The Global Refugee Wave and Migrant Crisis

Ah, no. The main reason why universities can get away with obscene charges for overseas students? Because it makes their rates for domestic ones appear reasonable by comparison. And, political will.

Says she who was charged at overseas prices because her parents turned expat and forgot to rent a postbox back home during their gallavanting. Despite not being in the top 1% of her home nation.

I said averages in "wealth, education", not just averages in education.

Wealthier typically means more educated.

1% of 7 billion is a lot of people. A lot of people think only the billionaires and millionaires lists when they think 1%.

But 1 in a 100 also includes professionals.

I'm not in the 1% globally, either. Seriously: the expat community isn't made up of people who think nothing of gold taps and silly toilets.

Most are middle class. At best, you're talking in the top 20-30%. Don't kid yourself it's all top CPOs, sports stars and actors dodging tax. A lot are like those nurses: trained people with skills and/or equipment knowledge that takes years to attain.

The paper industry, for example, loves the guys and girls who can work magic from big spindles and use the monster felling equipment.

edited 4th Nov '15 1:41:03 AM by Euodiachloris

OK, I will respect that. Sometimes, I forget that 1% is a dirty term.

Also, shifting from 1% to 20% doesn't really change my argument.

When rich countries import from the top 20% of poor countries, they'll end up with hyphenated citizens who do better on average than their local populations.

Cause it's not just top 20% most affluent, most educated. It's also top 20% most ambitious.

Well, saying that the most affluent are wealthy is like saying water is wet. I'm not going to dispute that, am I?

All I can say is that I live in a migrant country that is more socially mobile than the one you seem to be imagining. People who are not affluent can get into uni. I know migrants and locals who aren't from affluent backgrounds who are at uni.

You're not describing the country I live in, so inevitably I'm not going to agree with your conclusions about how migration works. I don't disagree with everything, but overall I don't see it.

edited 4th Nov '15 3:18:21 AM by editerguy

Exactly.

Countries have benefited from the nation-hopping employees since the very beginning of the global corporations (look up the East India Companies, for starters: from the indentured to the governors — much of the workforce was foreign to the place their roofs were to be found). Heck: and before. Like it or not, the Jews and the Rom held rather vital economic and social roles within Europe even before international companies started up. Even though most of them were not only discriminated against, but not mega-rich.

The vast majority of expats get screwed over by red tape as well as surprise fines and charges — and employers ducking behind multiple rules and regulations you need international law degrees to negotiate through. Your rights are mutable, and subject to so many exceptions that they barely exist in many areas. It's not all tax dodges, caviar and sucking a another nation's tax system dry for the lulz.

Heck: I didn't have a dedicated GP practice I could use for most of my teens. Not Swiss enough; not resident in Britain. My school nurses were my primary point of access — and they never understood that I couldn't just get "real" problems sorted "at home".

Being between stools costs in many, many ways.

edited 4th Nov '15 3:58:26 AM by Euodiachloris

I live in a third world country.

In order for immigrants from my country to get into first world universities, they generally have to be from the 1% because our income levels are 20% of USA, for example.

There is a difference between rich countries hiring our nurses (already educated) vs immigrants from here being educated in first world countries.

But since explaining the difference is likely just going to muddle things more, I'm just going to expand from top 1% to top 20%.

Basically, it's better for the USA/Australia/UK to get our top 20%, but it's not good for us. It's also known as brain drain.

Similar to cheap labor, it's also not good for your local nurses in the long run, because instead of increasing the average salary of nurses so that more of the local population will think of nursing as a worthwhile career, it becomes a menial job.

edited 4th Nov '15 4:09:17 AM by probablyinsane

To clarify, if you are an Australian citizen you do not need to pay for uni until you have a degree and are earning enough to repay your debt (called HECS). That's how migrants and others from less-well-off families can afford uni. But if you migrate in order study at uni here, then yes it is extremely expensive.

edited 4th Nov '15 4:35:03 AM by editerguy

Anyway, the basic premise that immigrants create competition for jobs and housing is flawed, at least over the long term. It actually doesnt make any difference what social class they are from, or what professional level they happen to be, as long as they can get employed. They get money, then they spend it, and that increases consumption, which creates economic opportunity and growth. America's lower-class immigration from Central and South America is a large reason why our economy is growing as much as it is. That includes the illegals.

. Will have to disagree, sorry. I've read enough about expensive rents in USA's biggest cities, as well as how the minimum wage isn't enough to support living costs.

Your economists have also been complaining about stagnant wage levels, pretty consistently.

Immigration of cheap labor is similar to outsourcing. The top will benefit the most, as usual. And the poor workers from poorer countries will get paid better. But your local workers will be squeezed more.

Average rent in the US has barely changed in over ten years. It basically keeps pace with inflation. It's true that minimum wage doesnt cover living costs very well, although I fail to see the connection to immigration. That's a political outcome, not an economic one. Stagnant wages are not a result of immigration, they are the result of our poor recovery from the 2008 financial crisis. Immigrants as a percentage of the total population has climbed very modestly since 2000, I dont see how you can attribute any significant economic impacts to them. Countries with relatively open borders tend to do better economically over the long-term than ones with stricter controls.

I am not saying that immigration is the biggest factor of wage stagnation.

But it is one of the factors, along with outsourcing and technology.

Also, to avoid misunderstandings - I am not anti-immigration or pro-immigration, by default. I neither see all good things or all bad things when it comes to immigration. As with almost everything in life, there's going to be both good and bad things because of immigration.

It depends on the circumstances.

Also, recent economical events has caused me to connect more dots on the subject of the USA economy. In particular, that of all the countries, it has highest healthcare spending based on GDP.

So, I will be blunt. An economy becomes far less impressive the bigger the chunk spent on healthcare.

Well, impresiveness is secondary to the people's wellbeing

Not in this case. Apparently, USA healthcare spending is twice other developed nations healthcare spending but for less healthcare quality and coverage.

This is really off topic now.

The problem isnt that we spend so much on healthcare- it's that the health outcomes we buy with all that money arent superior to those of countries who spend less (rather worse actually). In other words the US healthcare system is economically inefficient and wasteful compared to, say, Western Europe. Spending a lot of money on something isnt inherently bad, but spending a lot of money on something and not getting anything for it is. Hint- the money being spent is ending up somewhere- it doesn't just disappear into a black hole. It ends up somewhere where it doesn't get spent back into the consumer economy again. There are real villains in this story.

Keep thinking "water in the pipes". If you get less water out of the spigot ask "where did it go?"

edited 5th Nov '15 5:24:01 PM by DeMarquis

Germany imposes surprise curbs on Syrian refugees

EDIT: Looks like De Maizière's already backpedaling, according to German news sites.

edited 6th Nov '15 1:04:10 PM by DrunkenNordmann

...The SPD actually made a left-wing decision? I don't believe it

But good on them for cutting Merkel off at the knees when she tried to about-face.

Gonna wait 1 more week before rechecking on this.

The situation is so hopeless that I really cannot blame Germany (or Sweden) if they really do decide to do a 180.

There's some confusion at the top:

"“In this situation other countries are only guaranteeing a limited stay,” De Maizière said. “We’ll now do the same with Syrians in the future. We’re telling them ‘you will get protection, but only so-called subsidiary protection that is limited to a period and without any family unification.’”

And then...

"But the social democrats (SPD), Merkel’s junior coalition partner, promptly disavowed the policy shift and De Maizière later backtracked. “Things remain as they are until there is a decision,” he said. “No change”."

Looks like Merkel needs to purge her cabinet.

The Markaz sub-blog of the Brookings Institute on whether Syrian refugees are a terrorism threat.

Like Europe gives a shit. In the following months, you can bet that mass hysteria will ensue and borders will shut down faster than ever before. Nobody will take anyone in. And, of course, this enormous mass of people will be dumped on the usual sucker.

Already happening. Poland said "no" to more of them, and we're amping up border surveillance and internal surveillance.

Finland I can understand. It can't handle its economic woes and refugees both.

edited 14th Nov '15 10:50:09 AM by LogoP

From the article that Krieger22 linked us to: "Dan Byman concludes that the actual security risks now are low, but the potential ones are considerable if the refugee crisis is handled poorly."