Read it.
May by things are different elsewhere, but in my country less than one in seven refugees ever get a job.
I am not denying things are tough for those guys, but pretending it is an economic benefit to move people from the stone age to the modern world is just silly.

You don't know what the Stone Age was.

Why are you posting opinions when you have zero knowledge or understanding of the subject?

I have plenty of knowledge, it is the "all will be happy and sunshine" brigade that lacks it.

Are you a Scandinavian or an Eastern European?

Which would make you happier?

Skalf, can you provide something more substantial if you wish to continue down this path.

For examples, which country? and some credible cite about unemployment rates.

Yeah, uh, does 'remember that time wil linked to heritage' actually top 'remember that time wil linked to breitbart'? I'm gonna need a judges ruling.

Stupid n****rs breeding like rabbits right!?!

Ok yeah this place is officially actually definitely pv8.8 now.

5ive fist-pumps as he uses the N word again.

Been a while, eh dude.

Why are you lying? Just opened the pdf and the name of the report is literally.

THE IMPACT OF POSSIBLE
MIGRATION SCENARIOS
AFTER ‘BREXIT’ ON THE STATE
PENSION SYSTEM


What does this have to do with asylum immigration? Your article has no relevance to what I posted earlier.

I already know that all immigration is not harmful.

Did you even read the report? I will take a glance and see what it actually says.

Clearly the report advocates immigration with a higher income potential to close the gap between natives and immigrants. There is nothing in this report disproving my earlier posts. The type of immigration we have had in Sweden over the last 3 decades has come at an enormous cost to the welfare system.

Here is an excerpt of what it actually says.

Australia has a very restrictive immigration policy.


What is your take on the article assuming that you have read it jalfrezi?

Another quote from the report:
It is absolutely obvious that less immigration causes a reduction in government revenue, but that is a completely meaningless measure of the wealth of a country. BNP per capita is all that matters really, increased BNP is a direct consequence of having more people and thus a larger economy.

Just to make things clear, I can fully understand that Brexit may have negative economic consequences partly due to losing highly qualified work force due to international companies relocating.

Does anyone know of a UK study similar to that Danish one I posted? Now that would actually be interesting to read!

Your chart doesn't contradict what I said. Read the note at the bottom: "Prior to 1968, black denotes all non-whites".

In fact, the authors of that article write:

Which is to my point. The trends are not race-specific, and black Americans having a higher rate is not something that was caused by the civil rights movement. You asked what happened to the rate after 1965.

Also, you seem to interpret the data as if the causal connection between unmarried births and poor outcomes goes one way, i.e. that children born to unmarried parents do worse. But that is not the end of the story. Both of these statements are true:

1) Children born to unmarried parents have worse outcomes
2) Individuals with low SES are more likely to have children outside of marriage.

There is a feedback loop between these two, and (2) is as important as (1). You can find research on this presented at one of the links I provided.

Re: (1)

Re: (2)

Hence my comment that the racial difference probably collapses to socio-economic stratification between blacks and whites, i.e. that blacks are far more likely to be poor and to lack various social capital. Why is that? Historical racism plays an enormous role, as do other factors. Because you ignore the role of (2) in favor of (1), without ever seeming to ask why the gap exists in the first place, you miss the most obvious conclusions as far as social policy.

Jeez.

You've been arguing all thread about how immigration, particularly Muslim immigration, is bad for the host society and for the economy.

I pointed out that immigration is necessary to be able to pay state pensions to a growing ageing population.

You disputed this and asked for a citation, falsely calling me a coward and somehow not getting a time out for it (lol @ the cheztapo).

I posted a link to a report and the published summary that supports the link between immigration and pensions.

In addition to what I posted, the summary also states


Now you say "Oh I was only talking about asylum seekers".

lolMarn

The very graph you tried to have removed showed that western immigrants have roughly the same income as natives and given their age demographics they are a positive for the economy. So stop misrepresenting what I said.

Also that report you posted in no way whatsoever support claims that 'pensioners will starving' without mass immigration. Just stop lying jalfrezi, you are not very good at it.

You look like a total idiot posting this report as support for your whacky ideas. Now where did you really read the pensioners stuff? You obviously didn't read this report before posting it.

I don't see that summary you quoted in the report.


The vast majority of our immigration is asylum immigration and their families from underdeveloped countries. That kind of immigration is costly and harmful on many levels.

I think we are in agreement that en elderly population distribution means a greater burden of taxes on the working population.

Are we also in agreement that immigrants who costs more than they contribute has have no net positive effect on the welfare of pensioners, rather the opposite?

I told you I had the graph saved on my computer, how much time did you give me to come up with the online source before reporting my post?

Over what time frame?
Be aware that I consider the gross contribution to their host country, which includes their offspring.

Their entire lifetime. Second generation employment numbers are better, but it is too early to say how they will fare in the long term. Anyhow, so we need immigrants so they can have offspring?

Conveniently ignoring contributions made by their children, eh?

Ugh

Nations don't take in asylum seekers to turn a profit on them during their lifetime. It's a sick and shallow way of looking at the world, and exposes your real thoughts on the subject and your abject lack of humanity. I hope most Swedes are better human beings.

Yeah, even the translators need some vacation time.

And that all adds up to mumbo jumbo.

Make whatever excuses you wish. Either work your way out of poverty or don't. I really don't care. And so doesnt the rest of humanity.

You keep getting dunked on by people with an education.