our decisions are based on past experiences they're by definition not overly optimistic but adequate.
Can you copy the key portions? On mobile and no WSJ sub. The other reports I've read on that same study paint it, to me, as a 20ish year solution until the immigrants start to age into retirement, and then you have the same crisis, except worse because the retirees on average pay in less to the system than a German of the same age. So, its kicking the can down the road, which Plansix seems to agree with.
Personally, my problem is with the assumptions you all are making about politics. That is you seem to be greatly overestimating the ability to reform entitlements before a sovereign credit crisis.
But, perhaps you subscribe to Keynes greatest (and only) wisdom: In the end, we are all dead.
apparently you have neither read nor understood keynes. but that's ok, I too am an austrian - just not that kind of austrian
also at that time - 20+ years ahead - we just don't know what problems we are going to face then. maybe climate change will be in full force, even western countries will be in immediate danger and or face crisis of dramatic proportions.
I wonder what answer you would have gotten on the eve of september 14th 2008 from hedge fund managers, rating agencies, the FED, the SEC, goldmann analysts, lehmann, JP, chase... ETC... what major problems and risks they see in the somewhat foreseeable future.
On December 19 2015 02:29 Nyxisto wrote: You have it the wrong way around, the biggest threat to our social security is a shrinking workforce and an aging population. There is overwhelming consensus among economists that at least in terms of social security immigrants will not be a long or mid-term burden but a huge net benefit.
That's not even what I was saying. I'm saying the programs of social security are already massive burdens and don't get reformed without crisis. I see the assertion that an analogous program for immigrants would be reformed if its a problem overly optimistic based on past and current experiences with analogous special interest programs.
Also, how do immigrants fix the long term budget? Do they not age and then receive benefits just as the natives do? What I've read is that they generally have incomes below the median in EU when they get there. So, short and mid term they may be a budget plus (because young people don't get as many benefits) but long term they contribute less tax revenue than a native while getting the same benefits at 60+.
You can read the WSJ article, at least in Germany that hasn't been true, foreigners are paying in more than they are taking out, by a huge margin. Also obviously they age, but immigrants are generally young (especially in the context of the current refugee situation) so with a constant stream of immigration you can slow or reverse the demographic development.
Also if our decisions are based on past experiences they're by definition not overly optimistic but adequate.
Can you copy the key portions? On mobile and no WSJ sub. The other reports I've read on that same study paint it, to me, as a 20ish year solution until the immigrants start to age into retirement, and then you have the same crisis, except worse because the retirees on average pay in less to the system than a German of the same age. So, its kicking the can down the road, which Plansix seems to agree with.
Personally, my problem is with the assumptions you all are making about politics. That is you seem to be greatly overestimating the ability to reform entitlements before a sovereign credit crisis.
But, perhaps you subscribe to Keynes greatest (and only) wisdom: In the end, we are all dead.
I'm not Keynesian either but that seems a bit too harsh
Why the fuck is Hollande bombing Syria and not some banlieue?
In fact, this fake socialist Hollande was bombing civilians in Raqqa when the corpses the Belgian and French muslim radicals had butchered were still lying in a bloody pool inside the Bataclan. Why? Revenge.
I have never seen a terrible butcher hit home so many solid points. Not even the Gaddafi UN rant.
And all those civilians dying because they were just buying bread, and not financing IS terrorism, terrorism that kills our teenagers when they go visit a pop concert, that's just collateral damage. If we can't bomb civilians buying bread when we want to kill people that fund IS because they want to warm their house that doesn't any any heat isolation anyway (no roof, to many shell holes), who can we bomb? After we set the stage for IS by invading Iraq, are we just going to look on as the evil we created unfolds while our high tech air forces go to waste?
Sad truth is that when civilians choose to harbor guerilla fighters in any form, they have made themselves targets. Which means that sometimes you have to target civilians to root out guerillas.
Grand Moff Tarkin wrote: Sad truth is that when civilians choose to harbor guerilla fighters in any form, they have made themselves targets. Which means that sometimes you have to target civilians to root out guerillas.
you obviously only need to knock on your neighbors door and ask Mister crazy JIhadist if he and his armed combatant friends can move to another neighborhood. If you don't do that it's completely okay for you to take a hellfire missile to the face, after all you could have tried harder. LegalLord's handbook of warfare
On December 19 2015 12:11 Nyxisto wrote: you obviously only need to knock on your neighbors door and ask Mister crazy JIhadist if he and his armed combatant friends can move to another neighborhood. If you don't do that it's completely okay for you to take a hellfire missile to the face, after all you could have tried harder. LegalLord's handbook of warfare
The geneva convention specifically allows civilian casualties if you target enemy fighters and if said civilian casualties are expected to lie within a tolerable limit and the loss of civilian life could only be prevented by not attacking the target at all. This is written down in the additional protocol I of the geneva convention. So yes if you live next door to military targets like combattants you might get hit by an attack either through a lack of precision or accidental by the force of the attack.
I don't know if it's legal, I just said thar it's ridiculous. The loss of civilian live is unacceptable and also counterproductive as it will create more radical combatants than it kills.
American military strategist John Boyd said that someone who uses airforce in an asymmetric war has already strategically lost, as all it does is play into the hands of the insurgents.
The only successful anti-guerrilla operations I've ever seen are those that are willing to accept civilian casualties in precision operations that target guerrillas but accept collateral damage as a possibility. If you can't accept that, expect the civilian populace to be held hostage to protect terrorists.
Air warfare certainly does have its issues, but its usefulness in destroying military targets with speed and precision. Either you misinterpreted his words or he spoke too generally. Though it is also true that he died just under 20 years ago, and that while there is always resentment for military acts, it's very possible to suppress military uprisings among a resentful population with the help of a stable ruling government.
Germany is making a “considerable” financial profit from the surge in immigrants, with its 6.6 million foreigners helping to fund the aging country’s costly welfare system, a study published Thursday showed.
Foreigners paid on average €3,300 ($4,127) more in taxes and social security contributions in 2012 than they took out in benefits, generating a €22 billion surplus for the public coffers that year, according to a study by the nonpartisan ZEW economic institute which was commissioned by the Bertelsmann Foundation.
The study offers a strong rebuttal to the thesis of Germany’s anti-immigration parties and segments of the political mainstream—and the belief of many Germans—that fast-rising immigration is becoming too heavy a drain on the country’s finances. ....
Immigration to Germany surged over the past years, reaching a 20-year high of 1,226,000 last year. Germany has become the second most popular destination for economic migrants after the U.S., according to a report by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development published earlier this year.“The crisis in southern European countries has brought a well-educated workforce to Germany. The numbers won’t stay so high permanently,” said Jörg Dräger, board member of the Bertelsmann Foundation. “Germany must become an attractive immigration country permanently because its social security systems, public budgets and the labor market will get under pressure due to the demographic changes.” ....
Thursday’s study stressed the need for Germany’s labor market to be made more accessible to foreigners if the country was to continue benefiting from migration.
“The better qualified the immigrants are, the higher their contribution to public budgets,” said Mr. Bonin.
Bertelsmann Foundation said Germany must embrace a new immigration policy if it wants to be able to keep its welfare system. Low unemployment means several sectors of the economy are facing acute skills shortages.
What a stupid misleading article. Who exactly are these immigrants? Are they the extremist muslims flooding Europe or the skilled Polish immigrants that already know German and have a similar culture?
Germany is making a “considerable” financial profit from the surge in immigrants, with its 6.6 million foreigners helping to fund the aging country’s costly welfare system, a study published Thursday showed.
Foreigners paid on average €3,300 ($4,127) more in taxes and social security contributions in 2012 than they took out in benefits, generating a €22 billion surplus for the public coffers that year, according to a study by the nonpartisan ZEW economic institute which was commissioned by the Bertelsmann Foundation.
The study offers a strong rebuttal to the thesis of Germany’s anti-immigration parties and segments of the political mainstream—and the belief of many Germans—that fast-rising immigration is becoming too heavy a drain on the country’s finances. ....
Immigration to Germany surged over the past years, reaching a 20-year high of 1,226,000 last year. Germany has become the second most popular destination for economic migrants after the U.S., according to a report by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development published earlier this year.“The crisis in southern European countries has brought a well-educated workforce to Germany. The numbers won’t stay so high permanently,” said Jörg Dräger, board member of the Bertelsmann Foundation. “Germany must become an attractive immigration country permanently because its social security systems, public budgets and the labor market will get under pressure due to the demographic changes.” ....
Thursday’s study stressed the need for Germany’s labor market to be made more accessible to foreigners if the country was to continue benefiting from migration.
“The better qualified the immigrants are, the higher their contribution to public budgets,” said Mr. Bonin.
Bertelsmann Foundation said Germany must embrace a new immigration policy if it wants to be able to keep its welfare system. Low unemployment means several sectors of the economy are facing acute skills shortages.
What a stupid misleading article. Who exactly are these immigrants? Are they the extremist muslims flooding Europe or the skilled Polish immigrants that already know German and have a similar culture?
Take a wild guess who is overrepresented in crime, unemployment and low educational achievements.
Germany is making a “considerable” financial profit from the surge in immigrants, with its 6.6 million foreigners helping to fund the aging country’s costly welfare system, a study published Thursday showed.
Foreigners paid on average €3,300 ($4,127) more in taxes and social security contributions in 2012 than they took out in benefits, generating a €22 billion surplus for the public coffers that year, according to a study by the nonpartisan ZEW economic institute which was commissioned by the Bertelsmann Foundation.
The study offers a strong rebuttal to the thesis of Germany’s anti-immigration parties and segments of the political mainstream—and the belief of many Germans—that fast-rising immigration is becoming too heavy a drain on the country’s finances. ....
Immigration to Germany surged over the past years, reaching a 20-year high of 1,226,000 last year. Germany has become the second most popular destination for economic migrants after the U.S., according to a report by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development published earlier this year.“The crisis in southern European countries has brought a well-educated workforce to Germany. The numbers won’t stay so high permanently,” said Jörg Dräger, board member of the Bertelsmann Foundation. “Germany must become an attractive immigration country permanently because its social security systems, public budgets and the labor market will get under pressure due to the demographic changes.” ....
Thursday’s study stressed the need for Germany’s labor market to be made more accessible to foreigners if the country was to continue benefiting from migration.
“The better qualified the immigrants are, the higher their contribution to public budgets,” said Mr. Bonin.
Bertelsmann Foundation said Germany must embrace a new immigration policy if it wants to be able to keep its welfare system. Low unemployment means several sectors of the economy are facing acute skills shortages.
What a stupid misleading article. Who exactly are these immigrants? Are they the extremist muslims flooding Europe or the skilled Polish immigrants that already know German and have a similar culture?
Take a wild guess who is overrepresented in crime, unemployment and low educational achievements.
While the Bertelsmann Foundation’s activities are considered as consistent with scientific standards, the organization has in the past been criticized by left-leaning groups for its engagement in the political field. The criticism focuses specially on the areas of education and labor, where the foundation allegedly promoted neoliberal ideas such as an increase of competition in education and research and for the introduction of tuition fees to the German university system. The foundation has been accused of channeling their concepts into reforms of public universities in order to eliminate e.g. free access to education and academic autonomy.
Germany is making a “considerable” financial profit from the surge in immigrants, with its 6.6 million foreigners helping to fund the aging country’s costly welfare system, a study published Thursday showed.
Foreigners paid on average €3,300 ($4,127) more in taxes and social security contributions in 2012 than they took out in benefits, generating a €22 billion surplus for the public coffers that year, according to a study by the nonpartisan ZEW economic institute which was commissioned by the Bertelsmann Foundation.
The study offers a strong rebuttal to the thesis of Germany’s anti-immigration parties and segments of the political mainstream—and the belief of many Germans—that fast-rising immigration is becoming too heavy a drain on the country’s finances. ....
Immigration to Germany surged over the past years, reaching a 20-year high of 1,226,000 last year. Germany has become the second most popular destination for economic migrants after the U.S., according to a report by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development published earlier this year.“The crisis in southern European countries has brought a well-educated workforce to Germany. The numbers won’t stay so high permanently,” said Jörg Dräger, board member of the Bertelsmann Foundation. “Germany must become an attractive immigration country permanently because its social security systems, public budgets and the labor market will get under pressure due to the demographic changes.” ....
Thursday’s study stressed the need for Germany’s labor market to be made more accessible to foreigners if the country was to continue benefiting from migration.
“The better qualified the immigrants are, the higher their contribution to public budgets,” said Mr. Bonin.
Bertelsmann Foundation said Germany must embrace a new immigration policy if it wants to be able to keep its welfare system. Low unemployment means several sectors of the economy are facing acute skills shortages.
What a stupid misleading article. Who exactly are these immigrants? Are they the extremist muslims flooding Europe or the skilled Polish immigrants that already know German and have a similar culture?
Take a wild guess who is overrepresented in crime, unemployment and low educational achievements.
This is accounting for socioeconomic status and age already. Clearly it must be only because they're poor right? No cultural component of any kind involved. Note, the huge spike is not even for immigrants, but for 2nd generation people, those who should by all means have "arrived" and integrated into the country properly.
EPT
![[image loading]](https://fenixwordpresscom.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/download.png?w=620)
