I'm not against Immigration either dude, did you read the - #167449354 added by vinskinator at Ryemby Otiesida Waso

Back to the content 'Ryemby Otiesida Waso'

Refresh

Options

asd

Reply+82

(12/06/2017)[-]

I'm not a supporter of high immigration policy, or of this refugee ********, but that is an extremely ignorant argument.

Developed countries with slowing birth rates import some cheap labor for the economic sectors they need it in. That's a very reasonable thing to do given their situation..

Poor countries generally need infrastructure, training, and financial systems to invest properly. They already have cheap labor and high fertility rates. As medicine improves, populations explode (supply of labor). how would they convince immigrants to come there anyway? who would want to? besides for specific business opportunities as critical development points.. side note, kids are quickly becoming expensive and women's rights (lol) leads to lowering fertility rates in every developing country. So don't worry, world population is supposed to peak at like 10B

this is just dumb

#78 to #13 - sdeincognito

Reply0

(12/07/2017)[-]

**sdeincognito used "*roll picture*"**
**sdeincognito rolled image**
As a perfectly legal immigrant moving countries have improved my life beyond belief, in Spain, I was working without a contract for a job paid under minimum wage to help my family on a bad economical moment (my dad was sick), when my family got into a good position economically I moved to the UK

I now work for a pretty ok videogames company, and since I came here I haven't used one quid from goverment benefits, not even NHS since I got covered medical insurance. I am a net contributor taxes wise.

Yet I have to stand some uneducated cunts claiming I and people from my country came to take government benefits every other week, it's kinda exhausting.

Controlled immigration is good, people moving countries and sharing their experience growing on a totally different sociopolitical environment is good, diversity with a reason is good.

Please talk to any immigrants you know about their experience instead of sucking on eachothers dicks over misinformed principles about immigration.

#94 to #78 - anon id: 2f899628

Reply-1

(12/07/2017)[-]

It's beneficial because you benefited from it. Having your country overrun by completely different people is not. I bet your original country is threatened by some foreign group right now, and you oppose them. Don't add some ideology or good intentions or positive emotions to it, because you make more money.

#126 to #94 - sdeincognito

Reply+1

(12/07/2017)[-]

I do not give two ***** about my original country as long as my family is fine and happy, which they are.

And honestly, even if I gave a ****, Spain is not threatened by any foreign groups at the moment, in fact, for decades we already had the threatening people inside.

#81 to #78 - vinskinator

Reply0

(12/07/2017)[-]

I'm not against Immigration either dude, did you read the whole comment? The content was economics based so I focused on that specific basic principal and not social or cultural ones

glad **** worked out for you buddy, I have zero qualms with he government policies that would have facilitated your move and success.. The US is similar to the EU in that regard, a collection of smaller entities that people could freely move within.

My only hesitancy with immigration is when it gets excessive and they can't properly be absorbed or adapt to their new environments.. that's clearly not your experience.

best of luck man

#127 to #81 - sdeincognito

Reply+1

(12/07/2017)[-]

**sdeincognito used "*roll picture*"**
**sdeincognito rolled image**
Sorry, I know, I just wanted to vent and replied to your comment because it was the fist one that felt not written by a moron.

And yeah, the problem with immigration is when migrants don't adapt to new environments in any way, creating conflict sooner or later.

#48 to #13 - drpenguinz#404 on commentsRank#404

Reply0

(12/07/2017)[-]

situation: you have a kid with your wife. wife leaves ya.
assuming you make bout 3000 net, she chills at home with her newborn and makes 1000 net -> you pay 995, thats a third of your income

that is a risk ill never take.
maybe others have the same thoughts when thinking about kids.
i didnt go to school/uni for 19 years to get the pay i damn well deserve robbed like that. i want to afford things in my life. save up on ****. i cant help it, i just connect kids with something life ending.

...now imagine you have 2 kids.

#74 to #48 - vinskinator

Reply0

(12/07/2017)[-]

how about have a kid with your wife. murder your wife (discretely).

get paid family leave from your work for 6 months to take care of the infant. receive several thousand back in taxes for carrying a dependent.

It's almost like there are more government policies geared toward encouraging adults to reproduce, and the situation you described is basically a deterrent for people entering relationships they haven't fully tested. "If you aren't sure she won't divorce your ass, don't get married" actually sound advice.. once you meet the right one through rack up those government checks. it's almost like it's all somewhat reasonable

#84 to #74 - drpenguinz#404 on commentsRank#404

Reply0

(12/07/2017)[-]

you dont have to marry to get into this situation
the situation i described is very reasonable. whats so highly unlikely about getting a child and her/you having enough of the relationship at some point?

#85 to #84 - vinskinator

Reply0

(12/07/2017)[-]

It's not that likely.. but is clearly discouraged by the policy you're complaining about. And by the fact that your government provides full coverage for a number of contraceptives to minimize **** ups, but if you have religious thing against that and she gets pregers and dips then plant some drugs on her and get custody back

laws were written for bitches, make your own moral code.

There's different ways governments are trying to minimize children being born out of wedlock or raised by a single parent. The one your complaining about is one of those, and it serves other functions too like discouraging having a kid unless you think you're sure.

I disagree with it on principal as well, but it has little to do with my comment on the content, tbh. there are several ways the government encourages reproduction more than this one thing discourages it so IDK what the **** we're talking about it for

#86 to #85 - drpenguinz#404 on commentsRank#404

Reply0

(12/07/2017)[-]

immigration can solve a lack of kids. but other things could too. maybe its just me with this issue always waiting in the back of my mind.

#87 to #86 - vinskinator

Reply0

(12/07/2017)[-]

the issue is what kind of kids

engineers from india vs trailer trash mid westerners, is an obvious choice but so is American born engineers vs Mexican laborers.

the government throws crazy cash at people as investments before they're net contributors. I promise. There's diminishing returns for those efforts and to get them the rest of the way for the benefit of everyone they import some workers in specific economic sectors. it's more reasonable than either "side" tends to frame it

#36 to #13 - graboidzero

Reply+5

(12/06/2017)[-]

Yeah jeez, it's like we haven't been told at all for the last 30 years that the world is overpopulated and by not having many children we're somehow helping to fix that problem

I'm not even going to mention the wave of propaganda by lonely journalists that want everybody to adopt their view according to which a childless life is the best life

In a particular way you're right, import cheap labor for mundane tasks for which the educated locals are "too smart" (?)

But you haven't bothered to ask yourself :

- why we're in a situation where importing might seem as the only solution
- if the situation we're in could have been manufactured by lizard people in a quest for world domination (semi sarcastic question)

#73 to #36 - vinskinator

Reply+1

(12/07/2017)[-]

well that was half-true 30 years ago, but the world has been aware that the population has been on a stabilizing trend for almost 20 years, so... idk what place was still telling you that ****, but they've been wrong for a while

drunk, depressive, lonely tabloid news authors, never seen a legitimate news source suggest not having kids when you're financially stable is a good thing for the human population. the biggest population growth was always in less developed countries. US, Europe, and japan never boomed as hard as the rest. that never would have been sound advice for the people of those countries

local citizens are "too educated" and assimilated as a part of the more productive service sector of the economy

and I have bothered to ask myself those questions. If that's your way of requesting my opinion, then:
- importing is far from the only solution employed, in the US we have significant incentives and France has WAY more. Months of mandatory paid maternity leave, and you think the government doesn't want you to have kids?
- I think the reality of people of different ideologies and world visions trying to change things is much more likely considering the mess that top world leadership is constantly in. I've been privileged to meet a few top US politicians and their concerns and disagreements was an easy final nail in the coffin for conspiracies of that type.

#39 to #36 - thewafflian

Reply+10

(12/07/2017)[-]

Well... So?

You can't really just force these people to have kids if they don't want them. I know I don't.

Sure, you can call that a problem, but what's the point of dwelling on it? How can it be solved without trampling peoples reproductive rights and free speech?

#32 to #13 - RageGuyyourmom

Reply+12

(12/06/2017)[-]

birth rates slow because prices are too high import more people prices rise it only benefits the people selling

#88 to #32 - vinskinator

Reply+7

(12/07/2017)[-]

I hope you purposefully butchered that

#25 to #13 - mychaelmoar

Reply+1

(12/06/2017)[-]

Wouldn't need a ridiculous pyramid scheme level of people if we didn't have a pyramid scheme as the model for social welfare. A great deal can be improved upon any extant welfare program found in the West today before importing migrants to the dangerous extent that is done today. Are you keeping the broken system? Then try encouraging birth rates within the nation first and curtailing spending to meet the population. Are you willing to have a slight decrease in population for a generation or two? Then focus on making economic policies that don't go beyond the scope of your means.

#139 to #25 - vinskinator

Reply0

(12/08/2017)[-]

What the ****?
if anything the social welfare system is a reverse pyramid scheme. It literally works in the exact opposite way. most taxes are paid by the rich. Importing more people hurts the welfare situation with zero benefit unless those immigrants are net contributors tax wise which not many first gen immigrants are

a slight decrease in the US population would **** almost every home owner out of their life savings. the idea that land value and the stock market may not always go up could **** a LOT of ****.. It could cause a stock market crash harder than the great depression.

Every developed nation already throws cash at potential parents like they're strippers to encourage them to have kids. Hell, that's why a lot of Republicans don't want Sex Ed, or Contraceptives covered by insurance. They'd prefer ******* Accident babies. Then you get into the thousands in tax breaks each years you get for having a kid.

You clearly don't get any part of this ****. It's not my place to teach you though, so good luck buddy

#140 to #139 - mychaelmoar

Reply0

(12/08/2017)[-]

You misunderstand what I am saying, pal. The logic behind every major importation program currently underway by most liberal governments is, in their minds, necessary to replace the lack of future tax payers - even though, logically, this will **** up the social planning they have in place due to the nature and expense of healthcare. Point being, you constantly hear media outlets bitch and moan about how there aren't going to be enough tax dollars for xyz program, both because the rich aren't paying taxes and population is crashing in developed nations. Economically, we know that the rich will seek to preserve their wealth through various means, and so increasing taxation has a recognizable upper limit - which realistically only affects those who aren't actually rich, as the common argument in light of the Republican package is that "only the rich can afford to use loopholes properly" etc. The solution governments then turn to is increasing the number of tax payers, or so they say.

I understand entirely how taxation is meant to work, but how it happens in practice is often vastly different. The tax burden is definitely proportionately larger for the rich that pay it, but it doesn't make them the foundation of the annual tax revenue.

#141 to #140 - vinskinator

Reply0

(12/08/2017)[-]

Oh, I think I get what you're saying. and it's just wrong

the top 1% pays 40% of the US taxes... getting enough tax revenue is not a primary reason why we want to grow the population.

governments want people to keep literally everything else going up, they need more people to buy more **** to keep economic growth going, not to fund social programs. that's the least effective thing growing the population does.

Economic Growth = power
Military = power
Diversely Skilled Labor = power

an ability to sustain tax revenue to cover programs is decided by plenty of other things besides population growth. every one acts like these social programs like social security are going to **** the US up somehow, but the government can easily just say **** that program when it's truly not solvent and finally failed and it'd be a blip on the stock market. same goes for just about any social program. they are all just incentives for specific behaviors the government wants people to do.

#142 to #141 - mychaelmoar

Reply0

(12/08/2017)[-]

Exactly. It's about raising revenue under the guise of something empathetic to the "downtrodden," as you succinctly explained. I definitely garbled my statements.

Back to the content 'Ryemby Otiesida Waso'