A series of photos of a Syrian family in Chicago

http://america.aljazeera.com/multime...ium=SocialFlow

'at a boy!

Your example doesn't apply. If all Syrian refugees were let into Europe it's population would increase a fraction of one percent.

Adjusting your analogy, the lifeboat has a rated capacity of 20, we have eighteen in it and you're arguing not to pick up the two people drowning in the water because you want a bit of leg room.

b of course

The cost of every non-western immigrant and descendent in Denmark in 2013 was €2,23bn out of a overall deficit €4,4bn DKK (page 12)

this is the source http://www.rockwoolfonden.dk/files/R...20finances.pdf

but it probably needs a little explaning. they use this statistical model http://www.dreammodel.dk/default_en.html which is basically what the Danish treasury uses.

Income tax and welfare payments are recorded for everyone and is added up for every group. Other taxes and expenses are attributed by age, gender, labour market participation, income and so on in an effort to make it as accurate as possible (page 7 and on)

They dont estimate use of every public service, but welfare payments, which they count, health and education add up to 75% of the budget and are probably about the same for everyone.

whatever extra use of services there is, is probably more than balanced by paying on old debt and stuff that would have had to be paid for anyway.

Didnt you the linked an estimate that 50% of refugees in Germany would be in work after 10 years, or was it someone else? Going from 0% at first to x% later will dramatically lower the cost. And the asylum process that people have to go through is pretty expensive.

They need to get within 10-15% of the generel employment rate to be breakeven (because they spend the first 20 years, where you mostly leach of the system, elsewhere) and wont get there, but it's not the end of the world either.

Table 5 on page 22 estimate the "Average net contributions per person-year of the 2013 cohort, in 2013 values (EUR)." as

Natives: -695
Immigrants from non-Western countries: -2,238
Second-generation immigrants from non-Western countries: -1,070

which should be just about sustainable for some complicated reason.

the police, the courts and prisons are 1% of the overall budget meaning they're about 0,5% of GDP. 5% of the population will just not make much of an overall difference that way even though they commit more crime than average. You can add a couple of billion DKK to account for stuff they miss if you want.

I don't think your numbers are correct when it comes to refugees. Simply housing them is pretty expensive. Also it's somewhat unrealistic to calculate the costs for a lifetime since the actual costs are so front-loaded.

You can just go check how much housing a single refugee costs per month.

Refugees drag the average down, but except for the initial cost, they're included in the overall number. After asylum processing, which is pretty expensive, housing is basically done like it is for everyone else. They have some income and need to pay rent themselves but can be entitled to some subsidies.

This was the 50% claim I remembered btw: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...postcount=1099

Yes, the I have heard similar numbers about that employment rate from other sources that I can't recall now.

The problem that I was trying to underline is that because the costs are so immediate, it will throw a huge wrench in to the nations budget right now. Also it doesn't improve the situation later on.

In Finland, the cost of a single refugee is about 20 000 € per year in a refugee center. The UK estimates that a single adult Syrian refugee costs around 30 000 € for the first year.

It should probably be read in combination with the post I first wrote.

It's true that the first year, or currently in Denmark about 8 months, where they move through the asylum process is pretty expensive, but the point was it gets much cheaper after that.

And talk about throwing a wretch in the national budget is a bit much. Newly arrived refugees still just cost a fraction of 1% of GDP.

Well if you compare all the numbers to the total GDP, they become quite small. 1 % of GDP is huge especially if it's a cost. 1 % is actually quite realistic total yearly cost for refugees, this is obviously 1 % of GDP sized additional budget deficit in the current economic climate. That's about the size of Danish defense budget.

Even in the short run, that might be enough to push Finland to the hands of IMF.

EU could buckle under migrant crisis strain - Noble laureate

This crisis will lead to some horrible decisions.
The people need help but the picture that all these people will quickly integrate and enrich European societies painted by socialists is nonsense.
Of course people who will integrate and enrich European societies are coming too, but these are actually the kind of people the poor muslim majority countries need most to develop.

If you have Sweden sized numbers it'll be about 1% of GDP a year on new refugees and 1-2% on those already living there. I genuinely dont think that's a much of a price for some of the richest countries in the world when you consider how much good it does. The comparison to the defense budget is fine. It would barely be noticed if that was dropped.

But yeah it's obviously easier when you're growing at 4% a year like Sweden and tougher when you're in a recession because your economy was built on antiquated cell phones and aggravated birds.

The Marshall Plan (which spanned several yrs) in adjusted dollars would be about .6% of the current US GDP.

I can't begin to judge how significant this is but it's something (possibly).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-35060935

Those numbers seem pretty accurate. We just disagree on long term and short term effects. I'm not saying that Finland should not take refugees at all, but the number should be kept at max. current rate or even less.


Juutit kiusaa

On serious note, you have a point here. The economic growth in Sweden is somewhat masking how huge the costs are to the society. Also even the Swedes have started saying that they can't take more refugees.

On lighter (?) side, 40 % of Iraq refugees have decided to go back home. They have been straight up lied to what Finland is and Finnish November/December is sowing its harvest.

Can't see Syria surviving this intact.
Just look at former Yugoslavia.

Canada continues to fear Syrian refugees, just like the US

Terrified Americans

Please explain to me how buying clothes from 3rd world countries makes the situation in those countries worse.

If they're made by children or literal wage slaves I don't see how it really helps the situation there.

I'm not advocating child or slave labor at all. However, up until the seventies Africa as a whole had a higher GDP per capita than Asia (excluding japan). Today Asia is more 2x ahead of Africa. I'm claiming western outsourcing to Asia played a huge role in that development. If you look into textile industry specifically you will find that it keeps moving to poorer countries, as the wages in the countries it was earlier begin to rise. Of course it's not all gold, but a net positive in my opinion.

That by the way is my solution not to the current refugee crisis, but to the "problem" of the Middle East and Africa. Buy foreign! Trade the **** with poor countries. Eliminate subsidies to European and us farmers. That will eventually lead to roughly equal living standards worldwide, I don't have to worry about Sharia law, and all self hating whites and people in 3rd world countries can stop blaming everything on the west.

And please go ahead and ban me, even though you will might realize my plan would probably do more good to the world than taking in millions of refugees, which will always only be a drop in the bucket with Africa's population growing at 80 million a year.

You're on the right track; the best way to help Syria and other refugee source countries is by a) not inciting wars there, b) encouraging their economic development, c) not bringing millions of their peoples to far-off lands at enormous financial and social cost, creating completely unnecessary conflict and tension for both the migrants and the target country. This strategy is essentially the one employed by countries like China and Japan.

It's a strategy so obvious that when our perfidious leaders utterly disregard it from beginning to end you know there's an ulterior motive or ten.

What can our government do if the same people who welcome refugees with balloons turn to the street when jobs get offshored to other countries or farming subsidies are questioned (the biggest evil IMHO)? In other words people not thinking about what's good for the world if it does not fit on a facebook meme with a picture of a Syrian mum holding her crying baby? (why does nobody care about the other ****ed up places in the world BTW?)

Media manipulation.