Yeah that stat has been public for many years. I think they release updated versions every now and then.
This is what I like about the Danish government. They aren’t afraid to just post these numbers. And they also don’t use them for anti-immigrant rethoric but instead explain that it is because of the number of refugees in this group (who obviously in the beginning will be costly to help) and name that integration policy is important to battle this cost disparity. This is the truth. Is it uncomfortable to put a price tag on helping people? Yes. But at the same time it’s important that we manage this properly if we want to keep our social security running smoothly. Only if we name the numbers can we respond to trends, especially through effective integration policies.
Which isn’t surprising. Refugees, for instance, can’t work for their first six months in the country and following on from that they can work but under heavy restrictions.
There’s also a big variation in non-Western sub groups too
That’s what you get for not using euros eheh
“Non-Western” – I assume that includes people from Eastern Europe or is this about non-European countries?
To make the amount more accessible to non-Danish, 31B DKK equals:
Worth noting this amount has been trending down for a while now, down from 42 billion in 2015
If that’s the case why accept them in the first place?
People are afraid this is used for anti-immigration purposes. And whose fault is that? It feels like certain groups want to bury the truth. Oil companies, fast food companies also hid the truth for years about their products. How are the people who want to stop these types of research from being shown any different
So explain why we should bleed money for people who don’t work, integrate and are more likely to commit crimes?
I’m curious how this study is carried out long term. It’s not really described in the article.
Like, let’s say you follow a specific group of immigrants over the years. Well it would make sense that initially they take out more than they contribute. It takes time to adjust if you’re a regular migrant, to not even speak of an actual refugee. But is there an inflection point at which they become solvent and start to produce more than they spend? If so, what’s the timeline? If not, what is the hypothesis for the reason?
It’s rare that a country has the balls to share any data on this. Props to the Danes. I’d really be curious to see some more details.
Someone explain to me how illegal immigrants in Europe — presumably without an ID, official record or residency documents — are able to just participate in welfare programs? Do you just show up and get free services/money without any sort of verification?
Maybe we should spend it differently…
You see these sorts of stats in America that conservatives praise but what they don’t take into account is the increase in economic activity by immigrants. You cant take one side of the equation and every major economist would say immigration is a net benefit.
Westerners are “expats”, not immigrants.
D’uh.
/s
I think it was a uni in the Netherlands that recently did a similar study that came to a similar conclusion. The data is in. Unskilled migrants are bad for Europe. It’s not even a case of ‘non-Western’. This is purely unskilled vs knowledge or skilled workers. They keep wages down and restrict housing supply and access to services. They are a net negative. But will governments do anything about it? Can we introduce some sanity to our continent before resentment of all immigrants reaches boiling point? As an immigrant myself, I certainly hope so. But the media has propagandised this issue so much, and the ECHR is such a vaguely written farce of a document, that it will be an uphill struggle.
How much is that in lego sets?
There’s also never going to be a return on investment.
Just a reminder that that translates to 4.1 billion euros. So I guess the question is do Western immigrants make up for the losses?
But they are [big shot].
I find it a bit strange and unreliable that they would include things like the education of the children of migrants or migrant children, as all children receive education regardless, and while this costs the state in the short term, it also creates tax income long-term. Given that the refugee crisis was only about six years ago, there’s no way we can genuinely draw any conclusions about the actual long-term cost/benefit, as most children whose education is being paid for have not yet built a career.
Other variables are strange as well, and make this number on its own relatively worthless. A lot of these so-called costs are meaningless without a point of comparison or simply due to a lack of long-term data.
>This means that, along with spending on benefits, the costs of public services to which everyone in Denmark has access are included in the calculation.
I think that for this to be a useful number, we first have to compare it to the cost of a normal Danish citizen. It would be a much more useful number if it was only the amount *extra* paid above and beyond a normal Danish citizen.
For it to be even more useful, we’d need to know how much value they bring to the economy. They might be doing work that others are not willing to do and propping up certain valuable sectors of the economy. At least that’s the case for industries like agriculture in the US, for example. Just because the government is spending money here doesn’t mean that they are not a net benefit to the economy. That is not made clear at all.
Interesting.
In Germany it is quiet the opposite.
Non-western immigrants contribute to the state. A Study assigned by the new magazine FOCUS states that every year very clear.
Im sorry, we need to stop taking in migrants. Its not sustainable, and its a net negative for both our nations AND their home nations.
Its contributed to the rise of the far right, and the decay of the European Union.
Diversity Tax
*The costs per person of things like health care, child care, education and culture are factored into the calculation of what the state spends on specified groups and individuals.*
So the number is pretty relative. Also, one could argue that those are investments in the future, so those people can be contribute in the future.
In Austria, it is about 2 to 3 billion euros per year. Nobody knows exactly how much, the state does not do the math.
By comparison, about 4.5 billion is spent on all universities in the country.
The costs increase massively every year because integration into the labour market is not successful and people who are in basic care for asylum seekers receive considerably less social benefits than those who have received a positive asylum decision.
This does not include higher costs for crime – asylum seekers commit crime at a very, very, very high rate.
But they are partly there because companies request cheap labor.
28 comments
Yeah that stat has been public for many years. I think they release updated versions every now and then.
This is what I like about the Danish government. They aren’t afraid to just post these numbers. And they also don’t use them for anti-immigrant rethoric but instead explain that it is because of the number of refugees in this group (who obviously in the beginning will be costly to help) and name that integration policy is important to battle this cost disparity. This is the truth. Is it uncomfortable to put a price tag on helping people? Yes. But at the same time it’s important that we manage this properly if we want to keep our social security running smoothly. Only if we name the numbers can we respond to trends, especially through effective integration policies.
Which isn’t surprising. Refugees, for instance, can’t work for their first six months in the country and following on from that they can work but under heavy restrictions.
There’s also a big variation in non-Western sub groups too
That’s what you get for not using euros eheh
“Non-Western” – I assume that includes people from Eastern Europe or is this about non-European countries?
To make the amount more accessible to non-Danish, 31B DKK equals:
* € 4,166,186,864.71
* $ 4,849,120,350.10
* £ 3,514,345,103.51
Worth noting this amount has been trending down for a while now, down from 42 billion in 2015
If that’s the case why accept them in the first place?
People are afraid this is used for anti-immigration purposes. And whose fault is that? It feels like certain groups want to bury the truth. Oil companies, fast food companies also hid the truth for years about their products. How are the people who want to stop these types of research from being shown any different
So explain why we should bleed money for people who don’t work, integrate and are more likely to commit crimes?
I’m curious how this study is carried out long term. It’s not really described in the article.
Like, let’s say you follow a specific group of immigrants over the years. Well it would make sense that initially they take out more than they contribute. It takes time to adjust if you’re a regular migrant, to not even speak of an actual refugee. But is there an inflection point at which they become solvent and start to produce more than they spend? If so, what’s the timeline? If not, what is the hypothesis for the reason?
It’s rare that a country has the balls to share any data on this. Props to the Danes. I’d really be curious to see some more details.
Someone explain to me how illegal immigrants in Europe — presumably without an ID, official record or residency documents — are able to just participate in welfare programs? Do you just show up and get free services/money without any sort of verification?
Maybe we should spend it differently…
You see these sorts of stats in America that conservatives praise but what they don’t take into account is the increase in economic activity by immigrants. You cant take one side of the equation and every major economist would say immigration is a net benefit.
Westerners are “expats”, not immigrants.
D’uh.
/s
I think it was a uni in the Netherlands that recently did a similar study that came to a similar conclusion. The data is in. Unskilled migrants are bad for Europe. It’s not even a case of ‘non-Western’. This is purely unskilled vs knowledge or skilled workers. They keep wages down and restrict housing supply and access to services. They are a net negative. But will governments do anything about it? Can we introduce some sanity to our continent before resentment of all immigrants reaches boiling point? As an immigrant myself, I certainly hope so. But the media has propagandised this issue so much, and the ECHR is such a vaguely written farce of a document, that it will be an uphill struggle.
How much is that in lego sets?
There’s also never going to be a return on investment.
Just a reminder that that translates to 4.1 billion euros. So I guess the question is do Western immigrants make up for the losses?
But they are [big shot].
I find it a bit strange and unreliable that they would include things like the education of the children of migrants or migrant children, as all children receive education regardless, and while this costs the state in the short term, it also creates tax income long-term. Given that the refugee crisis was only about six years ago, there’s no way we can genuinely draw any conclusions about the actual long-term cost/benefit, as most children whose education is being paid for have not yet built a career.
Other variables are strange as well, and make this number on its own relatively worthless. A lot of these so-called costs are meaningless without a point of comparison or simply due to a lack of long-term data.
>This means that, along with spending on benefits, the costs of public services to which everyone in Denmark has access are included in the calculation.
I think that for this to be a useful number, we first have to compare it to the cost of a normal Danish citizen. It would be a much more useful number if it was only the amount *extra* paid above and beyond a normal Danish citizen.
For it to be even more useful, we’d need to know how much value they bring to the economy. They might be doing work that others are not willing to do and propping up certain valuable sectors of the economy. At least that’s the case for industries like agriculture in the US, for example. Just because the government is spending money here doesn’t mean that they are not a net benefit to the economy. That is not made clear at all.
Interesting.
In Germany it is quiet the opposite.
Non-western immigrants contribute to the state. A Study assigned by the new magazine FOCUS states that every year very clear.
Im sorry, we need to stop taking in migrants. Its not sustainable, and its a net negative for both our nations AND their home nations.
Its contributed to the rise of the far right, and the decay of the European Union.
Diversity Tax
*The costs per person of things like health care, child care, education and culture are factored into the calculation of what the state spends on specified groups and individuals.*
So the number is pretty relative. Also, one could argue that those are investments in the future, so those people can be contribute in the future.
In Austria, it is about 2 to 3 billion euros per year. Nobody knows exactly how much, the state does not do the math.
By comparison, about 4.5 billion is spent on all universities in the country.
The costs increase massively every year because integration into the labour market is not successful and people who are in basic care for asylum seekers receive considerably less social benefits than those who have received a positive asylum decision.
This does not include higher costs for crime – asylum seekers commit crime at a very, very, very high rate.
But they are partly there because companies request cheap labor.