|
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 August 03 2017 00:03 warding wrote:
Illegal migrants in the US stalled from 2008 onwards. Trump might have had an effect but I think we don't have numbers for that yet. Either way, citing Trump as an example in the European forum is profane.
If Germany wants to take on migrants - and they have good reasons to - let them. Their unemployment is at 3.9%, GDP growth nearing 2%. Economically it makes a lot of sense. In terms of non-economic aspects I don't have much data to analyse but I'd suspect hummus quality has increased substantially.
The problem isn't with Germany taking migrants, but with the EU trying to redistribute the migrants to other, not so "kind-hearted" countries and with transit countries not receiving enough support in dealing with the migration.
|
They do not have a great number of vacancies for unskilled/low skilled jobs. If they ever did, they would quickly be filled by Europeans. It is extremely obvious that that was what I was saying, but you are incapable of responding seriously because you have nothing serious to say.
|
But that is the exact problem in the US and no one wants to fill those jobs. Its been tested over and over that there is a unskilled labor shortage in the US when we have low unemployment. Did Germany solve this problem? And if so, how? How did they solve the problem that seems to exist cross all developed nations?
|
Dude Germany has completely unrestricted movement of people from the rest of Europe, the majority of whom live in worse conditions than they would in Germany. So yes, they fixed that problem.
|
|
|
I'm not claiming anything of the sort. Having more active participants in an economy creates more jobs, but 1M migrants do not create 1M jobs for those migrants to fill.
|
yeah, I was just about to say that immigrants are creating new jobs. In particular if they are illegals who don't get welfare and yet still have to live of something. You may notice that things like china restaurants, kebap places or all those tiny phone shops and immigration are somewhat correlated. And them going bancrupt is often correlated with getting tough on collecting taxes.
|
But it could. If the a nation is a full employment, then companies are not going to risk expanding if there is no one to do the job. If they have 1 million more workers, they might make a huge expansion and use up that recourse. Available labor is an economic bottle neck, just like capital and materials.
|
German companies have access to the pool of unskilled labour of the entire continent... Are you not getting the message?
|
Bardtown you don't seem to have understood RvB's point. Indeed, Germany has access to the pool of unskilled and skilled labour of the entire continent. Many southern Europeans have flocked there. That doesn't mean that the 'pool of jobs' can or will dry up with that influx, because these immigrants generate demand. What it means is that Germany has a strong and dynamic economy that is able to accommodate immigration. It makes economic sense for that reason, and also because Germany is among the countries with sub-replacement fertility rates glancing at the impending doom of pension systems vs aging populations.
|
Uhm... the refugees are actually not allowed to work/create businesses for a looong time.
Talking about these low paying jobs and bringing up "immigrants" from northern africa and the middle east is a little strange.
Most low paid immigrants in Switzerland are actually from Portugal and used to be from Italy, after that its eastern europe. Why? Because people with refugee status aren't allowed to work.
For higher paying job or basically jobs that need an education, from simple office work up to actually high paying jobs/leading positions, germans are leading by far.
The negative effects we see atm from immigratin in Germany (and France/GB) nowadays is not the effect of the refugee crysis, its the effect off failed immigration of the Turks the germans took in as cheap labour or for France/GB their colonial history.
Therefore blaming the EU for all of this, is just stupid. The EU is used as a strawman for decades of failed immigration/integration/assimilation politics and stagnating wages for "low tier" jobs.
It may well be that the refugee crysis will be bad for Germany, but we won't be able to tell this till like 10-20 years in the future.
|
The minimum wage in Germany is higher than the average wage in a lot of EU countries, so there is easily going to be a means by which to fill grunt positions internally. Add to the fact that current trends in the poorest parts of the EU is to leave the country for one of the bigger ones rather than seek to change their own, and it starts to look quite feasible to fill the need of grunt labor. That's nowhere near as true in the US, where the poorer folk simply don't move around like that. Couple that with the notably high unemployment/low labor participation rate of the "Syrian" migrants and the "we needed cheap labor" story simply doesn't hold water.
What, then, was the reason for what transpired? In truth it's hard to say. It could have been brutally painful naivete, an inability to acknowledge the realities of the dark days that Merkel's "open the floodgates" strategy would bring. That's possible, in that modern European leadership can be remarkably inept at acknowledging race-related realities and in general the ugly side of peoples that they see as "the good people." They are for example absolutely willing to ignore the existence of East European fascism due to its inconvenient nature; having to come to terms with the populist Polish government is a meaningful, albeit imperfect, case study into having to deal with the ugly underside of their EE membership (to be clear - not claiming the Polish administration is fascist). It's an existing problem, but not a sufficiently explanatory one in this case. Probably merely contributing.
Given the more overarching goals of the union, I see a different explanation as somewhat more likely: that it was part of an attempt to contribute to creating a more Europe-wide, rather than national, identity through integration of foreign citizenry into the greater Europe. It might have been horribly botched, but that seems like a reasonable explanation for what transpired. That absolutely leaves a lot of open questions, but it is a better explanation than some contrived idea that there was some economic necessity of it all. This report from the UK parliament on the economic benefits or lack thereof of immigrants shows what should be the common sense reality: that there are good and bad immigrants, and that this "immigrants ALWAYS good" strawman is just that. Given the depth of study of such issues, I find it hard to accept the idea that naivete or poor academics alone would explain why such a fool's errand was undertaken.
|
Wow, i actually tend to agree with LegalLord on something (if not for that last paragraph which is just a wild theory anyway). Maybe I should see a doctor  .
|
On August 03 2017 01:09 Velr wrote:Wow, i actually tend to agree with LegalLord on something (if not for that last paragraph which is just a wild theory anyway). Maybe I should see a doctor .
He generally always speaks a lot of sense when it comes to this topic.
|
On August 03 2017 00:55 bardtown wrote:
German companies have access to the pool of unskilled labour of the entire continent... Are you not getting the message?
The US has access to our entire population our own nation and it doesn’t matter.
|
This argument didnt start with German at all. It doesnt really matter if its good or bad for Germany in the long run, the point is it is bad for countries like Italy RIGHT NOW!
|
I tend to agree with a lot of the arguments why this cannot happen (restrictions on being allowed to work, minimum wage) and I do not really like that type of policy too much, however you are forgetting about the major argument which is that:
Minimum wage and restrictions "don't apply" apply to illegal jobs. It's really a matter of how much you look and the conservatives (at least in Germany) are rather good at looking away when it comes to certain fields like private care, cleaning, checking in on working conditions and taxes in small businesses and so on.
|
The entire topic came up because someone said Trump caused a drop in illegal border crossings in the US, which is not backed up by any reality. We have some real shit going on with immigration in the US, but that isn’t applicable for the issues in the EU. Our systems couldn’t’ be more different.
|
I'm not particularly in the mood to go digging for research papers, but I do remember reading a number of EU policy research works that discussed the reality that the US is better at integrating immigrants into its larger population than the EU, and that the EU needed to find a way to match that appeal if they were to tap into the workforce needed to make the EU a sufficiently powerful economy in the long run, lest their demographics overwhelm and destroy their influence over time. The longer term future of the European nations is certainly one that promises decline lest they find a way to change course - so it certainly makes sense why they might want to import labor and to try to meld the individual nations together. Part of their "integration" problem is doubtless the fact that each individual nationling within the EU has about as much cultural diversity as the United States as a whole, making the establishment of a continental identity a challenge that the US simply doesn't have to face.
The solution of importing unskilled migrants was a fool's errand, plain and simple. But there is definitely reason why they might have seen it as a necessity in the context of larger-scale European problems.
|
You know it's time to leave a discussion when the EU and having a plan are mentioned in the same sentence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
