>Tasks Create memes Spread memes on social media Join at least one of the following: AfD, IB, Einprozent to counter subversion Get fit Spread flyers and stickers in your city
The biggest problem when people talk about immigration having a positive effect, is that they don't differentiate between different migrant groups.
Migrants from japan, france, the US or scandinavia will almost certainly will be positive. Migrants from africa and arabic countries on the other hand are most often a short time plus because they accelerate inflation via state handouts, essentially spending money they didn't produce.
Oh the positive impact of wages, kek Makes me laugh every time. Well for once it won't last. In the long term we don't really know what will happen. They use some retarded macroeconomic models to forecast the impact of immigration on wages but let's be honest, microeconomics actually works but macroeconomics is a bunch of bullshit. The current mainstream macroeconomics school is called neoclassical macroeconomics and it doesn't even work well. It couldn't even predict, explain nor fix the financial crisis. It caused such a turmoil among macroeconomists that they are now scrambling for better models hoping to save neoclassical macroeconomics or are trying completely new models.
Okay so the thing about immigration and impact of wages on natives is what kind of work they do. Their work can be complementary or they would substitute natives since the work done is similar. Now obviously that immigrants don't know the language so they will do shit jobs. This means that most of them will only compete with low skilled natives. Actually in the short term they certainly have a negative effect on the wages of low skilled natives but as I said some economists use tricks in how they choose the sample. So you have to compare only people in similar jobs obviously but some economists use jobs which aren't too similar because there's not enough data so their sample would be too small or shit like that. Borjas actually replicated one of the most famous studies about impact of immigrants on wages and choose a proper sample by excluding from the sample used by the original economist people with too dissimilar jobs from those done by immigrants and surprise, they had a negative effect on wages.
Jackson Sanchez
exactly. this is also the major flaw of collier's book. not only that but using studies done in one part of the world and then applying them to describe economic effects in another part. there is a huge difference between legal migrants working in the us and being a net-benefit for the economy and useless arab-scum living of welfare in europe.
are you the homo-user (is that nick ok for you?`kek) from the last thread btw?
Mason Myers
ah yes you are. have a good night, fren
Nicholas Brown
I direct you to my earlier post: We have to start differentiating between migrants from western countries and other productive nations, and migrants from countries that are almost sure to be welfare leeches.
The word immigrant has become synonymous with "Muslim" here in germany, so when a bunch of french doctors move here the left can say that "many doctors with migration background improve life in germany!" and simply omit the country of origin.
'tis an alright nickname, at least I'll know you mean me when you use it. Night, buddy. Stay vigilant.
Leo Williams
The post about Islam is really insightful. Sad that most people, especially SJW and feminists, don't realize that their friendliness are misused for spreading the Islam culture. I already knew that Islam is a fascist religion and somebody has also mentioned that Hitler was fascinated by the Islam.
Hitler was transcribed as saying: "Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers [...] then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which glorifies the heroism and which opens up the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world."
asfair collier used a study done on hispanic migrants in florida or something to derive his conclusions about the impact on wages, no model or anything like that. could be wrong to, have to check this part of the book again.
Mason Foster
Immigrants who are complements to high skilled work do increase the wages of high skilled natives but this isn't very positive because it increases the disparity between rich and poor actually. Basically immigrants influence the local equilibrium between wages and labor supply in a country.
In some countries, low skilled natives do try to find better jobs so they change to jobs which immigrants can't access but the reality is that in a lot of countries, especially mine Italy, this can't happen so these people will just stop trying to find a job and just rely on welfare.
The kids of these immigrants will grow up and get into higher education. This will increase competition for higher skilled jobs and decrease wages. You don't even need a bullshit macroeconometric model for this because Borjas did a study using simple microeconomic models which are way more solid. It's a basic law in economics anyway, you increase supply, the prices fall. Even for labor. And high skilled people can't really switch jobs in order to avoid competition from the descendants of immigrants.
I'm not even considering automation because oh boy, it will be a disaster. There's a study by Acemoglu, an economist from MIT, which shows that increase in automation increase unemployment and decreases wages and by a high amount too. Automation will hit the most some low skilled jobs but also medium to high skilled jobs especially medicine.
Jaxon Robinson
you can choose a different nick if you wish. if i was gay i'd probably have a crush on you now kek
Oh yeah, sure. That's another point I wanted to write in a different post since I was afraid to hit the character limit. But we don't really need immigration at all imho, maybe only some high skilled immigration because any kind of immigration will lower wages and there's also the risk of automation.
That boat study? kek That's the study which Borjas replicated and proved wrong.
>But we don't really need immigration at all imho, maybe only some high skilled immigration because any kind of immigration will lower wages and there's also the risk of automation.
this is an extremely important point. even if migrants will usher in an new golden era a new "wirtschaftswunder" it wouldn't matter since in the end they would undermine and threaten our ethnic and cultural identity.
the economy is only a means to an end. as long as the average joe can earn enough to make a living and start a family without the help of the welfare-state. everything is fine. economic growth and all that stuff basically means shit.
good night, newfag/swissbro. see you soon. if you want more redpills, just let us now here on krautpol
Daniel Cruz
I think so. I don't remember well the nationality but it was about boat migrants from some Latin American settling in Florida. Basically Borjas proved that it all depends on how you choose the models and the sample so it's bullshit. There's a debate among economists of the immigration impact on wages and let me tell you something, there is no consensus. A lot of economists say it doesn't matter and a considerate amount say that it's negative. No economists says it's definitely positive but only that it might be for some natives.
If you aren't convinced. You can hear the same thing from the beloved leftist Bernie Sanders youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0 But wait, there's more. Look at Obama agreeing with controlling illegal immigration and Trump basically twitter.com/OliverMcGee/status/949805882401067008 Now Obama is all about helping illegal immigrants, how interesting. Now he's a multimillionaire who lives in a white only rich neighborhood and isn't running for any political position. Hmm I wonder what happened
I know about that page. Found it on google a long time ago. You can clearly see how even Krugman realized that he was a retard in the past and change the tune when he saw evidece of negative effects.
Now that website is clearly propaganda paid by rich shits to various organizations because these are the people who mostly gain by open borders. Mass immigration will cause a redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich, wages will be lower, prices will increase for products = more profits, prices in the housing market will increase = more wealth for landowners, rents will increase = more wealth for landowners, etc. Those are the usual websites you shouldn't take seriously but use their evidence against them. You should look at the bio of the authors on that website, most of them are rich themselves or economists who define themselves libertarian but are paid by other rich shits like the Koch family to spread their propaganda.
Nicholas Adams
i'm looking for somethin like this study here done in denmark. sadly i only have this one pic as a clue. no source for it sadly.
Can't be arsed to check right now but I mostly look into immigration impact on rent, inflation, housing market, environment, social cohesion, productivity and stuff like this. Not really welfare since I'm already pretty convinced that immigrants are a net drain on welfare. You can also fix welfare but you know, actually limiting it only to your citizens. While it would be way harder to fix inflation, housing market equilibrium, etc.
John Brooks
aayyyyy, so i recognize three swiss-poster here but you might be two or even all three of them:
1) makes excellent photoshops (mostly of tay-pics) and wants to get his life in order and is on a job-hunt right now
2) the new-fag from last thread
3) the literature-guy: his posts show that he reads a lot esp. old literature. complimented me for using calibre for e-books and dropped an excellent link where one can find a lot of ebooks and download "for free" (thx russians)
so you're certainly 1) and 2) but are you literature-guy as well?
Chase Perez
yeah, esp. this site is so blatant.
finally found it (most of the time i'm just too lazy to google properly kek)
Hehe, fuck. I hate post profiling, but you're spot on. Your Swissbro is 1), 2) and 3). I'm just another lost soul on Sup Forums that has empathy with Krauts :).
Another great work by Eichendorf that I like is "Das Marmorbild".
Good work. I'll go back to my chink cartoons then go to bed. Good night.
Jonathan Bell
aaaand you also seem to be the swissbro who enjoyed our panzerlied and i joked about swiss playing tower defence on their mountain-top.
kek, i had the hope that there would be more swiss-anons roaming here but oh well, i rather have one who is good and loyal than some people who just check by once.
Jacob Bell
nope, that wasn't me :)
Caleb Powell
The first part of the analysis also shows that: Immigrants from Western countries contributed in 2015 to net by 5 billion. DKK to public finances because many people are in work and pay taxes while relatively few receive transfer income. Immigrants from non-western countries, on the other hand, incur an expenditure of 19 billion. kr. in 2015, among others. because many receive transfer income and therefore contribute less to the public revenue trend they draw on public spending.
alright, fren. have a good night. thx for sharing your stuff and your insight.
Adrian Anderson
hmm well then there is indeed another swiss-bro who enjoys our kraut-threads more or less regularly.
Camden Myers
i guess we need to introduce a *star* to tag and differentiate them. kek.
Colton Jackson
would make things easier yeah, but "name-fagging" isn't seen positively here. and on the other hand it's fun to connect posters of different threads to one personality.
"The fiscal impact of an immigrant depends very much on his or her age at entry and social andeconomic characteristics (labour market performance). The outcomes are most favourable forthe immigrants who are 25 years of age at entry and perform well on the labour market."
"For all entry ages, however, immigrants turn out to be a burden to the public budget if theirsocial and economic characteristics correspond to those of the present average non-Westernresident. Accordingly, budget balances are affected negatively."
there's also a Swiss guy who is an expert in physical anthropology
Kayden Ramirez
Help us
Ian Hernandez
in your case the name tag is redundant anyway since you already had your sütterlin-signature move. same case with the drunk geneticist. a lot of people who post here regularly don't need those names since you can easily tell them apart by the way and/or the pics they post which is a more elegant way than name-fagging imo. personally i'm more a fan of this style at least.
hey, if your good, you can also guess who i am (we already talked a lot in other threads with each other) so here is the hint:
>go find a redhead qt to make lots of ginger-babies with instead of shitposting at 4 o'clock in the morning.
nah, that guy is austrian. calls himself "the drunk geneticist"
Chase Cruz
Oi m8, where's your late-night posting-license???
sry bro, the uk really worries me lately. at least in germany we're beginning to see slight improvements in regards to public opinion but you poor wretches are hit the hardest at the moment. dunno what to say. the only advise i can give you is to form tightly-knit communities with like-minded ethnic brits on the countryside. cities are fucked m8.
Xavier Ramirez
another hint: i post stuff like pic related for bumps
Yeah, but you don't realize that i am an all-rounder and have been here months ahead of the elections, at some rate picked up on Sütterlin, visit daily and shoo off Amerimutts.
i still don't get the appeal of picking up some sort of identity via a name-tag. what do you get from it? guess it's just not for me. we have id's to prevent same-fagging but apart from this anonymity/not having an identity is part of the appeal of Sup Forums imo.
Brayden Lopez
Germany is done for already, get over it and enjoy what's left of your lives. Chronicle the decline so future generations know what happened, but don't waste your time fighting the inevitable
