or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Brexit - Page 21

post #301 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by nootje View Post


Then why not help wages go up, or tax them less? The unions here have been very destructive in that they only take care of their older cadres and stiffing the younger ones, and at the same time only targeting industries where they already had it good.. Migration has indeed put downward pressure on them, but thus far our respective governments have done very little to counteract this or even helped driving them down. Our welfare states are a different problem, where the problem actually lies quite close to part of the brexit problem as well. Most of the welfare has been build up when all of Western Europe had a population dividend from the boomer generation. It was easy to pay for very generous welfare when an outsized part of the population was working and paying into it. Now that that generation has largely retired we are suddenly facing an increase in payouts and decrease in taxes. Part of the influx of Eastern European workers actually helps with this problem, as indicated by the net contribution number the UK has from European workers. The boomer gen is also one of the most political active ones, so it's very hard to tell them that what they paid for for others isn't fair to ask from the current working generations. So, welfare might need to come down a tad and wages need to come up, seems like something a national government could create policy for.

Fwiw, there is only cooperation on military matters and that's also what Interpol is. Not really dictated by the EC but agreed upon by the states. Migration is part of the common market, unless you are talking about migration from outside of the EU. And btw, a lot of those poles are going back because wages back home are going up quickly due to a shortage in workers there..

Scandinavia and the U.K. Both created a welfare state aimed at keeping the population growth above that 2.1 number back in the day, whilst keeping the poors happy with a handout while they focused on the mid incomes. If you make it possible to live better of three child welfare payouts then of a low income job (uk) then you can expect them to breed and make use of that system. Again, this is a problem not of migrants, although it's infinitely easier to blame them, but a problem of policy. One of the national governments I might add, not the EU.

And lastly, the EC has put forth a proposal re migrants Eastern Europe. See solidarity fine

That is not as easy as you make it sound. On large construction projects the trade unions fight a loosing fight, as the workers know, if they sign up and start demanding the correct wages. They will be kicked to the curb and someone else is standing in line to take over. The contracts for the work also go through 3-4 companies, so even writing it in to the contracts doesn't work, as they are essentially self-employed subcontractors.

Another issues that they are happy with €5 an hour over €30 an hour a dane should have, as it's more than they would make in Poland etc. and it means they can send the money home, while living in some barack town with the rest of the workers. This creates a bunch of issues including increasing unemployment and more pressure on the public sector, to pay welfare, reeducation etc. etc. (I actually know multiple builders who live of fixing EE workers shitty workmanship).

The problem isn't that there are fewer people to carry the load, the issues is that the labor force participation rate is lower than it was then and there are fewer people employed by the private sector vs. public. The last part is especially important, as they are the ones who essentially create the money, that the public sector needs.

People keep saying the influx of EE, ME and african migrants help take someone of the load of the public sector and stop them from going bankrupt. This just isn't true we spend around €26 million a year on unemployment welfare for EE workers and the ME and africans have an unemployment rate of over 50%. They contribute with aprox. €295 million a year (2014), while costing the society €2 billion a years, so that is a deficit of €1.8 billion a year, it has to be a lot higher now. So no they are not an asset as is. The only thing that would solve the giant drainage of the western welfare states, is to either start kicking non EU migrants out ASAP or getting them in employed on the same level as native nationals and before EE workers.

I'm a conservative liberal, so we can very quickly agree a large part of the solution is to lower the taxes and get people spending and getting some of the jobs, that have been exported to Asia etc. back. And more importantly remove the incitament and living standard of people who are able to work welfare payouts.. Sadly the largest parties here are socialists are they don't get that, so they refuse to lower taxes, but they are still talking about increasing our competitiveness. At least they have started to lower the welfare amounts etc.
post #302 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Find Finn View Post

That is not as easy as you make it sound. On large construction projects the trade unions fight a loosing fight, as the workers know, if they sign up and start demanding the correct wages. They will be kicked to the curb and someone else is standing in line to take over. The contracts for the work also go through 3-4 companies, so even writing it in to the contracts doesn't work, as they are essentially self-employed subcontractors.
Another issues that they are happy with €5 an hour over €30 an hour a dane should have, as it's more than they would make in Poland etc. and it means they can send the money home, while living in some barack town with the rest of the workers. This creates a bunch of issues including increasing unemployment and more pressure on the public sector, to pay welfare, reeducation etc. etc. (I actually know multiple builders who live of fixing EE workers shitty workmanship).

Of course it isn't, otherwise our respective governments would have done it a while ago smile.gif
The unions in this case aren't the right platform to fight this fight. Instead, and this is already being done in the Netherlands, the construction companies are required to pay the national minimum wage, irrespective of the nationality of the worker. It still drives wages down to that level, but it lowers the threshold quite a bit to make use of a more skilled Dutch worker vs a Polish or Rumanian one. Which is also what is happening from what I hear from the construction companies. My remark about the unions was geared towards the ones we have, as i do not have any problem with them demanding higher wages, yet they are regularly doing so in industries that are already having a tough time such as metal, or in an industry that was already on the brink of disappearance like tobacco. By doing so they appear to only pander to already privileged groups (the tobacco workers already earned 50% above the normal pay for comparable jobs in other sectors) or make use of a special situation (metal workers on strike in the only car factory we have, which just received massive government guarantees to keep it operating).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Find Finn View Post

The problem isn't that there are fewer people to carry the load, the issues is that the labor force participation rate is lower than it was then and there are fewer people employed by the private sector vs. public. The last part is especially important, as they are the ones who essentially create the money, that the public sector needs.
The case of Denmark might indeed be a slightly different one, although you guys too have that lump in the middle of your bell curve. Your problem with labor force participation is one that we share though, but that can only be tackled by the national governments by reducing welfare a bit and creating more possibilities for work. In this case a liberal agenda couldn't hurt smile.gif Again, I know that here and in Belgium & Germany they are working on programs to reduce public employment, in the case of my region they reduced employment from 1600 to an aimed 500 next year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Find Finn View Post

People keep saying the influx of EE, ME and african migrants help take someone of the load of the public sector and stop them from going bankrupt. This just isn't true we spend around €26 million a year on unemployment welfare for EE workers and the ME and africans have an unemployment rate of over 50%. They contribute with aprox. €295 million a year (2014), while costing the society €2 billion a years, so that is a deficit of €1.8 billion a year, it has to be a lot higher now. So no they are not an asset as is. The only thing that would solve the giant drainage of the western welfare states, is to either start kicking non EU migrants out ASAP or getting them in employed on the same level as native nationals and before EE workers.
To correct you in this case, the EE migrants are a different case from the others as they are covered by Schengen and usually aren't welfare hunting. The ME migrants and African migrants might be a different case, but one could argue that this is more due to failed integration policies and ancient welfare policies not fit for these times, again the single prerogative of the national governments and not the EU. The EU failed to protect the borders the national governments gave up for Schengen, but they failed to do so because the national states in the middle didnt want to pay for border protection at the edges, they just used the money allocated to that in the past for other things, and reduced the border protection agencies. It is only natural in such a case that the southern countries, who bear the brunt of the influx, would let them through and let us northern countries share in the problem. Frontex in this case was what we should have build immediately, but i guess that as always you only start to think about a solution once the problem becomes critical. Why else do you think that some states had to use the military to protect the borders? In the 80s they still had dedicated agencies and adequate staffing for this, now they don't.
Specific laws are being debated to reduce some of these problems though, we just passed a law that reduces child welfare payouts abroad to the level required by the destination country.
Btw, the statistics do support your statement in that immigrants have a lower participation rate, yet i would argue that this would require a recalibration of your labor market not reduced immigration as kicking them out would leave you with a large problem of how to pay for your pensions in a decade or so. The Folkepension is funded by taxes and will have this problem, the industriepensions are fully funded and won't suffer to the same degree.
https://www.dst.dk/en/Statistik/emner/tilknytning-til-arbejdsmarkedet
Quote:
Originally Posted by Find Finn View Post

I'm a conservative liberal, so we can very quickly agree a large part of the solution is to lower the taxes and get people spending and getting some of the jobs, that have been exported to Asia etc. back. And more importantly remove the incitament and living standard of people who are able to work welfare payouts.. Sadly the largest parties here are socialists are they don't get that, so they refuse to lower taxes, but they are still talking about increasing our competitiveness. At least they have started to lower the welfare amounts etc.

Glad we agree on that, so vote them out of power smile.gif Our generation (im guessing you are about the same age as i am, thirties) has not been the most politically active, yet we should as the current decade is quickly turning in a generation war between the boomers and the rest. People will vote in their own interest, and (soon to be) pensioners do not care about the jobs market we are in, they just want their benefits and special positions preserved.

On brexit, the tragedy is that the people who voted for it did so out of anger with a government that has done nothing for the common worker in more than a decade. Skillful demagogues used this anger and directed it towards a simple solution like kicking out the immigrants to gain traction, which won't happen now or in the future if they want to keep the common market. The recent statement of the EC toward Switzerland can remind people of that. They are getting massively reduced investment due to the uncertainty now instead, in addition to costlier electronics, cars and oil as the pound took a 10% hit. Its the ultimate culmination of british politics favoring London above all else, keeping the pound unnaturally strong to favor the investment industry but killing smaller exporters.
post #303 of 383
Ok, i will start to cut these replies up.. Que the tl;dr biggrin.gif
post #304 of 383
Another wall of text.


Some of the projects have the minimum wage requirements, but the contractors have found away around it, so the solution has been spoiled. The solution which Germany has chosen with a government decided minimum wage isn't bullet proof either.

We have a bunch of large scale project currently in Copehagen Metro and 3 new city area. The metro has italian as site language as close to no danes are employed as blue collar workers. The only ones on site are engineers, union representatives etc. Most of these jobs could have/should have gone to danes before EE workers, who undercut the livingwage. A lot of the new developments also primarily employ EE workers and all the danish builders have gone to Norway instead. Which has resulted in a lot of shitty work.

On the other hand a lot of companies are reporting they can't get workers for wages below €15 an hour due to welfare being so high and the only reliable workers at that price is EE workers. So it really is a double edged sword the governments have created. In my opinion welfare should be cut even further back than it already is, the government has just introduced integration welfare, which is a level below normal welfare for people who have lived in the country for less than 7 years in the last 8. They have also almost completely removed housing benefits.

The government here is liberal, but one of the big parties who support the government is the nationalist part, who is essentially socialist in their view and are whole heartedly against tax cuts and cutting down the size of the public sector.

The 3 biggest parties are the social democrats, Liberal party and nationalist. Most young people who are in the school system are far left voters, as they want more student benefits. So even the young are idiots until they get a job. baldy[1].gif

I know there are differences, which is why there are different numbers wink.gif. EE workers have the same employment rate as the national average 71%, which leaves 29%, who are either earning nothing are receiving welfare. To me that number is too high.

The danish government has tried to introduce a law, that you can only get child benefits, if the child lives in the country, but we all know the EU human rights court will vote that down as soon as someone complains. Just like everything else.

The UK has bigger issues than we have with welfare tourism as they are getting a lot of romanian gypsies, who are welfare tourist at their worst. The welfare change was a part of the UK yes agrement, which we now don't get.

Merkel has and will always be reluctant to make any mayor decisions, so as long as one of the biggest countries in the EU is dragging their feet nothing is going to happen with Fontex or anything else. Which in the end ends up being an EU issue, as these things need to be coordinated on an EU level and a lot of countries have basically dropped schengen and reintroduced border control (Sweden, Denmark, Austria, Hungary etc).

The non EU migration is a UN issue and their asylum treaty from 57, which is as dated as it can be.

Industrypension and folkepension are two different animals, as one is paid by the employer and employee (I believe its x% each month), but its up to the contract the worker has. The folkepension is something anyone over the age of 65 can get and is paid for by the tax payers.

The issues with non western immigrants unemployment has been an issue since the 80's and it has barely improved, the second generation isn't much better than the first, so the solution clearly hasn't been found. Which is kind of odd as the children have the same education and opportunities as everyone else, but do worse in school on average.

I don't think it would create a problem to for society if we kicked out all the unemployed immigrants (or all of them), as almost all danes have a worker paid pension at this point, so the lower costs to fund the immigrants would even it self out in the end. Just look at how much pension we could get for the 1.8 billion deficit each year. I believe the highest rate at the moment is €2600 a month and essentially fully fund 57.692 pensioner each year or 1% of the entire population.

We historically have very high participation in election 80% and most young people have an interest, as it's a part of the curriculum in elementary/high school. But the boomers really are us against them as they have different agenda than everyone else. So Holland, Denmark and UK seem to have very different situation on that point.

The british and danish governments have made a lot of the same mistakes, we have f.x. lost 500k blue collar jobs over a 20 year period due to us not being competitive, so now the jobs are in EE or Asia. A lot of these jobs would have been perfect for most of the people on welfare and immigrants. We can thank the complete idiocy of politicians for that.

The UK politicians burnt themselve with all their fear mongering and lack of facts.
post #305 of 383
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nootje View Post

I might have altered my language a bit to please my intended audience.

Still racist in the US. It's racist to say that people respond to incentives if those incentives involve government transfer payments and having babies.
post #306 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by nootje View Post

On brexit, the tragedy is that the people who voted for it did so out of anger with a government that has done nothing for the common worker in more than a decade. Skillful demagogues used this anger and directed it towards a simple solution like kicking out the immigrants to gain traction, which won't happen now or in the future if they want to keep the common market. The recent statement of the EC toward Switzerland can remind people of that. They are getting massively reduced investment due to the uncertainty now instead, in addition to costlier electronics, cars and oil as the pound took a 10% hit. Its the ultimate culmination of british politics favoring London above all else, keeping the pound unnaturally strong to favor the investment industry but killing smaller exporters.

Sigh
you still don't get it what is main problem here. People who voted brexit as well as most nationalists and rightwingers have a problem of delegating power from nation states to Brussells and laws being made by unelected EU officals.
Quote:
Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the EU was "the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK". One third (33%) said the main reason was that leaving "offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders." Just over one in eight (13%) said remaining would mean having no choice "about how the EU expanded its membership or its powers in the years ahead." Only just over one in twenty (6%) said their main reason was that "when it comes to trade and the economy, the UK would benefit more from being outside the EU than from being part of it."
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-06-30/poll-shows-brexit-vote-was-about-british-sovereignty-not-anti-immigration
post #307 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by wojt View Post

Sigh
you still don't get it what is main problem here. People who voted brexit as well as most nationalists and rightwingers have a problem of delegating power from nation states to Brussells and laws being made by unelected EU officals.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-06-30/poll-shows-brexit-vote-was-about-british-sovereignty-not-anti-immigration

Sigh, and why do you think they where voting for this nebulous reasoning of getting relegated power back? Not because of the common market regulations as those don't touch the consumer in general, or perhaps it was because they couldn't close their borders and stop subsidies to migrants? Don't be disingenuous.

And just for shits & giggles, you voted on May 22 2014 for the EU parliament (that you didn't take it seriously given the turnout of approx 35% is another matter). Your EU mp's directly elected juncker and approved his picks for the rest of the commission. New legislation is proposed by the commission which then has to get approval of both your elected EU mp's as well as the council of Europe, which surprise surprise consists of ministers from each of the 28 states, usually the PM, I guess you voted for him too.

So please tell me, where in this process exactly are the unelected EU officials making your laws?

@finn, I'll respond tomorrow.

@piob, electing trump to the presidency will in all probability broaden the scope of things you're able to discuss in politics quite a bit and without what remains of the critical press too, so there is hope for change! in all seriousness, I'm very glad that this particular trend of political correctness hasn't caught on in Europe, and hope it blows over soon too as it kills of a lot of discourse.
post #308 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by nootje View Post


Sigh, and why do you think they where voting for this nebulous reasoning of getting relegated power back? Not because of the common market regulations as those don't touch the consumer in general, or perhaps it was because they couldn't close their borders and stop subsidies to migrants? Don't be disingenuous.

 

So poll respondents were specifically given the choice of "immigration", they specifically gave (non-nebulous) answers other than "immigration", and you think they really meant "immigration". 

post #309 of 383
The poll asked what the main reason for their vote was. It doesn't mean that immigration wasn't a major issue to the 49% who answered, "sovereignty."
post #310 of 383
Today's Wall Street Journal had a fascinating article about that was not Brexit except it was about Brexit. The gist is that the Italian banking system is in trouble (exacerbated, perhaps, by Brexit but that is besides the point). The Italian government would like to do a bailout of some kind that would involve [Italian] government investment in the banks to shore up their capital. Apparently, Brussels said that Italy may not bail out its banking system because that would violate an EU-negotiated bailout scheme that dictates, more or less, that creditors and equity holders must suffer before taxpayer money is used (not necessarily a terrible rule but, again, besides the point). So, despite the purported luck of political integration claimed in this very thread, the EU is prohibiting Italy from undertaking what the Italian government believes is necessary to preserve their own banking system. It is hard to argue that your life is not controlled by Brussels if your government is not free to act in what it perceives is its necessary, national interest.
post #311 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Van Veen View Post

The poll asked what the main reason for their vote was. It doesn't mean that immigration wasn't a major issue to the 49% who answered, "sovereignty."

 

I'll take the word of the 12,369 people polled by a company run by a guy personally recruited by David Cameron to be Deputy Party Chairman (i.e., not a Leave partisan) over the uninformed rantings of some butthurt internet maroon.

post #312 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by dopey View Post

Today's Wall Street Journal had a fascinating article about that was not Brexit except it was about Brexit. The gist is that the Italian banking system is in trouble (exacerbated, perhaps, by Brexit but that is besides the point). The Italian government would like to do a bailout of some kind that would involve [Italian] government investment in the banks to shore up their capital. Apparently, Brussels said that Italy may not bail out its banking system because that would violate an EU-negotiated bailout scheme that dictates, more or less, that creditors and equity holders must suffer before taxpayer money is used (not necessarily a terrible rule but, again, besides the point). So, despite the purported luck of political integration claimed in this very thread, the EU is prohibiting Italy from undertaking what the Italian government believes is necessary to preserve their own banking system. It is hard to argue that your life is not controlled by Brussels if your government is not free to act in what it perceives is its necessary, national interest.
It's why renzi is almost certain to get into trouble with his electorate. Ask any common Italian what is wrong with their banks and they'll answer that it's the people that run them. The loans that are causing the trouble are usually the ones made to friendly businesses where these banks held shares as well. His appetite to bail out these banks is rightly perceived by many as an effort to save the very people who supported berlusconi and keep them in place. Germany actually has much of the same problem with their landesbanken and elephant in the room Deutsche bank, with the difference that it was caused less by corruption and more due to their outsized need for yield.

Yes, the EU is blocking Italy on this attempt as the Spanish already went through this without directly subsidizing the banks, but instead created a government owned bad bank that bought the NPLs at market rates, and the Germans will have to follow suit. That the share holder and bond owners will have to take a hit to recapitalize these banks should be a given. The pain is that Italy will finally have to unwind it's Gordian knot of company ownership.

Although I wouldn't find it inconceivable given the German interest that the ecb, which already is buying up corporate bonds as stimulus, would buy a touch more Italian ones.
Edited by nootje - 7/5/16 at 10:36pm
post #313 of 383
Btw, just had a funny thought. Given that Deutsche is the biggest lender to Donald trump, and his opaqueness about his finances, would it be inconceivable that Deutsche sold the loans to trump to a government owned bad bank? That would leave the prospective president his business interests in the hands of a foreign government..
post #314 of 383
Quote:
Referendums and elections are both arcane instruments of public deliberation. If we refuse to update our democratic technology, we may find the system is beyond repair; 2016 already risks becoming the worst year for democracy since 1933. We may find, even after the folly of Brexit, that Donald Trump wins the American presidency later this year. But this may have less to do with Trump himself, or the oddities of the American political system, than with a dangerous road that all western democracies have taken: reducing democracy to voting.

rotflmao.gif

this gem is from Die Wächter ehmm I mean The Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/29/why-elections-are-bad-for-democracy
post #315 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by nootje View Post

It's why renzi is almost certain to get into trouble with his electorate. Ask any common Italian what is wrong with their banks and they'll answer that it's the people that run them. The loans that are causing the trouble are usually the ones made to friendly businesses where these banks held shares as well. His appetite to bail out these banks is rightly perceived by many as an effort to save the very people who supported berlusconi and keep them in place. Germany actually has much of the same problem with their landesbanken and elephant in the room Deutsche bank, with the difference that it was caused less by corruption and more due to their outsized need for yield.

Yes, the EU is blocking Italy on this attempt as the Spanish already went through this without directly subsidizing the banks, but instead created a government owned bad bank that bought the NPLs at market rates, and the Germans will have to follow suit. That the share holder and bond owners will have to take a hit to recapitalize these banks should be a given. The pain is that Italy will finally have to unwind it's Gordian knot of company ownership.

Although I wouldn't find it inconceivable given the German interest that the ecb, which already is buying up corporate bonds as stimulus, would buy a touch more Italian ones.
As I said, whether the Italian proposal is goo or bad is besides the point. The Italian government is being prevented from governing its own economy on a matter of vital economic importance and in the way it sees fit, by EU regulation. It may be that the Italians are wrong and Brussels is right, but that seems to me like a pretty clear loss of sovreignty over the second most vital national interest (after security).
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money