EPTcompetition should drive people to invest more into their education and careers, not merely monetary but in terms of effort and drive. loosen regulation on small business formation and land price, let the refugees open businesses like they do in other places, and go on with your lives.
European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 483
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
competition should drive people to invest more into their education and careers, not merely monetary but in terms of effort and drive. loosen regulation on small business formation and land price, let the refugees open businesses like they do in other places, and go on with your lives. | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
 So I am gonna reply out of context.Australia gets way less immigrants chiefly because it's the middle of bloody nowhere. The sailing distances to almost everywhere are insane. As far as I understand, they do never tow the boats into foreign waters, they just relocate the people, to places where they have agreements - and even this is controversial, and has undergone several shifts there and back in the latest decade. It also really works because of the small amount of people. When I asked you the to name the particular sub-Saharan country, I wasn't being cheeky. I don't think that there is any place that would be safe, stable and uncorrupt enough that the money will actually go towards making any useful thing for the migrants. If you prove me wrong, I'll be only happier. Other people have already said what I had in mind - the conditions are gruesome as it is, including the fact that the smuggler's price is usually at the order of the life savings of whole families just to get one person across (that's also a big source of the "only young males" problem). I don't really thing "detering" will do much. It will also probably just push people to start using more dangerous paths to avoid the patrol, leading to just more deaths. My problem with strict refusal of migration is, that it just isn't a big enough problem to justify so much death and suffering that we would incur in the process. I don't know about you guys, but I am just somehow failing to starve as the immigrants are taking everything from me ... It's first and foremost a question of proportionality. I am not claiming that we should invite everyone to come to Europe, hell I am not claiming to know what is the right way to proceed, I am just seeing big holes in the "solutions" a lot of people are proposing and I am pointing them out. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
On June 13 2016 23:07 oneofthem wrote: natives have tremendous advantages(language, social ties etc) and access to education and social services especially in europe. the idea that because of migrants totaling 1% of the population you'd be in slums is ridiculous, and if that were true, good luck in the slums. competition should drive people to invest more into their education and careers, not merely monetary but in terms of effort and drive. loosen regulation on small business formation and land price, let the refugees open businesses like they do in other places, and go on with your lives. to translate your words into real life happenings : "natives have tremendous advantages(language, social ties etc)" - when you have no job because yours was outsourced by immigrants, your friends/family/entourage will foot your bill which allows you to be a bum but still live better(overall) than those immigrants; if you live in US or a country which can afford you being a bum, you're presented with options like youtuber, streamer, gamer, blogger, fashionista ... well you got the gist i hope. if your country can't afford you, it's a life of crime, prostitution or drugs waiting just around the corner; or you leave your country for greener pastures. - have you seen/been in a sweatshop?; did it look to you like those people were speaking?. did you think anybody cared if they were and in which language they'd do it as long as they do what they're suppose to do?. i will not touch the out of your ass percentages. i do it musketeer style: all for one and one for all. your last phrase is delusional not to mention that's the way discrimination starts. first you admit natives have all the advantages but then push them to compete with the immigrants. it doesn't take a genius to figure out who will win and what the outcome of that competition will be(but just to give you a tip - segregation will be just the first phase). "let the refugees open businesses like they do in other places, and go on with your lives." - this is not a discussion about job creators. | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
On June 13 2016 23:50 xM(Z wrote: to translate your words into real life happenings : "natives have tremendous advantages(language, social ties etc)" - when you have no job because yours was outsourced by immigrants, your friends/family/entourage will foot your bill which allows you to be a bum but still live better(overall) than those immigrants; if you live in US or a country which can afford you being a bum, you're presented with options like youtuber, streamer, blogger, fashionista ... well you got the gist i hope. if your country can't afford you, it's a life of crime, prostitution or drugs waiting just around the corner. - have you seen/been in a sweatshop?; did it look to you like those people were speaking?. did you think anybody cared if they were and in which language they'd do it as long as they do what they're suppose to do?. i will not touch the out of your ass percentages. i do it musketeer style: all for one and one for all. your last phrase is delusional not to mention that's the way discrimination starts. first you admit natives have all the advantages but then push them to compete with the immigrants. it doesn't take a genius to figure out who will win and what the outcome of that competition will be(but just to give you a tip - segregation will be just the first phase). "let the refugees open businesses like they do in other places, and go on with your lives." - this is not a discussion about job creators. I find it really ironic that those words come from someone who claims to live in Romania, the country that's not in the total shit it was 20 years ago mainly due to incredible investments by the richer countries of the EU. You are the immigrant here buddy, only you didn't have to move your sorry ass for it. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
Edit: or wait, are you saying that them capitalists invested in me?, in my well being?+ Show Spoiler + in my welfare state!? i'll make sure to give them my first born then. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
in a normal economy, every month there are millions of jobs destroyed and created. this churn, created by competition, technology change, population shifts etc, is not so different from outsourcing except the latter may have geographic and demographic concentrations. there is some argument about a certain inflexible bundle of demand available to be fulfilled, and in that sense there is no longer a space for good and easy middle income jobs. but these jobs are also those that receive positive spillover from high productivity of the entire economy, and it is more like a premium or rent than just dessert. even if you want to protect this group, the long term game is encourage development of the poorer countries so they too will raise their wage level. | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
On June 13 2016 23:55 xM(Z wrote: i have no idea what your point is but we are where we are because we have oil and gold. capitalists don't invest in nothing. Edit: or wait, are you saying that them capitalists invested in me?, in my well being?+ Show Spoiler + in my welfare state!? i'll make sure to give them my first born then. I am saying that the EU has send you 20 bilion euro in 2007-2013 in structural fonds alone, that's purely taxpayer money, not including any investment by private or semi-state companies. I couldn't find hard numbers on the period before accession, but judging from my country's experience, it will be in a similar ballpark. That's almost a year worth of budget of my country, to put it in perspective how much money that is. When I visited Romania for the first time in 2002, we talked with people in the countryside and most of them were living in serious poverty which would be like the bottom 5% in Czech Republic, able to sustain themselves only by gardening and hunting, because the wages were not enough to even put food on the table. Nowadays, Romania is a pretty solid, if mildly poorer, middle Europe. Your GDP per capita is now about twice as much as in early 90ties. You aren't where you are now because of your ingenious national qualities, or your vast natural resources (which would be unearned anyway, so I don't see the point in mentioning them), you are where you are, because the richer part of Europe has held your hand to get there. Yeah, the same to a slightly lesser extend can be said for us. But I am not the one having troubles accepting that I have received. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9299 Posts
On June 13 2016 23:23 opisska wrote: Sent., I'm sorry, I just can continue quoting that without exploding the forum, sorry So I am gonna reply out of context.Australia gets way less immigrants chiefly because it's the middle of bloody nowhere. The sailing distances to almost everywhere are insane. As far as I understand, they do never tow the boats into foreign waters, they just relocate the people, to places where they have agreements - and even this is controversial, and has undergone several shifts there and back in the latest decade. It also really works because of the small amount of people. When I asked you the to name the particular sub-Saharan country, I wasn't being cheeky. I don't think that there is any place that would be safe, stable and uncorrupt enough that the money will actually go towards making any useful thing for the migrants. If you prove me wrong, I'll be only happier. Other people have already said what I had in mind - the conditions are gruesome as it is, including the fact that the smuggler's price is usually at the order of the life savings of whole families just to get one person across (that's also a big source of the "only young males" problem). I don't really thing "detering" will do much. It will also probably just push people to start using more dangerous paths to avoid the patrol, leading to just more deaths. My problem with strict refusal of migration is, that it just isn't a big enough problem to justify so much death and suffering that we would incur in the process. I don't know about you guys, but I am just somehow failing to starve as the immigrants are taking everything from me ... It's first and foremost a question of proportionality. I am not claiming that we should invite everyone to come to Europe, hell I am not claiming to know what is the right way to proceed, I am just seeing big holes in the "solutions" a lot of people are proposing and I am pointing them out. I mostly agree with you however I still think that in the long run stricter border control would do more good than harm in regard to smuggling. Stopping the boats should stop the drownings. I know we can't stop every boat but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. | ||
|
oBlade
United States6138 Posts
On June 10 2016 18:17 Velr wrote: And who agreed that Boobies on Facebook aren't allowed? Because that actually wouldn't be the slightest Problem under the law in many (big!) european countries. Censoring People from showing their own Body is somehow allright but censoring blatant hatespeak isn't? Thats where i get problems with understanding american/anglosaxon "free speak"... We need to protect children wherever possible from seeing Boobies (or dicks/vaginas/whatever) but what they can hear or read? Who cares. Its retarded beyond belief. Nudity was never allowed on Facebook, because yes, minors use it, and there's no age verification, and you don't want minors posting nudity of themselves on the internet, and most adults don't want to see nudity of just any of their friends and family members that they've added. Nobody likes hate speech. But what's changed? Either they're expanding the enforcement against hate speech because there's been a sudden explosion of hate speech over a decade after the website started, or they're widening the application of the definition and using it for political reasons. In that case we'd want to be very skeptical of a company becoming the leader of a market and then turning into a tool of the government's political agenda. If the issue was what newspapers were publishing, I'd hope people would be faster to see the problem. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
maartendq
Belgium3115 Posts
On June 13 2016 23:07 oneofthem wrote: natives have tremendous advantages(language, social ties etc) and access to education and social services especially in europe. the idea that because of migrants totaling 1% of the population you'd be in slums is ridiculous, and if that were true, good luck in the slums. competition should drive people to invest more into their education and careers, not merely monetary but in terms of effort and drive. loosen regulation on small business formation and land price, let the refugees open businesses like they do in other places, and go on with your lives. I'm afraid our countries are too much in love with bureaucracy for that unfortunately. Even for locals the paperwork is often maddening. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
For those reasons, and some more, even the most basic understanding of migration coming from a random citizen that live in a neighborhood with a good proportion of migrants is oftentime more interesting and intelligent that the discourse that mainstream economists produce day after day. | ||
zatic
Zurich15365 Posts
On June 14 2016 02:38 WhiteDog wrote: For those reasons, and some more, even the most basic understanding of migration coming from a random citizen that live in a neighborhood with a good proportion of migrants is oftentime more interesting and intelligent that the discourse that mainstream economists produce day after day. And on the same line, the most basic understanding of a random citizen that lives in a neighborhood with next to zero migrants should be the least interesting. Unfortunately, they are the ones driving the discussion right now, at least in my country. | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
| ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
Two maps of the Austrian presidential election here: (green: green econ prof, liberal candidate; blue: right-wing candidate) + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://blogs.neuwirth.priv.at/bildungundstatistik/files/2016/05/KarteUnverzerrt.png) ![[image loading]](http://diepresse.com/images/uploads/0/4/9/663625/bevoelkerungsstatistik_bald_eine_million_20s13_bevoelkerungsstatistik_auslaender_2010_kaefer20110519190710.jpg) It's not the mainstream economists being out of sync with the average guy, it's the rural population staking out a monopoly on what the "real nation" has to look like. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On June 14 2016 04:08 opisska wrote: So you guys now value anectodal evidence above anything else? Are you going to ignore the fact that "a random citizen that live in a neighborhood with a good proportion of migrants" is a very bad population sample, due to the general lack of such neighborhood across most of the EU? I didn't say it's perfect, it is much more informed that the very oriented vision that the economist propose us. On June 14 2016 04:11 Nyxisto wrote: To contrast the view of the 'ordinary citizen' with the 'general liberal' position is a little funky, because the people actually living door to door with them share exactly the liberal mindset under attack here. Two maps of the Austrian presidential election here: + Show Spoiler + It's not the mainstream economists being out of sync with the average guy, it's the rural population claiming a monopoly on what the "real nation" has to look like. The rural area are also the part of our nations that are completly forgotten, the agricultural sector is brain dead, produce no or almost no stable and well paid jobs, the industrial sector is in the same situation. When those people, or their children, migrate to the city, they usually compete with migrant both for jobs and housing (in France, some sociologue showed that it is more often than not the parents of children who face downward social mobility who vote for the national front). There are reasons to be against anything when you live in a rural area : labor mobility, through migration, is nothing but a part of the complex process called "globalization". It's a bit too simple to flat out say that the rural area, and the least educated (because they vote for those party too don't forget it) are trying to "claim a monopoly on what the "real nation" has to look like" when they haven't had a say in the global evolution of our world for the last thirty to forty years. Not to mention that your caracterisation of this reality fail to really understand why it has increased so much : the racists just decided to wake for some reasons ? | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On June 14 2016 02:38 WhiteDog wrote: oneofthem is basically the generic liberal economist nowadays... A bit sad. People who think simply of immigration don't understand much. For exemple, you don't even start to understand the impact of immigration if you don't think from a macro perspective, by watching the flux of migrants worldwide, the countries that gain migrants, the type of migrants, and the countries that lose, etc. It's very similar to capital mobility in a sense. You also need to put back migrations in context, accept to take into consideration the social effects of migration, and not only the basic economic effect, and more than anything accept that migrations are not homogeneous and do not have homogeneous effects on a country. For those reasons, and some more, even the most basic understanding of migration coming from a random citizen that live in a neighborhood with a good proportion of migrants is oftentime more interesting and intelligent that the discourse that mainstream economists produce day after day. the type of migrant is important, so is investing in the native population particularly the left behind generation. this however doesn't make ridiculous claims like immigrants will make everyone live in slums any more true. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
Immigrants and natives are living and working together all over the place for decades in Europe now. It's working. These are the productive economic areas that every nation relies on, but nobody is talking about it. (which of course the liberal parties are partially responsible for because they aren't used to defend their ideology). Instead we're talking about the "pc police" and sharia law as if this is the actual living reality of everybody. How can anybody seriously claim that their opinion is being suppressed while we're talking about this largely irrelevant stuff all the damn time? | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On June 14 2016 04:24 Nyxisto wrote: I'm not advocating to leave the rural population behind or punish them or anything, but this talk about the silent majority against the liberal elite is seriously fucking annoying. The 'urban liberal mindset' isn't just some fringe thing that a few people enjoy, it's the usual experience for like 2/3 of every developed nation. There is no need that liberals should need to hide in their closet or be on the defense, it just shows how strongly the discourse has been hijacked by loudmouths on the extreme sides of the political spectrum. Immigrants and natives are living and working together all over the place for decades in Europe now. It's working. These are the productive economic areas that every nation relies on, but nobody is talking about it. (which of course the liberal parties are responsible for because they aren't used to defend their ideology). Instead we're talking about the "pc police" and sharia law as if this is the actual living reality of everybody. How can anybody seriously claim that there opinion is being suppressed while it deviates so much from what is actually going on? The people that vote and that have this "urban liberal mindset" are nothing but a minority too, the minority that win from the globalization - I'm part of that minority. It's not "working" : the proof is the global socal tension rising. The world is going in shit, extreme (right, which is kinda bad from a historical standpoint) vote is increasing, the european project is partly dead and the liberal "elite" should continue arguing/defending the same ? I just don't understand this kind of argument... It just does not work, liberalism never has and never will be, we know that since a hundred years - Polanyi anyone ? "The problem" is not the migrants, of course ! They are nothing but one of the faces of the global inequalities / imbalances that the liberal project created at the international level - why are we not more frightened at the fact that those migration comes with daily death, and completly depleted the poor countries from most of their young people. As people see their situation stagnating, as they see corruption, as they are facing harder and harder competition (between themselves and from migrants), as they face hardship in their daily lives (never understate the importance of small and daily crimes in the overall political situation) they find scapegoat, they find easy solutions (like taking up to 10 to 15 % of the country's population expelled would not have good effect on unemployment ? it's inhumane, does not mean it would not work). | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
| ||
