The Nautil.us article misrepresents the findings of the paper, suggesting that it said anything about a causal effect. The title 'Childhood Friends, Not Moms, Shape Attachment Styles Most' is completely inacurrate and not even hinted at by the study authors in the paper.
Sounds more like you live in a better area then he does. And by better I mean with less issues, not richer necessarily.
While I admit that I don't live in the UK, I suspect it's similar to my experience from over the sea in Hamburg. I've recently moved there into a district with >50% migrants for roughly 3 yrs - not really expecting anything as I was still positive about everything.
Finding apartment listings in the online portals explicitly saying they will only allow Muslims was surprising to me, but I ignored it thinking, whatever.
Well, after moving into another apartment in the same area was an eye opener for me.
Really, I'm frankly surprised there are people still in denial how bad it's gotten. Well, not really surprised. I mean I was one of them in 2021.
I know right. Folks don't understand that people who come to our countries are also workers whose countries have been destroyed by OUR elites. A bit of solidarity would be healthy, useful and anchored in reality.
Whenever anyone on earth does something bad, it's basically Nick's fault. Nobody except Nick has agency or responsibility. They're all victims, except Nick.
I don't Agree. I got a few giggles out of it. Especially the emails from "Linda", as I literally get those types of emails.
I think generally it was reasonably well done as a novelty joke website that is obviously trying to make a political point. That in itself makes it reasonably interesting IMO.
There is an option to that question where it has a relatively positive outcome and you have lunch with her and presumable are on better terms afterwards. Which tells me that the author isn't dog whistling at all and it is more a lampooning the weird cringe stuff that you are expected to take part in one of these large corps.
In fact something like this sounds like it comes straight out of office space.
I volunteered at a school. Rather than celebrating Christmas or Halloween, they had to celebrate Diwali because Christmas/Halloween might be too offensive or not inclusive enough. The country has gone mad.
3. Why should anyone care? Did anyone stop you from celebrating Christmas with your friends and family?
P.s. according to your post history you have based anti capitalist positioning on the pointlessness of most white collar labor, what happened to make you participate on the wrong side in a meaningless culture war that's just a distraction from the reduction in material conditions of the working class?
Well of course you don’t believe me, it goes against your narrative. But I’m sure someone living in Taiwan knows better than someone British currently in the UK.
Also that is quite an overreach on basic observations that are generally agreed upon and weren't anti-capitalist.
I don't believe you because I live in the UK and the idea that people don't celebrate Christmas is beyond moronic. The shops start doing Christmas stuff the day after Halloween. It's unending Christmas songs for two months.
Most neoliberals (your entire political class) would vehemently disagree with the idea that the labor market is as high as 30% inefficiency, least of all in white collar jobs. That's not how they believe capitalism works. In their fantasy, pointless jobs can't exist, or at least not at such a high volume, since the invisible hand of the market would eliminate them.
You are of course right and they are wrong but my point is not many would agree with us.
In the west there are not enough young people to support the elderly, and immigration of young people can help to address this problem to the benefit of everyone.
I see this argument fairly often, but rarely do I see the premises questioned. Why do the elderly need to be supported? Wealth is concentrated in their hands (especially in the UK), while younger generations are struggling to be able to afford housing let alone build wealth. Perhaps society should focus less on supporting the generations who have already accumulated wealth and instead focus on supporting the generations who are starting families.
They need someone to literally care for them. In Germany for example, there are far too few people working in elderly care, and it’s a huge problem if we don’t want them to die of starvation, malnutrition or falling down the stairs with nobody to find them there.
Even wealth can’t magically summon the humans necessary to do that kind of work, robots are no solution for the foreseeable future and I don’t think starting a family is easy if you have to take care of your parents and/or grandparents.
There are far too few people working in elderly care because it pays peanuts. It pays peanuts because immigration increases the supply of workers. With a limited supply of workers and increased demand as more people get older, those jobs would pay well and natives would want to do them. It’s basic economy. It works well in countries that are not a free for all regarding immigration.
That is simply wrong. Social work has always been badly paid, exhausting, and ungrateful.
You’re twisting the past to fit into your contrived narrative of immigrants somehow wage-dumping us, but that’s simply wrong, it’s not what has happened in the EU.
I can go with your gut feeling or I can go with what I’ve seen in the market whilst looking for a woman to take care of elders in my family. Or with what I’ve heard from people in the hospitality and agriculture sectors.
It’s not that natives don’t want to work, it’s that immigrants undercut everybody. Not to mention what they’ve done to the housing sector of course. It’s unlivable. We run a country, not a charity.
Edit since I can’t respond anymore:
You assume two things: that you can’t work for less than the minimum wage (you can, since most elder care work is paid under the table) and that you can have a good life with the minimum wage (you can’t, unless you are okay with truly bad living conditions).
And a country has to prioritise the wellbeing of the natives first. You can’t destroy the lives of the poor and the young natives just to feel better about yourself.
It’s no gut feeling. My mother was a lifelong nurse. Again, I don’t know where you live, but in most western countries there’s a minimum wage preventing people from somehow undercutting other people, that’s not happening. Wages in the care sector haven’t dropped considerably since the first major migrations to Europe happened.
We run a country, true; not a capitalist venture. A country is also built on ethics, and that entails adhering to basic human rights for all humans.
The elderly don’t pay much tax, and they are very expensive to the state. Younger migrants contribute more taxes to fund healthcare and social services and pensions used by the elderly.
But yes, I agree, we need to tilt the scales back towards the young.
Plus there are enough people to care of old people. It’s just that immigrants cause such downward pressure on salaries that elder care is not a viable job sector for most.
Do migrants do jobs that native-born citizens would not under any circumstances do, or do they do jobs that native-born citizens would not do for the low wages that migrants are willing to accept?
We’re talking about minimum wage jobs, so the low wages are capped at the bottom for everyone anyway. And yes, there’s absolutely "native born" workers that will and do work for minimum wage already.
Regarding the taxation argument. That may have been true in the past (it doesn't account that many of these people stay and then will need to supported when they become elderly) but under the "Boris Wave" immigration boom that is no longer the case.
It doesn't address the other problems such as social cohesion.
>Plus they often do jobs that many people wouldn't otherwise
because the wages are low, why are the wages low? because these jobs have access to an unlimited amount of strikebreakers/migrants willing to do them for those low wages, so the wage stays suppressed and low, instead of allowing market mechanics to bring those wages up
So the UK (pop 69M) has had net migration figures of 760K, 860K, and 430K over the last three years.
UK finances have wafer-thin fiscal headroom. A significant chunk of monthly borrowing is spent on interest payments.
There is no surplus for increased spending on public services. If demand keeps increasing and supply remains the same, people can feel their quality of life decreasing.
A rapidly increasing population has a greater need for GP appointments, hospital treatment, school places, housing, food, policing, roads, electricity, water, sewage, etc. You can think of it as a meta issue that affects many of our existing capacity problems.
So those who want to hand-wave away immigration as a right-wing dog whistle need to put a bit more thought into it.
The west and the east are still gutting African resources to this day via a bunch of carrots and sticks that rarely include direct bombing by a Western country or China.
Plenty of western mercenary groups supporting traditional land takeover by corporations, funding radical groups to destabilize effective governments forming or growing in strength is still ongoing.
Much of this is often hidden from the public. This argument that people should be somehow punished for actions of others that they are unaware of and have very little power over is insane IMO.
I doubt few are arguing that various Africans should be punished by losing their traditional farming land of many generations because of the iceberg lettuce consuming actions of others they are unaware of.
They are not talking about the Africans. They are talking about the British.
Immigration has had many negative effects on social cohesion in the UK. That is just an unfortunate fact. That is obvious if you have lived in poorer areas of some the cities in the UK.
When this subject is normally broached on TV channels such as the BBC. The argument often put forth is that we should accept large amounts of immigration because of the the British Empire and the wars in the Middle-East. It is often framed as if we should accept it as a form of punishment.
Well, I wouldn't say punishment is exactly fair... But your government did not pay for reparations either, while at the same time, your government does hold other countries for doing so in their own wars (validly so).
That is how many of the left talk about it. Some are more coy than others, but nonetheless that is the theme.
I certainly don't care for it and I certainly doesn't endear me to anyone making the argument.
> But your government did not pay for reparations either, while at the same time, your government does hold other countries for doing so in their own wars (validly so).
So? The vast majority of the people in country had nothing to do with those events.
That unfortunately is a common fallacy that people engage in.
In the first chapter of "Anatomy of the State" this idea is utterly demolished.
> With the rise of democracy, the identification of the State with society has been redoubled, until it is common to hear sentiments expressed which violate virtually every tenet of reason and common sense such as, “we are the government.” The useful collective term “we” has enabled an ideological camouflage to be thrown over the reality of political life. If “we are the government,” then anything a government does to an individual is not only just and untyrannical but also “voluntary” on the part of the individual concerned. If the government has incurred a huge public debt which must be paid by taxing one group for the benefit of another, this reality of burden is obscured by saying that “we owe it to ourselves”; if the government conscripts a man, or throws him into jail for dissident opinion, then he is “doing it to himself” and, therefore, nothing untoward has occurred. Under this reasoning, any Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered; instead, they must have “committed suicide,” since they were the government (which was democratically chosen), and, therefore, anything the government did to them was voluntary on their part. One would not think it necessary to belabor this point, and yet the overwhelming bulk of the people hold this fallacy to a greater or lesser degree.
I hear some Brits & immigrants raise that argument and it's the most retarded thing I've ever heard. Can you imagine seeing yourself as a punishment to be inflicted upon someone else?
Charity? I mean, it's an open secret that both sides understand that the bulk of the money sent to African countries isn't supposed to be spent on the people. It's a subsidy/bribe to their developing-world elites to keep them pliable and obedient to basically everything they're told.
It's almost immediately laundered back into London & Paris real estate and Swiss bank accounts.
Wait, you thought Western countries were handing out gibs/NEETbux to African countries just because they feel bad for them?
Africa is not a unique victim. Plenty of parts of the world have had mass enslavement, wars, genocide, pillaging, colonisation and are on their way up.
Even North Korea is more well developed despite being an isolated communist state run by a mafia.
I recommend reading "the Heart of Darkness" about some pristine unbombed idyllic stretches of the Congo river. Written by a totally English person as well, Joseph Conrad.
Western politicians and their capitalist economy required colonialism and imperialism. To this day, Westerners can't stay where they are without meddling in the affairs of others, and then they complain about it. But worry not, the economic development of Africa and Asia will soon render Europe and Amerika into very isolated and uninteresting parts of the world.
You tell that to the People's Republic of China, to Burkina Faso and many others. If you accepted your silly little racial capitalism wasn't completely obsolete and morally bankrupt, maybe there would be hope for you island people.
On one hand, I can understand your frustration at demographic & social changes. Everybody would be offended at that, no matter their race/nationality. On another, I think you're channeling your angst towards the wrong direction.
Over the past 30-80 years, Western countries collected social security contributions from workers but instead of investing/saving them, spent it all like tax. To fund pensions for that now-aged generation, you need fresh, warm bodies to pay taxes.
Sadly, that generation (boomers) had q modest fertility rate. They also live significantly longer than when social security became a norm in the West. 20-30 years more. So you need to tax their kids aggressively for longer to fund pensions & benefits for the boomers. Oh, and since the boomers' kids are having even fewer kids, it's a vicious cycle.
One way to remedy this is to suck in taxpayers from other countries & put them to work paying for the comfort of the boomers until they shuffle off the mortal coil.
So, here are your options:
1. Cut off the boomers and let them starve. But, it's untenable since their votes are a huge bloc and they'd revolt.
2. Expel every single immigrant and tax receipts will plummet. Your indig. young people will pay even more taxes to fund the boomers, unless you revert back to No. 1. Again, not tenable unless you abolish your democracy and establish a dictatorial state.
3. Maintain the current model and let it drag on.
It did not have to be like this. You could have taken Singapore's path of accumulating massive reserves ($2.5 trillion for 6 million people), but you didn't. I hope you figure it out, but I don't think anything drastic will happen.
Just like in Greece, when European lenders told them to impose austerity, leftist parties claimed they'd get into power and maintain all the benefits they'd promised the people. Fuck the globalists.
But, they got into power and realized their finances were well and truly fucked and they had to quietly undergo restructuring despite all their huffing and puffing.
Many immigrants commit crimes, yes, and I believe they need to be repressed. But, many others gratefully work and pay taxes. If you want to expel them, you need to be ready for the options above. Even if you are, many of your countrymen are not.
How about another, more nuanced option: let in those immigrants who are willing to work (and, ideally, integrate), and not everybody?
And also, crack down on illegal employment. Maybe being an undeclared, underpaid cook in some EU restaurant is better than being bombed in Syria or shot by some random dictator's goons in Africa, but that doesn't really help the local society if it's unfair competition. If you accept people in, insist that they have papers and can afford to be regular members of society.
That'd be the ideal option. So, why don't the Brits do it? Make sure every immigrant is paying into the system from the moment they step off the plane. If you're not doing that, but instead subsidizing refugees, you can't really be mad at them for accepting free stuff that you willingly give them.
I assume that means you couldn't understand the irony.
Europeans colonised and took over most of the world. As in, they moved to places that weren't theirs and imposed their values unto others to steal as much as they could from the countries they invaded. Now they complain others are doing the same to them and whine when others are fighting back.
