White liberalism at its finest.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Let's see who's the smart one who gets what's going on here?
White liberalism at its finest.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Let's see who's the smart one who gets what's going on here?
this is false, atleast in sweden. second generation is still a net drain. doesnt even look like 3rd generation will make it worthwhile. and if you have to wait that long anyways its clearly not working. Its a myth that this kind of immigration is beneficial. its an act of charity.
B-but the TV told me immigrants were engineers and doctors.Wanting immigrants to immediately be skilled or educated is a bit like wanting a college graduate with a bachelor's degree to have 5 years of experience
So no? No economic measure to go off of here, I just gotta take your word for it that the economy is being harmed?
Again, do you have any metric or study I can look at here? These are all arguments I have heard Americans make about immigrant labor here, but that wasn't true at all. I have had people who will look me dead in the face and tell me unemployment for citizens is skyrocketing because immigrants are taking all the jobs (these are people with no economics education, mind you) and I glance over at the stats and see that isn't true.
I am not saying you are wrong here, I can imagine a welfare system being overburdened and I am not familiar with the economic specifics of Sweden, but I would like to see something more concrete than economic takes by laymen. If someone doesn't know much about economics, immigrants taking jobs and causing unemployment for natives makes sense on the surface level if they think jobs are a finite resource. Of course, that isn't how it played out.
Don't know about you guys, but the US has a long history of high skill immigrant labor. Or did you think Einstein, Tesla, and Asimov were all born in the US?
Last edited by The spartan; July 21, 2019 at 03:51 PM.
They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.
of course. tino sanandaji has a lecture with english subs. search youtube "tino sanandaji facts on immigration".
https://youtu.be/JMt8zkSP9xE
and here is english summary of a rapport by economist joakim ruist, who concludes that "refugee immigrarion has a negative fiscal impact, both short and long term". see last paragraph.
https://eso.expertgrupp.se/wp-conten...11/Summary.pdf
Thanks, it will take me a little bit to go through it especially since I can't just have it playing in the background; gotta read them subtitles.
They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.
It also depends on what their long-term effect on the economy is, and whether it exceeds the political and financial cost of willingly denying people entry on the grounds of economic harm. There is a reason why nobody practices free trade, and it's not because the economic don't support it.
Patron: The Mighty Katsumoto
Sukiyama's Blog
Simple explanations of Austrian Economics POV on a number of issues.
Simplified Western Philosophy
Best of Thooorin, CS:GO Analyst and Historian.
you are welcome. I just remembered that Dave Rubin has an interview with Sanandaji, in english of course. I dont remember exactly what they talk about, but probably immigration. check it out.
what do you mean? low skill immigratio to welfare states is a drain both short and long term. there is no economic rationale for it, as ruist describes: see my previous post, 2nd link.
I don't watch Dave Rubin because his entire show contributes nothing to any rational discussion.
I did read and watch both sources.what do you mean? low skill immigratio to welfare states is a drain both short and long term. there is no economic rationale for it, as ruist describes: see my previous post, 2nd link.
1. It's not really an economic crisis.
2. Unemployment and Inequality is due to increase in immigration because the people who suffer most from those things are the immigrants themselves.
3. You're really not reading the literature very carefully.
For example,
"Young adults (25-35 years old), who arrived in Sweden as
refugees or their family members when they were children, have on
average lower employment rates than similarly-aged natives. The
differences are small for those who arrived in Sweden at below 15
years of age, and larger for those who were 16-19."
Next, when it talks about net fiscal impact...
"Numerical estimates are
highly uncertain, but indicate that the net fiscal transfer to the
average refugee, over their entire lifetime in Sweden amounts to, on
average, 74,000 kronor per year. By comparison, the net transfer to
the average refugee in Sweden in 2015 was 60,000 kronor."
So is the final number 60,000-74,000 before retirement age? Is that 60,000 per year and 74,000 as a total sum over the lifetime of a worker?
What about children of immigrants? What about 3rd generation immigrants? As an American study noted before, while first-generation immigrants are a net drain on US resources, second-generation, i.e. the kids, are among the strongest contributors.
I mean it is entertaining to handwave all of this as if it was a simple topic, but "simple book-keeping" really isn't that simple. I suggest we gain a much more thorough appreciation for accounting than the first source gives us. Now I enjoyed the video so thank you.
Patron: The Mighty Katsumoto
Sukiyama's Blog
Simple explanations of Austrian Economics POV on a number of issues.
Simplified Western Philosophy
Best of Thooorin, CS:GO Analyst and Historian.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
I didn't claim that the economy would be "harmed". My point was that the impact of migrant policy is dependent on the context. If the state is spending a staggering 1.35% of the country's GDP in a single year on supporting part of its migrant population then its probably making a bad investment if its objectives are purely (or even largely) economic. In the Anglo-French world, the mass migrant economy is financially lucrative (for the bourgeoisie and aristocracy) because it follows a profiteering rather than a humanitarian model.
Last edited by Cope; July 22, 2019 at 02:33 AM.
its not the imediete collapse of sweden no. but its an economic loss, thats reason enough.
i know that. i havent claimed immigrants take our jobs. they are so unskilled that tey just end up living on welfarw, which we pay for. its just another drain, hence we should stop it.Unemployment and Inequality is due to increase in immigration because the people who suffer most from those things are the immigrants themselves.
and this supposedly disproves what?Young adults (25-35 years old), who arrived in Sweden as
refugees or their family members when they were children, have on
average lower employment rates than similarly-aged natives. The
differences are small for those who arrived in Sweden at below 15
years of age, and larger for those who were 16-19."
it means that for every refugee we accept, we are throwing away 74k, taking into accout all we will give them, and all they will give us.So is the final number 60,000-74,000 before retirement age? Is that 60,000 per year and 74,000 as a total sum over the lifetime of a worker?
are you sure you watched tinos presentation? i think he hade a slide showing how not even 2nd generation immigrants (differs by group of course) reach the producrivity of natives.What about children of immigrants? What about 3rd generation immigrants?
But libs told me that problems would disappear after the second generation like it happened in America. Why are liberals lying?
Sure, and that's an argument one can make. I don't deny it, it's a good argument. But considering Scandinavia's history of humanitarianism, and their insistence on accepting so many immigrants and refugees, I don't see it as much of a problem. Especially when the economics are not fully set in stone from the information given so far. Is the quest for transparency good? Sure, I think everyone can get behind publishing of all information and statistics, even those that hurt the immigrant cause.
Certainly not all of them, and as your own sources show, they stop being a drain eventually even if they don't fully recoup their costs.i know that. i havent claimed immigrants take our jobs. they are so unskilled that tey just end up living on welfarw, which we pay for. its just another drain, hence we should stop it.
That the economic data is vague. We do not receive economic measurements for the children, which is understandable, considering the long time horizon, and I also do not see what happens to second-generation immigrants. Also understandable, since that expands the time horizon.and this supposedly disproves what?
Ok, got it.it means that for every refugee we accept, we are throwing away 74k, taking into accout all we will give them, and all they will give us.
Yes, and I don't remember him talking about second generation immigrants. I could have of course forgotten, I don't remember everything form those two hours, I only watched a couple times, but the only time I remember him talking about children was in reference to education. I remember productivity numbers, and good points were made. Immigration does destroy productivity, even if it is rapidly regained it may never reach the productivity level of natives. Good points, but of course also one-sided. I enjoyed the presentation, but it's not as debate-ending as the comments make it out to be.are you sure you watched tinos presentation? i think he hade a slide showing how not even 2nd generation immigrants (differs by group of course) reach the producrivity of natives.
Patron: The Mighty Katsumoto
Sukiyama's Blog
Simple explanations of Austrian Economics POV on a number of issues.
Simplified Western Philosophy
Best of Thooorin, CS:GO Analyst and Historian.
great to hear this, that you acknowledge it is an economic cost. That is a big part of why I am opposed to immigration as we have it, but there are other reasons also. Such as, that refugee immigration as we have it is such a HORRIBLY innefficient way to help people, that it's immoral.
Firstly, it is not those who are most in need that come here, but those who have the money and/or physical ability to smuggle themselves here. Such people are NOT the most needy, and many don't even flee from wars, but just come for economic reasons. Which is understandable from their perspective, but completely irrelevant if we want to help people. The most needy people, dont have the money or ability to come all the way to Sweden. But these people are ignored: Sweden spends much more money on the "refugees" that smuggle themselves here, than we do on actual people in need. To me this is utterly immoral, a great crime really. It is done because of the vanity of swedish elites, who think compassion is measured by how many brown people they can get to Sweden.
secondly, many people die on their way to Sweden, because it's a dangerous journey of course. We lure people to travel here by promises of free money, they just have to risk their lives in our little lottery. Again this is the utterly immoral nature of swedish leaders, and their conflicting interests: on the one hand they want to appear generous and kind, so they announce to the world that everyone is welcome here and will be helped. On the other hand they realise that if everyone actually comes here, Sweden will collapse. So how can they eat their cake and keep it too? By loudly proclaiming they accept everyone, whilst secretly trying to prevent too many from actually reaching us. IF they actually wanted people to come, they could simply give them visas, so they could travel by air to Sweden, instead of risking their lives in seas. But again, they don't actually want everyone to come, they just want to look pious. Swedish politicians are the most immoral I can imagine, so self righteous, but literally they have blood on their hands for luring people into the mediterranean where they drown.
not fully recouping their costs means they are a drain.Certainly not all of them, and as your own sources show, they stop being a drain eventually even if they don't fully recoup their costs.
Sweden does not keep data on ethnicity, but does keep it on nationality, and does track children of immigrants as such also. I am quite certain that I have seen data showing that even the second generation has lower productivity, for certain (iirc most of the major ones) immigrant groups. immigration has been going on for a while, so there has been time. I I recall that e.g. yugoslav immigrants, who came in the 90's, are still less productive than natives even in the second generation.That the economic data is vague. We do not receive economic measurements for the children, which is understandable, considering the long time horizon, and I also do not see what happens to second-generation immigrants. Also understandable, since that expands the time horizon.
it could have been another of his presentations (which are probably only in swedish), or from his book, or from some other economist I have read/listened too. You might have to take my word for it.. not sure I can find it in english for you..Yes, and I don't remember him talking about second generation immigrants. I could have of course forgotten, I don't remember everything form those two hours, I only watched a couple times, but the only time I remember him talking about children was in reference to education. I remember productivity numbers, and good points were made. Immigration does destroy productivity, even if it is rapidly regained it may never reach the productivity level of natives. Good points, but of course also one-sided. I enjoyed the presentation, but it's not as debate-ending as the comments make it out to be.
Americans are getting verbally dumber and that's thanks to liberal academic education.
Large declines in vocabulary among American adults, they get bigger the more you progress in education.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...8?dgcid=author
The solution? Bankrupt the liberal academia and divide the country between American citizens and global citizens.
Not true.
Conservative, right-wing media ala Berlusconi's mediaset TV with its low quality entertainment ala talkshows made people dumber:
How trashy TV made children dumber and enabled a wave of populist leaders
https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...=.13ddf4dde4f3
Last edited by Morticia Iunia Bruti; July 26, 2019 at 05:32 AM.
Cause tomorrow is a brand-new day
And tomorrow you'll be on your way
Don't give a damn about what other people say
Because tomorrow is a brand-new day
As you liberals are so fond to tell us, you dominate the academia. Great. Then this is all your fault. All guilty.
Meanwhile your side's war against indigenous Europeans continues. Uppsala acadamic hospital says it looks like a warzone every night.
https://samnytt.se/vardpersonal-larm...m-en-krigszon/
Every single advocate and/or apologist of immigration is responsibile for this and we need legislation to make it so. Liberals are using immigrants as a battering ram against Europeans and ''anti-racist'' laws to silence critics against what is under all effects a war against us. We can't live with people who want to eradicate us demographically, economically, culturally and socially.
Colleges and universities yes. Public school dominated by liberal academia? A complete myth. Each state has its own education curriculum and then each county in wach state has its own school board (the group of people who help run the schools, make descions, ect.) Its an outright impoosible to prove that these thousands upon thousands of school biards are all liberal.
Education is a problem in America. But politics isn't the reason and wouldn't explain so many of the current problems.