|
Tesseraction posted:Yeah I remember Bush picking him based on Maliki claiming he knew the plight of Iraq despite having not been there in like 30 years and with little-to-no contacts among the actual populace. I'm refusing to believe this, for my own sanity.
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 14:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 23:42 |
|
|
lmaoboy1998 posted:I'm refusing to believe this, for my own sanity. http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Ambassador_claims_shortly_before_invasion_Bush_0804.html quote:In his new book, The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created A War Without End, Galbraith, the son of the late economist John Kenneth Galbraith, claims that American leadership knew very little about the nature of Iraqi society and the problems it would face after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 14:16
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:There were a lot of fuckups that added some stupid years in there, but the post-surge environment where progress was finally being made needed a few more years of tlc when Obama came into office. And it got a few more years. We didn't pull out of Iraq until four years after the surge. In fact, more of the time US troops spent in Iraq was post-surge rather than pre-surge. Of course, it's debatable whether the surge actually did anything at all. There's a good case to be made that the drop in violence was because localized ethnic cleansing had pretty much pushed Sunnis and Shiites out of close proximity of each other by that time. Volkerball posted:Bush "picking" him created that issue, and that's important to keep in mind. But Obama didn't help by telling Maliki to deal with "Iraqi problems," which he went on to deal with on a very sectarian basis. The Obama administration gave him a sort of green light, not really paying attention to what was happening. Should we have been telling the nominally independent Iraqi government what to do? And more importantly, if the Iraqi government we installed was so weak or incompetent that they needed direct US orders not to gently caress it up, how could they ever have been expected to survive without direct US support? Weak, incompetent, corrupt governments don't have a history of doing well in unstable countries with ongoing insurgencies, especially when the only reason they're in control is due to foreign support.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 14:30
|
|
|
First off, this whole post is made in good faith, I'm not trying to pick a fight with anyone, and I'm not blaming any particular bunch of people on anything. I'm just being worried from an economic perspective. Shageletic posted:I'm Somalian (parents from Hargeisa and Sheik respectively, all eventual American citizens though). Say that to people being gunned down by the Shebab outside Mogadishu, or grinded up in another forever clan fight near the Kenyan border. Somaliland is doing fairly alright, yet I've personally seen the after effects of bombings (on various UN buildings and embassies) just a year or two ago. Do you have to be swimming out of your depth here, or do you like flailing? That's cool, and glad you seem to be doing well. Do you live in Minnesota, perhaps? Or Cleveland? I've heard a lot of good things about Somalis integrating in USA. quote:I don't even know what this means! It just meant that despite fluctuations, mass immigration on asylum seeking basis to EU area is not some temporary phenomenon unless dramatic EU policy changes are introduced and a bunch of countries are fixed. And please Jesus Christ USA don't bomb more countries near EU into a mess? Even if they have a dictator, the dictator will be replaced by another or then you get a mess like Libya, Iraq and Syria instead. What you won't get is a Western democracy. quote:http://rsccleveland.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/ClevelandRefugeeEconomic-Impact.pdf I'm afraid comparing the economic impact of refugees in USA and Europe, esp. the Northern welfare states, is like comparing apples and oranges. Also you maybe didn't notice, but I said "housing people who can't find a job" is the (economic) problem. Not entrepreneurs. Unfortunately, asylum seekers who received a residence permit and their later "re-unified" family members from non-OECD countries have woeful employment rates in the EU  For example Somalians in Finland in 2008 only had a 27% employment rate (that's no the same as unemployment at least in a Finnish translation, btw). Earlier, in 2003, their the dependency ratio was 9,7 while the national average was 2,2, meaning out of every working age and employed Somalian, there were 9,7 who were either unemployed our outside of the workforce (because of age, disability, whatever). Very few were and are entrepreneurs, which both sucks and is disappointing, because I've heard dozens of times Somalians are pretty creative and solid businessmen in Minnesota and Minneapolis, running literally hundreds (or is it over a thousand at this point?) businesses. I think one of the reasons is that we really suck at integrating people, at least partially because of the welfare state thing we have going on. It's good, but not always and not for everyone but that's another discussion. Same in the Gulf States, AFAIK Somalis are often hardcore businessmen. Anyway, for example, here is an economic profile of Britain's Immigrants. It's a bit outdated (so were some of your links) but there is no reason to believe things have changed much, except that UK has received a ton of new workers from East-Europe. Not aware of what that has exactly done to immigration employment percentages. You will notice certain groups (look under 5. Socio-economic profile) perform particularly poorly, some are among some of the most common asylum seeking nationalities. During the past decade the Finnish numbers were very similar with the same nationalities we have in any numbers. In 2013 over 30% of all of our immigrants were unemployed, when the national average is closer to 10%. In 2010 Sudanese, Somalians, Iraqis and Afghans had over 50% unemployment in in Finland. On the other hand, out the few Nepalese we have almost none are on the dole and Kenyans beat the crap out of (positive) employment numbers compared to Finns. And at least things are looking a little better even while Finland is in a terrible economic slump, as in 2013 "only" 38% African and 32% of Asian immigrants were unemployed. Still beats the 2000 numbers. Sweden is actually the worst OECD country in integrating immigrants if you use employment as a metric. IIRC in 2014 they had the highest immigration unemployment rate in the EU area (sorry can't find the link now). Jan Tullberg from Stockhom University published a book in 2014 where he estimated immigration costs 250 billion Swedish kroner annually, which is even more than previous estimates by guys like Bo Södersten and Jan Ekberg. In Norway, they calculated in 2013 that every non-Western immigrant will cost Norway around 4,1mil NOK. In Denmark, they found out non-Western immigration societal costs exploded from previously high numbers by an additional 35% in just four years. Bottom line is people who from OECD countries tend to do well in Europe, as do people who move here to work (do'h) where ever they come from, but those who are granted residence permit on asylum or other "secondary protection" (a term at least in Finland) basis are not doing well. Hence my conclusion that the current circus is going to become very expensive, especially for Nordic welfare states with the high benefits, especially on housing, received by those given a residence permit. This is almost the exact opposite of US, where immigrants, illegals or refugees or whatever, have at least a reputation in Europe for finding work somehow, and then busting their asses at it. There has been much waxing lyrical about why this is or isn't. Some point a blaming finger at the welfare state for making people passive because a family of four or five might already live more affluently than in their country of origin just on benefits. But I doubt it's just that. Others say we're just bad at integrating. Yeah but why do some groups integrate so well anyway? Others blame racism, but that doesn't ring true either, because people from, say Ghana and Nigeria tend to do well employment wise (or at least did some years ago) in North and West European countries. In Britannia Muslims have bad employment numbers, but on the other hand, Sikhs from the same country do well, so just discriminating "others" can't be it. Some say too many immigrants to EU are Muslims, and "Muslims don't integrate to Western cultures". But even that doesn't quite strike me as The Ultimate Explanation, because from what I know, immigrant Muslims tend to do very well in USA (and for a fact I know, so do many European ones). As a final point, there is less and less low skilled labour jobs available in the EU area, and many EU countries already have 20%+ youth unemployment. If you continue slamming in a lot of immigrants from around the EU year in year out, who are also looking for a job, it doesn't bode well for them either and some probably take it as such. quote:I could go on, but you get the point, right? Its not too hard to find this stuff either. Likewise, but you get the point as well, right? quote:Maybe read about the muslim population in France before spouting off? Here's a start: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/08/31/the-other-france I think you misunderstood me somehow. What was it that you think I said? Or "spouted off" as the writing style here at D&D goes. Anyway good article, I read it. But there wasn't anything much I didn't quite know already on it. What did you wish I would glean from it? edit: In fact please USA don't bomb any country anywhere into a mess pls. Ligur fucked around with this message at 15:33 on Sep 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 14:44
|
|
|
Ligur posted:First off, this whole post is made in good faith, I'm not trying to pick a fight with anyone, and I'm not blaming any particular bunch of people on anything. I'm just being worried from an economic perspective. As was mine, hence my posting cites to back up my points. I just don't think you've done that. quote:That's cool, and glad you seem to be doing well. Do you live in Minnesota, perhaps? Or Cleveland? I've heard a lot of good things about Somalis integrating in USA. NYC. quote:I'm afraid comparing the economic impact of refugees in USA and Europe, esp. the Northern welfare states, is like comparing apples and oranges. My various sources covered the US, Germany, and Sweden. quote:Also you maybe didn't notice I said "housing people who can't find a job" is the (economic) problem. Not entrepreneurs. Unfortunately, asylum seekers who received a residence permit and their later "re-unified" family members from non OECD countries have woeful employment rates in the EU Those studies explicitly focused on refugees, of all types. quote:For example Somalians in Finland in 2008 only had a 27% employment rate (that's no the same as unemployment at least in a Finnish translation, btw). Earlier, in 2003, their the dependency ratio was 9,7 while the national average was 2,2, meaning out of every working age and employed Somalian, there were 9,7 who were either unemployed our outside of the workforce (because of age, disability, whatever). Very few were and are entrepreneurs, which both sucks and is disappointing, because I've heard dozens of times Somalians are pretty creative and solid businessmen in Minnesota and Minneapolis, running literally hundreds (or is it over a thousand at this point?) businesses. I think one of the reasons is that we really suck at integrating people, at least partially because of the welfare state thing we have going on. It's good, but not always and not for everyone but that's another discussion. Same in the Gulf States AFAIK Somalis are often hardcore businessmen. Please post cites for your conclusions here. quote:Here is an economic profile of Britain's Immigrants. It's a bit outdated (so were some of your links) but there is no reason to believe things have changed much. You will notice certain groups (look under 5. Socio-economic profile) perform particularly poorly, and are amongst some of the most common asylum seekers, and incidentally during the past decade the Finnish numbers were almost mirrored by the UK ones in that report with only slight variations in the percentages. Yeah, went through it. Its a think tank paper basing their charts on a single survey for a BBC program, not nearly the scholastic economic papers meta studies I cited conglemerating findings in the field of refugee research. This because when graph 5.2 states that Somalies of working age have 10% unemployment rates, it doesn't break it into sub-fields, so that we see how many of these refugees were repatriated, how much cost was affected by their unemployment (the whole point of this exercise, yes?), or whether this effect lasted (outside of two years), etc, etc. quote:Sweden is actually the worst OECD country in integrating immigrants if you use employment as a metric.. IIRC in 2014 they had the highest immigration unemployment rate in the EU area (sorry can't find the link now). Jan Tullberg from Stockhom University published a book in 2014 where he estimated immigration costs 250 billion Swedish kroner annually, which is even more than previous estimates by guys like Bo Södersten and Jan Ekberg. In Norway, they calculated in 2013 that every non-Western immigrant will cost Norway around 4,1mil NOK. In Denmark, they found out non-Western immigration societal costs exploded from previously high numbers by 35% in just four years. Your first cite is in regards to a slight difference between unemployment rates between immigrants and natives. It doesn't state an economic cost for that difference (the whole point of this exercise, yes?) Your second cite is in another language, as is your third. Your fourth, about Denmark, is more interesting by virtue of it being readable, but it is a newspaper article that refers to the findings of another magazine while not directly linking to it. I for the life of me couldn't find the study (in English), but taking it at its face (costs of non-Westerns rising! Which makes sense considering there might be more of them immigrating), doesn't give us a baseline level of costs, and doesn't give us a economic argument for whether immigrants are net costing European states to the levels you have claimed. quote:Bottom line is people who from OECD countries tend to do well in Europe, as do people who move here to work (do'h) but those who are granted residence permit on asylum basis are doing very badly. Hence my conclusion that the current circus is going to become very expensive, especially for Nordic welfare states with the high housing and other benefits received by residents. I don't think you've proven this. quote:This is almost the exact opposite of US, where immigrants, illegals or refugees or whatever, have a reputation in Europe for busting their asses at work. No evidence of this has been posted. quote:I think you misunderstood me somehow. What was it that you think I said? I think you're mimicking a very easy to line to hoist (immigrants will drown our progressive countries), and you're just being slightly better about masking the nastiness underlying the argument. quote:Anyway good article, I read it. But there wasn't anything much I didn't quite know already on it. What did you wish I would glean from it? That there has been a long, long history of Arab immigrants in France, and that the exact cause of sad events like Hebdo are due to a complex series of events and causes, and is definitely not cause for banning the immigration of people from an entire region of the world. But that would be too hard to acknowledge for a lot of folks, and so reactionary pearl clutching in the face of an imaginary unceasing deluge is easier to do. The Syrian exodus is a largely an unequaled phenomenon, but that same sort of thing is all too easily predictable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 15:33
|
|
|
What is the point in linking to a document or site in another language without a contextual translation of a relevant point? I mean if that's kind of effort we can get away with I'm just going to machine translate Galtse and Mein Kampf into a language the person I'm debating with can't speak and then claim it backs me up 100%. Maybe I'll throw in a copy of Nate Silver's book for any stats I need to fudge.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 15:51
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:Please post cites for your conclusions here. Somali unemployment in 2008: http://tilastokeskus.fi/til/tyokay/2008/01/tyokay_2008_01_2010-04-20_fi.pdf Dependency ratio: http://www.tat.fi/opetat/taloustieto/vaestorakenteen_muutos_maahanmuutto.shtml (edit: oops, old link and doesn't anymore) quote:Yeah, went through it. Its a think tank paper basing their charts on a single survey for a BBC program, not nearly the scholastic economic papers meta studies I cited conglemerating findings in the field of refugee research. This because when graph 5.2 states that Somalies of working age have 10% unemployment rates, it doesn't break it into sub-fields, so that we see how many of these refugees were repatriated, how much cost was affected by their unemployment (the whole point of this exercise, yes?), or whether this effect lasted (outside of two years), etc, etc. I'm not quite getting your point here? Surely you didn't miss the employed and inactive percentages? quote:Your first cite is in regards to a slight difference between unemployment rates between immigrants and natives. It doesn't state an economic cost for that difference (the whole point of this exercise, yes?) Your second cite is in another language, as is your third. Your fourth, about Denmark, is more interesting by virtue of it being readable, but it is a newspaper article that refers to the findings of another magazine while not directly linking to it. I for the life of me couldn't find the study (in English), but taking it at its face (costs of non-Westerns rising! Which makes sense considering there might be more of them immigrating), doesn't give us a baseline level of costs, and doesn't give us a economic argument for whether immigrants are net costing European states to the levels you have claimed. A 13% gap on a national level isn't "slight". Considering the number of immigrants in Sweden this is no joke. They have immigrant neighborhoods with 36% employment rates. The Norwegian numbers come from Finansavisen, a Norwegian financial newspaper. If you don't believe Jan Tullberg's numbers regarding Sweden, then don't. Perhaps the books is translated to English some day and you can read it and will produce a paper which refutes all his calculations? Regarding Denmark, for non-Western immigrants 2010 the average annual netcost is 20 000 DKK (2 650€ euro) for first generation and 199 00DK (16000€) for second generation immigrants (mainly kids). The study is DREAM (2011): Samlet nettobidrag fordelt på oprindelse – Baseret på DREAMs 2009-fremskrivning. You probably won't find an English version online though. quote:I don't think you've proven this. If the fact that non-Western immigrants cost a lot of money for Nordic countries and have very high unemployment rates, then nothing proves it I guess. quote:No evidence of this has been posted. So you are reading "between the lines" and assuming I'm just posting because I hate people X and Y but try to mask it somehow? Look. We're on some comic website forum with anonymous posters. I have absolutely no reason to "hide" or "mask" any motives I have. You can take what I post at face value. quote:That there has been a long, long history of Arab immigrants in France, and that the exact cause of sad events like Hebdo are due to a complex series of events and causes, and is definitely not cause for banning the immigration of people from an entire region of the world. But that would be too hard to acknowledge for a lot of folks, and so reactionary pearl clutching in the face of an imaginary unceasing deluge is easier to do. Yeah I know that. One of my favourite books is this. It quite minutely documents the Arab-French history on the way. Ligur fucked around with this message at 16:44 on Sep 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 16:10
|
|
|
Ligur posted:If the fact that non-Western immigrants cost a lot of money for Nordic countries and have very high unemployment rates, then nothing proves it I guess. Youth unemployment is high in Nordic countries too; should they ban having children, or just start deporting people under the age of 25? High unemployment is the fault of the receiving society, and it's no fairer to blame and punish immigrants for that than it is to blame and punish youths for high youth unemployment rates. The failure of the economy to absorb new entrants to that economy suggests severe fundamental problems with said economy anyway - problems that will need to be addressed, refugees or no refugees.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
English translation of the first half of the Norwegian Dagbladet article:quote:NoK 56 billion spent on training courses for immigrants Again, when it comes to Sweden, if you don't want to believe what Tullberg, Ekberg or et. al. write because you can't peer review their texts in your own language, well, gently caress, then. With that logic I don't actually have to believe, or even consider there might be a point or a hint of truth in anything I read anywhere, if it isn't in Finnish. Here is a Tino Sinandaji interview on Youtube where he expresses various of his opinions regarding Swedish immigration policies, if anyone is interested. He spaketh in English! He is also an immigrant. Main Paineframe posted:Youth unemployment is high in Nordic countries too; should they ban having children, or just start deporting people under the age of 25? High unemployment is the fault of the receiving society, and it's no fairer to blame and punish immigrants for that than it is to blame and punish youths for high youth unemployment rates. The failure of the economy to absorb new entrants to that economy suggests severe fundamental problems with said economy anyway - problems that will need to be addressed, refugees or no refugees. Yup. The thing is, I'm not blaming the refugees for anything and seriously do not want to "punish" immigrants. Most people who think the current immigration policies fail to achieve what they are marketed, or are even harmful, in fact, do not blame immigrants or refugees of anything. Our own politicians should be the first target of criticism. And oh boy, are they. As for deporting our own citizens? Well... they were born here, you see. That's a little different people from halfway across the world who were born into another country. A State sort of exists as this system to take care of biz for it's own citizens. That's why they do poo poo like pay taxes and everything for the State, which in turn protects them and their children and so on. The State takes care of it's own criminals too, instead of deporting them, and tries to solve internal problems so the people who live there would prosper. Wheeee! Ligur fucked around with this message at 16:33 on Sep 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
Finansavisen is not just a 'financial newspaper' it's an openly ideological right-wing paper. At least be honest in where you're sourcing things. Now, being right-wing doesn't make it wrong, per se. But it also might suggest they might be being unkind with the numbers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
Ligur posted:As for deporting our own citizens? Well... they were born here, you see. That's a little different people from halfway across the world who were born into another country. A State sort of exists as this system to take care of biz for it's own citizens. That's why they do poo poo like pay taxes and everything for the State, which in turn protects them and their children and so on. The State takes care of it's own criminals too, instead of deporting them, and tries to solve internal problems so the people who live there would prosper. Wheeee! Your borders are without value and your national identities, similarly without value, should be erased. Distinctions between those born inside of nations and those born outside are without value. Now that's not to say that there won't be plenty of bigots, racists and nationalists who object to an influx of immigrants, and to turning out the pockets of hardworking Europeans until discrepancies in income and unemployment vanish. However, these reactions should be put in their proper context, as ignorance, bigotry and mental deficiency. You can rally these bigots if you choose to, but history will record you on a single page with PEGIDA and Golden Dawn.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
Pretty sure you're saying that to a Finnish supremacist so I don't think that argument will hold weight.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Finansavisen is not just a 'financial newspaper' it's an openly ideological right-wing paper. At least be honest in where you're sourcing things. War. War never chang- Oops. I meant to type D&D. D&D never changes. I think I remember back in 2005 someone linked to a purportedly "right-wing" paper which in turn quoted some University study and people dismissed it out of hand. I can't even how that works. Ok you're saying you're not doing that outright but anyway. This forum is like some kind of clockwork: if you push a certain button like "right-wing publication" you will get a certain answer within minutes. Anyway. I, for one, am not in the least interested in the political leanings of any publisher or publication. The only thing of any note between a "left" and a "right" wing publishers (if they're not some outright lunatic anarchist/neo-nazi/spaghetti monster or whatever fringe publications) is this: Left wing papers tend to not publish studies, calculations or articles that go far too against their agenda. Right wing papers tend to not publish studies, calculations or articles that go far too against their agenda. But apart from 100% Scandal papers, I must say I have very little evidence, or practically none, that left or right wing publications routinely invent or lie about stuff. But that's the argument I've seen here. Quite a bit. But hey, I guess life is easier when you can simply not-believe things you don't like. For example when I make posts by "mutu" (it's Finnish for "I Feel") about something, the slightly manic poster DarkCrawler often arrives to correct me. And I'm happy for it. For example I thought Lebanese refugees, or rather refugees in Lebanon, live in refugee camps because I knew Jordania has many such. Now I know better, they life in self-organized shelters or in the outskirts of urban areas. Instead of saying "hah but ur link is from a left-wing human rights organization!!" I'm pretty happy to take in new information. I couldn't loving even imagine refuting everything that doesn't fit my current notions with "heh... but that's a wrong-wing paper... so..." By the way, thanks again, DarkCrawler.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Pretty sure you're saying that to a Finnish supremacist so I don't think that argument will hold weight. Yeah, I just hope people won't fall into the trap of arguing with bigots about studies or statistics. The correct response to poor outcomes for immigrants is not to restrict immigrants, but to impose sacrifice upon the native population until those outcomes are improved. They won't like it, but the nation will benefit in the long term. Then, when discrepancies in income and employment are erased, they'll have nothing to complain about but the fact that immigrants look and speak differently than them. These are the arguments that bigots should be stuck making.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Pretty sure you're saying that to a Finnish supremacist so I don't think that argument will hold weight. You don't have make any guesses or be "pretty sure". You can just directly ask me if I think Finns are somehow superior over others, and I can answer honestly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
That Swedish refugee related immigration policies produce fairly substantial (short to middle term) net costs for society is a pretty well substantiated fact. Make of that what you will. Link
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
Ligur posted:You don't have make any guesses or be "pretty sure". You can just directly ask me if I think Finns are somehow superior over others, and I can answer honestly. What's the point of that? You have already woven your elaborate rationale, cloaked in taxes and unemployment rates. Snakes know how to conceal themselves in tall grass.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Finansavisen is not just a 'financial newspaper' it's an openly ideological right-wing paper. At least be honest in where you're sourcing things. There's no need to caat vague doubts on the source when the numbers are clearly being skewed in an unkind way. The article is very careful to cherrypick numbers and data sets to fit the arguments it wants to make. For example, it focuses almost exclusively on people's employment status one year after completing the training programs. So when it tries to imply that only 50% of immigrants are net contributors, what it actually means is that 50% of immigrants who had finished their job training less than a year before the article was written were already so gainfully employed that they were paying taxes and completely off state support. That's not half bad! Similarly, although it complains about the cost of immigrant training from 2004-2010, it lists outcomes at a year after graduation, rather than current outcomes. When it says that 23,000 immigrants who went through the training program were unemployed, it erroneously claims that means that they are unemployed now, even though the numbers they cite refer to the number who were unemployed one year after they completed the training (and may very well have found employment in the one to eight years between the measured point and when the article was written). Lastly, when it indignantly compared immigrant training expenses to the education budget, it compared the total spending on immigrant training over the course of six years to education spending in a single year that isn't even a part of that six-year data set. Why such an odd comparison? It was almost certainly cherry-picked numbers for the sole purpose of making that comparison.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 17:19
|
|
|
Ligur posted:I think I remember back in 2005 someone linked to a purportedly "right-wing" paper which in turn quoted some University study and people dismissed it out of hand. I can't even how that works. Ok you're saying you're not doing that outright but anyway. Disingenuous. You quoted a paper doing its own research, you're whining about an academic paper (that may not have been peer reviewed). I thought Finland had higher education than credulous twits who believe everything they read that says 'darkies = bad.' Your source dislikes immigrants. That doesn't make it wrong, but as I said, it could be unkind with numb-- OH LOOK Main Paineframe posted:There's no need to caat vague doubts on the source when the numbers are clearly being skewed in an unkind way. The article is very careful to cherrypick numbers and data sets to fit the arguments it wants to make. For example, it focuses almost exclusively on people's employment status one year after completing the training programs. So when it tries to imply that only 50% of immigrants are net contributors, what it actually means is that 50% of immigrants who had finished their job training less than a year before the article was written were already so gainfully employed that they were paying taxes and completely off state support. That's not half bad! I am shocked, SHOCKED that my suspicion was in fact correct. Ligur posted:You don't have make any guesses or be "pretty sure". You can just directly ask me if I think Finns are somehow superior over others, and I can answer honestly. I'm not guessing. I was curious as to why you kept linking Nordic articles so I clicked your post history and found you in the Finnish Politics thread whining about 'SJWs' and using deliberate misspellings like 'gub'mnt' and 'neolibrulsm' as parodies of people you disagreed with. You're definitely right-wing, which doesn't dismiss your opinion, but it does come across as funny that you're acting like you're some neutral from on high, discussing this in purely academic terms.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Yeah I remember Bush picking him based on Maliki claiming he knew the plight of Iraq despite having not been there in like 30 years and with little-to-no contacts among the actual populace. This is something I choose not to believe. Also, for my own sanity. AAAAHHH! (For the record, I actually do believe it, but it hurtzzz.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
Sadly it is. Explains why Sunni Daesh were somehow more popular with portions of the population than the Shi'ite death squads. Somehow.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:There's no need to caat vague doubts on the source when the numbers are clearly being skewed in an unkind way. The article is very careful to cherrypick numbers and data sets to fit the arguments it wants to make. For example, it focuses almost exclusively on people's employment status one year after completing the training programs. So when it tries to imply that only 50% of immigrants are net contributors, what it actually means is that 50% of immigrants who had finished their job training less than a year before the article was written were already so gainfully employed that they were paying taxes and completely off state support. That's not half bad! Ahha, ok. The rest of the article, translated for your benefit and possibly with a more positive tilt: quote:The figures for those who completed the course in 2011 have currently not been released. It takes the local authorities one year to supply the Directorate of Integration and Diversity (IMDi) with the correct figures. 12,800 individuals attended various introductory and work-related training programs in 2011 to the tune of approximately NoK 14 billion. Although figures from the SSB indicate that quality has taken a backseat to quantity, Ahmed Ghani Zadeh, state secretary for the Ministry of Children, Equality and Social Inclusion nevertheless is supportive of the scheme. “It is a necessary and important introduction to Norwegian society that we cannot manage without,” says Ghani Zadeh to Finansavisen today. He also believes that the introductory program is insufficient and he wants more resources. Nor does he believe that the figures are as bad as the SSB claims. “Currently the immigrants that are graduating from this introductory course and moving on to elementary school are not mentioned in the statistics, but if that had been the case we would have seen a significantly higher number of successful participants in the introductory program,” he points out. The SSB thus fails to highlight the benefit of spending NoK 1million on a person who then moves on to elementary school. “The government will improve the introductory program and link it up more closely with the elementary schools. We are going to do this because more than 60 percent of those participants who come from Somalia have no educational background when they enroll in the introductory program,” says Ghani Zadeh to Finansavisen. Does that answer any of your doubts or create more? I mean, it's a "right-wing" paper after all. quote:Similarly, although it complains about the cost of immigrant training from 2004-2010, it lists outcomes at a year after graduation, rather than current outcomes. When it says that 23,000 immigrants who went through the training program were unemployed, it erroneously claims that means that they are unemployed now, even though the numbers they cite refer to the number who were unemployed one year after they completed the training (and may very well have found employment in the one to eight years between the measured point and when the article was written). Of course they cherry pick numbers if they are trying to make a point. Everyone can read what they say after all, it just doesn't make it "false". They could have written that the annual cost of training minorities is about 16% of the whole educational budget alone. That alone is scary enough, but to drive a point home you can expand the scale. Like, doesn't everyone do this? Also sure, there is a slant, I don't disagree. Here's some cherry picked numbers for you: In the year 2010, the following immigrant groups had better employment rates than native Finns: Kenyans Netherlanders Brits Ghanalese Filipinos Romanians Poles Italians (Also IIRC Nigerians and Ethiopians were about as employed as Finns.) Do you oppose this cherry picking, and if so, why?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
SirJohnnyMcDonald posted:You clearly did not watch the entire video. I actually did! I didn't mention the "immigration is bad because it deprives the home countries of their best people" point because, while probably correct, it's also completely irrelevant. You can't fix that problem unless all other prosperous Western nations also decide to bar immigration from poor nations (which would itself have significant negative effects even if it happened; the US has certainly benefited from the immigration over its lifetime). If just the US did so, they'd go to the UK or something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:I'm not guessing. I was curious as to why you kept linking Nordic articles so I clicked your post history and found you in the Finnish Politics thread whining about 'SJWs' and using deliberate misspellings like 'gub'mnt' and 'neolibrulsm' as parodies of people you disagreed with. You're definitely right-wing, which doesn't dismiss your opinion, but it does come across as funny that you're acting like you're some neutral from on high, discussing this in purely academic terms. Living where I live I am of course interested in Nordic politics. For example I've said for years that the irresponsible Swedish immigration policy will hit Finland at some point - and now it has. The Swedes who post here don't want to believe it, but according to our border control and police officials almost all of the asylum seekers (whose numbers will either triple or even increase ten-fold this year) arrive from Sweden. It just is so. Nothing I can do to help it. No wrangling of fingers and shaking of fists will change it. But what makes you think I'm a "supremacist" of anything? Also this is a humour site, and dunno, read the FinPol thread. People use hyperboles and go overboard all the time. I share the same "Current Government = Satan" pictures on my own Social Media bubble that everyone else does on that thread. I'm not doing it here though. Neutral? None of us can probably be competely neutral on anything, especially of issues that we take special interest in for whatever reason. Probably too much to ask from any normal person. But I'm trying to discuss the economic impact of the current migration wave in as academic, economic, and neutral terms as possible here right now. I know it's hard for some people to accept, but it's true people do not oppose [insert your favourite policy] simply because they are evil. Or misinformed. They just read and view available data from a different PoV. For example in Finland most people know we're in a deep recession. Some of them think we should still help "asylum seekers" as much as we can and hope to weather it out. Some, instead, think we should fix our own poo poo we owe to the taxpayers of one of the most highly taxed (between 1st to 3rd depending on how you count) states in the world before we reach out and help others. I think both opinions are valid. I know most of the people who welcome the current immigration wave are not doing it out of malice, they honestly think it grants current or near future economic and other benefits. Or that at least that we have some sort of moral responsibility to accept asylum seekers from all over the world because of past crimes of some sort - or other moral oblications, the explanations to this are innumerable. I know they don't do it because they want to turn the EU into a single "multicultural" ghetto or whatever poo poo you read on stormfronts or whatever. I think the people who rave about the delibarete "islamization" of Europe are crazy loonies as well. There isn't anything like that going on (apart from perhaps some fanatics somewhere, who we should ignore). I just happen to disagree with the "asylum seekers are best helped by accepting them to EU and having them seek residence in the country of their choosing" -crowd anyway, but out of other reasons. I just wish the people with the opposite view could accept people like me are not acting out of malice either, but honestly think loading that massive amount of resources which now goes into receiving immigrants to help in areas closer to the refugee hot spots of the world would do much more good. edit: I'm "right-wing"? I think those two terms are getting a bit old by now, I think it's more, like, uhh. I'll perhaps post more about it later. But I'm economically so left-wing the Democrats in USA would call me a communist. I'm also for gender equality and LGBT rights but probably an ideoligical "conservative" otherwise closer to classical liberalism than anything else after the economic slant. But labeling people either left- or right-wing in the traditional terms is soon a thing of the past. Ligur fucked around with this message at 19:38 on Sep 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
Ligur posted:Of course they cherry pick numbers if they are trying to make a point. Everyone can read what they say after all, it just doesn't make it "false". They could have written that the annual cost of training minorities is about 16% of the whole educational budget alone. That alone is scary enough, but to drive a point home you can expand the scale. Like, doesn't everyone do this? Also sure, there is a slant, I don't disagree. Freudian slip, anyone? Anyhow, what's wrong with educating immigrants - or, for that matter, minorities? It's to the state's advantage to ensure they have the skills to join the workforce. Ligur posted:Here's some cherry picked numbers for you: Yes? Cherry-picking is often used as a way to misrepresent the stats to make a point. Though I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make there; I can't think of too many non-racist uses for a list like that, after all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Freudian slip, anyone? Anyhow, what's wrong with educating immigrants - or, for that matter, minorities? It's to the state's advantage to ensure they have the skills to join the workforce. Immigrants are, like, minorities most of the time, or are they not? That's some paranoid poo poo right there if you think there's a problem saying so. quote:Yes? Cherry-picking is often used as a way to misrepresent the stats to make a point. Though I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make there; I can't think of too many non-racist uses for a list like that, after all. Yes it is used to make a point. Which was, uhh, my point. It felt like you were trying to explain away the Norwegian papers calculations on the basis they were "cherry picking" when presenting the statistics. Which they are, which is perfectly regular, which doesn't make the statistics false either. There is no mispresentation, just displaying the stats in a way that makes a point the presenter wants to make. edit: if this is true, Norwegian immigrants are doing pretty loving solid: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Norway#Unemployment Yet still, somehow, it becomes very expensive. Peculiar dissonance. Ligur fucked around with this message at 19:50 on Sep 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
Ligur posted:Yet still, somehow, it becomes very expensive. Peculiar dissonance. Gotta let em die, its too financially difficult. *cocks shotgun* Sorry son.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
Ligur posted:Immigrants are, like, minorities most of the time, or are they not? That's some paranoid poo poo right there if you think there's a problem saying so. Immigrants are often minorities, but not all minorities are immigrants. Not even in Scandinavia. There's the Sami people, there's Russians, there's the Roma...
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Immigrants are often minorities, but not all minorities are immigrants. Not even in Scandinavia. There's the Sami people, there's Russians, there's the Roma... Probably used the wrong wording though, yeah, I know that. CommieGIR posted:Gotta let em die, its too financially difficult. *cocks shotgun* Sorry son. ... Nobody wants anyone to die. You know that. Come on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
Ligur posted:Probably used the wrong wording though, yeah, I know that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
Ligur posted:Nobody wants anyone to die. You know that. Come on. Its one or the other: Either you keep complaining about the financial hardship and accept that rejecting refugees will most likely result in preventable deaths, or you bite the bullet, save some lives, and in the end probably make it out okay financially.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
So you're just genuinely concerned the darkoes are going to ruin your economy, okay fine, not a concern troll, just loving obsessed with something pointless.Ligur posted:edit: I'm "right-wing"? I think those two terms are getting a bit old by now, I think it's more, like, uhh. I'll perhaps post more about it later. But I'm economically so left-wing the Democrats in USA would call me a communist. I'm also for gender equality and LGBT rights but probably an ideoligical "conservative" otherwise closer to classical liberalism than anything else after the economic slant. But labeling people either left- or right-wing in the traditional terms is soon a thing of the past. My point was you were acting like you were some grand concerned entity on the realistic economical issues with accepting refugees (and potentially 'economic migrants' *dog whistle blows*) without accepting that actually you're more than a little bit xenophobic if not outright racist and cherry picking your data either to show that migrants are just ~totally lazy economic drains~ or ~totally taking our gr8 Suomi jobs~ depending on whether you're trying to look concerned or 'unbiased' when called on your targeting of non-white immigrants. I mean you've complained about Sweden's immigration policy when asylum seeking/refugee policy is absolutely different and ruled by EU-wide treaties and Swedish immigrants are such a significant portion of your population (and vice-versa with Finns in Sweden). If you were touching on Norway your point would be less "loving DARKIES" and more about how uneven policy distribution was making problems. You're ignoring the Dublin Agreement with the skill of /pol/. And as for the Democrats theoretically calling you a communist, that's because the Democrats are a centrist party with centre-right leanings in the establishment. In any country with a realistic Overton Window you're right-wing, and the fact you don't think so is testament to Finland's worrying shift towards its far-right fringe more than an indictment on calling you right-wing. I mean if you're as classic liberal as you claim I'll revise it to centrist to centre-right. Either way, your opposition to asylum on economic grounds is one of the most horribly anti-humanitarian or anarcho-capitalist outlooks as it's demanding that people fleeing warzones should only be welcome if they dust off the blood of their lost loved ones and immediately start becoming a net tax contributor. What do you think these people do if they don't have a job? Walk around stealing your white women?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Your borders are without value and your national identities, similarly without value, should be erased. Distinctions between those born inside of nations and those born outside are without value. Now that's not to say that there won't be plenty of bigots, racists and nationalists who object to an influx of immigrants, and to turning out the pockets of hardworking Europeans until discrepancies in income and unemployment vanish. However, these reactions should be put in their proper context, as ignorance, bigotry and mental deficiency. So do you think that first world countries are obligated to just open their borders up and allow hundreds of millions of desperately poor people to flow in?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:So do you think that first world countries are obligated to just open their borders up and allow hundreds of millions of desperately poor people to flow in? So now it's hundreds of millions of them is it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:So now it's hundreds of millions of them is it? I support immigration, taking in refugees, giving current undocumented immigrants a pathway to citizenship, etc. I just don't support wide open borders as that post seemed to be advocating for.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:So do you think that first world countries are obligated to just open their borders up and allow hundreds of millions of desperately poor people to flow in? Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
Bob James posted:Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. In your opinion is the only proper interpretation of that phrase to allow completely unlimited immigration into the US?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:In your opinion is the only proper interpretation of that phrase to allow completely unlimited immigration into the US? Nope.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:In your opinion is the only proper interpretation of that phrase to allow completely unlimited immigration into the US? Nope But this is something that should allow quite a lot of it
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 23:42 |
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Because the West spent most of the 20th century suppressing democracy. The aftermath of colonialism and imperialism left former colonies all over the world very vulnerable to military coups and utterly lacking in democratic traditions and ambitions, which had largely been purged from those countries by imperial oppressors. For example, Iran had its democracy crushed twice over the course of the 20th century, since the will of the people tended to threaten British oil interests, and a weak-ish autocratic monarch dependent on brutal repression with Western support was thought to make for a more obedient puppet government. That brutal repression then managed to virtually eradicate organized secular political opposition, but religious political opposition proved more resilient due to its strong non-political roots and was therefore better positioned to dominate the political scene once the repression subsided. This is a nice explanation of Iran, but how would you explain the failure of the secular Pan-Arab autocracies/limited democracies to deliver prosperity or real democracy? I'm just asking because you stated the case so well here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 21:56
|
|
