- cross-posted to:
- economics@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- economics@lemmy.world
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/6837465
Even though right-wing politicians decry immigration (because it’s a populist viewpoint), they secretly or openly want more. Countries without low immigration will lag economically compared to countries with high immigration such as the US.
Original link: https://www.ft.com/content/de913edd-71d1-4a36-b897-091125596952
You must log in or register to comment.
“we need more people that we dont respect to do the jobs that we dont want to. At the same time we have to make it really hard for immigrants to live here”
Also, we are going to complain that asylum seekers don’t work while explicitly prohibiting work for asylum seekers.
It’s one of the most blatant self-made problems around migration that populists very disingenuously employ to paint their favourite picture of the “welfare queen” which has been a bold, racist lie since it was first used.
But I’m also a bit sceptical of how you can do this in a country without mandatory collective agreements in all sectors. Germany at least has a minimum wage, but that just means wage dumping can only go as low as 12 Euro per hour. Back in Cyprus, where the same question is constantly in the news, the most notorious anti-worker industry, the tourism sector, is begging for asylum seekers to be allowed in the jobs that they have most trouble filling with citizens, EU-residents, and work-permit holders. But they want to do so outside a collective agreement (one used to exist, but for various reasons is now dead-letter) and essentially without even the protection of a minimum wage (which Cyprus didn’t have until this year, and now it has an idiotic version of it which defines a monthly minimum wage without a limit to hours worked).
I think that the introduction of asylum seekers in the workforce should happen, but it should happen in tandem with a massive pro-union legislation change that will make collective agreements mandatory across the board (similar to the Swedish and Finnish models, as far as I understand those). That might require re-aligning the way unionism is understood in Germany from per-workplace to be per-industry.
unionism
Not sure this is quite the right term here. At least in the UK this is about being for the Union of the countries making up the UK, not about worker’s unions and in Northern Ireland it is usually synonymous with one side of the conflict.
Given that the article is not about the UK, I don’t see a good reason to reach for a UK-specific definition.
Bollocks. Even in the UK unionism has dual meanings, one about organised labour and one about the country. And the country meaning of unionist only gets mindshare in NI & Scotland. If you mention anything about unions/unionism in England people will assume organised labour.
Can’t speak for Finland, although I think it’s the same, but collective agreements are certainly not mandatory in Sweden. Most companies over a certain size have them, but they don’t have to. Many, if not most, small businesses don’t.
I personally wouldn’t work for a company that didn’t have one.
deleted by creator
The US doesn’t have a problem with finding good Immigrants. Even though the politics are horrible and misogynistic and you have to leave everything behind, smart people are moving to the US in droves. The greencard is still something desirable.
Meanwhile in Germany you earn noticably less, spend noticably more the people are noticably less nice and you have to do as much work for your ID here as you do in the US.
Don’t know about Germany, but here in France there are lots of IT workers from the Maghreb.
And you need lots of IT? Youre not missing anything else?
Yeah we need (needed?) IT workers because until a few years ago, salaries for tech positions were really low in France compared to the rest of Europe and the US, so lots of French developers and techs emigrated to these countries.
Not sure about other industries, I work in IT so that’s what I know from personal experience.
I worked with someone who moved to Germany/Austria/Switzerland (I can’t remember) from France to do IT work and pay a bit less taxes from this IT salary.
I do believe French when they say they need IT workers.
As someone who is a highly skilled immigrant, I have been looking for a job for 3 months, my friends (all of them) have been looking for jobs for the last 6 months. Germany needs to fix this issue first before asking for more immigrants. More people won’t fix anything if finding a job is so difficult.
aren’t you supposed to take all of our jobs?! /s
i hope you succeed soon. a friend of mine is also looking for a new job for nearly a year now 😐
highly skilled immigrant
That means you want to be paid well, right? We don’t do that here.
Right now i just want a livable job, like i got 1k eur as a student for working 20h/week so right now anything above or equal should do. My only requirement is that it is related to software cuz thats my field.
Man it is so crazy, i have masters from a uni which is 5th for computer science in germany. My gpa is 1.7 and i have 1.5 years of full time software dev experience and 3 years of part time (20h/week) software/ML engineering experience. And i have sent 70-80 applications and yet no interview. Like people if my creds are not enough to get me even 1 interview where i can show that i have skills that i claim to have then what will??
I think a better solution would be to fund pensions out of a sovereign wealth fund that’s not necessarily tied to youth productivity.
Stops youngins from feeling like they’re living in a geroncleptocracy, while also not tossing grandma out to live in the underpass
What if we created one pension fund each year? Every person born that year contributes into that fund during their working years and withdraw from it in retirement. It seems like a solution that is fair to everybody, avoiding inter-generational wealth transfers.
Well then it’s basically losing money against inflation
I don’t think that funds are kept in money. IIRC They are mostly kept in other means, so that they are at least somewhat sustainable against inflation. But that doesn’t mean that the above idea is good, or doesn’t have other flaws.
But that doesn’t mean that the above idea is good, or doesn’t have other flaws.
If you have more thoughts on this, could you spell them out?
I mean, you generally don’t want to tie up a lot of money, each year by year, meaning that you would have a lot of frozen capital. And capitalism (which also has some flaws, but right now we are using this system) depends on the flow of money/capital. Also managing these funds would make a lot of work / administration, because someone would have to manage what goes in and out and also in what form the funds to store in. And at the point of storing money from younger people, that is not being spent, whilst using money from older people, why not just have less money stored and use the money from the younger generation for the older ones. And you go full circle to the idea that we wanted to solve. Each system has its benefits and flaws, some of which are greater, which outweigh other, smaller ones. Sometimes the solution can be something completely different.
Why would you assume that the fund would be kept in cash? That’s not how pension funds work.
Because otherwise you run into the problem of having to get additional revenue from somewhere else.
The current problem is that there aren’t enough young people working well paying enough jobs to fund pensions, because if they aren’t funding them it’s just an account you throw money into and then draw out of later.
You can either provide an alternative source of additional funds or tell grandma it’s not your fault she put her money into a box instead of an investment vehicle to fund her retirement.
I have described a system that would have prevented the problem in the first place while still providing the actuarial benefits of pooling resources.
I am not offering a solution for how to transition from the current system where the young pay for the old.
What I don’t like is the hyper-neoliberal approach where each person lives in an island and resources aren’t pooled at all, because it benefits the rich at the cost of the poor.
It’s still losing money though, unless each cohort is able to operate it as an investment vehicle it’s no different than a generational shoebox in terms of what the money is doing while you’re waiting to pull out of it.
The point of a pension fund is for the ongoing contributions of currently working folks to bring in enough new capital that people withdrawing don’t feel the effects of their contributions from 40 years ago having lost value against inflation.
The point of a pension fund is for the ongoing contributions of currently working folks to bring in enough new capital that people withdrawing don’t feel the effects of their contributions from 40 years ago having lost value against inflation.
No, that is not how long term investments work. Try reading about the subject and improve your own finances along the way. Investments typically grow faster than inflation, so the longer the original investment was made, the more money you have today.
ThEy’Re sTEaLinG ouR JoBs!!!
“Exploit the immigrants to fix their economy, just like Canada”
FTFY
More people won’t fix shit.
Young people will fix shit. Western European societies have significantly ageing populations. That means they need to choose between three options to maintain their pension systems:
-
Cut benefits for pensioners and/or increase the retirement age.
-
Increase taxes for the young to pay for pensions for the old.
-
Keep tax and benefit levels the same, but allow foreigners to move to Western Europe where they can work and pay taxes.
1 and 2 both have huge intergenerational consequences - and bluntly, having seen how the baby boom generation have pulled the ladder up behind them, I have no great urge to pay taxes through the teeth for the rest of my working life to fund their cushy retirements. 3 hurts nobody and benefits everybody - it’s a no-brainer.
What about a fourth option of reducing the amount of old people?
Besides that the only feasible policy would be temporarily cutting retirement benefits. If it’s permanent it would never be accepted by anyone and neither be fair.
More immigration simply delays the issue a few decades into the future.
Reduce the amount of old people? What do you mean?
“Congratz on turning 65! Here is a sweet little cyanide pill. Take it and now go die already! We would like to keep our money, please.”
Regarding cutting retirement benefits, I’d argue that this should be a matter of redistribution (few get a high pension, and a lot of people can’t live from their pension and are currently depending on additional financial aid) and merging the two class pension system into a single one.
More targeted immigration for younger people can indeed help to tackle the reverse pyramid demographics in Germany.
No of course you don’t give people cyanide pills. But it natural corrections are avoided like by war or by diseases like covid, we need to do something.
A humane way would be to simply cease life prolonging treatments from a certain age onwards. Do we really need to waste resources on someone who is over 80 just to let them live one or two more years? It would make more sense to instead make their death as painless as possible. Of course that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t treat them at all. A broken arm still should be treated. But maybe don’t keep them alive on respirators for months of years when there’s no chance of improvement.
The only way the pension system can be fixed would be to radically alter it. One of the things necessary is something you already mentioned in a way. Setting a limit on how much pensions someone can receive. But more importantly anything you pay into the pension system via taxes should be kept in the system for years or decades. Whether that money is invested for greater profits or simply left to accumulate interest. Essentially have people pay in for themselves. That way the money has decades to increase. Any excess profit can be used to increase the pensions who people who have earned too little for their own pension.
And again, immigration won’t fix anything. It does not fix the demographics pyramid. It simply adds even more people that in the future themselves will have a claim to pensions. Then you will again need even more people. This would require an ever increasing population when what we really need is a decreasing population.
But it natural corrections are avoided like by war or by diseases like covid
Yeah, since war and covid are “natural corrections”…
Dude, what the fuck? You are actively advocating for the death of people. I share a certain morbid enthusiasm about humanity, but what you suggest is simply cruel and there is so much what I find wrong (based on my ethical framework) about what you said regarding this.
A humane way would be to simply cease life prolonging treatments from a certain age onwards.
How old are you? If you are about 30 or already above, live up to your suggestions and go ahead dying, because that’s what the life expectancy probably was in pre-modern times. Got vaccinated against something? Forget it. Ever got a fever and needed antipyretics? Enjoyed food and water, free from pathogens? You should’ve been dead. Where do you draw the line? There are plenty of 80+ year olds who are still kicking and enjoying life. Heck, there are even more fit 100+ year olds than decades ago.
Do we really need to waste resources
It’s not a waste if we can ensure by that way that people enjoy a long and fullfilling life. Everyone who lives should continue to be able to do so, because almost everyone who is alive wants to live. Not you and not I have got anything to say against that. Do you really want to live in a world where we kill our elders at some point because of financial concerns? How would you feel about that if someone comes to you on your 80th birthday with a death pill?
But maybe don’t keep them alive on respirators for months of years when there’s no chance of improvement.
That’s the only thing in your misanthropic perspective which I understand and can even share to a certain degree. You are missing the complexity of that topic here and I don’t want to dive into that right now. So let’s just say that the vast majority of 80+ age old people are not on life support and we are simply talking about the pension system.
Regarding your pension suggestion: Yeah doesn’t sound so incredibly disgusting then killing our elders, and I don’t disagree. So that might be something worth to investigate.
immigration won’t fix anything. It does not fix the demographics pyramid. It simply adds even more people that in the future themselves will have a claim to pensions. Then you will again need even more people
Immigration is only one foot in an approach to mitigate this problem. As far as I see it, ideal demographics would have - at the limit of sustainability - a rectangular shape, about as many young people as old people with birth rates matching the death rates. The birth rates in Germany are declining since several decades. I don’t know the detailed list of reasons, but one of the reasons I know is that having children is not sufficiently attractive. (This again has several influencing factors, like societal, financial, time-wise, … .) So it’s obvious that it’s very important to fix this structural problem. Making having and raising children attractive again. But, even if Germany would be able to establish the necessary circumstances to achieve this in no-time, it still takes at least about 20 years until those newborns are ready to contribute. And that’s where immigration comes in. Germans still need to fill those crucial gaps to continue living by the standards they are living in. You can’t magically create those people from nowhere. So you need to draw them in. And since killing older people is 100% off the table, other measures are required. Increasing the retirement age is one option, but that is met with outcry. Most don’t want that. Immigration is another option. Meanwhile fixing the birth rate problem is another important problem, which has to be tackled. Redistributing wealth among the people is also another option. Doing investments with pension money, somehow like you suggested it, might also be a good idea. And so on… There are several ideas how to solve this, but I’m pretty sure that immigration can’t be avoided to achieve that goal as soon as possible.
Are personal insults and bad faith arguements you have in regards to an overpopulation of the eldery? Fact of the matter is that humans are getting too old. The majority of people past 80 are not healthy anymore. Neither can or should they be expected to still work a job. Raising the retirement age is out of the question.
So many personal attacks trying to beit me into “hah gotcha!” moments and strawmen. But I gotta disappoint you. No I don’t want to live past 80 personally. I’d be completely fine with dying at that age. I’d be fine with being denied life prolonging treatments. It seems to do not even seem to bother argue my position. I specifically said we should stop life prolonging treatments at a certain point, not actively kill people or deny them any treatment for not life threatening health concerns.
There is nothing misanthropic about my views, nor am I making them out of financial concerns, but out of concerns for human society and its prosperity. Ever thought beyond just pensions and healthcare systems? How an ever aging society will lead to a social standstill and eventually societal stagnation? Or how older people hoard wealth? The majority of housing and any monetary wealth is in the hands of the older generations and until they die it will not reach any generations after them. Not unless we have an entire social revolution regarding property and wealth.
Immigration is only one foot in an approach to mitigate this problem. As far as I see it, ideal demographics would have - at the limit of sustainability - a rectangular shape, about as many young people as old people with birth rates matching the death rates. The birth rates in Germany are declining since several decades. I don’t know the detailed list of reasons, but one of the reasons I know is that having children is not sufficiently attractive. (This again has several influencing factors, like societal, financial, time-wise, … .) So it’s obvious that it’s very important to fix this structural problem. Making having and raising children attractive again. But, even if Germany would be able to establish the necessary circumstances to achieve this in no-time, it still takes at least about 20 years until those newborns are ready to contribute.
Several things to unpack here. You’re coming from a position where you view it as necessary to keep the population growing or at least at the same size. Unless we fall beyond replacement levels for humanity as a whole, that is no real issue. It’s only problematic for our systems built on permanent growth. Degrowth itself isn’t an issue, it even found more and more advocates over the recent years.
Regarding birthrates it’s a too complex issue for current governments to handle within our current system. Children are already subsidised a ton by the state in Germany. Something that people without children (whether willingly or involuntarily childless) already have to pay for via excess taxes. Just subsidising children more will not fix the issue. It’s a wider issue where working class people at large do not make enough money anymore nowadays. Any other issues can be traced back to that. Take for example the issue of a lack of childcaring services and teachers. If they paid more to their teachers and employess, they would not have a lack of workforce. Too much has been redistributed away to the ruling class since the 90s.
-
