European refugee crisis thread

[Elheru Aran]

Holy Crap!

I'm living in Bumfuck Nowhere, Hungary, and even here a house starts at 10k!

Depolulation is a problem in germany. There are many empty houses in dying counties like Osterode.

...if depopulation is a problem, then surely an influx of refugees would make up for that, no?

[Broomstick]

Only if there are jobs available in the depopulated areas.

[Elheru Aran]

Only if there are jobs available in the depopulated areas.

True enough, which in hindsight probably does play a part in *why* it's depopulated.

[ray245]

Holy Crap!

I'm living in Bumfuck Nowhere, Hungary, and even here a house starts at 10k!

Depolulation is a problem in germany. There are many empty houses in dying counties like Osterode.

...if depopulation is a problem, then surely an influx of refugees would make up for that, no?

It's not going to be helpful for integration and assimilation if you just house a bunch of refugees together in a town in an area far off from any other major population centres. The aim is to ensure you don't create a ghetto that is going to be even more harmful to them and the rest of society in the long term.

Ideally you would want to let them live among other locals and be able to form some amount of bond with the local community. It's not merely about finding places for them to live.

[salm]

There is plenty of living space in all the wrong places.

[Broomstick]

Yes.

One reason I'd like to be able to earn a living through writing or independent craft work (or both) is that I would no longer be tied to a geographical location. I could move somewhere with cheaper housing, lower population density, lower crime, etc. without suffering economically.

Get enough independent sorts of that kind moving out to a "depopulated" town or area you can get a bit of a revival as the newcomers will want groceries and various services, which will supply jobs for the area. Combine that with a tourist attraction or two and you can have a viable economy.

Then you have the problem that such areas can also be very homogeneous, insular, and not welcoming to newcomers.

[Elheru Aran]

It does strike me that you could use depopulated areas to fuel an economic revival in those regions with some careful assistance. Say you move 500 immigrants to a small town which is not doing well-- they have a place to stay, but there's no work, right? That many people though may require an additional grocery store, a few more medical personnel in the local health care system... find qualified people within that refugee population, help them start up a little something. "If you and your family move here, we will give you a small grant to start X business that you have a degree/experience in". *shrugs* I don't know how practical that is, but it does occur to me off the top of my head...

[Thunderfire]

...if depopulation is a problem, then surely an influx of refugees would make up for that, no?

Many dying counties are in eastern germany. Another Heindenau could happen if you sent immigrant to these counties.

[salm]

Heidenau isn´t even one of these areas. It´s right next to Dresden and has good public transport to Dresden. It does make sense to put people there. Same with Freital. But houses in Heidenau and Freital are expensive. They start at 150 000€.

It would be bad, though, to put people into remote areas where they would need a car to get around. Nobody of the refugees will be able to afford a car any time soon.

[K. A. Pital]

Yeah, isolating the refugees in remote communities sounds like a recipe for disaster. They would have no way to move anywhere, no work and no prospects of work in the future. This would be even worse than a city-outskirts ghetto. In fact, it would be a rural ghetto of sorts.

[Elheru Aran]

Right, which is why a few government grants to help create jobs would come in handy. You have a newly expanded population; where there are people, there are needs for goods and services, ergo potential jobs exist that only need some resources and some willing hands to fill. The ghetto thing would not look good, though, and it's rather understandable if Germany wants to avoid that image...

[Thanas]

We already have a lot of open jobs and in fact our artisans and small businesses have been lobbying to allow migrants to work faster and longer for a long time. But this will necessitate changing laws, so it might take a bit of time to get it through.

[salm]

Asylum seekers used to have to wait at least 9 months until they were allowed to work at all. This has been lowered to 3 months. Unfortunately if a EU citizen wants the same job the employer has to give the job to the EU citizen.

Hopefully with the current preasure the conditions will get better.

[Purple]

Why is that unfortunate?

[Welf]

I wonder if it is going to get more interesting in the future when more people work from home offices. I´ve been working from my home office for almost 3 years now and from a financial standpont it would make sense to move to a cheap rural place.
I need a very fast internet connection for work and rural areas have been catching up with internet speed. At the moment I´ve got a 50Mbit down and 10Mbit up line which I surprisingly could get in a lot of rural areas now as well. However, these speeds have been around in rural areas only for a year or so and I´m a bit afraid that soon I´ll need even higher speeds because 4k resolutions and VR are on the rise. Both require extreme bandwidths and of course the necessary bandwidth which is available here in Berlin (200Mbit down 40Mbit up) now, will take a while to trickle down.

I actually think that will have the opposite effect. If people can do jobs without having to move to a specific place, they can choose to move to a big city while taking a job from a company in a small or middle sized city. There are a lot of medium sized cities between 30.000 and 500.000 that have not much too offer except maybe a specific employer.

Saving is not "useless" - you do not lose money only if you invest in assets which appreciate lke 3% per year, outpacing inflation, but spending everything on consumer goods doesn't make much sense either. Just about the only asset (other than stocks, etc.) which offers a stable over 3% return is... property.

Btw, where did you get that percentage from?

Europe and developed economies
´[snip]
Asia
[snip]

Also, how do you know so much about the German housing market?

I wouldn't say it is much, just some bits of information others may find useful.

I do read about saving rates in economies as data, but I haven't heard of a normative theory for this. Seems like a gap I'd like to close.

There are gross savings (which also include corporate and govt savings) and then there's the household savings rate. I say "norm" because a savings rate of 50% is the norm for myself. Doesn't mean it's normal for Europe or developed economies, although I don't think total spending and nigh-zero savings are normal either...

A 50% savings rate for households is way too much for a economy. The Chinese have around 30%, and they have a lot of trouble now. If everyone saves, and no one consumes the savings will bring no profit since companies don't make revenue. The Chinese have built a lot of capacity they don't need because people rather save than consume.

Houses or apartments in which you live are a weird asset class. In a perfect market it wouldn't be an investment, it would be completely consumption. Depreciation should be equal to maintenance cost, and together with interest and opportunity cost it should be equal to rent. But obviously it isn't. First, you save the money on administration, and you tend to pay more for the feeling of having your own property. In fact, I think 3% return over the long term is not much. If you buy a property you loose a lot of flexibility, since you can't simply move for a job. Also, if something happens to your property, like mould, fire, flood, mould, a demographic shift or mould, you loose a significant amount of value. A real estate agent* I once talked with told me he doesn't own a apartment himself, because he prefers to be flexible.
*Later I found out he was a member of scientology, and he forwarded me to a partner who tried to charge me 1.000 bucks in advance (non-refundable) for the right to buy an apartment she wouldn't let me look at before I paid up. Buying real estate is an adventure.

It does strike me that you could use depopulated areas to fuel an economic revival in those regions with some careful assistance. Say you move 500 immigrants to a small town which is not doing well-- they have a place to stay, but there's no work, right? That many people though may require an additional grocery store, a few more medical personnel in the local health care system... find qualified people within that refugee population, help them start up a little something. "If you and your family move here, we will give you a small grant to start X business that you have a degree/experience in". *shrugs* I don't know how practical that is, but it does occur to me off the top of my head...

That has been tried already. Small communities already get a lot of subsidies. Also, most jobs are in business-to-business sectors. Retail, healthcare ans social services maybe get 30 or 40% employed. The rest would be unemployed. And the children of the migrants who hopefully speak German would probably move away themselves.

There is plenty of living space in all the wrong places.

Adolf Hitler, August 1939.
Sorry

[salm]

Why is that unfortunate?

I think that an asylum seeker that is better qualified to do something should get the job over worse EU candidate.
This barrier is only removed after 15 months. This (combined with other barriers such as language for example) means that it is exorbitantly difficult for an asylum seeker to find a job for over a year which again means that most asylum seekers are forced to sit on their asses which is rather demoralizing to a lot of people. And I don´t think it is very desirable to have large numbers of demoralized people.

[salm]

I actually think that will have the opposite effect. If people can do jobs without having to move to a specific place, they can choose to move to a big city while taking a job from a company in a small or middle sized city. There are a lot of medium sized cities between 30.000 and 500.000 that have not much too offer except maybe a specific employer.

The financial incentive to live in a low cost rural area with a well paying job in a large city without the negative waste of time that comes with commuting would be quite a large one. Not everybody wants to live in a city. A lot of people live there because of the jobs and would be perfectly fine or actually prefer living in the country side.

There is plenty of living space in all the wrong places.

Adolf Hitler, August 1939.
Sorry

Jawohl! Läbänsraumerweiterong för Flöchtlänge än Freital ond Haidänau!

[Thunderfire]

Heidenau isn´t even one of these areas. It´s right next to Dresden and has good public transport to Dresden. It does make sense to put people there. Same with Freital. But houses in Heidenau and Freital are expensive. They start at 150 000€.

It would be bad, though, to put people into remote areas where they would need a car to get around. Nobody of the refugees will be able to afford a car any time soon.

One of my workmates was born in south western saxony(Vogtland). This area had a nazi problem in 1995 - 20 years ago. The Vogtland is one of those dying counties in germany.

[K. A. Pital]

A 50% savings rate for households is way too much for a economy. The Chinese have around 30%, and they have a lot of trouble now. If everyone saves, and no one consumes the savings will bring no profit since companies don't make revenue. The Chinese have built a lot of capacity they don't need because people rather save than consume.

All underdeveloped economies have very high savings rates. This is normal. You can usually only count on yourself if anything happens in such economies. Consuming savings (instead of investing them) means having nothing. Not very smart individually. The West has pushed this maxim beyond normality with consumer credit, which leads to unnaturally rising prices for homes and other credit-bought long-use goods.

Houses or apartments in which you live are a weird asset class. In a perfect market it wouldn't be an investment, it would be completely consumption.

There are no perfect markets.

First, you save the money on administration, and you tend to pay more for the feeling of having your own property. In fact, I think 3% return over the long term is not much. If you buy a property you loose a lot of flexibility, since you can't simply move for a job. Also, if something happens to your property, like mould, fire, flood, mould, a demographic shift or mould, you loose a significant amount of value. A real estate agent* I once talked with told me he doesn't own a apartment himself, because he prefers to be flexible.

Once again, the returns on rental properties well exceed 3% - they are in the 5-7% range on the average. A very good pick can offer returns of 9% or so. This is not abstract figures. Why can I not "move for a job" when I own? I can move and rent out my own apartment, not only getting extra guaranteed income which helps to set things up at my new work place, and likely covers partly or fully the rent expenses there, but I also keep an asset worth some 80-90k at hand, which I can use to fund buying property in my new place in a few years, if I decide to settle there. There is nothing asventurous here, just cold cash. Selling apartments without looking is not allowed here, so it is fairly safe. Customer protection in German law is well-designed. Flood, fire, etc. are covered by insurance, which costs around 200 Eur per year.

All of this contributes to the housing crisis massively as rich dumbasses buy lots of apartments and enjoy high returns without thinking what this does to the total availability of housing to the general population. If the returns were lower, rentiers would not be as numerous and thriving as they are.

[Broomstick]

First, I'm wondering where the word "rentier" is coming from, as it is not one I am familiar with. Around here they're usually call "landlords" or, in legal documents such as a lease, "lessor" (as opposed the the renter, who is called a "lessee").

Second - there are sometimes downsides to renting out property you own. In our area that means increased government regulation and also an instant doubling of property taxes because now it's considered a type of commercial property rather than a residential one (which also accounts for some of the cost of rent).

Sure, you can rent out property you own after moving to another city, but owning property subjects you to certain obligations and they can't always be done at a distance. There is also the problem that if you have substantial money tied up in one property you own purchasing another can be difficult.

[Zaune]

It's not necessarily that easy to alleviate people's fear when many of the new refugees have no means to form any strong social bonds with the local population. There aren't simply that many social institutions(e.t. a church) where the locals and the newly arrived migrants and refugees can actively learn the customs of each other. It becomes even worse when people perceive migrants and refugees to be forming ghettos which is just going scare people even more, irregardless of whether that is an rational behaviour or not.

Language barrier, different customs and different beliefs is all going to alienate both parties.

I would respectfully dispute that the situation is anywhere near that bad outside the fevered imaginations of Daily Mail readers. I could maybe see a problem in the sort of remote rural district where nobody's ever seen a non-white person except on television, but in most reasonably urbanised parts of Western Europe there's a sizeable pre-existing network of mosques and community centres and third and fourth generation families who are every bit as local as any white person but still speak Arabic and know recognisably similar traditions to the newcomers... who'll still have to deal with a bit of culture shock, but that's nothing we haven't weathered before.

[salm]

Sure, you can rent out property you own after moving to another city, but owning property subjects you to certain obligations and they can't always be done at a distance. There is also the problem that if you have substantial money tied up in one property you own purchasing another can be difficult.

Renting out your property to the wrong person can make you life very difficult in Germany because of the vast amounts of rights renters have.

You can not throw people out, for example, even if they fuck up your property or don´t pay the rent. Only if they do that very regularily you have a chance. You need a very good reason, for example personal use of the property - which means actually living there and not "personally using" it for storing air. Even if you want your property for personal use it can be take ages to get the tenants out because you are not allowed to make people homeless.

Most people have no or only little problems with their tenants but if you get on of these horror tenant you´re fucked.

[Dartzap]

It's not necessarily that easy to alleviate people's fear when many of the new refugees have no means to form any strong social bonds with the local population. There aren't simply that many social institutions(e.t. a church) where the locals and the newly arrived migrants and refugees can actively learn the customs of each other. It becomes even worse when people perceive migrants and refugees to be forming ghettos which is just going scare people even more, irregardless of whether that is an rational behaviour or not.

Language barrier, different customs and different beliefs is all going to alienate both parties.

I would respectfully dispute that the situation is anywhere near that bad outside the fevered imaginations of Daily Mail readers. I could maybe see a problem in the sort of remote rural district where nobody's ever seen a non-white person except on television, but in most reasonably urbanised parts of Western Europe there's a sizeable pre-existing network of mosques and community centres and third and fourth generation families who are every bit as local as any white person but still speak Arabic and know recognisably similar traditions to the newcomers... who'll still have to deal with a bit of culture shock, but that's nothing we haven't weathered before.

Quite. Even in Arse End Upon Sea, Devon, there are small but seizable communities from most of the worlds major religions, smaller as well. The citizens of Exeter were recently up in arms because some Cornish fethwits wouldn't let their kids visit the mosque here, over 'safety fears' The fact a CoE school is right next door and nothing has ever happened, was not enough to allay any fears

Would be fantastic if the Daily Mail/Express were shut down for a few months, just to see if the hysteria cooled off.

[Broomstick]

You don't want to disperse immigrants too much any more than you want them locked in a ghetto. In the US former immigrants do a lot of work to help newcomers adjust to the US and a certain amount of ethnic institutions, provided they aren't toxic, provide needed support to those immigrants that find learning a new language or adjusting to new customs particularly difficult (typically elderly asylum seekers). If newcomers feel they can retain some of their history and culture then the inevitable changes in the next generation will be less threatening, they can adapt to their new country without having their history and identity erased.

It's a balancing act.

[ray245]

It's not necessarily that easy to alleviate people's fear when many of the new refugees have no means to form any strong social bonds with the local population. There aren't simply that many social institutions(e.t. a church) where the locals and the newly arrived migrants and refugees can actively learn the customs of each other. It becomes even worse when people perceive migrants and refugees to be forming ghettos which is just going scare people even more, irregardless of whether that is an rational behaviour or not.

Language barrier, different customs and different beliefs is all going to alienate both parties.

I would respectfully dispute that the situation is anywhere near that bad outside the fevered imaginations of Daily Mail readers. I could maybe see a problem in the sort of remote rural district where nobody's ever seen a non-white person except on television, but in most reasonably urbanised parts of Western Europe there's a sizeable pre-existing network of mosques and community centres and third and fourth generation families who are every bit as local as any white person but still speak Arabic and know recognisably similar traditions to the newcomers... who'll still have to deal with a bit of culture shock, but that's nothing we haven't weathered before.

I'm not sure if relying on mosques to help those people assimilate is going to make people fear refugees even less. The problem is people are increasingly characterising the whole problem as a Christian/secularist vs. Muslim divide. It's reinforcing people's fear that you are going to end up creating some sort of plural society.