How long before Europeans resent refugees?

[DrZoidberg]

Not really a problem since we have free education in Sweden. You can just go to school until you're qualified for a job. We even pay students a salary for studying.

Historically, in the IT industry, when refugees come here they often, eventually, travel back to their home countries and set up shop over there. Their contacts with Sweden serves them well and we get outsourcing deals set up. This is often framed as a negative for the richer economy. But it isn't. It is actually beneficial for both countries. Everybody wins. A good example is India. Not that we have seen any Indian refugees. But we have seen plenty of economic Indian migrants who often settle back in India. I have a lot of experience working with such Indians.

Sure Indian economic 'refugees' contribute a lot to India and Sweden both. But then they went there with requisite skills already in place and having passed eligibility criteria demanded by the education system and job market.
Do you seriously suggest that everyone among these refugees are willing to learn or have the aptitude to learn? How much education, how many years will they need? Sure there will be success stories and many will have arrived with skills already in place, but are there any studies about those who came before who who did not manage to integrate in the local economy? If nothing else those who have come in a rush will have to learn Swedish fast.

As far as I understand from my relative who worked in Sweden yours is a skill intensive knowledge based economy; also there are very few low-wage jobs. So how can you absorb such a massive influx of unqualified people?

Our educational system is a part of the culture. It's part of Swedishness. What can I say... it works. When we started this system in 1850 it generated no money for Sweden for 50 years. Then bang, we went from one of Europes poorest countries in 1888 (way more poor than India per capita) to one of the worlds richest in under a generation. This is a system that pays for itself, and we have a track record that proves it. We can manage huge number of uneducated refugees. We know we can. We've done it before.

Also.... it's part of the Swedish culture. It's hard to change. It's an integral part of how our economy works and social structure of society.

 

[Bar-Jesus]

Wages will not go up, as you know, until the unions are hugely stronger. People move, as you know, to where they can find jobs.

I still don't buy it, because even with stronger unions it doesn't address my points, ie: millions of extra workers, where will the wealth be created? What jobs will they all do , and sell to who?

Let's take a self supporting hippy commune for example - 200 people in it, fine, everyone has a basic role and plot - then we ship in 200 new islamic unskilled men - good or bad?


but even so, back to your Trotskyite garbage - what's to stop the factory just laying off workers, and then taking on non-unionised staff?

 

[Bar-Jesus]

Our educational system is a part of the culture. It's part of Swedishness. What can I say... it works. We can manage huge number of uneducated refugees. We know we can. We've done it before.

Also.... it's part of the Swedish culture. It's hard to change. It's an integral part of how our economy works and social structure of society.

But this is just repetition, logically fallacious, repetition of mantra, nothing to see here folks!

 

[DrZoidberg]

Our educational system is a part of the culture. It's part of Swedishness. What can I say... it works. We can manage huge number of uneducated refugees. We know we can. We've done it before.

Also.... it's part of the Swedish culture. It's hard to change. It's an integral part of how our economy works and social structure of society.

But this is just repetition, logically fallacious, repetition of mantra, nothing to see here folks!

What do you mean? This is a fact. We have this system and Sweden is a rich country. Doesn't that prove it? We have fuck all else to pin our success on.

edit: Sweden's number one export is innovation.

http://www.ekonomifakta.se/Fakta/Ekonomi/Utrikeshandel/Sveriges-export--och-importprodukter/

It's the four biggest slices of this pie. This is in spite of Sweden being rich in natural resources. Sweden is too sparsely populated, and therefore doesn't have he required infrastructure to extract it. So we do this instead.

And innovation comes from education. Pretty much every single technological innovation the last 150 years has come from somebody university educated. The more people you educate the more innovation. I don't know if that is a direct causation. But there certainly exists the correlation in Sweden.

 

[bilby]

Wages will not go up, as you know, until the unions are hugely stronger. People move, as you know, to where they can find jobs.

I still don't buy it, because even with stronger unions it doesn't address my points, ie: millions of extra workers, where will the wealth be created? What jobs will they all do , and sell to who?

They will do the jobs there are, and sell to each other.

That's how economies work.

Wealth is just a property of large groups of people dealing with each other fairly.

If that wasn't true - if wealth was something that has to be divvied up between all the people there are, then the wealth per capita today would be a seventh of what it was a century ago; and a thousandth of what it was in the Middle Ages.

More people means, on the whole, more wealth.

Many hands really do make light work.

Adding extra people adds to the demand for food and resources. But it adds even more to the ability to generate food and resources - so the net result of more people is generally positive.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I still don't buy it, because even with stronger unions it doesn't address my points, ie: millions of extra workers, where will the wealth be created? What jobs will they all do , and sell to who?

They will do the jobs there are, and sell to each other.

That's how economies work.

Wealth is just a property of large groups of people dealing with each other fairly.

If that wasn't true - if wealth was something that has to be divvied up between all the people there are, then the wealth per capita today would be a seventh of what it was a century ago; and a thousandth of what it was in the Middle Ages.

More people means, on the whole, more wealth.

Many hands really do make light work.

Adding extra people adds to the demand for food and resources. But it adds even more to the ability to generate food and resources - so the net result of more people is generally positive.

Food is not a problem any longer. In fact basic necessities is no longer an issue. The world is so efficient and rich now production is predominantly geared toward luxury consumption. Poverty and starvation today isn't about lack of money or resources. It's about corruption and war. Without corruption we could eradicate poverty tomorrow and not even break a sweat. We're so stuck at seeing the world in terms of how it was in the 1960'ies. That world is gone now. The world is no longer divided into the rich and poor. Today's world is a world where 3/4 of humanity is sort-of rich.

Also. people talk of unions as if they're interchangeable across the globe. They're not. Unions in Sweden and central Europe are a world apart from unions in the English speaking world. Swedish unions are partners with the company owners. The goal is to make everybody rich. American unions is not like that at all. You can't compare them. They have almost nothing in common. The reason for this is due to historical reasons I won't go into here. But just saying "unions" isn't informative enough. Swedish and German unions are great and good for the economy.

 

[Bar-Jesus]

They will do the jobs there are, and sell to each other.


More people means, on the whole, more wealth.

Many hands really do make light work.

Adding extra people adds to the demand for food and resources. But it adds even more to the ability to generate food and resources - so the net result of more people is generally positive.

That's absurdly simplistic, and no, you haven't recruited the BJ to your fantasy world of make believe

for ex: you say many hands make light work, well how about machinery - it's not like we need thousands of people working on the conveyor belt anymore - so what will all the unskilled actually do?

 

[iolo]

Wages will not go up, as you know, until the unions are hugely stronger. People move, as you know, to where they can find jobs.

I still don't buy it, because even with stronger unions it doesn't address my points, ie: millions of extra workers, where will the wealth be created? What jobs will they all do , and sell to who?

Let's take a self supporting hippy commune for example - 200 people in it, fine, everyone has a basic role and plot - then we ship in 200 new islamic unskilled men - good or bad?


but even so, back to your Trotskyite garbage - what's to stop the factory just laying off workers, and then taking on non-unionised staff?

You think millions of people want to move to where there is no work? You think tories are keen to play Father Christmas? Grow up and don't waste our time! To your silly question, the answer is obvious to sane people - strike.

 

[Jayjay]

As far as I understand from my relative who worked in Sweden yours is a skill intensive knowledge based economy; also there are very few low-wage jobs. So how can you absorb such a massive influx of unqualified people?

As low-skilled work becomes more automated, the robots are going to need fuel. If we design them so that they get their fuel by eating poor people, then this problem solves itself.

The rich elites are never going to let that happen. Eating the poor is their job.

 

[Bar-Jesus]

You think millions of people want to move to where there is no work? You think tories are keen to play Father Christmas? Grow up and don't waste our time! To your silly question, the answer is obvious to sane people - strike.

There's a fair amount of unemployment in UK, yet still the hordes of immigrants continue.

Tories haven't stopped it, in fact immig has even gone up under them

And strike? sure, but how about strike breakers,non unionised staff etc...how will you stop them?

 

[hinduwoman]

It appears Sweden had already shut its door, precisely for the reasons I cited --- they cannot handle such influx.

Sweden needs “respite” from the tens of thousands of refugees knocking at its door, the government has said, announcing tough measures to deter asylum seekers in a sharp reversal of its open-door policy towards people fleeing war and persecution.

The country’s generous asylum regime would revert to the “EU minimum”, Sweden’s prime minister, Stefan Löfven, said on Tuesday, revealing that most refugees would receive only temporary residence permits from April.
Identity checks would be imposed on all modes of transport, and the right to bring families to Sweden would be severely restricted, he said.
“We are adapting Swedish legislation temporarily so that more people choose to seek asylum in other countries ... We need respite,” Löfven said, criticising the EU for failing to agree to spread refugees more evenly around the bloc.
“It pains me that Sweden is no longer capable of receiving asylum seekers at the high level we do today. We simply cannot do any more.”
...
The reversal in refugee policy, which follows the imposition of border controls two weeks ago, marks a policy choice the ruling red-green coalition would have considered unthinkable until asylum seekers began arriving this autumn at a rate of 10,000 a week. Official estimates suggest up to 190,000 could come to the country of 10 million people this year

Unthinking Idealism has to bow before praticality.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It appears Sweden had already shut its door, precisely for the reasons I cited --- they cannot handle such influx.

Sweden needs “respite” from the tens of thousands of refugees knocking at its door, the government has said, announcing tough measures to deter asylum seekers in a sharp reversal of its open-door policy towards people fleeing war and persecution.

The country’s generous asylum regime would revert to the “EU minimum”, Sweden’s prime minister, Stefan Löfven, said on Tuesday, revealing that most refugees would receive only temporary residence permits from April.
Identity checks would be imposed on all modes of transport, and the right to bring families to Sweden would be severely restricted, he said.
“We are adapting Swedish legislation temporarily so that more people choose to seek asylum in other countries ... We need respite,” Löfven said, criticising the EU for failing to agree to spread refugees more evenly around the bloc.
“It pains me that Sweden is no longer capable of receiving asylum seekers at the high level we do today. We simply cannot do any more.”
...
The reversal in refugee policy, which follows the imposition of border controls two weeks ago, marks a policy choice the ruling red-green coalition would have considered unthinkable until asylum seekers began arriving this autumn at a rate of 10,000 a week. Official estimates suggest up to 190,000 could come to the country of 10 million people this year

Unthinking Idealism has to bow before praticality.

Sweden's economy is historically very strong today. We have ample capacity to take in refugees. Experts are still baffled about what the crisis is they're talking about. It only exists in the head of racists/Islamophobes.

This is just racism. We have a swelling anti-immigration party and the sitting party is trying to curb it's growth. I think it's a mistake. The moment we start treating the lies of Sweden Democrats as truth we'll never get rid of them. These are dark times for Sweden. Stuff like this makes me ashamed of being a Swede.

 

[Bar-Jesus]

tbh, I think most Swedes would be ashamed of you being a Swede!

 

[Juma]

tbh, I think most Swedes would be ashamed of you being a Swede!

i think everyone is ashamed of you being a human.

 

[DrZoidberg]

tbh, I think most Swedes would be ashamed of you being a Swede!

i think everyone is ashamed of you being a human.

He's human!?

 

[repoman]

Can you explain your name, Bar-Jesus?

What does the Bar mean?

 

[maxparrish]

It appears Sweden had already shut its door, precisely for the reasons I cited --- they cannot handle such influx.

Unthinking Idealism has to bow before praticality.

Sweden's economy is historically very strong today. We have ample capacity to take in refugees. Experts are still baffled about what the crisis is they're talking about. It only exists in the head of racists/Islamophobes.

This is just racism. We have a swelling anti-immigration party and the sitting party is trying to curb it's growth. I think it's a mistake. The moment we start treating the lies of Sweden Democrats as truth we'll never get rid of them. These are dark times for Sweden. Stuff like this makes me ashamed of being a Swede.

Zoidberg, your dogmatic denial of a reality that is even dawning on Sweden's leaders is rather impressive; reminds me of the good communists in the Gulag who, upon facing the firing squad, remained dogmatically loyal to communism and Comrade Stalin - convinced that their own personal fate was due to some unfathomable error in paperwork.

The crisis that is "only in the head of racists/Islamophobes" seems to include the racist-Islamophobic Prime Minister, Stefan Lofven, and the racist/Islamophobic Deputy PM Åsa Romson, who shed buckets of tears in announcing the new policy.

Why the denial?

Didn't Sweden’s immigration agency announce it ran out of beds, and has been accommodating asylum-seekers at its head office?

Aren't Romanian and Bulgarian beggars sitting outside Stockholm’s underground stations and coffee shops, often piling their belongings in plastic bags on the street?

Didn't the rate of new arrivals peak 10,000 each week before the new policies - a rate thought impossible by several (wrong) members in this forum a few months ago?

Didn't, before the policy change, so many refugees arrive in the southern city of Malmö that were forced to sleep on the streets because no beds could be found?

Has not, even after changing the policy, the Swedish government been forced to set up is first tent camps due to a lack of facilities (in winter no less)?

Did not the government take gymnasiums, school sports halls and even ski resorts filling to capacity?

Has not Sweden’s generous refugee policy is proved increasingly costly, perhaps to result in Sweden's first finance minister to breach the budget ceiling since the current fiscal policy framework was put in place in 1997?

Didn't the migration agency see refugee costs reaching 60 billion kronor ($7.1 billion) next year, double its earlier forecast?

I can predict your responses - a combination of 'no', 'doesn't matter', and 'who cares'. However, the rest of us can see this is not just "racism" or "Islamophobia" that has buffeted Sweden. Sweden's leaders know it, so should you.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Didn't Sweden’s immigration agency announce it ran out of beds, and has been accommodating asylum-seekers at its head office?

In the buildings designated for crisises yes. Ie, money already allocated. What they now need to do is move money from somewhere else. Cut down on something. We have an industry supplying relief infrastructure to various disaster areas around the world. We have the beds, and the buildings. There's no shortage of anything except a will to sacrifice even the teeniest amount of money. This is coming from a rich country with excellent finances. There's just no excuse.

Aren't Romanian and Bulgarian beggars sitting outside Stockholm’s underground stations and coffee shops, often piling their belongings in plastic bags on the street?

The Romanians are EU citizens and gypsies. They are neither refugees nor migrants. They're home. They are here because Romania sucks. Yes, they are a problem and I wish they'd leave. But they have a right to stay here and a right to beg.

And if you know a little about gypsy history you wouldn't judge. They've been treated very badly for centuries. Too bad it now became Sweden's problem. But such is life.

Didn't the rate of new arrivals peak 10,000 each week before the new policies - a rate thought impossible by several (wrong) members in this forum a few months ago?

There's still a war going on in Syria. People will keep coming until it's over.

Didn't, before the policy change, so many refugees arrive in the southern city of Malmö that were forced to sleep on the streets because no beds could be found?

Not because a lack of beds. I have a friend who works with migrants in Malmö. So I got the full story. It was a miscommunication. One camp was set up only for women or women travelling alone with children. But the people directing the refugees to housing didn't get this information. So they sent a bunch of Syrian men there. Instead of fixing the problem the camp just refused to let them in. Really appalling treatment of them. But they fixed it the next day.

Has not, even after changing the policy, the Swedish government been forced to set up is first tent camps due to a lack of facilities (in winter no less)?

These are tents adapted for Arctic climates. I've sleept outdoors in -30 Celsius. It's fine. I wouldn't want to live my life like that. But temporarily a few months is fine.

And so far the winter has been very mild. Not a problem.

Did not the government take gymnasiums, school sports halls and even ski resorts filling to capacity?

Yes. But these are all buildings not in active use. They are derelict buildings or buildings shut down awaiting being torn down, or buildings owned by a bankrupt company. Sweden is nowhere near running out of these.

Has not Sweden’s generous refugee policy is proved increasingly costly, perhaps to result in Sweden's first finance minister to breach the budget ceiling since the current fiscal policy framework was put in place in 1997?

Not really. The problem was that they hadn't enough of a buffer for disaster aid. Lesson learned. They just need more in that budget, ie more in line with most other countries. And helping people sometimes costs money. There's a humanitarian catastrophe going on. This is not the time to pinch pennies.

Didn't the migration agency see refugee costs reaching 60 billion kronor ($7.1 billion) next year, double its earlier forecast?

The actual cost can be calculated in a number of ways. That's the highest possible number that can be calculated. Still a piss in the sea compared to how much money with spend on just regular stuff every day.

I can predict your responses - a combination of 'no', 'doesn't matter', and 'who cares'. However, the rest of us can see this is not just "racism" or "Islamophobia" that has buffeted Sweden. Sweden's leaders know it, so should you.

You must be a psychic then.

 

[Bar-Jesus]

Can you explain your name, Bar-Jesus?

What does the Bar mean?

Bar-Jesus is a sorcerer from the Bible

oh yeah, and I'm pretty sure that DrZoidberg is some kind of a troll

 

[DrZoidberg]

The main problem in Sweden is its rules. We have a bunch of beaurocratic rules regarding refugees which are overly complicated. Basically, various administrations have over generations put layer upon layer of rules in place, each new rule only existing in order to give themselves or a friend a job once their term is up. Nobody really cares about immigrants anyway... not really. So nobody is going to complain. All that happens is that immigration just takes two years instead of two months and a shit load of money is wasted. No biggie. Until now. Now suddenly this bloated and slow immigration machine is grinding to a halt under the pressure. Of course, simple to fix. Just remove all the unnecessary hoops and make it streamlined. Also, allow immigrants to get a job
They are now forbidden to work. This rule only exists not to threaten the labour market. Which is just dumb. There's just no good reason to keep those rules in place.

So the problems we have are artificial and need to change. Now is a good time to change them. Instead our policies just dodge the issue and blames the amount of refugees.

Like I said, the experts are baffled to exactly what the problem is. They can't see any practical problems with taking in more refugees.