3 ms·

> You don't need to keep saying variations of "western economies are improving". I know what's going on in the world. No, I keep telling you unemployment is go

> You don't need to keep saying variations of "western economies are improving". I know what's going on in the world. No, I keep telling you unemployment is going down on EU countries. I won't fall for your trick - I'm not talking about the economy (so you can't talk about "economy is good only for big companies that employ migrants" or some other conspiracy theory). Unemployment. Is. Going. Down. "Despite" (or partly thanks to). Migration. > More specifically it's to do with EU membership, and stimulus packages arising from membership. Stimulus packages that come from wealth created by having access to a bigger workforce and a richer market. Yes, I know how the EU works. Do you think rich countries don't benefit of the EU? I know it's a complex topic that requires an active interest and probable some research, so let's do this: Sit back and watch how the UK tries to cling on to Single Market's membership. Even UKIP is already asking for it. UKIP, the anti-immigration party. Yep. > It's not solely related to trading benefits within the single market, and in fact much of the improvements that have taken place in poorer EU countries are due to exports to non-EU countries (Russia/Ukraine etc), i.e. completely unrelated to the single market. Yeah, Romania definitely started improving their economy when they started trading with Russian and Ukraine. Same for Poland and the Baltics, too. Or maybe we should ask Czechia and Slovakia? The Single Market is not just a free trade agreement. I would recommend you to read up on how it works as it is a complex topic. > But anyway, how is stimulus meant to work at a global level (bear in mind though that this conversation only started because somebody said anybody should be able to work in the US without restriction) Now I've got a surprise for you: I don't think the US should do FoM with the world. It might make sense for them to start with Canada and maybe the UK in about 10 years, when we see how Brexit is panning out. Then in 15-20 they can look at the EU and analyse if it would make sense to extend it to the EU too. Immigration is good, but you have to account for how fast can you scale up your infrastructures and services. Opening up FoM between US and EU could be quite impactful for either. US culture is very attractive for EU citizens and there's a lot of love for places like California or New York due to movies, etc. None of this cities would be able to take a couple of million new inhabitants in 12 months. But my opinion on US FoM is based on weak research. Maybe a serious study shows there's less desire to move than I think. I would personally don't move due to the healthcare mess the US is - but that might mean US citizens from depressed areas might prefer to rely on Canadian or European healthcare instead.

anjc 10y ago
I mean I largely agree with you so I'm not sure what the issue is. With regards to unemployment going down, it is (like the Single Market) a complex issue. There's economic growth yeah, but we've also just had 5+ years of net emigration too, with foreign nationals leaving and ex-pats returning (in my country, I should say). These changes are obvious on the ground, I feel. Anecdotally, the shift in demographics of public-facing service workers in my country has been stunning in the last 15 years. It's gone from almost all indigenous, to almost all Eastern European, to almost all indigenous again. I'd be surprised if you hadn't noticed this in your own country?
- NetStrikeForce 10y ago
  > I mean I largely agree with you so I'm not sure what the issue is. I called you out on your misinformation about FoM, that's all. I'm pretty sure we agree on the US topic :) > With regards to unemployment going down, it is (like the Single Market) a complex issue. There's economic growth yeah, but we've also just had 5+ years of net emigration too, with foreign nationals leaving and ex-pats returning (in my country, I should say). Again, you're trying to avoid looking at the numbers. Unemployment is in good numbers and good trends. "The economy" goes well, too - but one thing is not always the other. > These changes are obvious on the ground, I feel. Anecdotally, the shift in demographics of public-facing service workers in my country has been stunning in the last 15 years. It's gone from almost all indigenous, to almost all Eastern European, to almost all indigenous again. So that's your issue? the nationality of the workers you see? If unemployment is almost only structural (very low %) - the nationality of those on employment is hardly relevant. Now if you had a 10% and all of them were locals, something must be wrong. That's not the case though. > I'd be surprised if you hadn't noticed this in your own country? I usually don't ask the nationality of random people :) and I work in a very international industry, so my views might be very skewed.

anjc 10y ago

I mean I largely agree with you so I'm not sure what the issue is. With regards to unemployment going down, it is (like the Single Market) a complex issue. There's economic growth yeah, but we've also just had 5+ years of net emigration too, with foreign nationals leaving and ex-pats returning (in my country, I should say). These changes are obvious on the ground, I feel. Anecdotally, the shift in demographics of public-facing service workers in my country has been stunning in the last 15 years. It's gone from almost all indigenous, to almost all Eastern European, to almost all indigenous again. I'd be surprised if you hadn't noticed this in your own country?

NetStrikeForce 10y ago
> I mean I largely agree with you so I'm not sure what the issue is. I called you out on your misinformation about FoM, that's all. I'm pretty sure we agree on the US topic :) > With regards to unemployment going down, it is (like the Single Market) a complex issue. There's economic growth yeah, but we've also just had 5+ years of net emigration too, with foreign nationals leaving and ex-pats returning (in my country, I should say). Again, you're trying to avoid looking at the numbers. Unemployment is in good numbers and good trends. "The economy" goes well, too - but one thing is not always the other. > These changes are obvious on the ground, I feel. Anecdotally, the shift in demographics of public-facing service workers in my country has been stunning in the last 15 years. It's gone from almost all indigenous, to almost all Eastern European, to almost all indigenous again. So that's your issue? the nationality of the workers you see? If unemployment is almost only structural (very low %) - the nationality of those on employment is hardly relevant. Now if you had a 10% and all of them were locals, something must be wrong. That's not the case though. > I'd be surprised if you hadn't noticed this in your own country? I usually don't ask the nationality of random people :) and I work in a very international industry, so my views might be very skewed.