THREE quarters of Germany’s refugees will be long-term unemployed and claiming benefits for years, it was admitted today.
Aydan Özo?uz, commissioner for immigration, refugees and integration, told the Financial Times that only a quarter to a third of the newcomers would enter the labour market over the next five years, and “for many others we will need up to 10”.
The Institute for Employment Research (IAB) found only 45 per cent of Syrian refugees in Germany have a school-leaving certificate and 23 per cent a college degree.
Statistics from the Federal Labour Agency show the employment rate among refugees stands at just 17 per cent.
It said 484,000 of the refugees are looking for work, up from 322,000 last July — an increase of 50 per cent.
Of those, 178,500 are officially unemployed, meaning they not only have no work but are not enrolled in any training programmes or language courses — up 27 per cent on last July.
The figures will be hard to swallow for Angela Merkel as she seeks a fourth term as chancellor in elections this September.
Ms Merkel’s poll ratings plummeted in 2015 when she responded to Europe’s migrant crisis by announcing a deeply unpopular open-door policy.
It was hoped the arrival of so many working-age, highly-motivated immigrants would help end Germany’s skills shortage and solve a demographic crisis posed by its dangerously low birth rate.
Dieter Zetsche, chief executive of carmaker Daimler, said the refugees could lay the foundation for the “next German economic miracle”.
But the truth about the migrants’ lack of qualifications and language skills is now sinking in.
Vox isn’t kidding when he says, “They all have to go back.” When the economic collapse comes and everyone is starving, all of these deadbeats are going to demand they be given free food and housing “for fairness,” and you can see how that is going to end.
These are the realizations that will pile up over the coming years, each weighing upon all the others, and all cumulatively proving everything Evopsych explains about politics. Liberals evolved way back when those first humans fled the fighting in our first territory, landed in an unpopulated utopia of free resources, exploded in numbers until fighting began there, and then fled again to a new unpopulated territory of free resources.
It is striking that our first spark of political ideology arose when the losers separated themselves from the winners, at which point each began diverging as a sort of psychological subset, designed for their own environment. Now all these millennia later, and everything is still the same. Get free resources so nobody can lose, and the losers explode in numbers until the resources contract, at which point the losers flee and hide, and the K-selected winners emerge as the dominant form of the species.
It is not a coincidence migrants are high in long form DRD4 alleles. It is not a coincidence those high long-form carriers exhibit promiscuity, blindness to risk, reduced rearing investments, and the r-selected reproductive strategy. They are designed for an environment of free resource availability. They expect it, they need it, and they cannot function absent it.
If r/K Theory had been accepted ten years ago, then everyone would have been able to predict all of this arising from the migrant surge.
Perhaps we can make that a reality for the next time r-selection rises, and the K-shift begins its approach.
Spread r/K Theory, because ejecting the migrants will be our generation’s defining event
[…] Migrants Are r-strategists – 75% Of German Migrants Will Be On the Dole For Life […]
There were a few posts here recently – the video voiced by Tara was one of them – that made me realize that the animal development of r or K is also related to being a prey or preditor.
That prey because they are eaten are looking to disarm potential preditors, and rarely face population preasures. ** Preditors because they run out of food and face population preasures, tend to want to in group and arm up.
How the Germans and Americans and every other welfare state plays out will be determined by the votes. If the majority supports fairness, it will be prolonged reckoning, sharp crash and bloody. If the majority supports in grouping and kicking the migrants out, it will be a sharp settling, a slower slop on the crash, and less bloody.
Past as predictive? I go with the first description as more likely.
** Prey only face population preasures when the ablity to move is confined. A study was done on some Island in the Great lakes tracking deer and wolf population. With out putting numbers on it, there were two sin curves following on another through time. The deer population would increase, closing in on the carrying capacity of the island and reaching a peak. This cause the wolf population to increase at at some point the wolf population was growing while the deer was shrinking due to poor nutrition and wolves. As the deer are bottoming out, the wolves are in a decline due to lack of food. The deer would be growing while the wolves were bottoming out, and the cycle started again. But this was on an isolated island, where forage for the deer was constrained. One could imagine in absence of preditors, the deer becoming self K over generations.
‘Malthusian trap’ needs to be in the popular lexicon when discussing demographic collapse – he’s as relevant as Darwin to evolution. Read one of his essays some time.
Yes!