Comments by "looseycanon" (@looseycanon) on "TLDR News EU"
channel.
-
32
-
27
-
22
-
Yeah, brain drain is not about the EU. Sure, moving may be simpler, but if you have wage differences in area of between 200 and 300% of what you'll earn in your country, people will move even over mined borders. I live in Czechia, our median wage 39685 CZK (according to our statistical bureau), while minimum economic wage (also known as living wage) is around 47000 a month. Minimum wage is 18900 CZK. And we're still wondering why are people leaving, when in Germany is 1584€. which is approximately 40000 CZK. We already have similar prices as Germans and our companies are some of the most profitable ones in the world. Our workers provide very similar value to the German ones. Why don't we raise the minimum wage to match Germans? And I am quite certain, that you'd find similar problems all over the EU. Hell, Romania and Austria had a timber based scandal fairly recently, with Austria exporting free lumber from Romania. Also, given what's happening now in Hungary and Slovakia, I'm pretty sure, you'd find people domestic politics as reason for them to leave.
As to the single market, well... it's not unified. we Czechs pay far more for mobile data than Germans or French, and cellular providers are whining over us still monkey branching between WiFis... That one is likely a problem of the EU, because it doesn't force a rule, that would make same good/service sold in all countries to actually be the same for the same price... Hopefully, we'll get there one day.
As to regional inequality, that would have happened regardless. Business is better done from a hub, for which capitals are predisposed. It is true, however, that the EU (and nimbyism) is throwing some stones under the wheels. Because of nonsensical environmental policies, manufacturing (particularly heavy manufacturing) has left Europe for China and other low wage nations, and major factories is the one thing, that will never be in a country's capitol. Just look at Mladá Boleslav, how some 60% of the city is just factories belonging to a single brand! That you won't find elsewhere. And then there is the issue of employers being able to force people into offices, which also forces internal migration from countryside to the capitol. But that's two out of three reasons not being even associated with the EU!
Italy is not a good example to give for Euro being a problem. Italy has Japan levels of development and wealth creation in the North and damn near Sudan levels in the South, dragging it back. Their lack of growth is not because of Euro, rather, they don't have the Rhein and Elbe, they are in a choked sea, one one end with Suez, on the other with Gibraltar, they have to cross the Alps to get to the rest of the EU for trade. Furthermore, tourism, something they banked heavily on, doesn't generate enough wealth to sustain itself. Famously, Venice is literally falling apart due to overtourism and people don't spend there enough to fix the city. As to saying, that countries prefer their own currencies... well highlighting Bulgaria for it is disingenuous the least, given they are on track to have Euro by 2026 at the latest and Croatia literally adopted the Euro two or three years ago! Let us also not forget, that Russia still has contacts in post-communist countries and has incentive not to allow their former satellites to further integrate with the EU. Public discourse should therefore be taken with a pinch of salt.
18
-
18
-
Job hunting was a nightmare. If you don't have both on the job experience and university degree, you're crewed. I feel, that we need to demand more from companies, that are making the profits in our economies. Youth unemployment is fertile grounds for general unemployment down the line, so, what I'd like to see, would be a tax on unemployment. Say 5% of company turnover per each whole percentage point of difference between general unemployment and youth unemployment...
But on a grander scale, Europe needs to reevaluate its goals. Environmentalism had taken away great many jobs in material refining and product manufacturing, which were typically fields, which could take anybody and paid reasonably well, because these are uggly and dirty industries.
13
-
12
-
11
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
I sooo much hope, that there will be proper oil shock. The West had ostricized oil industry to the point of banks considering them too riskey to provide services to, because of BS CSR rules implemented for political purposes (polititians trying to get environmentalists to vote for them specifically). We've lost the Russian capacity due to the war, which we could forsee since occupation of Crimea would come eventually, yet, we refused to drill at scale under the "oil=bad" mantra (inspite of oil being in one form or another in some 40 000 products). Well now, it's coming back to bite us. Saudis know, that people will vote based on their wallets. US elections are steadily approaching one day at a time and they'd much rather have Trump than Biden in the White House, inspite of the fact, that Biden is essentially second Trump term, as far as economy is concerned. It is our environmental hubris, that we are this open to blackmail by groups like OPEC (which, fun fact, is actually headquartered in Vienna, Austria. One of the most staunch ecologist nations in the EU) or Russia. We need this slap in our faces, to wake up from the green dreams of children and into the black, liquid reality of the world.
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@evilds3261 It is literally the strongest correlating factor. That does imply causation. No, you can't have stance, that says, not having children cost's less money. Reason is economical. Children are those, who make money and provide care, when current generation becomes too elderly to work. Irrespective of gender, there should be at least two children per couple, better yet, three. Elderly care, which you don't need to pay for, when, when you're elderly! That is, how it work's in the third world! Elderly remain with their kids, provide childcare when able to and receive care from their kids, when necessary. The fact, that we don't have children, because women go into education and then persue career, is indisputable and must be resolved, or we're facing massive problems down some thirty years. If you have such a stance, correct it.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Yeah, hate to take wind out of your sails, but immigration is not a solution for demographics crisis. It helps in short term, but this is a generational problem. Without raising natality, this crisis will not change, it will only be postponed. So what needs to change? There are a few measures, which need to be implemented, some of which will be severly shuned.
1) Economy first. All ecological legislation needs tob e scraped, while labor protections need to be increased, as well as companies need to be incentivised to pay higher wages.
2) Change in laws regarding marriage, cohabitation and general interaction between sexes. Men are begining to evade women due to risks surrounding interacting with them. While this is more of a problem in the US, it is spreading and needs to be stopped, or men will stop dating women to the point, that population collapse becomes irreversible. Particularly sexual assault allegations need to be viewed with greater degree of scepticism.
3) Abortion must no longer be on demand. The standard needs to be, that pregnancy seriously threatens woman's health or life. Foster parenting needs to be strenghtened as counterbalance, but only in full, preferably multi generational families for financial reasons.
4) There is also the problem of too few kids being concieved. Since women are the ones, who determine, who they'll procreate with, we need to promote motherhood as greater societal value than carreer to women. This means reducing women's access to the job market.
I'm listing these in order of implementation. Hopefully, the situation will get reversed, before we'll get to number four, although I highly doubt that.
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
This is actually simple:
1) because of influence of Feminism, women now have a choice between career and being a mother. This needs to be reversed, or at very least, career may only be made open to a woman after she had given birth to her third child with the same father.
2) cost of living must be lowered, particularly cost of housing, because you need sufficiently large home to raise a family, something, that has been forgotten by policy makers, who instead chose to go environmentalism route, wiping out jobs, that could actually provide sufficient income to raise these new families, that were never established as a result.
3) companies must be forced to colocate workplace with where employee is, whenever physically possible, not the other way around. If the job uses computers to get done, it needs to be done from home, not from the office.
4) staying with employers for a moment. Only jobs they actually currently intend to fill may be advertised. Failiure to fill a position needs to result in punishment for the company, except of hiring EU citizens (to maintain membership) or for positions intended for knowledge transfer, for which this would be defferred, if company can show, they've trained the specialist they needed in the end. Companies must be forced into being loyal again to their employees (you see, it used to be a two way street back in a day). Two new taxes need to be introduced. One on staff turnover rate and one on average employee age in company, the higher the average age the higher the tax.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I really see a different problem. In the EU, it has become fashionable to do two things. One, to force people into directions, that don't bring actual benefit to economy, which is what is feeding us as citizenry. The EU as a whole as well as it's institution (I'm looking at you commission, I'm looking at you) need to start taking more realistic goals, that even the poorest in the EU can achieve or actually contribute to. Make no mistake, there were initiatives which were spot on and ambitious. Problem comes, when the initiative pursues tackling way too big problems like climate change (which the EU is not a significant contributor to. Just look at India and more importantly China. Funny that these two nations are never really criticized over this). The second problem is that, there is no reprimand for lying, if you are a public person. Because of this, the Greens and AFD and their alternatives elsewhere could push through policies, which were built on shakey if not outright untrue arguments or empty rhethoric. Case and pont the whole Brexit debacle, where actual economic arguments and words of actual experts in their fields as well as celebrities ranging from Clarkson (who him self is critic of the EU) to Hawking.
We need a more sober look at the problems. Take mass immigration, for instnance. What is it that AFD want's to do? Return checks on borders and ultimately dismantle Shengen, meanwhile, companies in Germany can't find enough workers to the point, that in Czech Republic, in the borderlands, banks started issuing mortgages in Euros, because so many people commute to Germany and Austria for work. meaning they'll actually make another problem worse along the way. There is also way too low birth rate in Germany. Where is AFDs recipe that? Where is AFD going to find new workers, to replace those, which will stop coming from accros the border? Technology so far has not created fewer jobs, than there were before in the long run. Really until cloning get's to the level of Kaminoans from Star Wars and get's it's moral implications sorted, immigration is the only quick way to get workforce, as, as we know, it takes some 20 years, until a newborn start's working. So is immigration really a problem, or a quick fix for another one? Does immigration really need to be sorted out? And that's not even taking germany's brain drain into account! Or what about climate change. There are things, which can't be done without sufficient enrgy. A steel mill can easily eat production of a big nuclear powerplant, if it were to go from coal to blue hydrogen! Not to mention, you'd need to deploy hundreds of wind mills to replace a single nuclear powerplant! And that is what the commission thinks, is going to make us more internationally compettitive... higher production costs at greater distance from main population center on Earh, wich is Southeast Asia! Support for solutions like this comes mostly from old member states, most importantly Germany!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
What they mean is, whether you can effectively tax people more. There's a law in economics, can't remember the name now, that says, that if you increase tax rate beyond certain point, you'll generate LESS revenue, because people will stop buying the stuff they originally consumed and, if they are able to, they'll substitute it with something else. Well, if you increase taxes that hit everything, people will start saving more money, because whatever they could spend it on would become too expensive to justify buying them and the economy slows down in general, which down the line could even lead to bankruptcies of companies, layoffs and further decrease in consumption caused by lower disposable income in the economy. Meaning you could start a deflationary spiral and there is no coming back from that without heads of minister of finance and governor of central bank (at minimum) rolling. Tax wise and by extension subsidies wise, this means, that you will lower the support you can pay out to the farmers, because you increased how aggressively you've been taking money from peoples purses. And it doesn't matter, whether you target income or consumption taxes. Real after taxes income will be the same and that is what will determine consumption in economy and by extension total tax revenue and redistributable portion of it into agro subsidies.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@HyperScorpio8688 The question is, "just what would the US nationalize?". There is not much they could do with burned down factories and any and all IP in the direct hands of a foreign company.
Also, don't take the US military industrial complex by it's Dollar value. Prices in that sector re extremely bloated.
Furthermore, you're forgetting two things. One, the EU could go full Russia and just fine American companies for not providing service and supplies a decillion USD. Laws can be easily created to facilitate that and make them retroactive. And two, this would NOT be a war of guns, but one of trade. The EU has won one trade war with the US already, one lead by Trump no less! Never forget, that the source of American power is how much it's interconnected with the world. Ask yourself a question, who'll trade with the US, when they're doing this to their closest allies? India? Forget it. They are the only nation on Earth, that can pull off isolationism and they know it. China? Who's been declared a systemic rival and is on the verge of dying out of old age? The Americas? Sure, as long as the US accepts cocaine and heroin as payment... Russia? I'm sorry, if things keep going the way they are, East Poland? Nope, the United States are literally number 2 nation added to their hostile countries list...
2
-
2
-
2
-
1