Setting aside the asylum seeker issue for a moment, that’s exactly the German welfare state dilemma: If you worked your ass off for decades and you happen to fall on hard times, you are treated exactly the same as somebody who has never worked a day in his life. And if you were stupid enough to save some of your income for your children or for a rainy day, you have to use up that money first.
Yes, and I can absolutely understand why someone in that situation would be angry or disappointed. But you need to understand that the welfare system was never about justice. Some claim that it is, but that is not true. The motivation for the welfare system can be found in article 1 of the Grundgesetz (the German constitution). It is about dignity. The state must not allow any resident of the country to fall to a level of poverty that won’t allow him or her to live a life in dignity. In order to achieve that preeminent goal the state is allowed to take away money from those who have it and give it to those who do not. But that justification cannot include giving welfare to those who still have their life savings. An employed worker might ask why his welfare contribution should go to a millionaire, who no longer has an income because his company went belly-up, but who still has his Porsche parked in front of his villa in Bad Tölz.
Isn’t their methodology being different from other countries’ only a problem if they’ve changed it? I mean, if it has always been measured in the same way (multiple rapes by one person = multiple rapes in statistics) it’s still possible to see if the trend of the numbers have changed. If their methodology is consistent, you could compare their old and recent stats to other countries as well via whatever method has always been used to account for the difference.
Sweden, obviously, is going to be the first Western nation to collapse under the load uneducated, violent third world trash. That’s why, for example, Sweden’s Human Development Index is expected to decline continuously in both absolute and relative terms until at least 2030. Hopefully, however, their failure will provide an important example to the rest of the West about the danger of importing people who don’t share your values, your religion, your genetic predispositions, or your way of life.
Yep. According to the report you cited the Swedish HDI will actually fall below that of Lybia. Wait - Lybia? Isn’t that country full of the people you like to call “third world thrash”. Now how does that fit your racist agenda?
Yeah…
But the thing is, YOU don’t share my values, my religion or my way of life. And none of the people that I know who come from the “third world” are violent trash, neither are all of them uneducated. And from your comments, I am pretty sure I prefer sharing my country with them rather than you. Unlike you, they have respect for other human beings.
“uneducated, violent third world trash”?
“genetic predispositions”?
This is just trolling. I doubt that even you believe that sort of nonsense.
This is a Warning to knock it off. If you simply must clutter up the discussion, refrain from comments that are deliberately chosen to get a rise out of other posters.
[ /Moderating ]
If you really read that report you will find that the only value judgment the authors make about Sweden is that they place it in the highest cohort of development, and the point of the report is to point out that countries in the same cohort tend to have the same trend of development.
The negative data about Sweden only comes in a table in the appendix where they contrast their own method with numbers from other sources. If I understand it correctly they took a few numbers from these other sources from 1975 and 2005 and then drew a straight line into the future. The premise of this is obviously flawed, and the predictions will be increasingly inaccurate, especially for thirty years into the future. By the same table we can learn that libya is on a steady rise and will pass Sweden by 2030. yeah, ok.