Wanpieserino

How? How are you going to teach someone to be an engineer when the person can barely read?

They all have access to education. My wife can go follow a master in European and international law in the university of Antwerp right now if she wishes to do it. It's in English.

She can follow baking classes. Pretty much anything. Since she arrived here with a bachelor's degree already.

The older generation that came here without formal education. They didn't speak English. All the effort invested in them was just to teach them Dutch. There's training at vdab for jobs that are easy to get. But these jobs don't pay that much.

Our economy is based on human capital. We are quite competitive on this. So to compete with natives for jobs, you need to be educated from a young age.

That's just a reality. The best paying jobs that immigrants that can't speak the language would get would be construction.

That actually makes me like her. Being critical of your own views.

Nothing more that I despise than people who choose a side of an argument just because it's "their side". Have a back bone. It's okay to switch sides on certain subjects. Being an extremist is being a moron.

Probably my culture, but I have no faith in charities. You know why? Because I haven't given a single euro to charity in my entire fucking life.

"The effectiveness of charities in the USA and tax and transfer systems in the EU in combating poverty can be evaluated through different lenses:

1. Charities in the USA:

   • Charities in the USA often focus on direct interventions and community-based solutions. Organizations like GiveWell evaluate charities based on their cost-effectiveness and impact, ensuring that donations achieve the greatest good per dollar .
   • American charities often operate with transparency and target specific issues such as health, education, and direct cash transfers to those in need .

2. Tax and Transfer Systems in the EU:

   • The EU's tax and transfer systems are designed to reduce poverty through redistributive policies. These systems aim to correct market incomes through taxes and social transfers, which can significantly reduce poverty rates .
   • The EU's approach often involves comprehensive social welfare programs that provide a safety net for citizens, although the effectiveness can vary across member states .

3. Comparison of Effectiveness:

   • Studies suggest that while the USA has a strong culture of charitable giving, the EU's tax and transfer systems may be more effective in providing a broad safety net that reduces overall poverty levels .
   • The EU's systems are more integrated into the fabric of society, offering universal benefits that can reach a wider population, whereas US charities often target specific groups or issues .

Both approaches have their strengths and weaknesses, and their effectiveness can depend on various factors, including economic conditions, political climate, and social norms."

They are the ones already owning the companies. It's not like the middle class had much of the ownership lol

"The bottom 90% of Americans own approximately 7% to 11% of all stocks. This highlights the significant concentration of stock ownership among the wealthiest individuals in the U.S. ."

Trump is hurting the rich. Which is hilarious because it's not like he has anyone else's interests in mind ahahaha

Oh yeah, his top buddy Putin

These taxes can be used to support food banks. So the church would receive subsidies.

Tax and transfers. Income inequality is 0,26 in my country and 0,41 in yours. Even china is down to 0,35.

Charity doesn't seem to work. Taxes do work.

I don't need to feel good about doing something nice for someone else. I just pay taxes and the person doing something nice gets paid to do it.

The part of the source you're quoting is about 2nd generation, not first generation.

We do set a high level of segregation based on school performance. But they all have education.

I'd take this with a grain of salt. We have labour, technical and general. They each have their pros and cons. I don't really like the way they choose who to put where. They put me in technical, after a few years I chose to go to general.

Kinda a mistake, technical had better teaching than general. Perhaps just the school, but with technical it felt like the education was just of a higher quality. While it's ranked lower than general based on people stereotyping it.

We definitely need to get away from that kind of thing. Streamline it. All kids in the same segment and let them choose themselves what they want at age 14 instead of being chosen for at age 12.

My source says that second generation immigrants outperform native population. Simply because they have to catch up on the ladder. They see how their parents struggle. How their family struggle. They want to make the best of it.

So then they simply put in more effort. Perhaps will develope a bit of an unhealthy relationship with money but whatever.

Difficult.

https://www.nbb.be/nl/artikels/de-economische-impact-van-immigratie-belgie-0

The difference between first generation immigrants and locals/2nd generation is staggering.

The problem usually is lack of education within their home countries. That's the difference between EU migrants and non EU migrants. I suppose.

Someone that went to school until age 14 won't have it as easy to integrate. Mostly they'll get minimum wage jobs. Which don't pay taxes.

That's why they do bad on statistics I guess.

But nowadays, places around the world have been booming education wise. Now it's pure brain drain to get young abled people to come here.

The statistics are more based on older generations, which globally, were less educated.

Something about not guiding public opinion or stuff like that

These people can't legally enter the country as far as I'm aware. So yeah, they become homeless.

Giving money to economic refugees that aren't self sufficient is just.. at best, turning them into baby factories for next generation worker bees.

My country has an aging population, perhaps it's beneficial? Not sure.

Actually it's easy to see if it's beneficial. Look at social refugees. Their kids get higher education.

There's enough war in the world though. We don't need economic refugees on top of the social refugees.

But then again, need to question how easy those economic refugees are to integrate.

They aren't traumatised by war, so it should be easier.

A lot of angles to look from