Odds and Ends
5 3, 4:59pm
"First of all, I'm not against immigration, I'm against that the immigration is handled so badly. Maybe I didn't clarify that enough."
I never said you where - I'm talking about the arguments SD are making compared to the reality.
There is a big difference between the SD's actual ideology which is neo-fascist and racist and who's end goal is an ethnically pure state, and most of it's voters that are not actually that racist.
"I'm also not an SD supporter and I absolutely don't fault you for thinking that I am. If there was a more left leaning party with a stricter policy around immigration, I would probably consider voting for them. Maybe."
Well you seem to imply that you do vote for SD and then you are an SD supporter. You might not be a member of the party and you might not agree with a lot of the things they say - but if you vote for them you're still a supporter, actually.
And that's a problem since we're talking about a neo-fascist, deeply racist party here.
Now if SD had not been those things, they wouldn't be so universally shunned as they are.
Compare to Denmark and Norway - as SD like to do - their far-right parties are populist and anti-immigrant, but they didn't start out as neo-Nazi and they didn't march around in uniform like SD did. As far as I know none of their member of parliament has either introduced a bill to limit the influence of Jews on the media, or been caught making "jokes" about calling the carcasses of sheep Jews.
There is ample evidence that there is a massive amount of anti-Semitism and racism in the SD party - hardly a week goes by without a new party member elected to local or national office isn't caught in some scandal. It's not a normal party whatever they try to claim and if you vote for them your basically just throwing your vote away as no other party will touch then with a ten foot pole.
In the meantime every other party in Sweden does actually, since the huge wave of immigrant that came in 2015, now support much stricter immigrations policies. Sweden has since 2015/2016 (whenever the new rules where put in place) adapted it's policies to the European standard - and as a consequence the number of refugees seeking asylum in Sweden has dropped dramatically.
So the immigration policies anyone voting for SD in 2014 wanted, they can now get just as well by voting for any other party.
So if a reduction in immigration was all you wanted, you've already gotten that - without SD ever being part of the decision.
I don't know if your comparison with France and Germany is based on the new numbers or old?
"You seem to have misunderstood me. Imagine You want a job for a certain pay, another person has the same qualifications (in this case none, just to simplify it.) but he can go for lower pay. You will not get the job. Companies want to make as much money as they can, and more companies will try and do this. If this goes on, the average salaries will indeed go down. The Union doesn't have any rules or probably even a say against this."
No, you've misunderstood how the Swedish labor market works. Employees can't undercut one another by offering to work for lower pay - union rules forbids that.
There are collective treaties that specify what wage workers should receive based on age, years of experience and so on and even if a worker would agree to work for less that deal is actually not legal. A company paying workers less then the treaties specify's is open to steep fines and no reputable company in Sweden would ever dare to do something like that - the unions would roast them alive if they did.
The only argument one could make is that if there are too many out of work workers available, the unions hand in negotiations with the employers are eventually weakened.
If there is a huge amount of out of work individuals who could take jobs the employers are offering, that puts pressure on the unions to not make as high demands for wage increases.
So the wage increase may, in the long run, be slightly lower in certain jobs. But that's a long way away from the wage actually being lowered - no union would ever agree to that.
And I've never actually seen any proof that unions have accepted lower wage increases because of immigration - that's just theoretical cast I'm describing, mind you.
"I know, and you're absolutely right. You're also right about the fact that we haven't built many apartment blocs for a long time.
That being said, when our immigration policies were as bad as ever, it was when we had a right-wing government. They may have had all of this in mind."
Hm? Are you implying that the right-wing government took in large amounts of refugees because they wanted there to be a shortage of housing? Or what do you mean by "They may have had all of this in mind"? This sounds a bit conspiratorial?
Don't worry about the big post - you had things you wanted to say and you needed space to do it - no problems. :-)