do you mean to claim that this is bad for the 'good' countries?
Population transfer from bad to good countries within the EU. Equalizing demographics is the only way to equalize countries but then you no longer have good countries, just a lot of mediocre ones. https://twitter.com/idvck/status/1001494811516506113 …
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
-
Of course.
-
so cost-free foreign workers is bad for countries in demographic decline? ok lol
-
These people aren't cost free foreign workers. Foreign workers tend to settle, and their kids will be net negatives -- because everybody who is below Danish standards is. Requires a lot of selective immigration to not get this result, and we're not seeing it.
-
there virtually does not exist a single report that concludes that EU immigration has been a net negative for denmark, no idea where you're getting this from.
-
I said their children. The first generation is net positive because they grew up at home (i.e. no costs for Denmark in early life). I.e. in the reports, look for "Efterkommere, vestlige" which is mostly EU later gen. E.g. https://www.fm.dk/oekonomi-og-tal/oekonomisk-analyse/2017/indvandreres-nettobidrag-til-offentlige-finanser …pic.twitter.com/0srfIcstAd
-
EU, øst (east) is obviously below Danish mean. But in any case, one does not need these actual numbers to make the predictions because we know that immigrant outcomes are easy to predict from home country well-doing.pic.twitter.com/IAWUKSeQpW
-
the report you linked yourself states that 1) eu immigrants are a massive plus for society. 2) when you corrigate for the young age of the descendants of EU immigrants they become a positive contributing factor as well. being 1:1 with natives after one gen is a weird expectationpic.twitter.com/xwoDmKrfEA
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
The population flow tends to be incredibly polarized: There's the "high end" migration of educated professionals that amounts to a brain drain from peripheral countries. And then, you have the unskilled labor, the criminal and welfare queens. Comparatively little between.
-
Under realistic circumstances, if you move 20% of the population, then you aren't doing that much selection. But of course, there is some level of brain drain.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I'm more inclined to say "from poor to rich countries". I suppose there is a "smaller country = more worker emigration" effect. I can be wrong: I suspect that intraEU, lots of migrants (and kids to born) are elites and have a positive "human value" for the richer countries.
-
I don't know about other countries, but EU origin migration to DK is a net negative for later generations.https://twitter.com/KirkegaardEmil/status/1002118998270644224 …
-
Maybe the "positive human value" that I suppose is "more true" for the "freshly out of universities xor eager to work" while the other immigrants are less qualitative/elites. (1/2)
-
My knowledge on this subject, and my understanding of the badly named "regression to the mean" being very limited I personally feel more safe to admit my ignorance.
(2/2)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Diagonal upward mobility has a certain efficiency about it, and it's not zero-sum. Mostly, +ve effects on migrants > -ve effects on receiving country, and depending on policy the latter can be minimised.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.