EPTEuropean Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 920
| 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. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Unentschieden
Germany1471 Posts
| ||
zatic
Zurich15361 Posts
On August 03 2017 00:30 bardtown wrote: 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. Probably the first time I am agreeing with you. Germany really doesn't have jobs for all the people coming. If we could find work for 1 in 10 that would be great already. | ||
|
warding
Portugal2394 Posts
If Germany added 1 million unemployed immigrants the unemployment rate would rise to a staggering... 6.3%. Again, the idea that there is no leeway in the economy/labor market to accommodate more people is ridiculous. Also, the unemployment rate among immigrants in Germany was 7.5% - worse than the overall unemployment but by no means problematic. What exactly is the problem of the Turks? LL did you argue that there is greater mobility within Europe than in the US? There is more inter-state mobility in the US than in Europe by at least one order of magnitude. Finally, the economic argument isn't a base argument for the pro-migration folk, it's generally a defense against the "took our jerbs" argument of the opposing side. The main argument is a moral one but I don't expect someone like LL to get it - it's incompatible with the idea that living in a first world country is something that has to be earned/is not deserved by the general third world population (an idea previously defended here). | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4783 Posts
On August 03 2017 16:07 warding wrote: Velr from what I read it takes three months for asylum seekers to be able to seek work in Germany. If Germany added 1 million unemployed immigrants the unemployment rate would rise to a staggering... 6.3%. Again, the idea that there is no leeway in the economy/labor market to accommodate more people is ridiculous. Also, the unemployment rate among immigrants in Germany was 7.5% - worse than the overall unemployment but by no means problematic. What exactly is the problem of the Turks? LL did you argue that there is greater mobility within Europe than in the US? There is more inter-state mobility in the US than in Europe by at least one order of magnitude. Finally, the economic argument isn't a base argument for the pro-migration folk, it's generally a defense against the "took our jerbs" argument of the opposing side. The main argument is a moral one but I don't expect someone like LL to get it - it's incompatible with the idea that living in a first world country is something that has to be earned/is not deserved by the general third world population (an idea previously defended here). I'm curious here: What is the moral argument for immigrants? I can see one for refugees, but even that is a strenuous one when you consider the consequences of encouraging the very dangerous and perilous journey to northern Europe. | ||
|
warding
Portugal2394 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On August 03 2017 16:07 warding wrote: LL did you argue that there is greater mobility within Europe than in the US? No - merely that the US has lower politically motivated mobility than the EU. Few people leave Alabama or Texas or California because the governor's administration is crap. On August 03 2017 16:07 warding wrote: Finally, the economic argument isn't a base argument for the pro-migration folk, it's generally a defense against the "took our jerbs" argument of the opposing side. The main argument is a moral one but I don't expect someone like LL to get it - it's incompatible with the idea that living in a first world country is something that has to be earned/is not deserved by the general third world population (an idea previously defended here). Bravo, holier-than-thou goalpost-shifting. Of course, if you're willing to ultimately concede the irrelevance of the economic argument in favor of migration - claiming it is just a cover story for a more moral/philosophical one - then we can easily set aside that old fashioned "our side has the facts on its side" hoopla that the EU always uses in favor of standard old-fashioned philosophizing. But I'm not sure you want to go there. | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4783 Posts
On August 03 2017 16:34 warding wrote: We've discussed this before Ghostcom. Americans and Europeans at birth hold no merit over the fact they are born into societies with working institutions - liberal, capitalist democracies with the rule of law. I don't see a moral case to claim that they deserve to reap the benefits of that more than a Venezuelan or Haitian that seeks a better life for himself. We may have discussed it before - my apologies for not remembering (I've been on a nightshift). However, there is a difference between arguing that those born into such societies hold no moral claim to these societies over the Venezuelan/Haitian (frankly I'm not entirely convinced) and to claim that free immigration is a moral imperative. I am still not seeing an argument for the latter as the consequences of such a thing would be quite substantive. It certainly wouldn't maximize happiness. It would bring with it a lot of death. It would take a ton of resources. And it wouldn't make any sort of difference in the grand scale of things. You can't solve poverty by importing the poor to well-established societies. People have to be helped where they are (randomly) placed. | ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
| ||
|
warding
Portugal2394 Posts
One thing that makes these discussions difficult is that beyond the moral - which would make it an interesting philosophical conversation - and the utilitarian/practical - which makes for interesting economics and sociology conversations - there is also a question of aesthetical preference that might even precede the former in the thinking of each participant. I'd argue, for example, that much of the sentiment behind brexit was a wish to a return to the older English aesthetics vs the cosmopolitanism of London - England doesn't look and feel like it used to. The political/economical arguments come after as rationalisations, whereas the aesthetical preference are more primal. I'll admit my aesthetic preferences too - I personally like urban cosmopolitan melting pots and think they're where humanity's at its best. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
I'd argue, for example, that much of the sentiment behind brexit was a wish to a return to the older English aesthetics vs the cosmopolitanism of London - England doesn't look and feel like it used to Nah. One of the biggest pro brexit groups were(!) farmers. They don't care what London looks like. What they cared about was imagined hurtful EU rules. Next to people who imagined that immigrants take all the jobs and that's because they can't find one, also shown with the interesting farmers conundrum currently. | ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
|
warding
Portugal2394 Posts
On August 03 2017 18:48 bardtown wrote: warding, if you believe that people born into a particular country have no more right to access its institutions than anyone else then I wonder if you also believe that inheritance should be a lottery and that children should be forcibly removed from their parents at birth and randomly assigned to a new family. I have done nothing by being born to deserve to stay with my own first world family. Our institutions are a part of our inheritance. We might not have done anything in particular to earn them ourselves, but those who came before us went to great lengths to earn these things for us. Human competition plays out across multiple generations. I don't think one follows the other. The baby taking would not improve the situation in any moral or utilitarian way, therefore it's a plainly silly suggestion. Nevertheless the premise is true, being born into good families is a lottery. That being true then what follows is that we should do our best to give everyone a shot, in particular those born to shitty parents or no parents at all. Free education and all that. As for inheritance, taxing it to an extreme is undesirable due to its practical consequences. I'm not sure about the moral aspect of it. What I do disagree strongly is that a country's institutions are part of our inheritance, the same way our parents wealth is. Great institutions are not the result of the hard work of our grandparents, they too are a lottery. For instance, if the territory of the US had gold and silver and a large and docile slave population willing to work the fields and the mines then colonial North America would have been the same shitshow the Latin American colonies were and today the US would not be what it is. All liberal democracies are either a fluke of history or owe it to outside influence. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On August 03 2017 19:11 bardtown wrote: Another ankle biter who wants to insult old people on a forum where there are no old people to respond, imagine my shock. You're right though. In the UK we keep our children in the basement and feed them only bread and water so that we have more money to spend on ourselves. So which statement do you assert to be untrue? Should be rather easy to get to the ground of it. edit: sidenote, the local i frequent is brimmed with old folks, they're plenty able to defend their positions if need be, i don't just voice my opinions on things on the internet, don't worry. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On August 03 2017 19:04 m4ini wrote: Nah. One of the biggest pro brexit groups were(!) farmers. They don't care what London looks like. What they cared about was imagined hurtful EU rules. Next to people who imagined that immigrants take all the jobs and that's because they can't find one, also shown with the interesting farmers conundrum currently. Farmers were divided but most wanted to stay in the EU, since they get massive subsidies from the EU and quite a lot of EU health and animal welfare standards were beneficial to them. Rural areas did tend to vote to leave the EU and urban areas (not just London!) tend to want to stay, but being a long industrialised country, farmers make up a tiny proportion of rural population. Most people living in villages and small towns in the countryside don't have anything to do with agriculture. | ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
On August 03 2017 19:20 m4ini wrote: So which statement do you assert to be untrue? Should be rather easy to get to the ground of it. edit: sidenote, the local i frequent is brimmed with old folks, they're plenty able to defend their positions if need be, i don't just voice my opinions on things on the internet, don't worry. Go to the UK thread, we've already had this discussion and I don't want to have it again. @warding, that is a terrible excuse for Iberian colonies being less successful than British colonies. You had too much gold and silver to be as successful as the US? Please. It is clear that British culture/institutions played a huge role in the success of its colonies. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On August 03 2017 19:22 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Farmers were divided but most wanted to stay in the EU, since they get massive subsidies from the EU and quite a lot of EU health and animal welfare standards were beneficial to them. Rural areas did tend to vote to leave the EU and urban areas (not just London!) tend to want to stay, but being a long industrialised country, farmers make up a tiny proportion of rural population. Most people living in villages in the countryside don't have anything to do with agriculture. Not according to polls. http://commonagpolicy.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/how-and-why-did-farmers-vote-on-brexit.html You can argue that the polls were worthless, and we can get through that - but mostly wanted to stay is factually incorrect. But again, that's more for the UK thread. | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4783 Posts
On August 03 2017 19:04 m4ini wrote: While i don't agree with warding, the argumentation that "someone earned these things for us" is utter dog shit too. People work for themselves. Nobody works "for the next generation", can be seen very well in the US and the UK currently, where old people fuck over youngsters big time. People want their lives to be better. Not the next generations lives. That in the past most decisions benefited current generations is coincidence. Yeah all those scientists in basic science are just in it for the fucking phat money dude. The soldier that died storming the beaches on D-day also only tried to better his own life and totally didn't care at all about fighting against tyranny. The doctors that go abroad and work in Syria for MSF and running the risk of being bombed by the mighty US of A and whichever other fuckwats who can't recognize a huge red cross (or maybe they can...) are also totally only doing it to better their own lives and earn mad cash. No father or mother has ever prioritized their kids over their own comfort. I know it's summer, but let's limit silly-season to the news outlets. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On August 03 2017 19:25 bardtown wrote: Go to the UK thread, we've already had this discussion and I don't want to have it again. So you're making this a brexit story now, even though i responded to you specifically in regards to "inheritance of institutions"? I don't need old people to respond in regards to brexit, it's factual and ready to be seen what age group voted what, so it's a retarded argument to make for you - that's why i assumed that you were talking "no old person can chime in" in regards to why they did what they did in the past, working for themselves with the side effect of positive stuff for the next generations or working for the next generation full stop. Why i would need to go to the UK thread for that, that's an issue in germany, poland and whatnot as well. Yeah all those scientists in basic science are just in it for the fucking phat money dude. The soldier that died storming the beaches on D-day also only tried to better his own life and totally didn't care at all about fighting against tyranny. The doctors that go abroad and work in Syria for MSF and running the risk of being bombed by the mighty US of A and whichever other fuckwats who can't recognize a huge red cross (or maybe they can...) are also totally only doing it to better their own lives and earn mad cash. No father or mother has ever prioritized their kids over their comfort. Quite literally nothing has anything to do with what was argued here in regards to "inherited institutions", except maybe basic science. Although even there you have some very non-altruistic people. Oh, and yeah, parents prioritized their kids over their comfort. That's one generation. Try two generations and more. That's literally what i said. They're trying to improve their situation. Could've included their kids, my bad. But warding was talking WAY different things on a considerably larger scale, so i'm not entirely sure who's trying to act silly here. | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4783 Posts
On August 03 2017 19:04 m4ini wrote: While i don't agree with warding, the argumentation that "someone earned these things for us" is utter dog shit too. People work for themselves. Nobody works "for the next generation", can be seen very well in the US and the UK currently, where old people fuck over youngsters big time. People want their lives to be better. Not the next generations lives. That in the past most decisions benefited current generations is coincidence. People's kids are literally the next generation. EDIT: Further, the soldier, the doctor, the parent, (and a whole bunch of other groups I didn't mention) all earned the society which we have today for us. All of the examples above were examples of people who quite clearly didn't do it to better their own lives and just randomly happened to improve the next generation's (or any of the subsequent generation's) lives. Quite clearly there are in each of those groups examples of people doing something to leave the world a better place than when they arrived. You made a shitty generalization. Embrace it and move on. EDIT2: You case is not made better by going on a larger scale. Every single time a vote has been passed to increase taxation to ensure funding for childcare, schools, youth programs, education, (arguably going to war), etc. is an example of your generalization being wrong. People are on a whole a lot less egoistic than you give them credit for. | ||
| ||
