Germany's top companies have hired just 54 migrants.

I think it's accurate, which is why your previous post about Merkel spending other people's budget while clamping down on "her own", i.e. the federal budget, makes so little sense. Your article clearly describes that the federal budget is paying out lots of money to the states; it's the distribution within the states that is lacking in many places.

They are forbidden to get a job because giving them a job would give them the impression that they can stay. IF there were jobs for them. But these jobs don't exist. So your point is moot. Because there are no jobs for most of them to earn a living, as simple as that. Gul gets it, you don't.

The question is if you want them to stay or not.

That's sophistry, and bad sophistry at that. The claim was "this statistic shows that there are no jobs for the refugees". If you believe that to be true for other reasons, we need to discuss those reasons. But a statistic measuring jobs when people aren't allowed to take jobs doesn't prove there are no jobs.

I really doubt that a significant part of the 1.5 - 2 million immigrants/refugees who arrived during the last and this year would find a job in the German economy in the near future, even if they were all allowed to go jobhunting tomorrow. It will take years and years to integrate these people in the work force. And lots of money. The question remains: Do you want these people to stay? Only if this is the case, it makes sense to spend billions of Euro for integration measures. If not and Gul is right and most of them will leave anyway, it's all a waste of ressources. Germany has to decide what to do. Keeping them locked in for month after month waiting will lead to nothing and only increase frustration among the refugees/immigrants AND the German population.

Clearly the feds aren't paying cities enough nor states for that matter. Oh, and many of them do have work authorization or could get it if they want. They are either unemployable or choose not to work.

So you're back to claiming the source you quoted got it wrong, and have no better source to show for it? Ok, suit yourself, my tolerance for that bullshit is all used up.

Sure. Nobody I know of has ever claimed anything else. But that has nothing at all to do with the statistic @Dinner got so excited about.

By and large, I think that would be a good thing for our economy. I can't whole-heartedly say I want them to stay though, since many desperately want to go home without being killed there, and that would be the better outcome even if we did lose out on it financially.

True, but only to a degree. Making Syria's economy stronger will benefit our own as well, just not anywhere near as strongly.

Where do you come up with this stuff? If German cities are piling on debt to pay for Merkel's train wreck of a policy (and her unilateral action has pissed off half of the EU) then clearly her budget isn't paying enough to support her policies. It is a straight and clear position I have taken so please stop pretending you don't understand it.

Fair enough.

Germany has to come to terms soon. There is no way evading an "Obergrenze", despite it's an ugly word. What's the term in English? Upper limit?

Ok, let's say that after the next election, the petty bickering has an end, the politicians get a grip, find a compromise and decide to set the upper limit to five million immigrants until 2022. Syrian refugees are allowed to fly in their families, refugees from Afghanistan and other countries are still welcome, and in end, the five million mark is reached. (I chose a rather high number on purpose! )

In 2022, the welcome culture ends and completely turns into an integration culture with strict rules. Immigrants who don't adapt and refuse to participate have to leave. There are enough teachers, acceptable housing, coaches and low level jobs subsidized by the government. Even a small tax raise. The focus is on "small", or else the public will go nuts!

Then the adventure truly begins.

Sounds like a plan! A bad plan, but at least it's a plan!

The really funny part, which Lubak would know if he bothered to read the article, was many of the CEOs of these companies previously said they supported Merkel's policies saying they were desperate for workers. So the fact that virtually none of them has actually hired any (including Daimler's ceo who was most outspoken) speaks volumes.

You are REALLY determined not to allow ANY new information enter your brain, aren't you?

My understanding is work permits are allowed after six months but few apply for them even after a year. Is that incorrect?

Yes, it is incorrect, you have been told so several times, and in addition the issue is discussed in at least one of the sources you cited in this thread, namely the Wossmann interview. Note how he describes as a reform he is backing that many refugees should be allowed to work after as little as a year, because right now, it is often much longer or even never?

It is correct to say that no such permit can be applied for earlier than six months in. But many refugees don't qualify even then, and right now, it can take two years and more for a refugee to even get access to the process that would start that six month waiting period.

Would their 2005 data, after the Syrian opening and some social reforms, be more accurate than their post-2011 data when Syria fell into a brutal civil war, or their post 2005 data after Lebanon's Hariri was assassinated and the Syrian crack-down was happening? For both numbers to be accurate, 40% illiteracy in 2005 and only 14% illiteracy a few years later, Syria would have to have had a massive, if not totally unprecedented, literacy drive at the same time it was cracking down on dissent. If most of the 40% illiteracy in 2005 was old rural people, how did Syria suddenly find a way to teach them to read, and why did Syria even bother? And how can there be any reliable literacy measure after 2011 when the whole place exploded into civil war? Are they measuring Christian, Alawite, and Shia literacy, and if so how, and if so why?

Or, more likely, the later numbers are crap thrown at a page for political reasons.

http://m.dw.com/en/when-refugees-want-to-work-in-germany/a-18737104

Interesting information. Tell me about "duldung" or getting a card which says they are officially tolerated by the state.

You don't distinctly remember shit. My position has always been that it's a mistake for Europe to let in so many migrants so fast. That hasn't changed.

The reason you're so salty when it come to me is because I can hold that position without sounding like a degenerate piece of shit bigot, like you do all the time. I have class whereas you have no class.

Now go make me a sandwich you drunk douchebag.

Naturally, the war would have made it more difficult to gather statistics, although it should be noted that around 70% of Syrians live in government controlled areas. However, the pre-war statistics are broadly similar, showing literacy rates in the low to mid 80s.

An excellent point, except for the small matter of your numbers being completely wrong.

But my numbers come from UNESCO. Pull up their data on Syria. It shows that somehow Syrian literacy rates surged as the country went to hell. So who is still getting access to the regime's people, or do the numbers simple echo what Assad's regime is claiming? Where do the literacy numbers for ISIS occupied territory come from? And who is in the various refugee camps measuring literacy?

And by what means did Syria see their literacy rate skyrocket while the place was coming apart at the seams?

Seriously, at this point who even bothers arguing with gdaterape

Here is a link to the UNESCO page on Syria for all those who want to laugh at @gturner

http://www.uis.unesco.org/DataCentre/Pages/country-profile.aspx?code=SYR&sector=lit

The numbers probably are not wrong, wrt the German study linked previously. We already know the majority of people claiming to be Syrian to get assylum are not actually Syrian but some other nationality pretending to be Syrian so they can attempt to fraudulently claim assylum. So that could explain why so few of them can read Arabic (because they are actually Pakistanis, Iranians, or Sub-Saharan Africans, etc...).

Now try looking at the data with your brain turned on. Their literacy rate among women was less than 40% in 1980. It then went up in a perfect line until the country exploded into civil war, and then it got even better! That happens when you forbid women from going to school.

Or is it better explained by some policy whereby ISIS goes around to villages and shoots people who can't read the Koran?

I'm sure you're all impressed by their fancy graphs, but how is the data collected and who is collecting it?

My German friends are less than thrilled, apparently.

Are you seriously asking how literacy rates improved? By teaching young people to read and write! In 1980, fewer than 20% of people 65 and over were literate. As they died off and education was expanded among the young, the overall literacy rate increased. This is exactly what one would expect to happen. Woman were not forbidden from going to school in Syria, and most Syrian women are not today.

TLDR: you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

I am still hoping for information about "duldung".

I don't know what you want to know about it. Do you understand what it is?

Amazingly, the literacy rates for both men and women increased in a perfect line!

Or more likely, someone at UNESCO drew a straight line and his boss thought it would look more "sciency" if they added some dots along the perfectly straight line to make it look like they actually took some measurements.

Another compelling argument there. Thanks for playing.

Did you even look at the UNESCO graphs?

Do you know what actual real-world data looks like?

Hint: Measurements of complex things in society never fall on perfectly straight lines - except apparently for things they didn't even have a way to measure, since neither Assad nor ISIS is too keen on letting people run around giving tests.