2 ms·

Be very careful how you frame things. Here’s another framing: 1. Migrants and their descendants are poorer than average. 2. Social spending is higher among po

Be very careful how you frame things. Here’s another framing: 1. Migrants and their descendants are poorer than average. 2. Social spending is higher among poor people, because that’s the whole point. 3. Disproportionately poor people represent a disproportionate amount of social spending, duh.

lm28469 3y ago
Sure, but we're a far cry from most migrants being "job creators and entrepreneurs" The reality is that a lot of them struggle to find jobs, and a lot of them end up working illegally for unscrupulous bosses. And yes there are a whole lot of reasons for that, but at the end of the day it's the reality we have to deal with
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
fisf 3y ago
That's not a framing issue. The original claim was > Generally immigrants are job creators and entrepreneurs, and take less from the system than native born people do And this is (at least in the context of many European countries) not true. It is not relevant if this is simply because they are poor, and poor people receive a disproportionate amount of social spending. The observation is that immigration in that case drives up housing demand, while at the same time being a net-negative in financial terms for society.
- loup-vaillant 3y ago
  When someone points out that a segment of the population is more disenfranchised than the rest, and then unnecessarily states that they represent a disproportionate share of social/welfare spending, it’s hard to ignore how the unnecessary statement, wittingly or not, pushes an agenda. Just like my framing did, though I totally did it on purpose. That being said, I would be interested to know if the social spending stay disproportional after controlling for socio-economic factors. I personally have no idea, as far as I know immigrants could be either under- or over-funded. And if they are, it could be interesting to investigate why.

lm28469 3y ago

Sure, but we're a far cry from most migrants being "job creators and entrepreneurs" The reality is that a lot of them struggle to find jobs, and a lot of them end up working illegally for unscrupulous bosses. And yes there are a whole lot of reasons for that, but at the end of the day it's the reality we have to deal with

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

fisf 3y ago

That's not a framing issue. The original claim was > Generally immigrants are job creators and entrepreneurs, and take less from the system than native born people do And this is (at least in the context of many European countries) not true. It is not relevant if this is simply because they are poor, and poor people receive a disproportionate amount of social spending. The observation is that immigration in that case drives up housing demand, while at the same time being a net-negative in financial terms for society.

loup-vaillant 3y ago
When someone points out that a segment of the population is more disenfranchised than the rest, and then unnecessarily states that they represent a disproportionate share of social/welfare spending, it’s hard to ignore how the unnecessary statement, wittingly or not, pushes an agenda. Just like my framing did, though I totally did it on purpose. That being said, I would be interested to know if the social spending stay disproportional after controlling for socio-economic factors. I personally have no idea, as far as I know immigrants could be either under- or over-funded. And if they are, it could be interesting to investigate why.