Immigration Crisis or an Economic Opportunity?

[Michael]

So you envision a State capable of determining liability amid the details of economic transactions, and holding the rich and powerful accountable, in your imaginary free market world.

This is one of the only roles of the State as envisioned by the founders of our republic. And yes, I do think a State or non-State entity could easily ensure the powerful were held accountable. As a matter of fact, a smaller more limited State, would be more likely to protect the poor instead of serving the rich, as is the case today. Take the GFC for example. Our massive State bailed out the rich. BAILED OUT. The markets themselves would have punished many of the richest of Americans. IOWs no State intervention would have been preferable and more just. Instead, the State bailed our these criminals, now they're richer and more powerful than ever.　And make no mistake, even this year more documents were released showing the criminal emails between Banks and their so-called Regulators. BOTH were acting illegally.

Anyway, don't worry, we're going to get much more State. Just give it time. You'll get all the Democratic Socialism you could have hoped for, and then some. Or so, that's what I think.

 

[Retribution]

Oh blah blah blah.

Canada could house 10 million. Go up north and you will have a better way of life.

Or are you so fascist that you want to have the supreme race?

Interesting to note that Beer w/straw has more or less conceded that a large influx into a nation does in fact have some serious consequences to the host nations' own culture.

Regardless of whether or not you agree that the host nations culture is worth preserving (the morally popular consensus would seem to be that other cultures are more valuable at this point), that in itself is at least a rather large concession. Small victories, I suppose.

 

[Retribution]

As for Germany, you made it quite clear, Germans can no longer afford to have the children needed to pay for all the Magic Thining their parents and grandparents are engaging in. Thus, Germans either have to give up their Magic Thinking and live in the real world, with limits, which requires sound money and capital..... OR import 10s of millions of new humans and DELAY the inevitable. See, THOSE people will ALSO need many MORE children to pay for all THEIR Magic Thinking. Thus, either these new migrant German's get to work their entire lives paying for the current Germans Magic Thinking, only to be shafted in their old age with nothing - OR, they ALSO bring in 100s of millions of immigrants and the population expands indefinitely until it destroys the Earths ecosystems (which is what's happening, thank you Progressive Socialism).

The percentage of GDP in most western nations is shifting more and more toward social security, and this is money which was in the past used more upon infrastructure and service industries (education, hospitals etc).
I remember a time when education in Australia, even at the University level, was more or less free. That is no longer the case - it has become an untenable expenditure. Again, this is due in no small part to the shift in public expenditure away from investment in the future and toward social welfare. Whereas once, one got into university in Australia based upon grades and aptitude, it has now become a matter of who can afford to pay for it. The disadvantage of that is fast becoming obvious to the more observant in the workforce who has been there more than twenty years or so.

The Golden Age of social security has passed, to all intents and purposes, and the West needs to consider the disintegration of current social norms and expectations regarding social welfare.

Labour shortages are in fact being caused by ageing populations and fewer working-age citizens (Japan being the obvious example). I read an article the other day in which it was stated that a particularly interesting social change is occurring - there will be more older people (over 65) globally than children (under 5) within the next few decades. A quick google search will reveal numerous articles on the subject, which make it clear that finding a younger workforce is becoming a priority in most (if not all) western nations, if we wish to maintain current levels of social integrity. The answer to that is immigration, a topic being approached with much delicacy by most western governments... at least on the surface. Most of them, at least internally, acknowledge that the only short term answer is immigration.

The difficulty with this thread is that immigration does in fact help to address this problem, in some instances, when the problem becomes more immediate and obvious. To use the example of Japan again, it is becoming evident that national immigration policy, while preserving culture, is not alleviating the issue of ageing populations. Foreign workers there are brought in under all manner of convenient disingenuous pretexts which conceal the fact that they are desperately needed, in spite of Japanese cultural pride. It may well be, as you pointed out, that it is only delaying the inevitable; what is certain, however, is that cultural changes are occurring.

And that's where this entire argument becomes very interesting.
I'm actually on your side. I don't like it. I don't agree with the type of cultural shift we're being forced to acknowledge, and embrace. Not many do; and this is why the Pauline Hansons of the world gain traction - they can see the destruction of a way of life they've become used to on the horizon. The way of life we've known for a century or so is doomed, untenable, due in no small part to our own cultural ethics. We've come to the point where our own comfort has become so important (and obtainable) that we're no longer having something as inconvenient as babies.

But the economic argument is theirs, not yours.
Couched though it is in terms of moral outrage on behalf of the poor downtrodden immigrants (and refugees, obviously) the real question is, and has always been, an economic one. It's almost hilarious that those like Joepistole will argue on moral grounds, it is actually those corporations he hates so much who benefit the most from immigration, and will more so in the future. I'm actually quite certain those corporations and governments he hates absolutely adore him, and those like him. They'll never really be able to make the majority understand the economic argument - but it's easy to invoke moral outrage for your own purposes - just publish a few photos of dead refugees washed up on a beach. Sad grandmas complaining about "the way it was" unfortunately can't compete with that, and unfortunately no one is really susceptible to posters of Uncle Sam beseeching people to have more babies for the good of the nation anymore. It's also not really kosher to ask that people start dying at a more appropriate age.

I think that one of the most saddening things I've ever had to confront is that while I agree with your cultural outrage, as it has always been my own, its only chance of survival is to open itself to change and cross our fingers that it will prove to be a case of one step back, two steps forward (in the cultural sense)... rather than the reverse.

 

[Michael]

Labour shortages are in fact being caused by ageing populations and fewer working-age citizens (Japan being the obvious example). I read an article the other day in which it was stated that a particularly interesting social change is occurring - there will be more older people (over 65) globally than children (under 5) within the next few decades. A quick google search will reveal numerous articles on the subject, which make it clear that finding a younger workforce is becoming a priority in most (if not all) western nations, if we wish to maintain current levels of social integrity. The answer to that is immigration, a topic being approached with much delicacy by most western governments... at least on the surface. Most of them, at least internally, acknowledge that the only short term answer is immigration.

One answer to that is immigration. Another could be replacing workers with robotics. Another still could be that people work until they're 75 or 80. Voluntary euthanasia could also be a solution. Which would you prefer, living in a horrible bleach smelling hospital room, shared with someone drooling and pooping on themselves (as your mental faculties deteriorate) or, perhaps before that ever occurs, you make the choice to die? As a matter of fact, it needn't even be that stark, we have the means (currently) to preserve your brain such that, in all likelihood, "you" could be revived sometime in the future. How many people would choose the later, if given the choice?

Or a combination of some skilled migration, some going without expected benefits, some advances in AI and robotics and maybe even some euthanasia. Which is happening anyway by the way. Medical advances can now keep people brain dead alive for years. It's pointless doing so and wasteful. And it's not being done all the time. Just last year my friends' grandfather asked to be allowed to die, even through he could have been kept alive for years - at least 5 maybe 15. What kind of life is that? Slow mental deterioration and to remain bed-ridden? No way. That's not a life. He chose death. His daughter made the legal agreement with the hospital.

The difficulty with this thread is that immigration does in fact help to address this problem, in some instances, when the problem becomes more immediate and obvious. To use the example of Japan again, it is becoming evident that national immigration policy, while preserving culture, is not alleviating the issue of ageing populations. Foreign workers there are brought in under all manner of convenient disingenuous pretexts which conceal the fact that they are desperately needed, in spite of Japanese cultural pride. It may well be, as you pointed out, that it is only delaying the inevitable; what is certain, however, is that cultural changes are occurring.

Well, all grandparents alive today wore kimonos, everyday when they were kids. Obviously not silk kimonos, but cloth. Heck, most Japanese younger than 30 wouldn't even know how to put one on themselves and have to pay someone or ask their grandparents to help them. I suppose, what I'm saying is Japanese culture is always changing. It's more about how everyone is changing together that's important. Bringing millions and millions of people, with different cultures and habits, many with lower standards (particularly around the concept of what is 'clean'), most with strong beliefs in bronze-age superstitious idiocy - I think we both agree that, this is definitely not the answer. Skilled immigration at a slow pace, which gives the immigrants time to become Japanese culturally, this is a better solution, as good of one to be had, assuming one cherishes one's culture and that the immigrant understands they are expected to adopt the host countries culture - and not to expect the host country to adopt their culture. Depending on the culture. In AU, for the most part, you can do your own thing. But in Japan. You can try to do your own thing, and you can be socially ostracized.

We've come to the point where our own comfort has become so important (and obtainable) that we're no longer having something as inconvenient as babies.

That's true. And, ironically enough, it's in AU where I saw the most people electing not to have children simply because of the hassle. Many who were, themselves, immigrants. Somehow, they got this idea that AU would make a good place to retire.
??
While this is also true in other countries, generally speaking, most people in advanced countries have a culture of worry. What I mean is, they worry about how they're going to be able to provide for their family. And because of this projection into the future, they choose not to have kids. I believe a minimum income for all, may help alleviate some of this stress. That and, IMO, working to disincentivize slumlords.

and unfortunately no one is really susceptible to posters of Uncle Sam beseeching people to have more babies for the good of the nation anymore

But why? I mean, at some point, there is a limit. Unless we start colonizing other planets - and then, there's still a limit.

We just have to face facts and deal with reality. It's not easy, but too bad.

It's also not really kosher to ask that people start dying at a more appropriate age.

See above. Perhaps religion could play a better role here? At least it could return to having some social use.

I think that one of the most saddening things I've ever had to confront is that while I agree with your cultural outrage, as it has always been my own, its only chance of survival is to open itself to change and cross our fingers that it will prove to be a case of one step back, two steps forward (in the cultural sense)... rather than the reverse.

What if the immigrants do not have the ability to provide the high skills needed by their new host nations? I mean, suppose you have 10 million immigrants that move into Germany. And, suppose that if they were Germans, maybe 15% would have the disposition and skills needed to meet the high-demands on skilled labor. Not everyone has the disposition to study math and medicine for decades honing their skills at the highest end. Working 8 am - 10 pm. What if, of the 10 million immigrants, only a small handful meet those needs. A tiny fraction. Then what? What happens to the children of the immigrants who are out competed by indigenous Germans in school? What? They just become the working poor? And they have children - who similarly lack the ability to produce these skills. In the recent past, immigrants were selected based on skills. They, for whatever reasons, had what it took to develop these skills. Maybe genetic? Maybe family culture? Probably both. Also, in the far past, there was no Welfare State. The type of person who moved to the West as an immigrant - knew they'd have to work, and work hard. Not today. Now you can both lack the disposition AND not expect to work hard.

That's not a recipe for success.

Ironically, I've seen the exact opposite happen too. I've personally heard "Public Servants" talk of restricting "Chinese and other E. Asian's" from spots in medical school. Can you imagine that?! These are Citizens, the children of immigrants. But there's 'too many'. According to these idiots running the schools.

No, I think limited skilled immigration is fine, but massive immigration just leads to the ghettos such as those that liter the USA. Also, diversity leads to divisiveness, to the point where some Universities want to limit placements based on skin color (and even gender). Which is just stupid. Mark my words, in 25 years, Germans will be paying taxes to public servants working to prevent the children of these very same Germans from gainful employment because of their "German Privilege". Meanwhile, in other countries, East Asians will be fighting to be allowed fair access to higher education. Which is happening in the USA where they're discriminated against because of their eye shape and skin and hair color.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see what the future holds. Even the near future. Particularly in Germany and Sweden.

 

[Edont Knoff]

What if the immigrants do not have the ability to provide the high skills needed by their new host nations? I mean, suppose you have 10 million immigrants that move into Germany.

At the moment the answer is training programs. The assumption is, that these people are not stupid, they are just untrained. Industry and government both started initiatives to raise the peoples education, by offering trainings.

In a former message there was the problem of the languages mentioned. From what I gather from the news there rather seems to be a lack in language classes than a lack of interest to learn German. Many of the immigrants come from areas where they needed two languages already in everyday life, they are used to the fact that they need to know the language to be successful somewhere (since most already had to learn a second language already). So many are willing to learn German, some seem to be very eager because they understand that being fluent in the language will help them a lot to find a job or found a business.

A persistent problem are wrong expectations. Germany isn't a paradise. It's hard to find jobs, it's hard to find affordable homing. Some seem to have come here with the idea that everyone here has a house, and then see cities with appartment blocks, and that the majority of Germans rents their places, only a minority owns an appartment or even a house.

There is a program of the government that everyone who wants to go home again, is offered a free flight to their home country. Several tens of thousands immigrants already took this offer in the past year. Still, a small number compared to one million arriving, but it shows that wrong expectations really are a problem, and that some rather accept a free trip home than to enter the battle for jobs and housing here.

 

[iceaura]

No, all three are Authoritarian States.

Yes, all three are authoritarian states in your view. But not equally so.
Your comparison - your natural experiment - is between the more authoritarian (Japan) and the two less authoritarian (Germany, Sweden). You seem to think the more authoritarian one has the better prospects.

In the recent past, immigrants were selected based on skills. They, for whatever reasons, had what it took to develop these skills.

Such as being really, really fast at picking strawberries. Maybe one person in ten can do that at the highest level. Or chicken sexing - even more difficult.

No, I think limited skilled immigration is fine, but massive immigration just leads to the ghettos such as those that liter the USA.

This strange muddling of US ghettos with immigrant ghettos is bound to go astray - the ghettos of the US were created internally by US culture, populated with native borne many-generation Americans.

The percentage of GDP in most western nations is shifting more and more toward social security, and this is money which was in the past used more upon infrastructure and service industries (education, hospitals etc).

What is supposed to handle this is productivity gains in manufacturing, which are then taxed - the smaller percentage of the young then have as much or more education etc per capita, the larger percentage of the old being supported by the extra productivity.

This works, but only if enough of the extra productivity that would otherwise end up as return to capital is taxed away and fed into the Social Security system.

 

[Michael]

Yes, all three are authoritarian states in your view. But not equally so.
Your comparison - your natural experiment - is between the more authoritarian (Japan) and the two less authoritarian (Germany, Sweden). You seem to think the more authoritarian one has the better prospects.

Except Japan (#22) comes in between Germany (#17) and Sweden (#26). Some of the things that make Japanese different are the society is nearly 99% Japanese and is culturally homogeneous and of course genetics, though the selection pressures maybe have been similar in terms of climate.

So, again, all three are Authoritarian States.

 

[iceaura]

So, again, all three are Authoritarian States.

And you favor the prospects of the more authoritarian one, with the cozier government/bank relationship and more closed economy, over the other two less authoritarian ones with their more free-market banking setups and more open economies.

 

[Michael]

And you favor the prospects of the more authoritarian one, with the cozier government/bank relationship and more closed economy, over the other two less authoritarian ones with their more free-market banking setups and more open economies.

All three have central banks, all three have cozy relationships between governments and the central banks they use, and all three are authoritarian. Sorry, Japan ranks right in the middle in terms of economic freedoms. Thus, Japan will make a great comparison of what happens when you do not let in a few million unskilled immigrants. Anyway, we'll see. My prediction is Sweden and Germany will end up looking like the USA. They'll have no go zones, welfare slums, a broken welfare state where people lie and cheat to get benefits, and they'll begin to cut back on the 'free' and start charging more money. Japan on the other hand will have a lot of old Japanese to deal with. Oh, wait, so too will Sweden and Germany, as well as a few million unskilled laborers pissed they can't find work living for a generation in ghettos. As an added bonus, navel gazing Europeans get to deal with a 1500 year old religious superstition who has aspirations of out breeding them into becoming an "Islamic" Socialist paradise (note: An Ayatollah will being playing the role of Bernie Sanders - but other than that, it's all the same free shit).

So, we'll see.

 

[Michael]

Such as being really, really fast at picking strawberries. Maybe one person in ten can do that at the highest level. Or chicken sexing - even more difficult.

See: Ghettos for the USA outcome. These don't exist in Japan - at all. As in, nonexistent. Skilled migrants do though. Every year I see some more skilled migrates. Not many, ensuring they become Japanese, or at least their kids will be. And, to be honest, many immigrants leave Japan once they're done with their jobs. Hell, I even know Japanese that have left Japan - due to the social pressures. But, it does ensure a first class civilization.

 

[iceaura]

Sorry, Japan ranks right in the middle in terms of economic freedoms.

Japan is a markedly more closed economy, with a significantly closer alliance between its government and its private banks. It is also more authoritarian in many other respects - as you notice:

Hell, I even know Japanese that have left Japan - due to the social pressures.

See: Ghettos for the USA outcome.

The current slums in the US were not formed by, or populated by, immigrants.

Are you claiming that Germany and Sweden will create slums full of multi-generational native Germans and Swedes?

 

[Retribution]

One answer to that is immigration. Another could be replacing workers with robotics. Another still could be that people work until they're 75 or 80. Voluntary euthanasia could also be a solution. Which would you prefer, living in a horrible bleach smelling hospital room, shared with someone drooling and pooping on themselves (as your mental faculties deteriorate) or, perhaps before that ever occurs, you make the choice to die? As a matter of fact, it needn't even be that stark, we have the means (currently) to preserve your brain such that, in all likelihood, "you" could be revived sometime in the future. How many people would choose the later, if given the choice?

Speculative solutions, but viable.

The only real issue I'd have with them is the time frames. I tend to look at this from the perspective of my own country, of course.

Currently, the Australian aged Pensions burden on taxpayers is nearly a quarter of the entire budget and rising - 44 billion as of last financial year. Clearly, it isn't sustainable.

Raising the retirement age has been discussed for quite some time, now. As has eliminating the aged pension due to superannuation being introduced a couple of decades ago. I have no doubt it'll be eliminated once the younger generations who have paid superannuation all their lives reach retirement age.
Compulsory super was introduced by the Keating government in 92, and to this day he remains one of the few prime misters we've had who chose to start addressing the problem. But we still have a considerable way to go before a clean break (as in, elimination of the age pension) can be carried out. So far, the most common solution to the aged pension problem consists of more stringent asset testing.

Self-supporting retirement is, however, the goal. Some of the difficulties include figuring out how much super should be compulsory in order to self-funded retirement, That some of the earlier schemes were overly generous, some were underfunded, and people don't even really know how much they are going to need to retire for several reasons - inflation, increased length of retirement etc. Added to that, there is the usual problem of those on lower wages all their lives never really being able to do it. It's a nice idea, but in practice has some problems.

Skilled Migration visas have always passed without much kerfuffle here either. Australia has a reputation for being racist, but in practice racism is just a convenient deflection from the real issues we face regarding immigration. Skilled migration hasn't really been on anyone's hit list though, as far as I can make out. Which isn't to say there aren't those who hate it, but in general its far more acceptable than refugees have been.

Successive governments have tried in more recent times to alleviate the problem of a decreasing population. Even back in the fifties, we introduced child endowment payments. that's basically a welfare payment for having children. Apparently even that far back, there was a recognized issue. John Howard, as a part of his vision of a Big Australia, introduced the Baby Bonus. That, believe it or not, was a one-off payment of increasing rates from 2004 (peaked at around $5000 in 2012) on the birth of a child. Oddly enough, the whole idea sprang from a similar thing being introduced in 1912 for more or less the same reasons - as an incentive for having children for the economic welfare of the state. The more recent scheme did have small effect on birthrates, but again mostly among the economically less well off, and ened up being too expensive to maintain in the current form. It still survives, sort of... as an increased rate in family allowance payments (the successor to the original child endowment).

Birthrates in Australia sit currently around the 1.9 mark - which is below replacement levels, especially given the ageing population.

(As a side note, I discovered some time ago that the highest birthrates among any ethnic group in Australia is the Aboriginals. They also have the lowest life expectancy. And the lowest unemployment rates. All sorts of aberrations there.)

Sure, you can suggest things like an increased efficiency in the workforce (which I'm using as a catch all term which includes automation) but in the short term, it isn't a change that can occur overnight. Even with increased automation, you still have to figure out where the income is going to come from if unemployment rises as a result, It might mean that there are less taxpayers again and the problem isn't solved. and Australia isn't really the most advanced place in the world in terms of automation - we still see ourselves as primary producers more than anything. Which is not to say our industry isn't well automated, it's just... we don't have as much of it. Our wages and working conditions, while great for Australians, don't really lend themselves to being able to effectively compete with other nations (particularly the less developed ones) in terms of profit margins. Hell, our first home-grown car manufacturer (Holden) is ceasing most local production a of the next year or so, and others have either already gone in favour of manufacturing in Thailand, or are soon to follow.

Economically speaking, its not all doom and gloom here - but if "they" don't work something out fairly soon, we're going to start a gradual slide in terms of quality of life fairly shortly.

 

[Retribution]

Edit -

"And the lowest unemployment rates" in the bit about the aboriginals should read " And the lowest employment rates".

 

[Michael]

Currently, the Australian aged Pensions burden on taxpayers is nearly a quarter of the entire budget and rising - 44 billion as of last financial year. Clearly, it isn't sustainable.

I imagine AU will work out pretty much exactly like EU or England, or the US for that matter. The reason why the AU budget isn't going to balance (ever) is because politicians have to promise something for nothing in order to get elected. Back in the 70s it was 'free' University. Of course, it wasn't free, the grandkids of The Baby's have to repay the Bonds + pay for their own education. As an added bonus the Baby's own most of the property and many have become slumlords off The Millenials (many of whom cannot afford a home or to have their own family) as well as the millions of immigrants from Asia, India and the ME needed to pay for The Baby's largess.

This isn't a story unique to AU, central banking is designed specifically to prepetuate this behaviour. Generations of Westerner's have been conditioned to think debasement of their currency is good and rising prices is good (2% a year at least) like rodents in a lab experiment. In all cases a class of slumlords end up owning most of the dwellings in the city which soon become ghost towns for actual families and centers of immigrants. I lived in Sydney, I think I went a couple years without seeing maybe a handful of kids. Not really, but you get my point. Families cannot afford to live there any longer and must compete for dwellings against immigrants willing to live 6 to a room. 12-14 people in a four bedroom apt is quite normal in parts of Sydney.

I would also note this: A "free" undergraduate degree in AU, which now costs a lot of money, only counts as an associative degree in the US. Australian students must do honors in order to obtain a bachelors degree. Because of this, many Australians who obtain a master's degree find they cannot use said degree outside of AU. I've known many Europeans who are shocked to find their AU degree only counts for credit toward a degree in EU. And maybe not much credit given some Universities in AU are shockingly poorly funded with very very little resources outside of attending lecture and sitting MCQ assessments. I mention this because, just like the underfunded pension (very generous for The Baby's who are getting it, I might add) thanks to Government 'free' University 1970s, AU University still, in the nearly in 2020, still lags far behind. Which is why the AU government tied University degree to VISA points. So long as there are E. Asians, Indians and ME people who want to live in AU, they'll be able to sell AU University degrees as a means of obtaining VISA points.

I'd also note, just like in the USA, medical error in AU is probably the reason you'll die if you don't smoke. Only it's probably worse. I say probably because there's a huge effort to ensure medical errors are categorized out of medical error and even people who specifically study medical error, have a very hard time getting the numbers. More than likely ~ 80,000 Australians die each year due to medical error. Again, not much different than the USA and probably for the exact same reasons.

Economically speaking, its not all doom and gloom here - but if "they" don't work something out fairly soon, we're going to start a gradual slide in terms of quality of life fairly shortly.

As long as East Asians want to move to AU, then AU will benefit from their work ethic and overall intelligence.

But this is the thing, it means a lot of Australians will be out competed. Unlike people from other parts of the word, the average IQ of E. Asians is higher than Europeans on a normality curve. And, just like in the USA, they're easily punching above their weight. As an example, look at UC Berkeley. Asian Americans make up 42.3% while they only comprise 3% of the population. Why do I mention it in regards to AU? I've personally heard so-called "Professors" suggest actively preventing Asians from entering the medical programs through the interview process. We're talking Australians who 'look' Asian. They're Citizens. And while this is illegal, too bad. I mentioned that Asians are Australians and the response I got was 'no no, I meant 'look like my kids'. Oh? I said. Yes they replied, you know, White.


Anyway, I don't think AU will end up doing too bad in the near long term given the state of technology outside of AU. Sure, the slums will expand, that's to be expected. But, if you like London, then you won't mind living in a city in AU. Some areas being worse than others *cough* Western Sydney *cough*. And this is what's interesting. Apparently Germans and Swedes think they can have the migrant workers, without the slums and no-go zones, the drug gangs and thugs. Well, that's just not possible. They'll have to learn to live with desperation and the poor just like everywhere else in the West.

 

[Michael]

Bloomberg: Dalai Lama's Pipe Dream For Europe's Refugees

Aside from a few zinger headliners' like:
"Europe, for example Germany, cannot become an Arabic country. Germany is Germany,".
"The goal should be that they return and help to rebuild their own countries."

He does think EU should help when it can help. But, he certainly doesn't seem to think 'multiculturalism' is a good idea. If anything, the notion refugees should be returned to where they came from after the war, is more in line with his predilections. Well, we'll see.

 

[Michael]

LOL

Interesting

 

[wellwisher]

The main problem with multiculturalism is waste, inefficiency and lose of human potential. If you need one hundred languages, how is that efficient and how can you ever unite a country? This is designed to create division since nobody can learn all those languages to avoid misunderstanding. If you maintain third world cultural pockets, within first world countries, the country averages into a second world country. How is pig pen an upgrade?

People did not migrate to Germany, Sweden or USA, because they thought this was going to be a worse or parallel place, compared to where they came. They took the risk and migrated, because they thought this was going to be an upgrade compare to hime; land of opportunity. If you segregate people into pockets, via the scam of multiculturalism, immigrants may feel more at home, but they lose the immigrant dream to transcend.

It is like having a dream to be a star. When you get to Hollywood, liberals help by getting you some two bits parts. This seems good but it type cases you and obstruct your dream.

One theory is since liberalism is feminine, its political manipulation will be geared toward what females can relate to. Encouraging people from a third world culture, who migrate to a first world, to stay in the third world, makes no sense, unless it is the case of a child leading the mother. The mother will react to her baby's real time needs and not always to their future needs. She may give candy to quiet them even if this makes them fat. This may be useful for babies, but not for future adults. Some mothers wish to be needed and don't want their children to grow up. This may be why after 50 years of the war against poverty, the poor are still with mother.

PC is based on the baby leading the mother. There is no father or male figure in the liberal world, to insist on common sense. Muslims are smart people so there is no reason they can't be first world.

Donald Trump is the male figure come home. This is why the liberals are so scared. The spoiled brats will need to learn manners, since mother will no longer indulge them. She will allow her husband to lead, since he will release her from her guilt.

 

[Retribution]

The more one participates on forums, the more one realises that there are certain topics which become larger and more unwieldy as they progress.
The title "Immigration Crisis or Economic Opportunity" itself, in this particular case, is a very large subject which is fracturing into several sub-plots over the course of pages. Those sub-plots have sub-plots, and after a while one comes to the thought that even Tolstoy might not have been able to contain them within the confines of a single novel.
Is this argument a moral one, or an economic one? More to the point, with regard to the OP, has caring about other people become more important and morally correct than simply caring about people?

Hard to know where to begin with this one, preamble aside. Spent a fair amount of time lost in thought not unlike the swirl of smoke from the cigarette I'm currently holding, and those thoughts don't preclude wondering whether or not I should, or even can, say the things I'd like to.

So I'll begin here:
"The image of the Syrian child's lifeless body washed up on the shores of a Turkish beach brought the world to its knees. His name was Aylan Kurdi, and he was just three years old."
https://www.getup.org.au/campaigns/...t-the-dark-australia-says-welcome-to-refugees

Powerful stuff, isn't it, the emotional appeal. A light in the dark for Aylan. Let's all gather and light candles.
And Let the Right one in. Almost obligatory pop-culture movie reference.

There has to be a point at which the defence of a moral ideal becomes as suicidal as a Japanese Banzai charge.
Or, as Frederick the Great once put it, "He who defends everything, defends nothing".

Our own moral standards have reached that point at which saying something along those lines is fast becoming impossible. A trap of our own making.
And yes. I do understand further argument is going to come about the extent to which we're throwing away our own lives upon an ideal, or perhaps those of our descendants, and how I might be perceived as being overly dramatic.

However, in the face of images of a dead child on a beach being presented as evidence of our own moral culpability:
I might stop, I might pause, and I might mourn, as much as I am able to for a stranger; but upon that image becoming little more than a picture in a newspaper represented as the human face of tragedy, I will also say to myself "There. There is the death of reason".

Sometimes, I wonder who Billy really is.
Anyone can claim Billy as their own. And I wonder, too, if Merkel wasn't just sending a letter to all Germans, and how often is it just being thrown away.



The marchin' band came down along main street
The soldier blues fell in behind
I looked across and there I saw Billy
Waiting to go and join the line

And with her head upon his shoulder
His young and lovely fiancee
From where I stood I saw she was cryin'
And through her tears I heard her say

Billy don't be a hero, don't be a fool with your life
Billy don't be a hero, come back and make me your wife
And as Billy started to go, she said keep your pretty head low
Billy don't be a hero, come back to me

The soldier blues were trapped on a hillside
The battle ragin' all around
The sergeant cried, we've gotta hang on boys
We've gotta hold this piece of ground

I need a volunteer to ride out
And bring us back some extra men
And Billy's hand was up in a moment
Forgettin' all the words she said, she said

Billy don't be a hero, don't be a fool with your life
Billy don't be a hero, come back and make me your wife
And as Billy started to go, she said keep your pretty head low
Billy don't be a hero, come back to me

I heard his fiancee got a letter
That told how Billy died that day
The letter said he was a hero
She should be proud he died that way
I heard she threw the letter away

Paper Lace - 1974.

 

[iceaura]

Social Security's share of the US GDP: http://www.demos.org/data-byte/social-security-program-cost-and-revenue-percentage-gdp-through-2052

That is in a program that is not means tested, and covers many matters - such as disability - unrelated to old age pensions.

Health care is quadruple that burden and rising faster - and even more when one accounts for health care's influence on Social Security costs.

 

[Michael]

RE: SSI
I think this is on topic.
From: Social Security: The Most Successful Ponzi Scheme in History.

“We paid our Social Security and Medicare taxes; we earned our benefits.” It is that belief among senior citizens that President Obama was pandering to when, in his second inaugural address, he claimed that those programs “strengthen us. They do not make us a nation of takers.”

If Social Security and Medicare both involved people voluntarily financing their own benefits, an argument could be made for seniors’ “earned benefits” view. But they have not. They have redistributed tens of trillions of dollars of wealth to themselves from those younger.

Social Security and Medicare have transferred those trillions because they have been partial Ponzi schemes.

After Social Security’s creation, those in or near retirement got benefits far exceeding their costs (Ida Mae Fuller, the first Social Security recipient, got 462 times what she and her employer together paid in “contributions”). Those benefits in excess of their taxes paid inherently forced future Americans to pick up the tab for the difference. And the program’s almost unthinkable unfunded liabilities are no less a burden on later generations because earlier generations financed some of their own benefits, or because the government has consistently lied that they have paid their own way.

Thus the need for mass numbers of immigrants. At least if you want to keep the ponzi scheme going as is. But, see, here's the thing: All people are not created equal. I'm never, ever, minus some serous genetic re-engineering, going to play baseball like Michael Jorden, or have the mathematical insights of Terry Tao. Shared ideas, likewise. Some are indeed, better than, others.

Anyway, the bumbling idiots that pose as "elite bureaucrats" and run the EU, they think they're going to import the tax chattel needed to pay for all the promises made decades ago - we'll see. Because of "Socialism" and the expectations of a future taken care of, millions of Swede's and Germans altered the way in which they lived their lives. Instead of storing grain for the winter, they partied like it's 1979. I personally think Socialism turned a vast number of young men into middle aged navel gazers with no plans to ever start families of their own - but greatly interested in important topics like: Do we live in a simulated Universe withing a Universe within a Universe? 1 in 4 plan to never have a family. But they sure as hell do want someone to pay for their future benefits. Well, whatever. As they say: You made your bed, now sleep in it.

That aside, it is a really great experiment in social engineering. Particularly given Germany, and especially Sweden, are 'The" poster children for Progressive Socialist Utopias. Let's see how it all turns out across the next 25 years. Particularly given that ethnic German men are expected to be a minority by 2020, in Germany.

Socialism, destroying one Civilization at a time, so you don't have to.
Social Security: The Long Slow Default