European refugee crisis thread

[Simon_Jester]

The kind that right-wing racist idiots like to imagine as the consequence of admitting large numbers of immigrants, but that never seems to actually happen?

If I had to pick a formal definition I'd say something like:

Having so many immigrants come into and remain in the country that major national institutions break down under the strain, on a semi-permanent basis. Or having so many immigrants come in that the local culture is unable to assimilate and accommodate the new arrivals' values, to the point where it significantly undermines the cultural values that make the nation healthy and functional.*

My basic point is that immigration on the level of approximately 1% of the population per year need NOT cause such effects, even if in theory it somehow could at a higher level of immigration. While there can certainly be logistical problems associated with "where will we put all these immigrants," that sort of problem tends to damp out over time as the economy adjusts, IF political will is present to make solutions to the problem possible.
__________

*In modern Western societies, examples of such values that could conceivably be endangered by admitting a massive number of immigrants might include religious tolerance, empowerment of women, or certain specific attitudes that the nation's educational system assumes will be present in the children it's prepared to educate.

[Thanas]

There already are problems with that in Germany, though mostly from the Turkish immigrants.

So at what percentage do you think this becomes unstable?

[Simon_Jester]

I am sincerely unsure. Especially since actual long term problems would be the result of immigration integrated over time, and that changes radically depending on whether the immigrants stay in your country permanently, versus whether they come for a time to work, and then leave.

[K. A. Pital]

Germany should stop building houses for the rich and build more affordable housing. This would alleviate the problem for the populace as well, who are what, 53% renting and not having own apartment/house?

[Broomstick]

So at what percentage do you think this becomes unstable?

That's probably going to depend on a lot of different variables. Population density, availability of jobs, cultural factors between the native and immigrant cultures....

[Simon_Jester]

Germany should stop building houses for the rich and build more affordable housing. This would alleviate the problem for the populace as well, who are what, 53% renting and not having own apartment/house?

Mass ownership of houses can cause more problems than it solves; witness the US housing market from 1990 to 2008. Mass ownership of apartments, however, is a more reasonable goal. Especially since the price of fuel is only going to rise, which makes it more and more inefficient for every person to own their own vehicle so that they can commute through the huge areas of suburban in-fill required to make mass house-ownership possible.

One trick to making that happen is creating a legal infrastructure that supports the idea of group ownership of a residential building. In the US, apartments tend to be constructed and owned by private companies who rent or lease them to the individual tenants. I have heard indications that this is less often the case in, for example, Britain, but do not know enough to be sure how to compare the situation there.

[cmdrjones]

Ah, I see.

The estimated number of this years asylum seakers has risen to 800 000. Living space for that number is really tight. I like what the mayor of Tübingen, Boris Palmer, has suggested. The city of Tübingen is in talks with people who own homes - empty, big houses that can fit 70 or so people, each. The city wants to buy or rent from these people but apparently a lot of these home owners are too asocial to let refugees live in their precious homes. Apparently German police law allows to seize empty living space from people in times of high homelessnes. Palmer wants to use this law to temporarily disown home owners and give these living spaces to refugees.

Well, it's not as if germans haven't been expulsed in large quantities BEFORE.... just ask Eisenhower... I'm surprised nobody has thought of this solution before. Question though, does Germany have an eminent domain law like the US where they would have to compensate the owners or can they just take the houses?

[Thanas]

Germany should stop building houses for the rich and build more affordable housing. This would alleviate the problem for the populace as well, who are what, 53% renting and not having own apartment/house?

"Germany" is not building houses for the rich. The rich are building houses for the rich. We can't just nationalize their wealth. And most Germans can't afford a house/appartment anyway.

There should be more subsidies for people to allow them to purchase homes. That would be good.

[K. A. Pital]

So most people are so poor they cannot buy a home either at all or without submitting to crushing mortgage debts? Maybe the exorbitant price of housing is related to that, just a random thought. And the fact that the rich only build houses for the rich does not explain why there is a huge housing shortage in Germany. Why is the government not doing more? Merkelnomics, I guess.

As of now, the state assistance when purchasing homes is laughable. But I think the state should really provide more cheap housing than it does now, and more in property than in rent.

Apartment ownership is preferrable to maintaining a huge wealthy class of rentiers through exorbitant rents. "Deutsche Annington" my ass, a bunch of English thieves making money on the people's plight, bying decrepit housing and doing shit nothing just squeezing max profits. Really, that is not the vision of "social market economy" even, but the exact opposite of it.

The Germans were not as poor before, but the decline in the purchasing power of their wages hit the nation hard. And, quite obviously, instead of stepping in to alleviate this problem, German government just distanced itself from it, like the damn Thatcherites.

[Thanas]

So most people are so poor they cannot buy a home either at all or without submitting to crushing mortgage debts? Maybe the exorbitant price of housing is related to that, just a random thought. And the fact that the rich only build houses for the rich does not explain why there is a huge housing shortage in Germany. Why is the government not doing more? Merkelnomics, I guess.

Most Germans cannot afford to maintain a home and get debt-free within their lives. The only way to lower this would be by either lowering construction costs (=exploit workers) or somehow make the land less expensive (which it will get anyway over the next years).

I agree that beter housing assistance would be great.

EDIT: However, I do think some issues are more pressing than the housing market. For example, Kalte Progression and Leiharbeit should be tackled first as they do more to push down wages and hurt workers than housing prices.

[K. A. Pital]

Construction costs are not only the labour; the government should subsidize this industry, I think, given how vital housing is to a person's life. Unlike many other things. Lowering costs is possible through subsidies.

I do agree with you that lease labour is a travesty, and deserves all the scrutiny it can get. Reducing lease terms is a very, very important step. Tax creep is alarming, too, but I think nobody is serious about countering it for the workers. Most parliamentarians just want more money for their rich buddies. Indeed, tax rates for the richest have gone down substantially.

Maybe you're right, still I feel the housing crisis is not to be overlooked. Especially coupled with the massive influx of refugees and work-seeking EU citizens.

[Simon_Jester]

So most people are so poor they cannot buy a home either at all or without submitting to crushing mortgage debts? Maybe the exorbitant price of housing is related to that, just a random thought.

Although the price of housing is related to the price of land, which is often very valuable in the places people actually want to live. Thinking about the US, we could more easily afford to pay for smaller houses or farther from urban centers. But in the former case people might well prefer an apartment, and in the latter case you're encouraging people to commute stupid-long distances, which has extra costs in the form of transportation expenses, and ultimately creates more gridlock and is bad for the environment.

As of now, the state assistance when purchasing homes is laughable. But I think the state should really provide more cheap housing than it does now, and more in property than in rent.

I agree with this; I simply think it desirable to subsidize ownership of flats rather than free-standing houses.

[salm]

Ah, I see.

The estimated number of this years asylum seakers has risen to 800 000. Living space for that number is really tight. I like what the mayor of Tübingen, Boris Palmer, has suggested. The city of Tübingen is in talks with people who own homes - empty, big houses that can fit 70 or so people, each. The city wants to buy or rent from these people but apparently a lot of these home owners are too asocial to let refugees live in their precious homes. Apparently German police law allows to seize empty living space from people in times of high homelessnes. Palmer wants to use this law to temporarily disown home owners and give these living spaces to refugees.

Well, it's not as if germans haven't been expulsed in large quantities BEFORE.... just ask Eisenhower... I'm surprised nobody has thought of this solution before. Question though, does Germany have an eminent domain law like the US where they would have to compensate the owners or can they just take the houses?

Expulsed?
It´s really strange what people think when they read "empty houses". They want to seize empty houses, not expulse people from their houses in order to house other people. That wouldn´t make any sense. You don´t solve a homeless problem if you throw one person out to give some other person a home.
Look, there are perfectly fine houses with appartements that can hold plenty of people. These appartments are vacant. The city is trying to pay the owners but the owners don´t want to rent or sell to the city because they don´t want asylum seakers in their appartements. Probably because of racism.
I think the right to a home is more important than property rights so seizing these homes would be a very good solution.
If there is some sort of compensation in such a case I don´t know, but I´d assume there is just like when people get dispossessed.

[madd0ct0r]

of course, the threat of having their property 'temporarily borrowed' will certainly engage the minds of those home owners on the pressing need to build more houses NOW!. It's hard to be a NIMBY when the alternative is the house itself

[His Divine Shadow]

I agree with this; I simply think it desirable to subsidize ownership of flats rather than free-standing houses.

I remember hearing about a recent finnish study that said the increased consumerism in urban areas vs. rural / suburban areas offset the environmental gains made up by not having to heat a house or not having a car, and that the gap had been shrinking because modern houses are more environmentally friendly than ever. It made quite a few people angry and was called a shit study because it was obviously wrong.

I don't really know either way about the study, perhaps it's crap as they say and nothing to bother taking too seriously. Still I thought it was funny how it reminded me of islamists reacting to someone questioning the koran or something in that vein. Like that probably fake photo where someone holds a sign that says "Behead those who say islam is violent".

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integra ... na3_en.pdf

[salm]

of course, the threat of having their property 'temporarily borrowed' will certainly engage the minds of those home owners on the pressing need to build more houses NOW!. It's hard to be a NIMBY when the alternative is the house itself

But why would these people build houses NOW! for asylum seekers? The houses they own are empty and they don´t want to have asylum seekers in their houses. Why would they build houses specifically for asylum seekers and why would they build houses at all if they apparently are unable to rent their current houses to "adequat" people?

[Thanas]

To be honest, I can understand some of those owners considering how some refugees (predominantly Bangladeshi and sub-sahara Africans) treat the refugee quarters.

[salm]

To be honest, I can understand some of those owners considering how some refugees (predominantly Bangladeshi and sub-sahara Africans) treat the refugee quarters.

Source?

[Thanas]

Recent spiegel article, print edition, about conditions in a greek house turned into refugee center. Apparently no shits were given about cleaning trash up, but plenty of shits were given outside the sanitary facilities.

[salm]

So... one house?

[Thanas]

Like I said, I can see where the owners are coming from. I'm still in favor of the state paying them though.

[Broomstick]

Maybe some sort of insurance program for those renting to legitimate immigrants/refugees?

[Simon_Jester]

I agree with this; I simply think it desirable to subsidize ownership of flats rather than free-standing houses.

I remember hearing about a recent finnish study that said the increased consumerism in urban areas vs. rural / suburban areas offset the environmental gains made up by not having to heat a house or not having a car, and that the gap had been shrinking because modern houses are more environmentally friendly than ever. It made quite a few people angry and was called a shit study because it was obviously wrong.

Well, it seems non-obvious that you'd get "increased consumerism" in a society just because a person who otherwise would have moved to a house moves into an apartment...

Now, rural dwellers are a different story- but those are often relatively low-income people.

So it makes a big difference whether you're comparing 'rural versus urban' or whether you're comparing 'live in a house versus live in an apartment.' And I was doing the latter.

[Welf]

To be honest, I can understand some of those owners considering how some refugees (predominantly Bangladeshi and sub-sahara Africans) treat the refugee quarters.

Source?

Recent spiegel article, print edition, about conditions in a greek house turned into refugee center. Apparently no shits were given about cleaning trash up, but plenty of shits were given outside the sanitary facilities.

salm, you should have specified and asked for a credible source. And the Spiegel hasn't been in 2 decades.

So most people are so poor they cannot buy a home either at all or without submitting to crushing mortgage debts? Maybe the exorbitant price of housing is related to that, just a random thought. And the fact that the rich only build houses for the rich does not explain why there is a huge housing shortage in Germany. Why is the government not doing more? Merkelnomics, I guess.

As of now, the state assistance when purchasing homes is laughable. But I think the state should really provide more cheap housing than it does now, and more in property than in rent.

Apartment ownership is preferrable to maintaining a huge wealthy class of rentiers through exorbitant rents. "Deutsche Annington" my ass, a bunch of English thieves making money on the people's plight, bying decrepit housing and doing shit nothing just squeezing max profits. Really, that is not the vision of "social market economy" even, but the exact opposite of it.

The Germans were not as poor before, but the decline in the purchasing power of their wages hit the nation hard. And, quite obviously, instead of stepping in to alleviate this problem, German government just distanced itself from it, like the damn Thatcherites.

Meh. There isn't housing shortage in Germany, there is a distribution issue. There is a massive migration from rural areas to cities. In places like Hamburg and Munich you are happy to live in a better broom closet, in some eastern states you have half empty villages where people curse if they inherit one because of the cost to maintain it* Those are recent changes and too fast to easily compensate. Especially if combined with neo-liberal politics that cut social housing, as has been done since the 90s.
But the solution is not home ownership. That only leads to people anchored to specific areas, hindering future adjustment to economic and social changes, and to environment destruction and dissolution of communities by urban sprawl.
A much better idea is public housing and laws for protection of tenants, supplemented by housing cooperatives. Most Nordic countries have developed that idea very well. In Germany about 10% of all housing space is run by co-operatives.

*Theoretically you could send refugees there, but the villages with empty houses are those with no jobs and the most xenophobic locals.

[The Xeelee]

Unfortunately Britiain won't be helping with the crisis anytime soon with the rise of UKIP and the "assault on Calais".