What's that based on?
|
Politics Discussion Thread (Heated Arguing Warning)
|
|
The fact that unemployment isn't homogeneous geographically inside a country, and neither is it balanced in terms of what kind of degrees and qualifications unemployed people have. Last time I heard competent people talk about this they said that under 5% many employers start to have a lack of employees because the specific pool of people they're looking for is already tapped, and the remaining ones either ask for too much money or live too far from the business's location. That's when getting labor from elsewhere becomes a need.
If you think Merkel accepted all those refugees purely out of empathy you're gravely mistaken (although empathy did have something to do with it). (October 18th, 2017, 15:17)greenline Wrote: So putting up a fence and strengthening the filters is conducive to that goal This is not what Hungary did. Hungary wants no brown people and they've made it clear. And, if possible, no non-Magyar people, but they're willing to let them come for a time if they're white christians. (October 18th, 2017, 15:24)AdrienIer Wrote: This is not what Hungary did. Hungary wants no brown people and they've made it clear. And, if possible, no non-Magyar people, but they're willing to let them come for a time if they're white christians. You're conflating what Hungarians want with what Hungary the country does.
October 19th, 2017, 01:17
(This post was last modified: October 19th, 2017, 01:29 by AdrienIer.)
The majority of Hungarians agree with this. Orban's main opposition is the far right parties that don't even pretend that they're respectable
Edit : yes the left managed to get more votes than Jobbik in 2014 by uniting behind a single list, but they're barely relevant anyway. 2/3 of Hungarians wanted Orban or Jobbik last time (October 18th, 2017, 15:14)AdrienIer Wrote: The fact that unemployment isn't homogeneous geographically inside a country, and neither is it balanced in terms of what kind of degrees and qualifications unemployed people have. Last time I heard competent people talk about this they said that under 5% many employers start to have a lack of employees because the specific pool of people they're looking for is already tapped, and the remaining ones either ask for too much money or live too far from the business's location. That's when getting labor from elsewhere becomes a need. In 2015 then German Ministress for Work Nahles (SPD) stated that not even 10% of the refugees are qulified enough to start work or an education. And that it will take alot of time and money to get them integrated and fit for work. In Austria around 52% of refugees had just basic schooling. ~30% of the afghan refugees had no schooling whatever. We do have a system to get qualified immigrants into Ausrria but since Austria is not Germany the result is not really overwhelming.
October 19th, 2017, 04:45
(This post was last modified: October 19th, 2017, 14:51 by Gustaran.)
 (October 18th, 2017, 15:14)AdrienIer Wrote: The fact that unemployment isn't homogeneous geographically inside a country, and neither is it balanced in terms of what kind of degrees and qualifications unemployed people have. Last time I heard competent people talk about this they said that under 5% many employers start to have a lack of employees because the specific pool of people they're looking for is already tapped, and the remaining ones either ask for too much money or live too far from the business's location. That's when getting labor from elsewhere becomes a need. EDIT: Crosspost with Rowain, I agree.  I don't know anybody that believes accepting a million refugees/immigrants from mainly arabic and a african nations was a good idea for purely economic reasons. Of course, Germany's population is shrinking, so in theory, you are correct: Immigration can help to stabilize the population and workforce. The major point however is the level of education: Germany's federal agency for work currently lists an unemployment rate of 90% for Syrian refugees after 1 year. After 5 years, this is supposed to drop to 50% and after 10-15 years to 30% (and that is an optimistic prognosis). That means at least in the short and medium term, these people need to be heavily subsidized. Please also note that these refugees get indefinite free housing, food, health insurance and education for their children, which is something people tend to overlook, when they praise countries like Lebanon who have indeed accepted far more refugees. In comparison, many refugees in Lebanon are basically living as homeless people with hardly any government support. Education is difficult to assess, but certain groups like Afghans are listed at around 50% as illiterate or elementary school level. Even in groups like Syrians, who look better on paper, 65% have only very basic reading and writing skills according to an interview in "Die Zeit", which is certainly no right wing paper. This will only start to look better, once the current children of refugees have completed German schools, so any economic benefits are probably 15-20 years off. If you wanted to benefit economically from immigration, you would filter immigrants according to skills and education. If I remember correctly certain countries like Canada have a point system in place, that follows that school of thought. So in short: The only reason anyone I know supports accepting a larger number of refugees at all is for purely humanitarian reasons (and certainly no one wants another million per year). During the last year, I failed to read a single article, report or interview that claimed Germany's current system of immigration was economically beneficial. Partly that is Germany's own fault, because the separation between economic immigration and refugee/asylum status is not clear enough. A politician from Merkels party put it like this: There will have to be a balance between people Germany needs and people that need Germany. In any case, I dislike right wing people, who claim all refugees are rapists and terrorists so we should let nobody in. However, I also oppose left wing activists, who claim we should abolish all borders because refugees are all doctors and engineers who will immediately boost the economy. 
Aggregate unemployment rate is an almost completely meaningless statistic. Seriously, it doesn't even reflect what it purports to -- i.e. how many people of those looking for a job have one (see the case of Spain).
You can have severe labor shortages even with a 20% unemployment rate, you can have smoothly filled vacancies even with a zero unemployment rate, where there is a culture and ability for people to move across firms quickly (for example in legal or financial professions, how big do you think is the pool of unemployed investment bankers?) In any case, whether a country needs workers or not completely depends on the type of workers we are talking about. Countries pretty much always "need" qualified and well-socialized workers, sometimes especially if the unemployment rate is high -- if your existing industries are closing down due to obsolescence, you better have a massive immigration programme for talented entrepreneurs and supporting engineers that have a good knowledge of the opportunities and needs, and can repurpose your labour quickly. Conversely, running a massive refugee intake and socialization programme can further stretch your already thin qualified labour base, when the unemployment rate is low.
What an incredibly short sighted thing to do, move to another country to earn money and improve your career, and start railing against other migrants. No, Mackoti, you are not one of the Good Ones, the moment Greenline and his shithead friends decide you are no longer White, you're getting thrown into the sea with the rest of them.
I am under no delusions. I have an advanced STEM degree, I have my citizenship, I am a model minority, and I sure as fuck am not conceding the rhetorical space about the movement of peoples to the xenophobes. That ideology will be the death of me. |
