Merkel says multi-culturalism has absolutely failed in Germany

[Michael Hardner]

Is this robbery, or just competition. Seems to me that robbery is done by force. Your friends lost jobs because someone in charge made the decision that they'd rather go for more money, than lose some money and support an industry based in Canada. In light of your analysis, those are the "robbers".

You have to read bjre's post for my post to make sense. He talked of robbers, you see, and I was responding with irony.

[Argus]

Those are your standards son, informed by your upbringing in your culture which you are subordinating them to.

Uh yeah right. People over there don't want running water. They LOVE taking long walks with buckets! They don't need toilets! Phhaww! Who needs indoor toilets! It's so invigorating to be jaunting through the snow to take a crap! And electricity!? The people in rural China have no interest in that! What's it good for anyway? Lights? Who needs lights! And freedom? That's a western concept! Chinese people love being told what to do!

Yup, it's just my western oriented standards thats all.

[Argus]

Ha. I hadn't read this paragraph when I wrote my last one. See ? We agree more than you know.

You agree with the beeger creature. That says nothing good about you, you know.

[Michael Hardner]

I'm not sure what you're asking. No, I don't think we should unionize immigrants. I think we should stop bringing in immigrants. Period. I think there should be no immigration, at least for five years, and then we can allow in only the best immigrants, real immigrants who want to make their lives here, not phony immigrants or people who want to use the Canadian passport as a backstop while they return home. Not people who can't speak English and have no job skills.

My point is that people like you aren't worried about low wages, except when it means that immigrants came come in to fill the economic void. Therefore the concern isn't economic, it's a base dislike of immigrants. At least, I suspect it is. Prove me wrong.

There's not enough economic justification for stopping immigration. If someone takes a low-wage job, then they're doing work that brings money to their employer, they're spending most of their wages, creating demand. If we want higher-wage jobs, we need to create those - not just reduce labour supply.

Consuls and other foreign affairs types know how to say what you want to hear, and there was surely no doubt in his mind what CBC types like you wanted to hear. I'm betting there are absolutely ZERO moves by the German government - which has just formally denounced multiculturalism, to get Canada to educate it on the subject.

Why does the German consul care about my opinion ? ( It was a woman by the way. )

Multiculturalism in Germany and in Canada are two They're looking to reform their system and make Germany like Canada. different things.

[Argus]

My point is that people like you aren't worried about low wages, except when it means that immigrants came come in to fill the economic void

You're quite mistaken. My income might be in six figures today but for much of my life I was a low income earner, and I know the unfairness and disparity of growing up and living poor. This something most liberals, btw, are almost completely unfamilar with. Most liberals grew up in comfortable homes. Which is why they felt comfortable in taking social studies type courses in school rather than worrying about getting a job. I'm also very much an admirer of the nordic countries' efforts at societies without poverty.

Therefore the concern isn't economic, it's a base dislike of immigrants. At least, I suspect it is. Prove me wrong.

I'm not required to prove a bloody thing to you about my motivations. The argument stands on its own. It doesn't need personal justification, especially as you make no effort - because you can't - to actually argue against it aside from insinuating ulterior motives.

There's not enough economic justification for stopping immigration.

There's NO economic justification for keeping immigration. It serves no useful purpose that anyone has been able to show. It has numerous cons and no pros.

If someone takes a low-wage job, then they're doing work that brings money to their employer,

Nonsense. That's a false economy. It suggest the only way to have a successful business is to screw your employees. That just isn't true.

[Michael Hardner]

You're quite mistaken. My income might be in six figures today but for much of my life I was a low income earner, and I know the unfairness and disparity of growing up and living poor. This something most liberals, btw, are almost completely unfamilar with. Most liberals grew up in comfortable homes. Which is why they felt comfortable in taking social studies type courses in school rather than worrying about getting a job. I'm also very much an admirer of the nordic countries' efforts at societies without poverty.

Most liberals grew up in comfortable homes ? That's a conservative myth I've heard a few times, but impossible to prove since the definition of 'liberal' and 'comfortable homes' are so non-specific.

I'm not required to prove a bloody thing to you about my motivations. The argument stands on its own. It doesn't need personal justification, especially as you make no effort - because you can't - to actually argue against it aside from insinuating ulterior motives.

Of course you're not required to. Nor can I prove my suspicions. But if your concern is the poor, then you're right there in the NDP camp right ?

There's NO economic justification for keeping immigration. It serves no useful purpose that anyone has been able to show. It has numerous cons and no pros.

Economists and the government keep pushing it, though, and the alternative justification for that (they're afraid of the politics) seems to make no sense at all.

Nonsense. That's a false economy. It suggest the only way to have a successful business is to screw your employees. That just isn't true.

That assumes that you would hire somebody at a higher wage rate, which isn't necessarily true.

[Shwa]

Uh yeah right. People over there don't want running water. They LOVE taking long walks with buckets! They don't need toilets! Phhaww! Who needs indoor toilets! It's so invigorating to be jaunting through the snow to take a crap! And electricity!? The people in rural China have no interest in that! What's it good for anyway? Lights? Who needs lights! And freedom? That's a western concept! Chinese people love being told what to do!

Yup, it's just my western oriented standards thats all.

You're right, that is all, and not much else. The problem is - using your magical "western oriented standards" - you have this amazing ability to take an attribute of a few and generalize it into the whole. It is truly an astounding ability. I bet you do it with more than just Chinese people don't you?

But the onus is on you to somehow justify your assertion upon a rational basis that is convincing enough to refer to a little more than a half-billion people. You haven't done that, not even close. All you have done is applied a little bit of local knowledge and called it a 'worldview.'

At any rate, anyone who blindly asserts that China is a "failed culture" when they can prove cultural continuity over thousands of years, can claim a dominant position in the world economy and whose billion person population is still growing is, in my 'worlview', an idiot.

[Argus]

You're right, that is all, and not much else. The problem is - using your magical "western oriented standards" - you have this amazing ability to take an attribute of a few and generalize it into the whole.

Very few honest people would try and suggest that a desire for running water and electricity is somehow importing western standards. Well, very few people who are SANE would anyway.

I think you've gone as far as you can in tortuously arguing this case. I don't think you're convincing, and I doubt anyone else does either. I doubt you even believe it yourself.

But the onus is on you to somehow justify your assertion upon a rational basis that is convincing enough to refer to a little more than a half-billion people.

I don't think the personal testimonials of all half billion people would be enough to convince someone doggedly trying to support an absurd position. And I'm not about to bother.

Edited October 23, 2010 by Argus

[Saipan]

You're right, that is all, and not much else. The problem is - using your magical "western oriented standards" - you have this amazing ability to take an attribute of a few and generalize it into the whole.

Yes, Mohammed Atta and his bunch of madmen used this "western oriented standards" and decided to kill some 3,000 capitalist/imperialist/infidels.

[Argus]

Most liberals grew up in comfortable homes ? That's a conservative myth I've heard a few times, but impossible to prove since the definition of 'liberal' and 'comfortable homes' are so non-specific.

I'm comfortable with the assertion. If you're poor you're concerned with immediate realities and have little time for more esoteric philosophical concepts. If you're poor and go to university you're doing so on a loan, and are well-aware of how important it is the course be one that lands you a profitable position.

Jack Layton was certainly not born poor, nor was Alexa McDonough, nor Ed Broadbent. None of the NDPers I can think of, past or present, were busing tables or working mindight jobs as security guards. Not Bob Rae, nor Libby Davies, Paul Dewer...

Nor can I prove my suspicions. But if your concern is the poor, then you're right there in the NDP camp right ?

What makes you think the NDP care more about the poor than anyone else? Just because they talk about it endlessly? Most NDP policies, from my way of looking at it, seem designed to perpetuate poverty, not alleviate the condition. I see little likelihood that an NDP government will result in fewer poor people - quite the contrary.

Besides, the NDP really only pay lip service to the poor. Their real constituents are visible minorities, gays, the disabled, you know, the people who are at the top of the list of politically correct and favorable populations that paternalistic types feel the need to "protect".

Economists and the government keep pushing it, though

Economists keep pushing immigration? Not that I've seen. I've seen quite a few arguing against it, though.

, and the alternative justification for that (they're afraid of the politics) seems to make no sense at all.

It makes no sense that politicians will push a program that isn't good for Canada but which will get them votes? What planet are you calling in from?

[Michael Hardner]

Jack Layton was certainly not born poor, nor was Alexa McDonough, nor Ed Broadbent. None of the NDPers I can think of, past or present, were busing tables or working mindight jobs as security guards. Not Bob Rae, nor Libby Davies, Paul Dewer...

Ignatieff, Harper, Duceppe ?

What makes you think the NDP care more about the poor than anyone else? Just because they talk about it endlessly? Most NDP policies, from my way of looking at it, seem designed to perpetuate poverty, not alleviate the condition. I see little likelihood that an NDP government will result in fewer poor people - quite the contrary.

They are proponents of raising the minimum wage, which also seems to be a concern of yours.

Economists keep pushing immigration? Not that I've seen. I've seen quite a few arguing against it, though.

Our Prime Minister for example ?

It makes no sense that politicians will push a program that isn't good for Canada but which will get them votes? What planet are you calling in from?

Votes from where ? Toronto ? Why do you think Harper cares ? If he does, his strategy seems to be yielding the opposite effect - as Toronto is one of the few places where he is decidedly unpopular.

[nicky10013]

Our Prime Minister for example ?

Don't kid yoruself, considering the record between him and Flaherty, no one in their right mind can call him an economist. That being said, there are quite a few economists who call for more immigration. Indeed, I don't think I've seen one who doesn't. Canada's birthrate is too low to pay entitlements when the baby-boomers retire. Where is the revenue going to come from if it isn't going to be from immigrants?

[Shwa]

Very few honest people would try and suggest that a desire for running water and electricity is somehow importing western standards. Well, very few people who are SANE would anyway.

Very few honest people would make an assertion about a portion of a population and then generalize about the whole without some sort of objective evidence to back up the claim.

I think you've gone as far as you can in tortuously arguing this case. I don't think you're convincing, and I doubt anyone else does either. I doubt you even believe it yourself.

I have gone as far as I can because your inability to back up your claims. And, of course, you don't even come close for speaking for "anyone else" so lay off the appeal to popularity bullshit you're embarassing yourself.

I don't think the personal testimonials of all half billion people would be enough to convince someone doggedly trying to support an absurd position.

How would you know? You don't even have the simple ability to back up your claim about China being a "failed culture" and "most" of them live an unpleasant life - despite common facts that point to the contrary.

And I'm not about to bother.

Typical words of someone running away as fast as they can from the untenable corner they had backed themselves into. Again.

Edited October 24, 2010 by Shwa

[Saipan]

Where is the revenue going to come from if it isn't going to be from immigrants?

The ones who are always on poggy?

If more people means better economy then India must be a wealthy country. Same for Bangladesh.

[CANADIEN]

If emigration is the sign of a "failed" culture (afavorite argument of the "one immigrant is too many immigrants" crowd), then what was the exact nature of Europe's failure in the 19th century?

Edited October 24, 2010 by CANADIEN

[Argus]

Ignatieff, Harper, Duceppe ?

What about them? None of them grew up poor either.

They are proponents of raising the minimum wage, which also seems to be a concern of yours.

I'm a proponent of giving people a livable wage, but not in a hack and slash way like simply jacking up minimum wages. Remove the flood of unskilled new labour and the jobs will command higher wages. We saw that when economic times were good and the numbers of those willing to take crappy jobs dropped.

Our Prime Minister for example ?

Harper has been in parties most of his political life which opposed immigration. But he has become the ultimate practical man now, and does and says whatever he thinks he needs to get that elusive majority.

Votes from where ? Toronto ?

Yes, and Vancouver, and anywhere else with large ethnic communities.

Why do you think Harper cares ? If he does, his strategy seems to be yielding the opposite effect - as Toronto is one of the few places where he is decidedly unpopular.

The reason they have failed to make inroads in Toronto, Vancouver, and other major immigrant centres is due to the perception they are unwelcoming towards immigrants. Harper is trying to change that perception. You find this difficult to understand?

[Argus]

If emigration is the sign of a "failed" culture (afavorite argument of the "one immigrant is too many immigrants" crowd), then what was the exact nature of Europe's failure in the 19th century?

They were miserable places filled with poverty and starvation, where the great mass of people had no power and no freedom, no possibility of improving their lot in life and who jumped at any opportunity to go elsewhere, to get away.

Why do you think people flee countries anyway? Because they're such nice places they want to play tourist?

[Michael Hardner]

What about them? None of them grew up poor either.

Ok... so your example of Layton now twists in the wind.

I'm a proponent of giving people a livable wage, but not in a hack and slash way like simply jacking up minimum wages. Remove the flood of unskilled new labour and the jobs will command higher wages. We saw that when economic times were good and the numbers of those willing to take crappy jobs dropped.

And many of those jobs will disappear because it`s not worth hiring people for the higher wage. Demand for housing, goods and services will drop because the population will not increase.

The reason they have failed to make inroads in Toronto, Vancouver, and other major immigrant centres is due to the perception they are unwelcoming towards immigrants. Harper is trying to change that perception. You find this difficult to understand?

I don`t believe it. As a Torontonian, I don`t see him making inroads here - and rather he seems to be more interested in catering to the ROC.

[Argus]

Ok... so your example of Layton now twists in the wind.

Not in the slightest. The point I was making was that if you grow up poor you don't waste time, presuming you can even get into schools, taking soft social science courses. You take jobs that will lead to a better life. The children of the comfortably off seem disproportionately inclined towards these types of soft courses because they've never had to worry overmuch about money. Now you tell me how Layton isn't an example of that simply because Harper also didn't grow up poor?

And many of those jobs will disappear because it`s not worth hiring people for the higher wage. Demand for housing, goods and services will drop because the population will not increase.

If the jobs don't need going then that's a good thing. That's efficiency. And we there is absolutely ZERO evidence that decreasing or eliminating immiration will cost jobs. Services and goods still need to be provided for the existing population - by the existing population.

Your belief is somehow that if we add a million people to the population that will spur demand for more jobs. Which is true, baldly stated, but then you have a million more people looking to fill those jobs. You also have more urban crowding or sprawl, more traffic, more pollution, and if a significant portion of the newcomers is made up of freeloaders that added cost. So how exactly is the existing population better off for having brought in that million people?

I don`t believe it. As a Torontonian, I don`t see him making inroads here - and rather he seems to be more interested in catering to the ROC.

Because Torontonians are a superior culture, far more intelligent, worldly and advanced than "the rest of Canada", right? You don't think the fact more than half the population is foreign born has any relevance?

Edited October 25, 2010 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

Not in the slightest. The point I was making was that if you grow up poor you don't waste time, presuming you can even get into schools, taking soft social science courses. You take jobs that will lead to a better life. The children of the comfortably off seem disproportionately inclined towards these types of soft courses because they've never had to worry overmuch about money. Now you tell me how Layton isn't an example of that simply because Harper also didn't grow up poor?

The poor can't get into schools ? They take soft courses ? What ?

You try to say socialists come from better-off backgrounds and give Layton as an example. When I come back with the fact that all the leaders come from such backgrounds you come back with some complicated rationale that comes from your own biases, not from the real world.

If the jobs don't need going then that's a good thing. That's efficiency. And we there is absolutely ZERO evidence that decreasing or eliminating immiration will cost jobs. Services and goods still need to be provided for the existing population - by the existing population.

But rising wages DOES cost jobs. Did you just ignore that ?

Your belief is somehow that if we add a million people to the population that will spur demand for more jobs. Which is true, baldly stated, but then you have a million more people looking to fill those jobs. You also have more urban crowding or sprawl, more traffic, more pollution, and if a significant portion of the newcomers is made up of freeloaders that added cost. So how exactly is the existing population better off for having brought in that million people?

I concur that adding a million freeloaders, or adding people to an economy where there is no demand for the labour provided by those million doesn't help.

But, again, these scenarios come from your imagination. We don't bring in a million freeloaders.

Because Torontonians are a superior culture, far more intelligent, worldly and advanced than "the rest of Canada", right? You don't think the fact more than half the population is foreign born has any relevance?

Are you trying to ascribe opinions to me that I haven't given ? I'm asking why Harper is supposedly afraid to reform immigration. The answer I hear is that it wouldn't work for him politically, especially in Toronto. Yet he doesn't seem to make any effort to reach out to Toronto voters, and actually seems to purposefully step on our toes. ( G20, transfer payments)

How about that ?

[Argus]

You try to say socialists come from better-off backgrounds and give Layton as an example. When I come back with the fact that all the leaders come from such backgrounds you come back with some complicated rationale that comes from your own biases, not from the real world.

I'm sorry if complexity causes you stress. But what I said was fairly clear and logical. If you grow up poor and have to scramble your way into university and know a big debt awaits you at the end you're not going to take political science or sociology. I might have used the NDP as an example, but it certainly is true that few poor people wind up becoming party leaders. That has more to do with income moblity than types of courses taken in university though.

But rising wages DOES cost jobs. Did you just ignore that ?

Does it? If the job needs doing then it needs doing. If you had to pay $25hr to get people to empty trash baskets in office buildings you'd just have to pay $25hr. If the economy is functioning well, those pushed out of one low-skills job can find another, similar easily enough.

This implies, of course, that we discourage companies contracting jobs out to foreign countries wherever possible, such as increasing taxes on those who do.

I concur that adding a million freeloaders, or adding people to an economy where there is no demand for the labour provided by those million doesn't help.

But, again, these scenarios come from your imagination. We don't bring in a million freeloaders.

Actually, that came from YOUR imagination, as I never postulated it.

Are you trying to ascribe opinions to me that I haven't given ? I'm asking why Harper is supposedly afraid to reform immigration. The answer I hear is that it wouldn't work for him politically, especially in Toronto.

Did you not read this topic from the beginning? It seems to me you've been here from the beginning. I've already said why Harper doesn't dare address immigration.

1. He's trying to suck up to immigrants/ethnic groups

2. He's trying to distance the Tories from the reputation their ancestor parties had for bigotry - a reputation earned, in large measure, because they opposed immigration.

3. The other parties and the national media have been waiting eagerly, practically salivating at the hoped for opportunity to savage them for bigotry in the event they do cut back on immigration.

[Michael Hardner]

I'm sorry if complexity causes you stress. But what I said was fairly clear and logical. If you grow up poor and have to scramble your way into university and know a big debt awaits you at the end you're not going to take political science or sociology.

What hogwash. Poor people don't get arts degrees but rich people do ?

Seriously, where do you get this stuff.

I might have used the NDP as an example, but it certainly is true that few poor people wind up becoming party leaders. That has more to do with income moblity than types of courses taken in university though.

Regardless, whatever you're saying about well-to-do people becoming socialists sounds like utter crap to me. Try again - maybe qualify your point more and add some supporting info.

Or don't. But I don't accept that on its own.

Does it? If the job needs doing then it needs doing. If you had to pay $25hr to get people to empty trash baskets in office buildings you'd just have to pay $25hr. If the economy is functioning well, those pushed out of one low-skills job can find another, similar easily enough.

This implies, of course, that we discourage companies contracting jobs out to foreign countries wherever possible, such as increasing taxes on those who do.

Or you would cut back trash basket collection to once every other day. There are few jobs that need doing, that can't be scaled back.

Actually, that came from YOUR imagination, as I never postulated it.

Your quote:

"Your belief is somehow that if we add a million people to the population that will spur demand for more jobs. Which is true, baldly stated, but then you have a million more people looking to fill those jobs."

Did you not read this topic from the beginning? It seems to me you've been here from the beginning. I've already said why Harper doesn't dare address immigration.

1. He's trying to suck up to immigrants/ethnic groups

2. He's trying to distance the Tories from the reputation their ancestor parties had for bigotry - a reputation earned, in large measure, because they opposed immigration.

3. The other parties and the national media have been waiting eagerly, practically salivating at the hoped for opportunity to savage them for bigotry in the event they do cut back on immigration.

This is the equivalent of a paranoid conspiracy theory. In any case, if it is true then he's just another Liberal party coward isn't he ?

[Argus]

What hogwash. Poor people don't get arts degrees but rich people do ?

Seriously, where do you get this stuff.

I'm guessing you've never been poor, or even lower income. But to those of us who have been we mostly consider college/university as a path to better jobs. Arts and humanities courses are not particularly seen as being the most helpful to that. I would have thought this was common sense, but perhaps not.

Nor did I say poorer people don't ever get arts degrees, just that they are far more likely to take business and science than sociology or english. Now I suppose you'll also expresss astonishment at the idea liberal arts grads are more likely to be politically left of centre than business or science grads.

The Sutton Trust believes disproportionately low numbers of low-income students enrol on arts and humanities courses, fearing they may be less employable than if they take other subjects.

Guardian

Your quote:

"Your belief is somehow that if we add a million people to the population that will spur demand for more jobs. Which is true, baldly stated, but then you have a million more people looking to fill those jobs."

Amd where on earth do you get from that where I suggested they were all freeloaders? Or hadn't you twigged to the idea that if they're looking for work they're likely not freeloaders?

This is the equivalent of a paranoid conspiracy theory.

It's nothing of the sort, it's elementary political logic. Perhaps you simply don't posess any nor understand it.

[Michael Hardner]

I'm guessing you've never been poor, or even lower income. But to those of us who have been we mostly consider college/university as a path to better jobs. Arts and humanities courses are not particularly seen as being the most helpful to that. I would have thought this was common sense, but perhaps not.

Not. The people with degrees that are not entrepreneurs, that make the most money are in sales and many of them had humanities degrees.

Nor did I say poorer people don't ever get arts degrees, just that they are far more likely to take business and science than sociology or english. Now I suppose you'll also expresss astonishment at the idea liberal arts grads are more likely to be politically left of centre than business or science grads.

Business isn't a science degree is it ? And a Bsc isn't a ticket to wealth any more than a BA is.

I can accept that arts students are more left-of-centre, sure. I won't challenge that, based on my experience anyway.

Amd where on earth do you get from that where I suggested they were all freeloaders? Or hadn't you twigged to the idea that if they're looking for work they're likely not freeloaders?

Ok, they're not freeloaders.

It's nothing of the sort, it's elementary political logic. Perhaps you simply don't posess any nor understand it.

Elementary political logic that Harper doesn't want to p*ss off Toronto, but yet he also does when it comes to everything else... It doesn't fly. When Harper gets his majority, do you expect him to drastically scale back immigration, or will he be too intimidated to ? The problem with your theory is it's based on something that's unknowable, ie. whether Harper's political strategy is affected by public perceptions of racism in immigration reform.

[Saipan]

What hogwash. Poor people don't get arts degrees but rich people do ?

Of course they do, and then they stay poor.

Unless they are one out of thousands who become famous painter, which happen mostly after they die.