|
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 September 08 2016 16:54 Ghostcom wrote:
We have had this discussion before. While I agree that the richer countries should obviously bear the brunt of the costs, it is demonstrably false that it is economically better to import the refugees than helping them where they are. The political will wasn't in place to do the latter - in part because Merkel decided that she wanted to do the former and thus encourage the creation of a mass grave in the Mediterranean.
That assumes that refugees are a cost which is true in the short term but in the long term I would argue they're a net benefit for the economy as long as you give them the opportunity to work. Even though it might be cheaper in the short term to help them in the countries they're in like Turkey and Jordan in reality they're usually noy allowed to integrate and work and are stuck in refugee camps for years. They'll keep costing money year after year like that not to mention the huge cost in human capital.
Ideally the first refugee camps are indeed in the countries they're initially in but this should be coupled with 1st world countries taking an x amount of refugees every year to integrate them and let them add to the workforce.
If you want I can expand on my point of the economic benefits of immigration.
|
On September 08 2016 16:54 Ghostcom wrote:
it is demonstrably false that it is economically better to import the refugees than helping them where they are.
If it is "demonstrably false" then please demonstrate. I would like to read it.
On September 08 2016 19:18 xM(Z wrote:
your money argument mimics Farage's £350m one: why should we give them(EU here is middle eastern countries who can host refugee camps) money when we can spend them here for the same thing; it's our money!.
do i need to say more?(i won't even touch on the fact that with the money per refugee you spend in Germany you can take care of 3-5 refugees in one of those countries).
you don't own money(contextual) and money don't have a heading.
Ex: you have a town of 500.000 people that draws the short end of the stick and gets to house 10.000 immigrants.
- the gov. will contract landlords for housing(or just take buildings for free because why not) = those couple landlords will get rich(-er?, maybe); few new possible desk jobs but they'll hire refugees or get refugees to do them for free or for access to ... things.
- the gov. will contract catering firms to feed them = the owners of those few catering firms will get rich(-er?, maybe); some job openings, maybe several dozens.
- the gov. will give refugees spending money which they'll partially(they will definitely save some or send to relatives in their native country) spend locally; some businesses will in theory, get an influx of new clients but in practice they'll lose others which makes it hard to quantify the actual gain.
- some/few refugees will open shops and provide some kind of service(for whom?, to whom?; benefits uncertain); self employed.
you add those together and you get to, in a best case scenario, several hundred new jobs, some with a questionable legality and payment schemes. Ex: 500 new jobs in a 500.000 city. that is not money going back to the people, that's money going to a selected few.
You base your speculation on some very heavy assumptions. Assumptions which I personally believe to be false. Thats why I come to a different conclusion.
The first thing is that I dont believe taking care of refugees would be cheaper in other countries. My biggest fear with giving money to foreign countries to take care of the refugees, especially countries outside of the EU, is that the money might not go diretly to the people in need. There might be corruption or misspending.
Imagine the EU giving 100 mil € to Lebanon and they just pocket 50% of it and only give the rest to the people in need. Would you prefer that?
With keeping the money in your own country you can make sure it is used the way it should be. If it is still pocketed by corrupt politicians at least its your own fault for not taking care of that.
Not saying these countries are definitely going to do it, I am just saying I personally prefer to keep things at home just to be sure.
Furthermore the rich countries already have the superior infrastructure. Providing an acceptable living situation for the refugees is much easier in a rich country than in a poor country.
On September 08 2016 19:18 xM(Z wrote:
now, see how many people, native people, german people, will those 10.000 immigrants negatively affect both directly and indirectly, because my number is the tens of thousands ballpark and they're the ones voting now.
How do they negatively affect natives? Can you be less vague please?
|
The European Parliament has named Guy Verhofstadt, a former Belgian prime minister and arch-foe of eurosceptics across the continent, to represent it in forthcoming Brexit negotiations with London.
Verhofstadt, 63, leads the liberal bloc in the legislature, where he has railed against nationalists like Nigel Farage of the UK Independence Party, who described the Belgian on Thursday as a "fanatical" federalist who "hates everything we stand for".
Parliament, which announced Verhofstadt's appointment by a caucus of fellow party leaders, will have a limited role in the detailed negotiations with British Prime Minister Theresa May, once she formally launches the process triggered by the June 23 referendum vote to leave the bloc. But MEPs will have to pass legislation to enact a divorce and possibly other agreements.
Verhofstadt was one of a trio of parliamentarians involved in negotiating this year's pact with May's predecessor, David Cameron, which offered Britain concessions on EU migration and other rules in a vain bid to persuade its voters to stay.
Verhofstadt, who called his appointment an "honour" and said parliament would play a "central role" in any deals with London, has long taken a tough line with the British. But he spoke out after the vote to back Scotland's pro-independence leader Nicola Sturgeon in her quest for Scots not to be forced out of the EU.
A Fleming fluent in English, he has often clashed verbally in the chamber with Farage as well as with Syed Kamall, the pro-Brexit British Conservative leader in parliament. Farage said Verhofstadt would speed Britain's departure from the bloc but Kamall complained that he had been appointed in a "back room" deal and called for an open vote in the legislature.
There is little love lost between the Belgian and the Conservatives. When Boris Johnson dropped a bid to lead the party in July, Verhofstadt said he and other "Brexiteers" were "rats fleeing a sinking ship." Johnson is now foreign minister.
The EU parliament is dominated by strongly pro-EU members, who fear that a deal too generous to Britain will reinforce centrifugal forces elsewhere. They will be keen to prevent Brussels and other states allowing Britain to retain full access to EU markets while keeping out European immigrants.
Detailed negotiations will be handled by the EU executive, the European Commission. Its president, Jean-Claude Juncker, has appointed Michel Barnier, a French conservative former minister, MEP and EU commissioner, to lead the talks.
The other 27 member states must also agree any deals. They will negotiate through the European Council and its president, Donald Tusk. He has named Didier Seeuws, a Belgian diplomat who was once Verhofstadt's government spokesman, to coordinate the Council's involvement in the negotiations.
While Barnier has been visiting Brussels to prepare for his task, he does not formally start his job until Oct. 1. EU officials say they see little urgency since May says she will not formally notify the Union this year of Britain's plan to leave, under Article 50 of the EU treaty.
Tusk, who met May in London on Thursday for their first official talks, and Juncker, insist there can be no negotiations until that notification -- although British and EU officials widely expect some general, informal discussions about how talks will be conducted and on possible outcomes.
Tusk told May, who has made Brexit campaigner David Davis her minister responsible for negotiating with Brussels, that the ball was now in Britain's court. Notification under Article 50 should set a two-year deadline for its departure, either under an agreed treaty or without one, if talks fail to reach a deal.
uk.reuters.com
|
Verhofstadt lol. I like the very subtle jab at the UK considering how often he clashed in parliament with Farage.
|
On September 08 2016 21:26 RoomOfMush wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 16:54 Ghostcom wrote:
it is demonstrably false that it is economically better to import the refugees than helping them where they are. If it is "demonstrably false" then please demonstrate. I would like to read it.
You could just read back through this thread. As I stated in the start of my post it has been demonstrated already multiple times - at least twice by me. Please have some respect for the time of the rest of us - I'm sorry if I come off as a dick, but it's a busy day/week for me.
On September 08 2016 20:50 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 16:54 Ghostcom wrote:
We have had this discussion before. While I agree that the richer countries should obviously bear the brunt of the costs, it is demonstrably false that it is economically better to import the refugees than helping them where they are. The political will wasn't in place to do the latter - in part because Merkel decided that she wanted to do the former and thus encourage the creation of a mass grave in the Mediterranean. That assumes that refugees are a cost which is true in the short term but in the long term I would argue they're a net benefit for the economy as long as you give them the opportunity to work. Even though it might be cheaper in the short term to help them in the countries they're in like Turkey and Jordan in reality they're usually noy allowed to integrate and work and are stuck in refugee camps for years. They'll keep costing money year after year like that not to mention the huge cost in human capital. Ideally the first refugee camps are indeed in the countries they're initially in but this should be coupled with 1st world countries taking an x amount of refugees every year to integrate them and let them add to the workforce. If you want I can expand on my point of the economic benefits of immigration.
How long is your long-term? And are you now considering immigrants or still only refugees? The issue with refugees is that we don't get to choose them. This means a lot of those that come have zero qualifications and will require extensive training before they can productively be part of the workforce. I mean in theory I agree with you that more hands should be an economic benefit, however in the real world it doesn't really seem to work out as well.
I think I've mentioned this before, but in Denmark we have the worlds most impressive databases; tracking everyone from the minute they get a social security number until they leave the country or die. In this sense tracking includes all usage of hospitals, all usage of social services, all usage of educational system, all the tax you've paid, all the money, both brutto and netto earned, who you marry, who your kids are, what crimes you've comitted... literally everything you've done from craddle to grave is kept in some sort of database or the other. In Denmark we are not afraid to explicitly present data on subgroups (as long as they are big enough that no individual can be identified from them). This means that Statistics Denmark have produced reports on how well refugees, immigrants and their descendants are doing. The reading is not a positive one when looking at rates of unemployment, educational level, crime level, usage of social services, heck you mention it and it's bad, when looking at how people from the ME and Northern Africa and their descendants. ALL other groups outperform them by a considerable margin. I've also linked these stats earlier, so if you are more interested in those, please read back through the thread (sorry  ). Fact is, we suck at integrating these people into our society and before we solve that issue they are never going to be a true benefit to the society.
|
On September 08 2016 20:50 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 16:54 Ghostcom wrote:
We have had this discussion before. While I agree that the richer countries should obviously bear the brunt of the costs, it is demonstrably false that it is economically better to import the refugees than helping them where they are. The political will wasn't in place to do the latter - in part because Merkel decided that she wanted to do the former and thus encourage the creation of a mass grave in the Mediterranean. That assumes that refugees are a cost which is true in the short term but in the long term I would argue they're a net benefit for the economy as long as you give them the opportunity to work. Even though it might be cheaper in the short term to help them in the countries they're in like Turkey and Jordan in reality they're usually noy allowed to integrate and work and are stuck in refugee camps for years. They'll keep costing money year after year like that not to mention the huge cost in human capital. Ideally the first refugee camps are indeed in the countries they're initially in but this should be coupled with 1st world countries taking an x amount of refugees every year to integrate them and let them add to the workforce. If you want I can expand on my point of the economic benefits of immigration.
The "benefits of inmigrants" is just non sense. The only real way to help those people was send the help to where they where, so they could stay at their cultures and become self reliant in some way. It costs 1/4 of the money to help them in Turkey than it does importing them to germany, but I guess it doesn't look as charitable.
I simply don't understand how on earth anyone could believe that importing millions of people, many of who are ILITERATE in their own language, that breed like crazy, don't speak german and have 0 valuable skills for a western society, which values and laws they do not respect, is gonna have a positive impact in any way. The vast majority is not willing to integrate, and if they wanted they couldn't anyway.
The current situation is flat out cruel; most inmigrants will simply become reliant on welfare on an alien country. They will also breed at a rate of 4 childs per couple while german have 1.3 or something and become an ethnic minority in ten years.
|
|
|
The French prime minister has said the country's security services are foiling terror plots and dismantling militant networks "every day".
Manual Valls said about 15,000 people were being monitored for radicalisation as the country continues its drive against jihadist militants.
Previously the authorities said about 10,000 were identified as high-risk.
A boy of 15 was arrested at his home in Paris on Saturday on suspicion of planning an attack over the weekend.
Investigators said he had been under surveillance since April and he had been in touch with a French member of so-called Islamic State (IS), Rachid Kassim.
France has been under a state of emergency since IS attacks on Paris in November killed 130 people in what President Francois Hollande called an "act of war".
However, a recent commission of inquiry found the state of emergency was only having a "limited impact" on improving security.
It questioned the deployment of between 6,000 and 7,000 soldiers to protect schools, synagogues, department stores and other sensitive sites.
"Today the threat is at a maximum, and we are a target," Mr Valls told French media.
"Every day intelligence services, police, foil attacks, dismantle networks, track terrorists. There are about 15,000 people in France who are monitored, because these people are in the process of radicalisation."
Source
|
On September 10 2016 09:03 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 20:50 RvB wrote:On September 08 2016 16:54 Ghostcom wrote:
We have had this discussion before. While I agree that the richer countries should obviously bear the brunt of the costs, it is demonstrably false that it is economically better to import the refugees than helping them where they are. The political will wasn't in place to do the latter - in part because Merkel decided that she wanted to do the former and thus encourage the creation of a mass grave in the Mediterranean. That assumes that refugees are a cost which is true in the short term but in the long term I would argue they're a net benefit for the economy as long as you give them the opportunity to work. Even though it might be cheaper in the short term to help them in the countries they're in like Turkey and Jordan in reality they're usually noy allowed to integrate and work and are stuck in refugee camps for years. They'll keep costing money year after year like that not to mention the huge cost in human capital. Ideally the first refugee camps are indeed in the countries they're initially in but this should be coupled with 1st world countries taking an x amount of refugees every year to integrate them and let them add to the workforce. If you want I can expand on my point of the economic benefits of immigration. The "benefits of inmigrants" is just non sense. The only real way to help those people was send the help to where they where, so they could stay at their cultures and become self reliant in some way. It costs 1/4 of the money to help them in Turkey than it does importing them to germany, but I guess it doesn't look as charitable. I simply don't understand how on earth anyone could believe that importing millions of people, many of who are ILITERATE in their own language, that breed like crazy, don't speak german and have 0 valuable skills for a western society, which values and laws they do not respect, is gonna have a positive impact in any way. The vast majority is not willing to integrate, and if they wanted they couldn't anyway. The current situation is flat out cruel; most inmigrants will simply become reliant on welfare on an alien country. They will also breed at a rate of 4 childs per couple while german have 1.3 or something and become an ethnic minority in ten years.
It’s not nonsense. The negative effects on employment and wages are minimal if there are any. Long term the wage and unemployment disparity between natives and immigrants converges (though does not disappear completely). Fiscal effects are small but positive on average (depending on age etc.). This does not include all the benefits it will have for the migrants / refugees themselves in higher wages and the like.
Syrians aren’t illiterate. Adult literacy rate is was 80+% and this is only below 90% because the elderly have a low literacy rate of 40% (before the civil war obviously). What you don’t get is that you don’t need an extensive amount of skills to be able to contribute economically.
One reason is that the demand for labor expands when immigrants enter the economy. Immigrant workers not only supply labor, for example, but also demand goods and services, and this demand will translate into
greater demand for locally supplied labor. This increase in demand can mitigate the effect of increased supply. Furthermore, immigrants and natives are not perfect substitutes in the labor market, and therefore often do not compete for the same jobs.36 In fact, labor markets are highly segregated, with immigrant labor concentrated in some occupations and natives concentrated in others Immigrants compete with one another far more than they compete with natives ..18 Indeed, some immigrant labor can complement rather than substitute for some native labor, so that an increase in the supply of immigrant labor will increase the demand for native labor and thus have positive effects on native wages rather than negative effects.
And this does not even factor in the huge opportunity cost in human capital of people sitting doing nothing in refugee camps. Some refugee camps exist for decades and looking at the situation in Syria right now it’s unlikely that the situation will be resolved for years. You don’t think that has a huge cost to it?
The fertility rate of foreigners regresses to the mean of the country they live in as well.
Between 2006 and 2013 the fertility rate among Mexicans in America fell by 35%, compared with a drop of 3% among non-Hispanic whites. In the Netherlands, the immigrant fertility rate is now almost exactly the same as the native one. Even in Britain, where a quarter of births are to immigrants, statisticians reckon that immigration has raised overall fertility by a mere 0.08 children per woman.
And here’s a blog about the economic effects of refugees from Syria in surrounding countries:
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/future-development/2015/09/16/much-ado-about-nothing-the-economic-impact-of-refugee-invasions/
sources:
http://www.economist.com/news/international/21697819-immigrants-do-less-raise-birth-rates-generally-believed-fecund-foreigners
https://ourworldindata.org/literacy/
http://www.nber.org/papers/w16736
http://www.nber.org/papers/w14833
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=946204
|
What's been ignored so far is the cost to socieity.
https://www.rt.com/news/sweden-riots-police-eu-multiculturalism-805/
"We have tried harder than any other European country to integrate, spending billions on a welfare system that is designed to help jobless immigrants and guarantee them a good quality of life," Marc Abramsson, leader of the National Democrats Party, told the Telegraph.
"Yet we have areas where there are ethnic groups that just don't identify with Swedish society. They see the police and even the fire brigade as part of the state, and they attack them. Multiculturalism does not recognize how humans actually function, Abramsson added, emphasizing that such a stance should not be confused with racism.
"Youth gang riots in the Swedish capital Stockholm have entered fifth straight night. Hundreds of mostly immigrant teenagers tore through the suburbs, smashing windows and burning cars in the country’s worst outbreak of violence in years."
https://www.rt.com/news/stockholm-violence-outbreak-fires-671/
“The people come here now because they know that Sweden will give them money for nothing. They don’t have to work, they don’t have to pay taxes – they can just stay here and get a lot of money. That is really a problem,” Carlqvist added.
Just look at france, sweden or any other nation with a high rate of migrants. The price of this hubris about taking a piddling million refugees out of the billion fleeing is going to be felt centuries from now.
When there aren't enough jobs to keep people busy.
When the world heads in for another economic downturn
Whenever war rears its ugly head
The price of multiculturalism is a fractured society that tears itself apart in petty tribalism. Just look at america and their race politics. That is what is being imported with every batch of refugees.
|
On September 12 2016 19:54 Madkipz wrote:What's been ignored so far is the cost to socieity. https://www.rt.com/news/sweden-riots-police-eu-multiculturalism-805/"We have tried harder than any other European country to integrate, spending billions on a welfare system that is designed to help jobless immigrants and guarantee them a good quality of life," Marc Abramsson, leader of the National Democrats Party, told the Telegraph. "Yet we have areas where there are ethnic groups that just don't identify with Swedish society. They see the police and even the fire brigade as part of the state, and they attack them. Multiculturalism does not recognize how humans actually function, Abramsson added, emphasizing that such a stance should not be confused with racism. "Youth gang riots in the Swedish capital Stockholm have entered fifth straight night. Hundreds of mostly immigrant teenagers tore through the suburbs, smashing windows and burning cars in the country’s worst outbreak of violence in years." https://www.rt.com/news/stockholm-violence-outbreak-fires-671/“The people come here now because they know that Sweden will give them money for nothing. They don’t have to work, they don’t have to pay taxes – they can just stay here and get a lot of money. That is really a problem,” Carlqvist added. Just look at france, sweden or any other nation with a high rate of migrants. The price of this hubris about taking a piddling million refugees out of the billion fleeing is going to be felt centuries from now. When there aren't enough jobs to keep people busy. When the world heads in for another economic downturn Whenever war rears its ugly head The price of multiculturalism is a fractured society that tears itself apart in petty tribalism. Just look at america and their race politics. That is what is being imported with every batch of refugees.
Hello Chicken Little, has the sky fallen on your head yet? Or do you have any actual data to back all that doom and gloom up with?
User was warned for this post
|
He has quotes from two RT articles, isn't that enough?
|
|
|
On September 12 2016 19:54 Madkipz wrote:What's been ignored so far is the cost to socieity. https://www.rt.com/news/sweden-riots-police-eu-multiculturalism-805/"We have tried harder than any other European country to integrate, spending billions on a welfare system that is designed to help jobless immigrants and guarantee them a good quality of life," Marc Abramsson, leader of the National Democrats Party, told the Telegraph. "Yet we have areas where there are ethnic groups that just don't identify with Swedish society. They see the police and even the fire brigade as part of the state, and they attack them. Multiculturalism does not recognize how humans actually function, Abramsson added, emphasizing that such a stance should not be confused with racism. "Youth gang riots in the Swedish capital Stockholm have entered fifth straight night. Hundreds of mostly immigrant teenagers tore through the suburbs, smashing windows and burning cars in the country’s worst outbreak of violence in years." https://www.rt.com/news/stockholm-violence-outbreak-fires-671/“The people come here now because they know that Sweden will give them money for nothing. They don’t have to work, they don’t have to pay taxes – they can just stay here and get a lot of money. That is really a problem,” Carlqvist added. Just look at france, sweden or any other nation with a high rate of migrants. The price of this hubris about taking a piddling million refugees out of the billion fleeing is going to be felt centuries from now. When there aren't enough jobs to keep people busy. When the world heads in for another economic downturn Whenever war rears its ugly head The price of multiculturalism is a fractured society that tears itself apart in petty tribalism. Just look at america and their race politics. That is what is being imported with every batch of refugees.
More or less. I stayed in Rinkeby when I was in Stockholm, because it was cheap. Interesting place. Not a single blonde in sight. In fact, I'm not sure if I saw any white people apart from the other travelers staying at the same place as me. Recently saw a video where the police wouldn't accompany media inside because they, apparently, thought it would encourage hostility towards the media folks. As it happens they got assaulted regardless.
It's meaningless to just look at the amount that the welfare state pays to immigrants vs. the amount that immigrants put into the economy. This surface level comparison which people use to claim that 'immigration provides a net benefit' ignores so many critical factors. It ignores the well documented impact that unskilled immigration has on the wages of the least fortunate natives. It ignores the way in which unskilled immigration removes any incentive for employers to improve their working conditions. It ignores the native population who take out of the welfare state because the jobs they are capable of doing are being taken by immigrants willing to accept worse working conditions and less pay. And, most importantly in the case of the migrant crisis, it ignores the cultural and emotional baggage that these people bring with them. When you bring people in in such numbers they do not integrate. It's just not a realistic hope. They stay together, so what you essentially achieve is a wholesale importation of Syrian culture (to say nothing of the other nationalities, many of which are worse), with all its backwardness and incompatibility with Western culture. So, clearly bad for the host nation.
The irony is that it's also terrible for the humanitarian effort, because all your funds are being diverted into entirely the wrong place. The people that make it to Europe are those healthy enough to make the journey and wealthy enough to pay the extortionate fees that the criminal networks charge them. So, for the most part, they're the people who could comfortably make their way in neighbouring countries. The sick and infirm are left behind, as are those too poor to make the journey. In other words, all the people who we should really be spending our money on helping get left in Syria with nothing while Germany pours potentially hundreds of millions of euros into dentistry for its new migrant population.
Merkel's open door policy was the culmination of the lame virtue signalling that people so love to engage in. In order to look good and feel good about itself, Germany has effectively funded the growth of an enormous criminal network, leading to the deaths of thousands, all the while diverting essential resources away from those who need it most in Syria. Not to mention screwing over half of Europe in the process. Germany might be able to afford this mess for the time being, but Greece can't.
|
Classic case of open google, type favoured agenda, copy paste link, with no regard for context or date. Sigh.
At least it is more related than that time this one guy copy pasted a link of a black youth gang throwing acid as confirmation of Arab rapists in London...
|
It's meaningless to just look at the amount that the welfare state pays to immigrants vs. the amount that immigrants put into the economy. This surface level comparison which people use to claim that 'immigration provides a net benefit' ignores so many critical factors. It ignores the well documented impact that unskilled immigration has on the wages of the least fortunate natives. It ignores the way in which unskilled immigration removes any incentive for employers to improve their working conditions. It ignores the native population who take out of the welfare state because the jobs they are capable of doing are being taken by immigrants willing to accept worse working conditions and less pay.
I just posted multiple studies on this exact page which answer exactly these questions. In fact you can read in the post the rrason why natives jobs being taken by foreigners is bullshit. At least take the effort to read other posts if you're so convinced you're right or post some evidence to support your views.
|
On September 12 2016 22:00 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Classic case of open google, type favoured agenda, copy paste link, with no regard for context or date. Sigh.
At least it is more related than that time this one guy copy pasted a link of a black youth gang throwing acid as confirmation of Arab rapists in London...
Head in the sand much? That sounds familiar. Reminds me of when this happened because a bunch of weak cowards who didn't want to rock the boat chose to put their head in the sand rather than do the right thing. Was funny when China Air told the truth and people said, "omg China Air... don't say that."
+ Show Spoiler +"7% of your population is 33% of your child rapists." Guess what % of the following gangs are Pakistani rape gangs. (All of them). ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/cWhA7kO.png)
Here's a documentary to get you started. I've got a lot more.
+ Show Spoiler +
On September 12 2016 21:17 farvacola wrote:
He has quotes from two RT articles, isn't that enough?
RT's only use is for livestreaming events that other news outlets aren't showing. Other than that they shouldn't be paid any attention.
|
On September 12 2016 22:28 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +It's meaningless to just look at the amount that the welfare state pays to immigrants vs. the amount that immigrants put into the economy. This surface level comparison which people use to claim that 'immigration provides a net benefit' ignores so many critical factors. It ignores the well documented impact that unskilled immigration has on the wages of the least fortunate natives. It ignores the way in which unskilled immigration removes any incentive for employers to improve their working conditions. It ignores the native population who take out of the welfare state because the jobs they are capable of doing are being taken by immigrants willing to accept worse working conditions and less pay. I just posted multiple studies on this exact page which answer exactly these questions. In fact you can read in the post the rrason why natives jobs being taken by foreigners is bullshit. At least take the effort to read other posts if you're so convinced you're right or post some evidence to support your views.
Where to even begin with these sources? I'm trying not to facepalm my brain out of my skull at the suggestion that Lebanon having 2.5% growth is a good thing when their population has increased by nearly 25%. No doubt some companies/individuals benefit from the massive influx of what is essentially slave labour, but Lebanon as a whole is buckling under the strain and tensions are very high with a lot of racism. Yes, if you bring in a massive amount of people then, assuming that some small portion of them are economically active, you're going to get growth. Obviously. That is indicative of... absolutely nothing.
Then to suggest that Lebanon is comparable to Germany... Do you actually buy this shit? For one thing, I doubt Lebanon is going to splash out hundreds of millions of euros on dental care. There's also the slight 'problem' that Germany is unable to exploit its new labour force in the way that the Lebanese do, because they have enforced standards on working conditions and a minimum wage. Developed economies have no use for the kind of work that these migrants are capable of doing. That's why they're developed economies. Also, as to the article you quoted, you cannot claim that an increase in demand is meaningful when that demand is funded by the German welfare state. It's essentially a stimulus package with the added benefit of mass sexual assaults and the occasional bout of ethnic infighting. If I remember correctly Denmark is trying to pass a law to allow paying migrants below the minimum wage. It's not just a technique to discourage migrants, it's a response to the fact that the majority of these migrants cannot possibly contribute value near to the minimum wage. They need to be trained in skills that a developed economy can actually use, and that costs money. Anyone trying to argue that the migrant crisis can provide an economic benefit to a western European economy is being extremely insincere.
And that's ignoring the most important factor, which is the inevitable culture clash. People on the left need to understand that their shortsightedness is almost entirely responsible for the rise of the far right in Europe, and take some responsibility.
Also note that 60%~ of the migrants coming to Europe are men, with about 15%~ of them women. This in itself is a recipe for disaster and further indication that those who are really in need are left behind, meaning you are diverting your resources to all the wrong people.
|
Lol dude you've clearly only read one of the sources which is a blog post while not reading the academic pieces. I put in quite a bit of time in reading it and to look for ones which are freely available and you're not even taking the effort in reading the conclusions.
It's also hilarious that you're calling me left. I'm an actual liberal (though of course not all my opinions perfectly align) who is a big believer in freedom and the freedom of movement is one of the most overlooked and important of them all.
|
On September 13 2016 02:13 RvB wrote:
Lol dude you've clearly only read one of the sources which is a blog post while not reading the academic pieces. I put in quite a bit of time in reading it and to look for ones which are freely available and you're not even taking the effort in reading the conclusions.
It's also hilarious that you're calling me left. I'm an actual liberal (though of course not all my opinions perfectly align) who is a big believer in freedom and the freedom of movement is one of the most overlooked and important of them all.
How very Progressive of you.
If people had unrestricted freedom of movement europe would be filled with economic migrants from africa, the middle-east and the rest of asia. They'd be flooding into central europe and ruining everything our ancestors built. Most of them have fortunately been stopped in turkey.
A large amount of available labour is what ruins the welfare state which has been built on the labour shortages of old. It is only in a labour shortage that the worker have the power to organize and protest their working conditions because otherwise their employer simply hires someone else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
