The Gaming Den Forum Index The Gaming Den
Welcome to the Gaming Den.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Google
 Search WWW   Search tgdmb.com 
Brexistentialism
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 12, 13, 14, 15  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Gaming Den Forum Index -> MPSIMS
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
MGuy
Prince


Joined: 21 Jul 2009
Posts: 3442
Location: Indiana

PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2017 7:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

It's weird that Frank understands that the liberal message was beaten out by the conservative's but he doesn't understand why 'his' message of 'Let's keep the peace and hope for the best' doesn't win against 'Something is wrong and we must do something about it!'. I don't even really disagree with Frank that peace and stability is better than the wild unknown but he has not, in any of his interactions with DSM over this subject, actually spoken of a way for things to get better within the EU. Just that the BEST way for things to get better is to stick with and reform the EU (even though far earlier he noted that it is unlikely that the EU can even be reformed). That's the problem. DSM has pointed out numerous times that the EU doesn't show signs of changing its ways. Yea people do vote for people to die and will probably continue to vote in a way that harms human lives but the people in charge should know that that's what the people are voting for and fucking tell them.

They aren't, at least not the ones who are leading things within the EU. Time and time again I've seen videos of the leaders speaking up austerity as if t were the only clear answer to any problem and that the idea that doing anything else is being childish. I even vaguely remember seeing several American late Night talk show hosts mutter some of the same things in a joke or two. This probably isn't going to change. So without delivering a clear cut way to get the changes people actually want people will not put their faith in the system (at least not the growing number of people who are hungry for change). I don't have a dog in the fight over Brexit so I don't feel too strongly one way or another but I can say after listening to people talk about it for such a long time the Conservatives, populists, etc took advantage of the fact that people on the Left did not deliver a message that suggested that they would change things for the better.

During the Brexit vote I saw a lot of fact checking and Progressives claiming racism and for people to fear the unknown territory that a Brexit would create but what I feel was lacking was any clear (simplified or no) outline of how they would actually make things better. The conservatives had an easy time of it. We exit the EU, forge our own futures, take ownership of our borders, and negotiate a better trade deal that allows Britain to keep its sovereignty. Now all of that might very well be bullshit (I assume it is but hey, I don't really know) but it speaks to your common voter. It says that 'someone' has a plan and will do something that forces things to change (they claim for the better). The progressives calling many who didn't agree with them idiots, racists, etc did not seem to be win them any allies. It only seemed to be breed more animosity and resistance/apathy to what they have to say. At least that's what I gleaned in the events leading up to the vote.

Now that the Brexit vote is past there's a lot of uncertainty in Britain and apparently all the leaders who helped usher in the vote seem to be trying to put the responsibility of driving this train wreck into literally anyone else's hands. What I'm more curious about is what are the other member states doing about the policies inside the EU that don't pertain to the upcoming negotiations with Britain? Is there any body inside the EU trying to actually reform it at this point or does it seem like they are going to keep on moving with their same policies?
_________________
The first rule of Fatclub. Don't Talk about Fatclub..
I've always thought it best to never hit a lady, but be sure to beat a bitch. -TOZ
MGuy wrote:
Finally a thread about fighters!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
Ancient History
Invincible Overlord


Joined: 18 Aug 2010
Posts: 11355

PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2017 7:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Because sometimes the best solution to a problem isn't to pick at it. Sometimes things are getting better, and it's happening slowly, and drastic solutions like ripping the scab off might seem like you're doing something but it's actually worse than doing nothing.
_________________
The Unpublishable - Updates Fridays between midnight and midnight | http://wikithulhu.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Stahlseele
King


Joined: 14 Apr 2010
Posts: 5008
Location: Hamburg, Germany

PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2017 7:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Frank isn't advocating doing nothing.
He is, sensibly, advocating not getting rid of the existing system before having even started on building a new system in parallel and then simply switching when the new system is done. And then hope it ain't worse than the old one.

Because having a system that does things badly is still far superior to not having a system of getting things done at all.
_________________
Welcome, to IronHell.
Click here to see the hidden message (It might contain spoilers)


Last edited by Stahlseele on Sat Jun 24, 2017 7:27 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
zugschef
Knight-Baron


Joined: 02 Feb 2013
Posts: 752

PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2017 8:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Greece' and Portugal's finance isn't half as much of a problem for the EU as the mass-migration from North- and West Africa and the Near East. In Germany and Austria there's basically the "refugees welcome" side (who doesn't differentiate between war refugees and economic migrants) and the right extremists (who are often nazis); any other opinion is simply put into either of these two bases depending on who hears it and on which side s/he's. Politicians who are normally in between these extremes are now fishing in these two bases. What that means is that first there is no honest and logical discourse about this huge problem, and second there is no political party which people trust anymore.

The only alternative was Macron in France who will actively cut down on their social welfare in favour of an economic boost. Soon (i.e. in a few decades) Europe will have the same shitty level of welfare as most of the US. Because it's better to see people live in the streets than to pay taxes in an obligatory, solidary social welfare system. Because that's "my money", or something.


Last edited by zugschef on Sun Jun 25, 2017 6:03 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tussock
Prince


Joined: 07 Nov 2009
Posts: 2547
Location: Here

PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2017 3:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Kaelik wrote:
tussock wrote:
Most of Europe is of course vastly more socialist and happy clappy than it was half a century ago when they got the idea that huge wars between France and Germany over who ruled the little states were just stupid and they should do it together.


You know, the United states is significantly more liberal and happy than before the Civil War. I think this means that Trump is a force for good.

This makes exactly as much sense as your argument that the Eurozone is essential because now is better than WWII.


No, Kaelik. DSM is arguing that parts of the Eurozone are momentarily becoming slightly less liberal (ignoring the largely progressive and liberal march of recent history) and not all attempts to do so are blocked by the European parliament, and thus the EU should be abolished because he doesn't see how it will ever be perfect (unlike the undefined replacement, which is perfect in that none of it's faults exist yet).

He's arguing that Trump means California should leave the union as a mirror to everyone leaving the EU. I'm pointing out several flaws in his argument, including that things mostly got a whole lot better for a long time for most people in Europe, including minority groups, transient populations, and so on, under the limited governing structures of the EU, that it does good things and prevents many bad things, even though it is also pointlessly cruel at some times.

In the same way, the US has broadly improved the lives of its people, including minority groups and transient populations, for a long time, forcing the backward states to keep up, and Trump walking some of that back a little is not where you suddenly say the US federal government is beyond reform and needs to be extinguished. Not just because there's no obvious mechanism to make that happen, and wars are bad, but specifically that the EU is a broadly progressive force in European politics, as the US federal government is in US state politics, despite some places within each doing that better.

Or just as the world in general has become a better place for people to live. People are horrified that folks are setting off bombs and shooting crowds over weird religious-political cults in Europe like the ETA and the IRA never even happened, people really do have very short memories.

--

zugschef there thinks immigrants are an existential crisis for Europe, in the same way that Hungarian immigrants and Gypsies and Jews and whatever else they wanted to be racist about, all used to be an existential crisis for Europe until everyone just stopped saying that and got on with the life that was better for having immigrants in it. For instance, regarding things being better for people in Europe now.
_________________
news://rec.games.frp.dnd
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
hyzmarca
Prince


Joined: 14 Mar 2011
Posts: 3445

PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2017 3:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Stahlseele wrote:
You are not really advocating what ammounts to a civil war between nuclear superpowers here are you? Please tell me not even you are that stupid.


Well, it's certainly not prefered. But a Brexit really can't be good for the EU in the long term, and is likely to lead to more exists in the future, and probably its eventual collapse.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
zugschef
Knight-Baron


Joined: 02 Feb 2013
Posts: 752

PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2017 5:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

The mass-migration is an existentisl crisis. It's the number one reason why fascists like Orban are elected and why right-extremist political parties like the AfD and FP are relevant.

You probably don't have a grasp of the social systems in countries like Germany, France, Austria and Sweden, but suffice to say that mid- to long-term, they are not affordable with hundreds of thousands of refugees from islamic countries. That's because they need to be educated and integrated first (before they can be solidary); and that more times than not fails. Also, over 70% of the refugees are male. As soon as they have a job, they will bring their families. The welfare systems are based on the fact that everybody pays taxes -- even six-year olds who buy candy pay ~20% sales tax. The point is that I know from personal experience that some institutions started to cut social benefits, and that the reason behind that is really that there is the same amount of money for many more people. In my case it was education. But since most migrants need language courses, need to be taught that women and homosexuals have the same rights, the money is short.

With politics taking either a populist or neo-liberal course that makes for a crisis. Believe it or not but the refugees were a huge part of the reason for the Brexit. The UK didn't want to be part of the relocation of the refugees. Countries like Poland are still in the EU but simply refuse to receive any refugees (but Poland gets more money than it pays from the EU so they decided to stay... for now). But quite honestly the whole plan is flawed anyway, because you can't simply arrest the refugees and after relocating them, they're trying to get back to Germany, Austria and Sweden. On a sidenote, Denmark -- Frank's prime example for Europe's superior standard of living -- is vastly more restrictive with its welfare for non-(EU)-citizens. The "refugees welcome" crowd would call their politics probably right-extremist in that regard.


Last edited by zugschef on Sun Jun 25, 2017 6:31 am; edited 13 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
FrankTrollman
Serious Badass


Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 27140

PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2017 8:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Zugschef wrote:
You probably don't have a grasp of the social systems in countries like Germany, France, Austria and Sweden, but suffice to say that mid- to long-term, they are not affordable with hundreds of thousands of refugees from islamic countries.


You are wrong. You are dangerously, black-is-white, up-is-down, pants-on-head wrong. That thing you believe is literally the opposite of the truth.

I am familiar with the social systems in Western Europe. I work as a doctor in one of them. Taking taxpayer money and providing care to people is literally my job. And while the opinion you have is a common one among people who use the system, it's absolutely backwards.

There is a demographic crisis in Western Europe, but it's not that a bunch of young brown people are showing up. The replacement rate fertility rate is 2.1. That is, if every woman has 2.1 children, the next generation will be the same size as this generation and the last generation. If fertility rates are higher than that, the next generation is bigger, if fertility rates are smaller, the next generation is also smaller. Short term population growth is mostly driven by changes in the death rate, but long term population demographics are 100% about fertility rates.

The UK has a fertility rate of 1.89. In Spain it's 1.49. In Germany the fertility rate is 1.44. In Slovakia it's only 1.4. Of all the countries in Western Europe, only France is at or near replacement rate for births (2.07). In every other country there are less people in school this year than there were last year, and critically there are less people entering the workforce than leaving it.

Social care is expensive stuff. But it's important to remember that while education isn't free, that citizens are a bigger drain on the system after they retire than they are when they are in school. High school costs a bit over 10 grand per year per student. In the healthcare system I work, keeping someone in a hospital bed costs 400 every day. A whole year's highschool education costs less than 3 weeks in hospital. And while the average 85 year old spends more than 3 weeks in hospital, they also have pensions which are themselves more than double the cost of highschool, longterm medications that aren't free, carers at home, and so on and so forth. It's not an exaggeration that one elderly retiree costs the system more than eight children in school (obviously these numbers vary slightly country to country, but the general comparison does not).

Where does the money for all this social care come from? Ultimately it comes from the productivity of the current workforce. And the shell game of Western civilization is that we used to have consecutively larger generations and working ages that were longer than retirement periods. So each working person was being asked to share the cost of only a fraction of a retired person. Well... funny thing about that. See, we have less people enterting the workforce and our retired people are living longer. That means that the ratio of pensioners to workers is going up.

If we don't import a bunch of young people from foreign countries, our civilization is set to collapse in a bit over thirty years. For example: in the United Kingdom the people in the senior worker bracket (ages 40 to 54) are 21.1% of the population. The school children who will take their in 35 years
(ages 5-19) place are only 17.7% of the population. Even is the current crop of retirees weren't expecting to live longer lives than the last crop, we're still expecting a generation on generation deficit of 17% just from the child shortage.

Cutting social services to stick it to brown people is a democratically popular position. It's why in the United States social service spending is lowest in areas where there are the most black people. But there's no actual evidence that darker skinned people are breaking the back of the government's social service costs. In fact, the actual evidence points to precisely the opposite conclusion. It is ultimately racist protectionism that is going to make current levels of social spending unafforadable in the West.

-Frank
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DSMatticus
Prince


Joined: 14 Apr 2011
Posts: 4944

PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2017 9:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

tussock wrote:
Most of Europe is of course vastly more socialist and happy clappy than it was half a century ago

Learn the important dates you stupid fucks!

Treaty of Paris, 1951. France, Italy, West Germany, three other who gives a shit countries. It's a common market for coal and steel, because coal and steel are the things you use for war, and this'll make war harder. This is not the EU Frank actually wants, and this is not the EU that destroyed Greece.

Treaty of Rome, 1957. Still just France, Italy, West Germany, three other who gives a shit countries. The common market expands, particularly of note to include labour. Doesn't really implement shit, but lays the foundation for the EU. Still not the EU Frank actually wants, and still not the EU that destroyed Greece.

Single European Act, 1986. EU's quite a bit bigger now. This is a plan to implement the common market everybody agreed to get around to back in 1957 when they signed the Treaty of Rome. Still not the EU Frank actually wants, and still not the EU that destroyed Greece.

Schengen Convention, 1990 for the important version of it. It gets rid of border controls, establishes free movement, all that shit. It isn't actually a fucking EU treaty, it's a separate treaty signed by a bunch of EU members when attempts to do this within the EU failed. It is later incorporated into the EU. This is the EU Frank actually wants, because this is the thing that lets him and his wife live in the UK, unless I am totally misunderstanding their situation, in which case whatever. But it is still not the EU that destroyed Greece.

Treaty of Maastricht, 1992. This does a lot of shit. It shuffled around a lot of EU institutions into something more decipherable. It also created the eurozone, that thing where the euro is the currency. This explicitly codifies fiscal conservatism into the EU (debt cap at 60% of GDP, deficit cap at 3% of GDP). This is the EU that fucked Greece in the ass both coming and going. One of the reasons Greece is in a debt crisis in the first place is that they were employing shady tactics (with the help of everyone's favorite bankers like Goldman Sachs and co) to hide the extent of their true deficit, which would have otherwise prevented them from moving forward with eurozone integration. And obviously once they were actually on the euro and facing crisis, the EU used the threat of a total collapse of their domestic economic system (i.e. "there are not enough euros in greece to cover the economic transactions occurring within Greece," which is a catastrophe with all the problems of a full default plus some) in order to demand austerity.

You can't pick any two dates, point to a random event that happened between those two dates, and shout "ABSOLUTION!!1!" That is fucking stupid. If you pick any two random dates, lots of fucking things will happen between them. For example, furbies. Clearly furbies stopped WW3.

Tussock wrote:
No, Kaelik. DSM is arguing that parts of the Eurozone are momentarily becoming slightly less liberal (ignoring the largely progressive and liberal march of recent history) and not all attempts to do so are blocked by the European parliament, and thus the EU should be abolished because he doesn't see how it will ever be perfect (unlike the undefined replacement, which is perfect in that none of it's faults exist yet).

No, you have no idea what the fuck I am arguing because you continue to be the stupidest person on these boards.

I am arguing that both monetary and fiscal conservatism have been baked into the EU's core treaties since 1992 (they have), that monetary and fiscal conservatism ruin countries (they have and are, right now), and that we should do whatever we can to purge monetary and fiscal conservatism's stranglehold on European politics so that it will stop ruining countries. Frank believes in reform, even though the EU is less democratic and less transparent than the U.S. senate. I think that's stupid, and that the European Coalition of Doom will have no problem scraping together enough idiot voters to push suffering for the entirety of the foreseeable future (just as Republicans wield outsize influence relative to their popular vote share, because bad electoral/parliamentary systems and being the party of 'no' and 'sabotage' is inherently easier in most systems), especially with the EU's declining turnout. I believe in reversing the Treaty of Maastricht, returning monetary sovereignty to member states and removing any leverage Brussels has over individual states' fiscal policy, because Brussels has consistently used those powers to advance conservative causes and that is unacceptable and reform is a pipedream. If in-place replacement is not an option (and it isn't, because it would require the unilateral support of all member states, and the EU apparatus is dominated by the parties of greater unionization consequences be damned), then individual repeal and renegotiation is an acceptable second. Fuck, even tories are desperate to negotiate themself back into the common market; imagine the sorts of things a progressive government would negotiate themselves back into. Why, it'd be downright sane. Though there's always the chance the EU would deliberately sabotage a progressive government's exit even though they've mostly put on the kiddy gloves for the UK one, because fuck progressives, am I right?

tussock wrote:
He's arguing that Trump means California should leave the union as a mirror to everyone leaving the EU.

Again, no, you fucking idiot. I specifically argued that if California were an independent nation considering joining the U.S. at this moment, they would be a progressive nation looking at a radically conservative president who holds power despite losing the popular vote by two million, a federal legislature which is gerrymandered to give Republicans an almost unshakeable grip, and a Supreme Court that is likely to uphold that gerrymandering. California joining the U.S. at this specific moment has a fairly low chance of dragging the United States to the left, and a fairly high chance of turning out to be a pledge of fealty to a conservative nation teetering on the brink of collapsing into a one-party state. The correct answer for California would be to wait and see what the Supreme Court does regarding gerrymandering, and whether or not the 2018 midterms bring Democrats out of the woods.

But California is already a part of the United States, and does not get to enjoy this hypothetical privilege of waiting for more evidence to decide whether or not to take the gamble on becoming a puppet state in Russia-2's spere of influence. That gamble was taken a long fucking time ago, and now - like the rest of us - they're sitting here waiting to see how it turns out. That said, if the Supreme Court upholds gerrymandering as constitutional and the 2018/2020 elections don't result in a significant amount of state and federal power for Democrats, then guess what? That is a game over screen and it's time to start talking about dissolving the U.S. too. If the Supreme Court won't intervene and Trump isn't enough of a catastrophe to give Democrats a path back to power, then the Republicans have met their wincon; they have a single-party state and they can do whatever they want with impunity.

The goal - in both of these cases - is to have a path forward, not a slow death. Frank really does not have a path forward for the EU. He has no fucking idea how to fix the monetary and fiscal madness that is mainstream EU politics. "Fuck it, better media coverage?" No, you jackass. The media accurately represented the position of leftwing European governments; "we're not sure about this austerity thing, and we don't want to fight about it or anything, but maybe, and I really don't want to make this a big deal, but maybe, uhh, just maybe, you could be a little nicer, Germany?" "Nein!" "Okay, okay, you're right, let's all calm down. Don't want to make a scene in front of the world."

European's mainstream left put solidarity over ideology, and we got to watch that shit play out in realtime during the Greek negotiations. We knew that there were parties other than Greece (particularly France) pushing for softer terms. Fuck, even the IMF attempted to strongarm the negotiations into going that way by threatening not to sign on to anything without debt forgiveness. But guess what? Germany won through sheer intransigence, and you sure as fuck didn't hear France come back home and tell everyone "madness and cruelty prevailed today." They shrugged, shut the fuck up, and went back home and get busy sabotaging their own economy in a misguided attempt to meet the 3% deficit-GDP cap set in the Treaty of Maastricht. And that's the leftwing! Then, of course, they went and lost the next election like the fucking idiot-traitors they were and now Macron is in charge, who will do the exact same thing except he'll probably get away with it because it's been long enough that he'll inherit the natural recovery. The Treaty of Maastricht at its finest, ladies and gentlemen.

The fact is that the European leftwing are willing to sacrifice the lives and welfare of Europe in the name of solidarity. That should fucking horrify you to the core. That is Democrats agreeing to repeal Obamacare because they're afraid arguing with Republicans in public will make people lose faith in congress. That level of devotion to the institutions - not only to their structural integrity but the shallowest aspects of their image - is dysfunctional to an extreme. It is doubly dysfunctional when those institutions are committing evil right fucking now! The problem is not the media; the problem is the total lack of willingness among leftwing politicians to challenge the EU. The problem is people like Frank, people who are willing to write blank checks for Germany to cash because they seemingly think victory is a thing that magically happens to progressives over time by virtue of being right about things, and therefore they don't need to sweat the small setbacks. Well dumbshits, it turns out that small setbacks can include "the collapse of our democratic systems and rise of fascism," so maybe it's time to start sweating them. The first priority has to be making the case for a progressive agenda that improves people's lives. The EU is second to that, and if you're forced to choose the choice should be easy.


Last edited by DSMatticus on Sun Jun 25, 2017 9:16 am; edited 4 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tussock
Prince


Joined: 07 Nov 2009
Posts: 2547
Location: Here

PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2017 9:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

LOL. @zuschef

There are 743 million people living in Europe, their main demographic problem is sub-replacement birth rates in the rich countries. In the long term, the population of Germany's greatest problem is a notable lack of young families, because it'll weaken their economy, and there is a lack of solid data on how things work with so many old people all alive at the same time.

743,000,000. <- That's a very big number. And their actual problem is it might get a tiny bit smaller in some places in the mid term, and no one fucking knows what happens then.

Let's say you get 7 million refugees over the next ten years. Wow! That's ten times what you say is an "existential crisis". That's a 1% increase in population, or 0.1% per annum. Poor countries in Europe are growing at 1% per annum, with young people who need healthcare and education and it's often noted that makes their economy stronger in the short to mid term!

0.1% per annum is nothing. It's not even a statistical blip. Hundreds of thousands of people absorbed into Europe every single year would not be anywhere near enough young people and their young families to reverse the actual problem of low birth rates in the richest countries in Europe.

When nationalists get up and blame health cuts on these refugees and their potential young families, who barely even exist in demographic terms, you're not being a sane person to believe them. There's not enough of them to solve the actual problem of there being too few young people in a lot of places.

--

@DSM.

Quote:
The first priority has to be making the case for a progressive agenda that improves people's lives. The EU is second to that, and if you're forced to choose the choice should be easy.

What? You're saying there should be a progressive agenda for improving all of Europe and maybe one of the steps is getting rid of the governing structures of Europe that can be the only ones to possibly implement it?

How about, hey, you come up with socialist policies that can win a majority vote, and then suddenly the EU will have a socialist majority and will thus implement those policies. Tada, democracy. I hear the guy in Britain still didn't win, but did much less badly than previous.
_________________
news://rec.games.frp.dnd


Last edited by tussock on Sun Jun 25, 2017 9:44 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mechalich
Knight-Baron


Joined: 04 Nov 2015
Posts: 661

PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2017 9:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

FrankTrollman wrote:

Where does the money for all this social care come from? Ultimately it comes from the productivity of the current workforce. And the shell game of Western civilization is that we used to have consecutively larger generations and working ages that were longer than retirement periods. So each working person was being asked to share the cost of only a fraction of a retired person. Well... funny thing about that. See, we have less people enterting the workforce and our retired people are living longer. That means that the ratio of pensioners to workers is going up.

If we don't import a bunch of young people from foreign countries, our civilization is set to collapse in a bit over thirty years. For example: in the United Kingdom the people in the senior worker bracket (ages 40 to 54) are 21.1% of the population. The school children who will take their in 35 years
(ages 5-19) place are only 17.7% of the population. Even is the current crop of retirees weren't expecting to live longer lives than the last crop, we're still expecting a generation on generation deficit of 17% just from the child shortage.


Attempting to make up for social costs incurred by retired persons by increasing the workforce via immigration is a demographic Ponzi scheme. It will eventually fail and its simply a matter of when and how painfully. Ultimately all industrialized nations on the planet (which will, eventually, be all nations on the planet) and going to have to face up to both environmental resource limits on populations in certain areas (critically: water) and post-demographic transition populations that are declining. immigration only delays the problem and, insofar as immigrants go through the demographic transition on their own - which they do - ultimately makes the bill larger (now if you believe AI and robots will save us, then you can make a case for this policy, otherwise, no).

Immigration policy is complex and the benefits and drawbacks are not purely economic they include national security concerns, country as global citizen concerns regarding refuges and asylum seekers, cultural concerns, and others. The specific cost vs. benefit considerations of immigration vary depending on specific circumstances from one country to the next.

It may or may not be to the benefit of the UK to restrict immigration from other EU nations at this time or at some time in the future. I admit I do not have enough knowledge of the circumstances affecting the UK (which are particularly complex due to the UKs membership in another multi-country group, the Commonwealth of Nations, with regard to immigration). What can be said for certain is that the nature of the EU treaties requires the UK to abrogate authority of control over its own borders with regards to immigration, which means that if at any point in time limiting immigration from the rest of the EU was beneficial to the UK, that option is not available.

And that makes many people in the UK and a number of other European countries very annoyed. Their annoyance isn't logical and there's a great deal of racial animus behind it, but if you frame the question where 'EU membership' effectively translates into open borders and leaving the EU allows for immigration restrictions the EU isn't going to last.

tussock wrote:
There are 743 million people living in Europe, their main demographic problem is sub-replacement birth rates in the rich countries. In the long term, the population of Germany's greatest problem is a notable lack of young families, because it'll weaken their economy, and there is a lack of solid data on how things work with so many old people all alive at the same time.


That's counting Russia, Turkey, and Ukraine you idiot!. That's a good 260 million people you're counting in the wrong place.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maglag
Duke


Joined: 02 Apr 2015
Posts: 1106

PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2017 10:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Mechalich wrote:
FrankTrollman wrote:

Where does the money for all this social care come from? Ultimately it comes from the productivity of the current workforce. And the shell game of Western civilization is that we used to have consecutively larger generations and working ages that were longer than retirement periods. So each working person was being asked to share the cost of only a fraction of a retired person. Well... funny thing about that. See, we have less people enterting the workforce and our retired people are living longer. That means that the ratio of pensioners to workers is going up.

If we don't import a bunch of young people from foreign countries, our civilization is set to collapse in a bit over thirty years. For example: in the United Kingdom the people in the senior worker bracket (ages 40 to 54) are 21.1% of the population. The school children who will take their in 35 years
(ages 5-19) place are only 17.7% of the population. Even is the current crop of retirees weren't expecting to live longer lives than the last crop, we're still expecting a generation on generation deficit of 17% just from the child shortage.


Attempting to make up for social costs incurred by retired persons by increasing the workforce via immigration is a demographic Ponzi scheme. It will eventually fail and its simply a matter of when and how painfully. Ultimately all industrialized nations on the planet (which will, eventually, be all nations on the planet) and going to have to face up to both environmental resource limits on populations in certain areas (critically: water) and post-demographic transition populations that are declining. immigration only delays the problem and, insofar as immigrants go through the demographic transition on their own - which they do - ultimately makes the bill larger (now if you believe AI and robots will save us, then you can make a case for this policy, otherwise, no).


Nah, natural selection will save us.

Think about it. For countless generations human women were pressured if not forced to have children regardless of what they wanted.

But right now in western countries most women that have children chose so.

In the short term that results in a population drop, yes.

But in the long term women who don't want children will remove themselves from the genetic pool and go naturally extinct, leaving only the legacy of women who want babies to carry on. It's natural selection at its finest. If you don't have kids, you're out of the game, and those that do have descendants get to keep on playing.

Thus importing young people only needs to buy some decades of time.
_________________
FrankTrollman wrote:

Actually, our blood banking system is set up exactly the way you'd want it to be if you were a secret vampire conspiracy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MGuy
Prince


Joined: 21 Jul 2009
Posts: 3442
Location: Indiana

PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2017 11:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Ancient History wrote:
Because sometimes the best solution to a problem isn't to pick at it. Sometimes things are getting better, and it's happening slowly, and drastic solutions like ripping the scab off might seem like you're doing something but it's actually worse than doing nothing.
Frank, as I pointed out earlier, has ranted about how the EU is unlikely to change its ways. DSM pointed out that very thing. Frank, even now, has pointed out that people who are involved are not voting for change. Things 'could' get better if the people in the position of power decided to do so or the people casting the votes better understood where the real problems were but that isn't what's happening (as far as I can tell). I don't believe Frank is wrong but he, and the left, have not outlined any likely path to prosperity that could satisfy a significant portion of the Brexit voters. He might be right. I honestly don't know but it doesn't matter if you can't convince people that you are.

I honestly do not know what the EU does to Britain. As far as I can tell it has only helped them. I suspect that whatever issues Britain is going through stem from something else but in all the hours of media coverage I've seen over Brexit I really can't tell what those issues might have really been prior to the vote. I really think that I should, even as an outsider, have been able to here anti-brexit rhetoric that correctly identifies the real problems with whatever people in the UK are worried about at least half as often as I caught wind of some populist or another ranting about immigrants and sovereignty.
_________________
The first rule of Fatclub. Don't Talk about Fatclub..
I've always thought it best to never hit a lady, but be sure to beat a bitch. -TOZ
MGuy wrote:
Finally a thread about fighters!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
Stahlseele
King


Joined: 14 Apr 2010
Posts: 5008
Location: Hamburg, Germany

PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2017 1:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

DSMatticus wrote:
No, you have no idea what the fuck I am arguing because you continue to be the stupidest person on these boards.

Should that not go to Mr.I-know-lets-have-ww3-between-european-nuclear-superpowers! instead?
_________________
Welcome, to IronHell.
Click here to see the hidden message (It might contain spoilers)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Chamomile
Prince


Joined: 03 May 2011
Posts: 3887

PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2017 2:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

That's probably the single most catastrophically stupid suggestion in the conversation if actually implemented, but in terms of overall stupidity I think it's worth noting that Tussock is consistently and completely wrong about absolutely everything. I don't think any one act of stupidity, no matter how enormous, can contend with a track record that consistent.
_________________
I have a blog
Also a Discord channel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
zugschef
Knight-Baron


Joined: 02 Feb 2013
Posts: 752

PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2017 2:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Austria, a country of 8 million, received over 100000 refugees in 2015 alone. (In Germany it's almost the same figure only times ten.) And almost all of them will stay. And while it is absolutely true that the demography in Germany and Austria is really a problem for pensions and so on, refugees are not the solution. That's because they don't start being productive before the state has invested a huge amount of money over the first 10 years. The social systems will be cut down way before generation refugee can save them.

That's ignoring all the sociological issues the highly homophobic and anti-semitic islamic youth is bringing with them. The problem isn't colour or ethnicity, it's the lack of education and the mindset that faith and law are somehow connected. They heard how Jews are sinners when they were infants. They saw women getting killed by the law with a load of stones in front of people when they were teenagers. These people and their children will not vote for politicians who want to keep social systems like the ones in Denmark, Germany, Austria and Sweden going. They will vote for guys like Erdogan.

That's because most refugees are not from Syria but Afghanistan. Most are not educated and most do not treat women as equal. In order to prevent dudes like Trump and Orban you have to accept that most people from lands where they had nothing but war for their entire lives, are not comfortable with our ethics. As long as the newest EU members aren't fully comfortable with modern ethics you can't expect that from people from Afghanistan.

The solution to the problem is a controlled migration and not 1% of the population per year. And as I've already said, look at how Denmark treats the whole matter. They do not host even half as many refugees per citizen as Germany, Sweden or Austria. Their second strongest political party, in fact, wants to build a fence on their border to Germany (the only border they have): https://www.welt.de/regionales/hamburg/article164796949/Daenische-Volkspartei-fordert-Grenzzaun-zu-Deutschland.html . And yes: That's fuckin' stupid on several levels. But it shows exactly why I said that the EU is in a huge crisis.


Last edited by zugschef on Sun Jun 25, 2017 3:40 pm; edited 9 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
FrankTrollman
Serious Badass


Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 27140

PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2017 4:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Mechalich wrote:
Attempting to make up for social costs incurred by retired persons by increasing the workforce via immigration is a demographic Ponzi scheme. It will eventually fail and its simply a matter of when and how painfully.


No. At least, not unless you think providing care for the elderly instead of feeding them to the wolves as soon as they can no longer work is a demographic ponzi scheme.

Workers are getting more productive with increased mechanization. Retirees are living longer, and require more resources to care for them. As long as mechanization keeps up with life expectancy, we can keep this going forever. As long as we have intergenerational demographic stability.

If each generation is too large compared to the one before we have longterm population growth. Anyone who read any science fiction from the 80s understands at least some of the ways that can't work. If each generation is too small compared to the one before we have a reverse demographic pyramid - with a smaller number of workers supporting a larger number of retirees. And that just can't work no matter how much money you have. Generational stability is the only thing which can be sustainable in any long term fashion.

Now in the long term, it would be nice to figure out a social system that actually makes motherhood sufficiently attractive and unpenalized that we end up with nice nuclear families with 2.1 children as a norm. However, even if we instituted that system tomorrow, we're still twenty five years into a disastrous demographic contraction and we must bring in new children and working age people or our society will fall apart. The United Kingdom needs 140,000 new 18 year olds every year to immigrate (or comparable amounts of children such that the distribution is that we get an average of 140,000 new working age adults every year for the next two decades). Germany needs more. A lot more.

Zugschef wrote:
Austria, a country of 8 million, received over 100000 refugees in 2015 alone. (In Germany it's almost the same figure only times ten.)


I'm sure that sounds alarming to you, because it's big numbers and you're kind of racist, but let's break that down.


This is Germany's Population Pyramid.

Sustainability is roughly speaking a flat set of bars between the 50-54 slice down to the 5-9 slice. You'll note that the actual population of senior workers set to retire soon is literally double the population of children who will join the workforce to take their place in ten years. This is a fucking disaster. A million children isn't going to do it. They need like three times that. And in five years they'll need it again. And again and again and again until they manage to change their society such that women don't fall behind in the shcool and carreer tracks by having children.

Here's Austria:



Not as dramatic as Germany, obviously. But still bad. Like, really really bad.

Austrian Demographics wrote:
Age structure: 0-14 years: 14.02% (male 625,391/female 596,310)
15-24 years: 11.33% (male 503,333/female 483,748)
25-54 years: 42.71% (male 1,859,985/female 1,860,641)


Those aren't super useful for our purposes because they aren't comparing like to like in terms of generational cohorts. The working age population is 30 years long, and the children is 15 years long. But a 15 year band of children should be about half of a 30 year band of working age population, right? Oh shit. Half the 3.7 million working age population is 1.86 million. But the 15 year long cohort of children is only 1.22 million.

Austria, country of only 8 million people is looking at a child shortage of 640,000 over 15 years. That means that taking in a hundred thousand child refugees is something you need to do five more times over the next fifteen years just to keep your workforce from imploding.

You better start getting Afhgani children to like schnitzel, because there are not enough little blond babies to nurse you in your old age.

-Frank
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hyzmarca
Prince


Joined: 14 Mar 2011
Posts: 3445

PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2017 4:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

zugschef wrote:
Austria, a country of 8 million, received over 100000 refugees in 2015 alone. (In Germany it's almost the same figure only times ten.) And almost all of them will stay. And while it is absolutely true that the demography in Germany and Austria is really a problem for pensions and so on, refugees are not the solution. That's because they don't start being productive before the state has invested a huge amount of money over the first 10 years. The social systems will be cut down way before generation refugee can save them.

That's ignoring all the sociological issues the highly homophobic and anti-semitic islamic youth is bringing with them. The problem isn't colour or ethnicity, it's the lack of education and the mindset that faith and law are somehow connected. They heard how Jews are sinners when they were infants. They saw women getting killed by the law with a load of stones in front of people when they were teenagers. These people and their children will not vote for politicians who want to keep social systems like the ones in Denmark, Germany, Austria and Sweden going. They will vote for guys like Erdogan.

That's because most refugees are not from Syria but Afghanistan. Most are not educated and most do not treat women as equal. In order to prevent dudes like Trump and Orban you have to accept that most people from lands where they had nothing but war for their entire lives, are not comfortable with our ethics. As long as the newest EU members aren't fully comfortable with modern ethics you can't expect that from people from Afghanistan.

The solution to the problem is a controlled migration and not 1% of the population per year. And as I've already said, look at how Denmark treats the whole matter. They do not host even half as many refugees per citizen as Germany, Sweden or Austria. Their second strongest political party, in fact, wants to build a fence on their border to Germany (the only border they have): https://www.welt.de/regionales/hamburg/article164796949/Daenische-Volkspartei-fordert-Grenzzaun-zu-Deutschland.html . And yes: That's fuckin' stupid on several levels. But it shows exactly why I said that the EU is in a huge crisis.


The solution is to Git Gud.

You can assimulate huge numbers of immigrants. It's not particularly difficult. You just need to be willing to put in the efforts. And that means crafting a national identity based on the hardworking immigrant narrative with an ingrained sense of national exceptionalism, and then reinforce it with jingoistic propaganda across all walks of life.

.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
zugschef
Knight-Baron


Joined: 02 Feb 2013
Posts: 752

PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2017 5:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

I get it that you are kind of an idiot who ignores every argument which comes in the way of one of your own, but the point is that integration has already failed with a lot of the Turkish guest workers from the 70ies and 80ies. But there hasn't been any improvement in that sector. That's because the topic isn't being discussed honestly.

Yes, Germany and Austria absolutely need immigration. But they need productive immigrants (from Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, etc.). Young males from Afghanistan though, can't be productive for a long time. That's because there are not enough jobs right now. And even if there were more jobs these wouldn't be jobs which they could do, without language courses and professional education (which takes 4-6 years at least; if there were enough trainers and teachers and classes). You can't ignore the fact that right extremist parties are getting a lot of votes and that countries like Hungary or Poland aren't even real Democracies anymore. And the only way to prevent more stupidity like that and the Brexit, is to divide the refugees evenly among the members of the EU and start an EU wide discussion about an actual way to integrate and educate these people.

This nationalist has to stop. It's an EU matter and the sooner al of Europe has equal social and economic standards the better.


Last edited by zugschef on Sun Jun 25, 2017 6:31 pm; edited 4 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
FrankTrollman
Serious Badass


Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 27140

PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2017 6:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

zugschef wrote:
Young males from Afghanistan though, can't be productive for a long time.


Who cares? Your problem isn't that you are running out of workers today. Your problem isn't that you are running out of workers next week or next month or even next year.

Your problem is that over the next thirty years, 3.7 million working age Austrians are going to leave the work force and only 2.4 million Austrians are going to come of age. Over the next thirty years, you need to find a way to bring in 1.3 million new workers. That's over forty thousand children every single year.

The discussion is not whether you should bring young Afghanis into your country. You don't have a fucking choice, you have to do it. The only question is how you're going to go about Austrianizing them once you do. If you fail at the task of integrating your massive influx of people then in two generations a third of your population are going to be angry foreigners and you're have a civil war on your hands. Succeed at Austrianizing those children and in two generations the proportion of Austrians with black hair will be higher and no one will fucking care.

But the entire European dialog about whether or not to bring in kids from Muslim countries is ridiculous. There is no choice. The demographics are that if we don't bring in refugee children by the millions European civilization is fucking over in thirty years.

-Frank
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
OgreBattle
King


Joined: 03 Sep 2011
Posts: 5091

PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Why aren't more mainland Chinese used for cheap labor immigration?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mechalich
Knight-Baron


Joined: 04 Nov 2015
Posts: 661

PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

OgreBattle wrote:
Why aren't more mainland Chinese used for cheap labor immigration?


Well they are, just within China. Internal migration of Han Chinese people, which is backed by official government policy, with the intent of rendering the great majority of the 56 recognized minority ethnic groups (and pretty much all of the unrecognized ones) minority populations in their own homelands. This is a deliberate policy of demographic obliteration. Xinjiang Province, for example, is now around 40% Han (-ish, Chinese census figures are somewhat dubious), and there are ongoing programs to move Han migrants into Tibet, Yunnan, and other minority-dominant areas.

Outside of China, Han are poor choices for labor-based economic migration because their immediate neighbors are either less prosperous than they are (India, Russia, the Central Asian States, Vietnam) or are modern East Asian states with severe immigrant restrictions (South Korea, Japan). Han Chinese with any sort of wealth or business connections can, and do, emigrate in large numbers to almost anywhere else and have do so for centuries. This is the Huayi population and includes large numbers of Chinese settled permanently in places like Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore - where they often form an economic elite, and more recent Chinese migration out of China as a way of securing wealth from the Communist party and moving to prosperous nations like Canada and the US - in 2011 over 4% of the population of Canada was Chinese, a number that continues to rise (and because the Han Chinese population is regionally concentrated they may be a much stronger regional presence, with the Han population making up close to 20% of the population of Metro Vancouver).

FrankTrollman wrote:
The discussion is not whether you should bring young Afghanis into your country. You don't have a fucking choice, you have to do it. The only question is how you're going to go about Austrianizing them once you do. If you fail at the task of integrating your massive influx of people then in two generations a third of your population are going to be angry foreigners and you're have a civil war on your hands. Succeed at Austrianizing those children and in two generations the proportion of Austrians with black hair will be higher and no one will fucking care.

But the entire European dialog about whether or not to bring in kids from Muslim countries is ridiculous. There is no choice. The demographics are that if we don't bring in refugee children by the millions European civilization is fucking over in thirty years.


There is absolutely a choice. It is possible to have your country choose to accept population decline and seek other methods to mitigate the problems it raises. 'More growth for ever!' as a means of sustaining the social safety net is contingent on accepting capitalism as it is. Keep in mind that Japan is several decades ahead of the European nations on this particular curve and the world hasn't ended for the Japanese. You're also assuming conditions won't undergo some drastic technological change. For example, the automated vehicle revolution is all set to eviscerate the earning power of the working class in the next ten to twenty years. If automated cargo trucks dumps millions of blue collar workers out of a job, yo're to want to restrict immigration while you find a way to reorganize.

And zugschef is right in one mathematical sense. If your intent is to use new workers to provide the economic base for the social safety net, the kind of immigrants you allow does matter. If people are not net contributors - meaning that they on net pay in more in taxes than they use in social services over the course of their lives in the country - they aren't helping. I can't speak to the situation in Austria or Europe generally, but in the US, due to extraordinary inequality a huge portion of the working poor are not net contributors, even among the native born, never mind someone like a refugee from Sudan who requires expensive dual language education and will never make more than the minimum wage. That's not a reason not to allow refugees from Sudan into the US, but it means economics doesn't justify it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maglag
Duke


Joined: 02 Apr 2015
Posts: 1106

PostPosted: Tue Jun 27, 2017 1:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Mechalich wrote:

FrankTrollman wrote:
The discussion is not whether you should bring young Afghanis into your country. You don't have a fucking choice, you have to do it. The only question is how you're going to go about Austrianizing them once you do. If you fail at the task of integrating your massive influx of people then in two generations a third of your population are going to be angry foreigners and you're have a civil war on your hands. Succeed at Austrianizing those children and in two generations the proportion of Austrians with black hair will be higher and no one will fucking care.

But the entire European dialog about whether or not to bring in kids from Muslim countries is ridiculous. There is no choice. The demographics are that if we don't bring in refugee children by the millions European civilization is fucking over in thirty years.


There is absolutely a choice. It is possible to have your country choose to accept population decline and seek other methods to mitigate the problems it raises. 'More growth for ever!' as a means of sustaining the social safety net is contingent on accepting capitalism as it is. Keep in mind that Japan is several decades ahead of the European nations on this particular curve and the world hasn't ended for the Japanese. You're also assuming conditions won't undergo some drastic technological change. For example, the automated vehicle revolution is all set to eviscerate the earning power of the working class in the next ten to twenty years. If automated cargo trucks dumps millions of blue collar workers out of a job, yo're to want to restrict immigration while you find a way to reorganize.

And zugschef is right in one mathematical sense. If your intent is to use new workers to provide the economic base for the social safety net, the kind of immigrants you allow does matter. If people are not net contributors - meaning that they on net pay in more in taxes than they use in social services over the course of their lives in the country - they aren't helping. I can't speak to the situation in Austria or Europe generally, but in the US, due to extraordinary inequality a huge portion of the working poor are not net contributors, even among the native born, never mind someone like a refugee from Sudan who requires expensive dual language education and will never make more than the minimum wage. That's not a reason not to allow refugees from Sudan into the US, but it means economics doesn't justify it.


Again, the keyword is children. The adult refugees may have trouble ever learning the language and be unable to pay for themselves. But their kids can learn a new language pretty fast and they can be put on the schools that would need to be closed otherwise for lack of students, developing the skills to become productive members of their new society when they grow up.
_________________
FrankTrollman wrote:

Actually, our blood banking system is set up exactly the way you'd want it to be if you were a secret vampire conspiracy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MGuy
Prince


Joined: 21 Jul 2009
Posts: 3442
Location: Indiana

PostPosted: Tue Jun 27, 2017 1:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

You would still have to pay for the parents maglag...
_________________
The first rule of Fatclub. Don't Talk about Fatclub..
I've always thought it best to never hit a lady, but be sure to beat a bitch. -TOZ
MGuy wrote:
Finally a thread about fighters!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
Starmaker
Duke


Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 2330
Location: Redmonton

PostPosted: Tue Jun 27, 2017 2:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Mechalich wrote:
but in the US, due to extraordinary inequality a huge portion of the working poor are not net contributors

WHAT? The working poor are net contributors, they're simply robbed of the share of their contribution, and a small portion of it is then returned under the guise of charity. The working poor pay way more into the system than they get back as welfare.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Gaming Den Forum Index -> MPSIMS All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 12, 13, 14, 15  Next
Page 13 of 15

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group