Quote from: jackg on Today at 08:33:36 PM

Quote from: squatz1 on Today at 08:21:17 PM

But here's the problem for people who already have jobs in the areas where refugees would flood in -- there would be a lot more workers competing for the same amount of jobs, at least initially. So with the same amount of jobs present and tons of more people who want those jobs, employers are beyond happy -- they're able to pay the workers less and less as there is more supply for the same amount of demand. Employees are not happy though, as they're being paid less for the same amount of work b/c of supply and demand.

I meant capping refugees from that area to working a shorter amount of time every week the $150 would be something like them receiving the normal £30 stipend refugees get a week with 2 or 3 days of work.

So employers who need staff for a whole week will still employ full citizens and there may be less competition from refugees but I get there'd still be some demand gap.

Realistically this would have been intended for a time when there were more jobs than people to fill them, doing something like this during a recession would worsen the lives of your population.

I think taking in an extra amount of people wouldn't reduce the quality of life the affected people are already facing more than it would affect the quality for the refugees though maybe that's too far of a statement to make...

A cap could work, but once you introduce the idea for a gap I think we're all expecting for this cap to be lessened or increased based on politics by those in charge instead of changing the number based on economics and caring about the people who are working in the economy at this current point.

I don't like the EU style of government b/c of the fact that it can force countries do certain things that they don't want to do. For example - Taking in refugees. That was a major problem over the last few years.

But that's how the EU works, you either work in as a team and get the benefits of it or you leave and that's that.