this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2023
81 points (90.9% liked)

Europe

8484 readers
2 users here now

News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe πŸ‡ͺπŸ‡Ί

(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, πŸ‡©πŸ‡ͺ ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures

Rules

(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)

  1. Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
  2. No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
  3. No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.

Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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

all 39 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Nobsi@feddit.de 85 points 2 years ago (2 children)

"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"

[–] taladar@feddit.de 60 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Also, we are going to complain that asylum seekers don't work while explicitly prohibiting work for asylum seekers.

[–] agrammatic@feddit.de 12 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] CAVOK@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

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.

[–] taladar@feddit.de -2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

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.

[–] agrammatic@feddit.de 5 points 2 years ago

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.

[–] k110111@feddit.de 30 points 2 years ago (2 children)

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.

[–] ErwinLottemann@feddit.de 10 points 2 years ago

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 😐

[–] lichtmetzger@feddit.de 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

highly skilled immigrant

That means you want to be paid well, right? We don't do that here.

[–] k110111@feddit.de 1 points 2 years ago

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??

[–] PugJesus@kbin.social 26 points 2 years ago (1 children)

"Immigrants bad!"

economy needs more workers

"Immigrants good!"

jk, this won't change opinions a bit.

[–] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago

I mean it's not like the Right Wing politicians are the ones touting the work load immigration assists in carrying

[–] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 15 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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

[–] frostbiker@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 7 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Well then it's basically losing money against inflation

[–] KmlSlmk64@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Spzi@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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?

[–] KmlSlmk64@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

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.

[–] frostbiker@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Why would you assume that the fund would be kept in cash? That's not how pension funds work.

[–] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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.

[–] frostbiker@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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.

[–] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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.

[–] frostbiker@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

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.

[–] Nacktmull@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago

ThEy'Re sTEaLinG ouR JoBs!!!

"Exploit the immigrants to fix their economy, just like Canada"

FTFY