That's all well and good. But the prioritization of caring for others is almost never done on a rational basis. Look at the extreme mismatch of fundraising vs need for various types of cancer. Sometimes you have to look at these thing from a standpoint of letting people feel good about helping versus utilitarian cost-benefit. It would be nice if were more rational about these things, but a lot of people won't engage at all if that's the case.
Very true. I guess I just get really annoyed when a reasonable question of "why?" is shut down by a condescending answer "because it's the right thing to do!" or, worse, "because someone somewhere said so".
__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
“To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake
Last edited by CaptainYooh; 11-20-2015 at 02:50 PM.
$1.2B = annual tax contributions from 120,000 average Canadian taxpayers
$1.2B / 120,000 = $10,000/yr per "average" tax payer.
25,000 Syrians * $10,000/yr * 20 years = $5B.
Don't worry, I know how oversimplified this is, but most charities the government gives money to don't make annual payments back to it for many decades.
Even on an oversimplified assumption basis, you should be assuming that half of the 25,000 will not be contributing to the tax base over 20 years, to resemble the current national average. So you should be using a $5,000/yr number, which cuts your revenue projection in half.
If you are suggesting that this is an easy economic investment decision - you're wrong. Canada could have new immigrants at no investment cost at all; thus, the ROI is infinitely higher. Helping refugees is not an economic decision in any way.
It is a charitable political decision. And when it comes to charitable political decisions, I believe that a prudent Government in a civilized country must look and help its own needy, first, and others in need - second, when there's extra funding available. We have no extra funding available right now; we are borrowing to do this.
__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
“To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake
In general the children of immigrants are better educated then the average Canadian which in theory correlates well with income. So one measure of repayment would be does the gap in income between immigrant children cover the cost of settling their parents. I'm lazy though and don't feel like doing the digging. And I don't know if it holds true for refugees as a subset of immigrants
Or another fun way of looking at is we are getting people who are relatively educated and children who have been born and as a country we didn't have to pay for those costs so being born cost about 2200 for a simple birth and about 1k in pregnancy care so just to get out a healthy baby costs $2000. Now mat leave you get 1k every two weeks so that is 24k in the first year. you also get your child tax credit of 2k per year so by the end of year one Canada has spent about 30k on every child.
Then you start educating the kids at about 7k per year.
So if you are getting an 18 year old with a high school diploma who just needs English training for 48k I think you are getting a good deal. A random Canadian would cost 147k to get to that point. this excludes health care costs outside of being born and any low income supplements.
It is a charitable political decision. And when it comes to charitable political decisions, I believe that a prudent Government in a civilized country must look and help its own needy, first, and others in need - second, when there's extra funding available. We have no extra funding available right now; we are borrowing to do this.
Ehhhhh, I think I disagree. Canadian lives are not more important to me than Syrian or other human lives; any contrary view would strike me as tribalistic and consequently pretty damned hard to defend.
Further, we're talking about alleviating extreme suffering and even death among these people. What's the alternative use to which these funds could be put in Canada that would have a stronger effect from a purely consequentialist standpoint?
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
...we're talking about alleviating extreme suffering and even death among these people...
Your posts seem level-headed and logical, normally, let's not over-dramatize the argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
...What's the alternative use to which these funds could be put in Canada that would have a stronger effect from a purely consequentialist standpoint?
ANY use that addresses pressing needs for the people that are suffering here and do not receive sufficient level of funding. Distribution of funding can vary depending on political preferences, of course, but it always does.
__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
“To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake
Today, there are almost 1.9 million Vietnamese-Americans, more than half of whom live in California or Texas. Although the data shows that Vietnamese-Americans haven’t done as well economically as some other Asian immigrants and their descendants, such as those of Korean and Chinese origin, they are generally earning a fair amount. Indeed, a statistical portrait put together by the Washington-based Center for American Progress shows that they’re doing better than the typical American household. The median income among Vietnamese-American households is about fifty-nine thousand dollars, compared to a national average of about fifty-three thousand. The participation rate of Vietnamese-Americans in the labor force is a bit higher than the national average as well: 64.9 per cent in 2014, compared to 64.3 per cent for U.S. households as whole. And the unemployment rate among Vietnamese-Americans is lower than the national average.
The New Yorkers look at the economics of refugees. Looking at the Vietnamese example on while they make about 6k more per year than average. so you net about 2200 of that in taxation making the payback at 4% interest roughly 45 years. So just based on their outperformance of the average Canadian they practically pay for themselves.
It costs too much is not a valid reason. Do we have the resources in the short time frame to ensure good outcomes I think that is where the discussion should be had.
Your posts seem level-headed and logical, normally, let's not over-dramatize the argument.
I mean, my understanding is that these refugees are indeed suffering by any rational definition, and death is a real risk if they are not settled, especially with winter approaching. Am I wrong on this point?
Quote:
ANY use that addresses pressing needs for the people that are suffering here and do not receive sufficient level of funding. Distribution of funding can vary depending on political preferences, of course, but it always does.
But this makes no sense. It can't be "ANY" use that addresses pressing needs for people suffering "here", for two reasons.
First, at least you'll surely admit that a totally inefficient use of funds that marginally addresses some suffering by Canadians is a bad idea. This would be true regardless of whether there were refugees. If you're spending $1.2 billion you'd like it to make a meaningful difference. So I'd ask what use(s) would make a meaningful difference that you would propose.
Second, and on this we may disagree... again, I'm totally unwilling to prioritize the need of Canadians over the needs of these people simply because they are not Canadian. I don't think that can be done; it's inherently tribal thinking, which thinking (in my view) really needs to go out the window in human rights situations. So I'd then ask what use(s) of that $1.2B would make a more meaningful difference to people here than to the people we're proposing to bring in.
I really do think a consequentialist analysis is what's called for here.
And for the tear jerking moral teaching moment of the day, I turn as usual to the West Wing:
Spoiler!
Quote:
[Regarding aid proposed for Mexico]
JOSH
You got a phone call while you were in there.
DONNA
From who?
JOSH
Europe in 1939.
DONNA
Yeah?
JOSH
Yeah, I jotted it down. Apparently they’re at war, but we’ve taken a firm stand as an isolationist nation and refused to get involved. Our resources are our own and their problems are on the other side of the world. Though, they do have problems. It sounds to me from what they said on the phone that France, Austria, and England are getting absolutely pounded by the Germans, and with no end in sight. They say that by 1941 they’re gonna desperately need our help if they have any chance of survival. But I think they’re just being hysterical. This son of a customs agent with the Charlie Chaplin mustache ain’t going anywhere. But there’s no telling that to Franklin Roosevelt, who’s trying to convince his country they need to get involved. That’s why he came up with this.
Josh hands her a book.
DONNA
An eighth-grade social studies textbook?
JOSH
Turn to the page I flagged.
DONNA
The Lend-Lease Act.
JOSH
Yeah. Simply put, a loan of arms to Russia and Britain, with the understanding that they’d pay us back when the war was over. And he said this, he said, “If your neighbor’s house is on fire, you don’t haggle over the price of your garden hose.”
There are too many things in the world we can’t do. Mexico’s on fire. Why help them? Because we can.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Last edited by CorsiHockeyLeague; 11-20-2015 at 04:48 PM.
...
The New Yorkers look at the economics of refugees. ...
Not a deep analysis. It basically says, if it worked for Vietnamese, why should it not work for Syrians? It probably will. But then again, if immigrants do so well, let's increase immigration levels from 250,000 per year to a higher number and spend no money at all doing that.
But some interesting stats from the article: Turkey has accepted 2.2M refugees and spent $5.7B accepting them. That's roughly $2,600 per person. They seem to be much more efficient than Canada with their refugee funding...
__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
“To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake
Well, to be fair, they aren't halfway across the world and showed up on Turkey's doorstep all by themselves... but as I said earlier I agree that $48,000 per person seems like a hell of a lot of money.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
I mean, my understanding is that these refugees are indeed suffering by any rational definition, and death is a real risk if they are not settled, especially with winter approaching. Am I wrong on this point? ...
Yes, they are suffering. You are not wrong on this. I agree. Now, you can't accept one argument and decline the similar argument. Incomparably more people in the world are suffering and facing famine, disease, oppression and death at present. So the call for immediate action on Syrian refugees is probably caused by some additional factors other than suffering. Am I wrong on this point?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
... I'm totally unwilling to prioritize the need of Canadians over the needs of these people simply because they are not Canadian. I don't think that can be done; it's inherently tribal thinking...
Why? Don't speak like a politician. Think like a normal family guy. You help your family urgent needs first, your relatives' urgent needs second, your friends' needs third and so on. You do prioritize needs and requests for help. This is absolutely normal and natural. If someone you don't know asks for help, and you think you have to help, you look inside your family and see if you can stretch to help. If you can, you do. If you can't, you don't. It doesn't make you a bad person. You still feel and sympathize with the needs of other people (pain, suffering etc.) but you choose who and how you can help based on what you, your family, can do.
I believe you are a lawyer. How many times in your life have you decided to borrow money to help someone you don't know?
__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
“To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainYooh For This Useful Post:
Well, to be fair, they aren't halfway across the world and showed up on Turkey's doorstep all by themselves... but as I said earlier I agree that $48,000 per person seems like a hell of a lot of money.
Nothing with the government is cheap. Screening people, case workers, etc... all add up pretty quickly.
Yes, they are suffering. You are not wrong on this. I agree. Now, you can't accept one argument and decline the similar argument. Incomparably more people in the world are suffering and facing famine, disease, oppression and death at present. So the call for immediate action on Syrian refugees is probably caused by some additional factors other than suffering. Am I wrong on this point?
Not at all wrong. However, because of the current "push" and immediacy of the situation internationally, there is the practical will to do something here. A number of countries are standing up to help, and we can join them. It's something we can actually accomplish right now.
If, separately from this, you want to talk about an instance of suffering and the pros and cons of Canada participating in action alleviating same, I'm okay with discussing proposals on that front, too.
Quote:
Why? Don't speak like a politician. Think like a normal family guy. You help your family urgent needs first, your relatives' urgent needs second, your friends' needs third and so on. You do prioritize needs and requests for help. This is absolutely normal and natural. If someone you don't know asks for help, and you think you have to help, you look inside your family and see if you can stretch to help. If you can, you do. If you can't, you don't. It doesn't make you a bad person. You still feel and sympathize with the needs of other people (pain, suffering etc.) but you choose who and how you can help based on what you, your family, can do.
Canada, and other nations, are not individuals. They're nations. They aren't burdened, accordingly, by thinking that is compromised by evolutionarily instilled priorities like "my family comes first". What's "normal and natural" does not somehow make it the best way to proceed in all situations. In fact, our moral intuitions are generally geared for very different kinds of societies than we find ourselves in now. We are no longer hurling rocks in parabolic arcs against the people who live in the adjacent river valley. We have to notice these biases and dispel them when making rational decisions collectively. So, I think "Canadians first" is a bad way to prioritize, not only in this context but in most others.
For the most part, national priorities are set up in such a way as to operate on a "we'll take care of our own, you'll take care of your own in your way and everyone will get by" basis. And while you can have an academic discussion about whether that's really the way the world should work, the fact is that it IS how things are, and the system generally works, more or less. But here we've got a humanitarian crisis and it makes sense to do something, because we can do something, collectively as a country and a group of countries. What that something is? I'm prepared to discuss what's best; for example, I'm still wondering why each person costs $48k to re-settle, and I'm open to being convinced we can do it for less or that it truly is necessary.
Last thing. I'm not thinking like a politician; unfortunately if a politician reasoned the way I do I doubt they'd be elected. I'm trying to think like me, and do so rationally and consistently.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
So, I think "Canadians first" is a bad way to prioritize, not only in this context but in most others.
Then this is the point I disagree with you vehemently. If we accept the mentality of thinking like a "country" as valid, we automatically accept the politicians' right to tell us how the country must be thinking at any given moment. I strongly despise that concept, because it substitutes common sense and real people's interests with ideology.
__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
“To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CaptainYooh For This Useful Post:
Then this is the point I disagree with you vehemently. If we accept the mentality of thinking like a "country" as valid, we automatically accept the politicians' right to tell us how the country must be thinking at any given moment. I strongly despise that concept, because it substitutes common sense and real people's interests with ideology.
Totally disagree that the bolded conclusion flows in any way from your premise. Please explain why we must automatically accept this?
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
I'm going to hazard a guess that Canada will prioritize resettling families. It that's the case, we're probably talking about 7,000 - 8,000 families (Mom, Dad 1 or 2 kids). Fewer families if the family sizes are bigger.
In that context, 25,000 isn't such a big, scary number. One would also have to think that security would be less of an issue if preference was given to intact families - although security checks would still have to be run.
The New Yorkers look at the economics of refugees. Looking at the Vietnamese example on while they make about 6k more per year than average. so you net about 2200 of that in taxation making the payback at 4% interest roughly 45 years. So just based on their outperformance of the average Canadian they practically pay for themselves.
It costs too much is not a valid reason. Do we have the resources in the short time frame to ensure good outcomes I think that is where the discussion should be had.
The data above needs to be divided further between immigrants and refugees. The Vietnamese were refugees, the Chinese and Koreans were not.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
Totally disagree that the bolded conclusion flows in any way from your premise. Please explain why we must automatically accept this?
The easy way out would be to ask you how you would not accept this?
I don't see how I can say "my family thinks <...>" with any degree of certainty considering the wide range of opinions we have about about pretty much every subject in our household. To believe that some 10-12 folks in Cabinet can accurately express the views of the whole country 100% of the time is naive, at best. To accept that their views ARE the views of the country is to submit to totalitarianism. A country is "the people + the land they own". You can't think "as a country" unless you think as its people. Thus; trying to think as a family or household is a much better and safer alternative.
We could probably talk about the parliamentary government system shortfalls and its natural tendencies of concentrating the political decision-making powers in the hands of a very small group of politicians (cabinet) representing a larger group of elected officials (party in power) representing, in turn, some portion of the population that elected them. We could probably dig deeper by looking at Marx' (class) and Nietzsche's (elite) respective dismissals of liberal democracy as true representation of popular will. This would be a good and interesting discussion to have over a cigar and a drink. But writing all of it on Friday evening just doesn't seem that attractive to me, sorry. Let's agree to disagree.
__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
“To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake
Last edited by CaptainYooh; 11-20-2015 at 07:21 PM.
I find it interesting that the argument is being made that Canadian lives don;t matter more, because that would be tribalism.
Of course it is. Tribalism is an inherent component of the human condition. For better or for worse. But certainly a country with borders is by definition being tribal. For that argument to be reasonable, you would have to logically conclude that borders are similarly counter to your view that all lives are equal.
However, empirical evidence certainly confirms that we do NOT view all human life as equal. If we did, our spending habits would be different, our politicians would have vastly different platforms, etc.
This is also easy to confirm with thought experiment: if you had to choose between your kid being murdered, or a totally anonymous somalian kid being murdered, I believe with complete certainly that we would save our child.
But what about two anonymous somalian children? Bit more difficult, but I'm not ashamed to admit I would still pick my kid. In fact, I'm certain the data would prove that you would need to get to very high numbers of anonymous people dying before you would sacrifice your own family (ie tribe). This would expand in a concentric fashion the farther the proximity to your family. Tribalism. It's in our brains.
The easy way out would be to ask you how you would not accept this?
I don't see how I can say "my family thinks <...>" with any degree of certainty considering the wide range of opinions we have about about pretty much every subject in our household. To believe that some 10-12 folks in Cabinet can accurately express the views of the whole country 100% of the time is naive, at best. To accept that their views ARE the views of the country is to submit to totalitarianism.
