time to immigrate to europe

[avak]

China overtook Germany to become the world’s third-largest economy in 2007 after the Chinese authorities revised upwards the figures for growth during that year.

I'm sure the numbers are probably completely legit, but I still find it funny.

[Sarvis]

Sarvis,

We are not talking about 'quality and efficiency of economies'. or at least I'm not talking about that. GDP doesn't reflect on quality or efficiency. Just on gross output. One of the biggest factors that contribute to GDP is.. population, which is not reflective of quality or efficiency of anything other than the procreative abilities of that people.

I don't really see the point of continuing to argue it. People that know more about the subject than ourselves chose to exclude the EU from the rankings.. and nobody complained!

Well, that's kind of what the discussion was about wasn't it? Kiryan started saying he was surprised you could run a profitable business in Europe, Avak started talking about how many rankings were better for European countries. I guess if GDP wasn't meant to measure that I don't know why it was brought up at all, or why you two focused so much on it before I chimed in.

I still feel like it's unfair to compare the entire US against a specific country like Germany on such things though. As you said, population is a big factor in GDP and census numbers then dictate that we should have a higher GDP than Germany barring VAST differences in other economic factors. (Meaning that once India and China become even moderately wealthy we'll all be laughing about this argument since both the US and EU will probably be dwarfed!)

So I guess if we're talking about what economic policies are effective and make a _region_ better... shouldn't we talk about the EU as a whole?

[kiryan]

Its probably still inevitable, but China has some magical power. I mean they made 14 year old gymnasts 16 with the wave of a magical passport stamp.

[Sarvis]

Its probably still inevitable, but China has some magical power. I mean they made 14 year old gymnasts 16 with the wave of a magical passport stamp.

Tramp passport stamp?

[kiryan]

I was just sharing what I had read about their sick / illness system. It seems unbelievably generous and I'm amazed that Europe can produce any economic output with those kind of disincentives to work.

I do have to say, in my experience, Europeans are more socially conscious than Americans. Not just about things like the environment, but about things like hard work. They have a lot of time off in general, but when they are on the clock they work hard... harder than the average American. I'd say their efficiency is better in general, but I think official measures (the calculation of which I think overly emphasizes company profits) peg us higher (i believe).

If you had a system like that over here in the US, I think more Americans would abuse it. Oh wait we do have it, its called SSI Disability.

[Corth]

Sarvis,

If you are comparing US v. Germany GDP to attempt to figure out which one has a better political or economic system, you are wasting your time. GDP is just size of an economy, and doesn't reflect at all on quality in any way. In some sense, Per Capita GDP measures quality, as it shows the economic output per person. Of course, like I said before, #1 ranked Bermuda is hardly an economic power. So quality doesn't necessarily say very much either.

[Sarvis]

Sarvis,

If you are comparing US v. Germany GDP to attempt to figure out which one has a better political or economic system, you are wasting your time. GDP is just size of an economy, and doesn't reflect at all on quality in any way. In some sense, Per Capita GDP measures quality, as it shows the economic output per person. Of course, like I said before, #1 ranked Bermuda is hardly an economic power. So quality doesn't necessarily say very much either.

Right right... I _was_ moving on from the GDP part to question other aspects, you know.

[Corth]

I'm not very quote happy. I was responding to your response to me a few posts up.

[Sarvis]

I know... nevermind.

[Xisiqomelir]

IMHO, the inverted American version, sick people dragging themselves to work and infecting every one in the office, is 30x worse.

[Kifle]

By the way, member states of the EU have to follow laws set by the EU...

If a country exits the EU, it remains the same. If a state secedes from the union, it would become it's own country.

Is there really a difference there besides semantics? How does that affect their current economic cooperation? Is their cooperation not as strong as the cooperation between member states of the US for some reason I'm not aware of?

There's a big difference. The larger governing bodies in both examples are much different. Think of the EU as a club. Analogously, clothing is to body like Germany is to the EU; arm is to body like Indiana is to the US. Furthurmore, while the EU has laws, and the member states don't really have to follow them. They are free to go at any time. The states in the US have a much tighter and stricter dynamic when it comes to laws and leaving the US is close to impossible.

Why is leaving the US close to impossible? It's happened before, and was only prevented by war. I'm not so sure about EU member states not having to follow laws set by the EU either. Can you explain a bit more?

1) Actually, the difference lies beyond semantics -- which is why I gave the example. There is a distinct classification for each party if they leave their respective unions. Those distinctions are where the difference lies as the categories each fall under were created for a reason. Your question is like saying newtonian gravity and einstienian space-time curvature are just semantic distinctions.

2) It happend once before -- which is why I say "close to impossible." Which means possible, but the probability is miniscule -- so miniscule I will use the word impossible in my statement to convey that type of small percentage chance. Just because it happend once before, does not mean it will every happen again or that the process of doing so is the same. Today's political system in the US and the type of patriotism we see today are completely different than around the time of the Civil War. I think it should be very obvious, given all the variables, that it is close to impossible for a state to secede from the US.

As to the second comment in #2, I don't think I said anything remotely close to that. I think maybe you're reading what I said wrongly, but I'm not sure -- maybe I was being ambiguous. What I meant was, and the wording here is deliberate and necessary, the EU countries don't have to follow EU laws per se, they only follow them to be a part of the club. The US states have to follow federal laws or they send in the national guard, or some other such armed force, into the state and regulate on some bitches. The laws governing each union have very different "weights" associated with them. If we think of laws as appoxy, EU laws are like double sided tape while US federal laws are more of a superglue. The dynamics of each union, as a result of their formulation; their governing legal system; and each country's ability to secede, are very different.

So, to say that the US and EU follow the same classification rules based on the fact that the agregate has created laws which the satelites follow is largelyl invalid because of the countless other differences that truly make the unions different.

[oteb]

As to the second comment in #2, I don't think I said anything remotely close to that. I think maybe you're reading what I said wrongly, but I'm not sure -- maybe I was being ambiguous. What I meant was, and the wording here is deliberate and necessary, the EU countries don't have to follow EU laws per se, they only follow them to be a part of the club. The US states have to follow federal laws or they send in the national guard, or some other such armed force, into the state and regulate on some bitches. The laws governing each union have very different "weights" associated with them. If we think of laws as appoxy, EU laws are like double sided tape while US federal laws are more of a superglue. The dynamics of each union, as a result of their formulation; their governing legal system; and each country's ability to secede, are very different.

You are misinformed. EU laws must be followed by member countries. To the point that EU statutory law can be basis of members ship countries' judicatory decisions. Also you can sue your country if administration does not follow EU directives.

[Kifle]

As to the second comment in #2, I don't think I said anything remotely close to that. I think maybe you're reading what I said wrongly, but I'm not sure -- maybe I was being ambiguous. What I meant was, and the wording here is deliberate and necessary, the EU countries don't have to follow EU laws per se, they only follow them to be a part of the club. The US states have to follow federal laws or they send in the national guard, or some other such armed force, into the state and regulate on some bitches. The laws governing each union have very different "weights" associated with them. If we think of laws as appoxy, EU laws are like double sided tape while US federal laws are more of a superglue. The dynamics of each union, as a result of their formulation; their governing legal system; and each country's ability to secede, are very different.

You are misinformed. EU laws must be followed by member countries. To the point that EU statutory law can be basis of members ship countries' judicatory decisions. Also you can sue your country if administration does not follow EU directives.

I'm aware of the implications of not following the laws; however, they only must follow the laws to remain member states. They can choose to not follow the laws at any time and simpley remove themselves from the union. States, on the other hand, are different in that they would face military action if they attempted to secede.

[oteb]

As to the second comment in #2, I don't think I said anything remotely close to that. I think maybe you're reading what I said wrongly, but I'm not sure -- maybe I was being ambiguous. What I meant was, and the wording here is deliberate and necessary, the EU countries don't have to follow EU laws per se, they only follow them to be a part of the club. The US states have to follow federal laws or they send in the national guard, or some other such armed force, into the state and regulate on some bitches. The laws governing each union have very different "weights" associated with them. If we think of laws as appoxy, EU laws are like double sided tape while US federal laws are more of a superglue. The dynamics of each union, as a result of their formulation; their governing legal system; and each country's ability to secede, are very different.

You are misinformed. EU laws must be followed by member countries. To the point that EU statutory law can be basis of members ship countries' judicatory decisions. Also you can sue your country if administration does not follow EU directives.

I'm aware of the implications of not following the laws; however, they only must follow the laws to remain member states. They can choose to not follow the laws at any time and simpley remove themselves from the union. States, on the other hand, are different in that they would face military action if they attempted to secede.

I know it might sound sarcastic but I am genuinely intrested.
Really? Isn't Declaration of Independence borderline "holy text" for you?

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

[Corth]

And then we had the Civil War, where the southern states attempted to secede and the nortern states were like.. no way!

In retrospect it worked out well. But at the time, if I were living in the south I would seriously want to know WTF that was all about. The founding of the country was based upon the idea of a union of sovereign states. I'm not sure that Abraham Lincoln had much of a legal basis to compel the southern states to stay within that union. It was more a situation of might makes right.

One wonders if the EU would goto war to compel Greece to not leave the union. Somehow I doubt it. I don't think Europe has the same type of national identity that was around in the 1860's in the US. Perhaps one day..

[Sarvis]

And then we had the Civil War, where the southern states attempted to secede and the nortern states were like.. no way!

In retrospect it worked out well. But at the time, if I were living in the south I would seriously want to know WTF that was all about. The founding of the country was based upon the idea of a union of sovereign states. I'm not sure that Abraham Lincoln had much of a legal basis to compel the southern states to stay within that union. It was more a situation of might makes right.

One wonders if the EU would goto war to compel Greece to not leave the union. Somehow I doubt it. I don't think Europe has the same type of national identity that was around in the 1860's in the US. Perhaps one day..

I wonder more if any country would even _want_ to leave the EU at this point, than how the EU would prevent it.

As I said about though, the EU sounds a lot like a young US...

[oteb]

And then we had the Civil War, where the southern states attempted to secede and the nortern states were like.. no way!

In retrospect it worked out well. But at the time, if I were living in the south I would seriously want to know WTF that was all about. The founding of the country was based upon the idea of a union of sovereign states. I'm not sure that Abraham Lincoln had much of a legal basis to compel the southern states to stay within that union. It was more a situation of might makes right.

One wonders if the EU would goto war to compel Greece to not leave the union. Somehow I doubt it. I don't think Europe has the same type of national identity that was around in the 1860's in the US. Perhaps one day..

Well Europe has stronger national identity than US and that one of main reasons preventing faster merging. Problem is tho that its mostly ethnic national identity(mileage may very from country to country). Some grudges between countries date back as far early middle ages.

You think that if say Alaska or Texas decided to secede now would rest of US go to war?

[Corth]

Oteb,

I think the Civil War was pretty good precedent that the Federal Government does not allow a state to unilaterally secede from the union. If Texas or Alaska wanted to secede, which is unimaginable in this day and age as there is now a VERY strong national identity, I believe that the Federal Government would indeed use arms to keep the union together.

As recently as the 1960s, federal soldiers were enforcing civil rights legislation within southern states which the governors there refused to enforce. I'm referring to schools segregated by race which were deemed to violate the constitution in Brown v. Board of Education. Thats more or less the same thing if you think about it. Its an assertion of Federal military might over the sovereignty of the state.

[Sarvis]

Oteb,

I think the Civil War was pretty good precedent that the Federal Government does not allow a state to unilaterally secede from the union. If Texas or Alaska wanted to secede, which is unimaginable in this day and age as there is now a VERY strong national identity, I believe that the Federal Government would indeed use arms to keep the union together.

As recently as the 1960s, federal soldiers were enforcing civil rights legislation within southern states which the governors there refused to enforce. I'm referring to schools segregated by race which were deemed to violate the constitution in Brown v. Board of Education. Thats more or less the same thing if you think about it. Its an assertion of Federal military might over the sovereignty of the state.

Actually there are groups in Texas and a handful of other states that want to secede...

Probably not large groups, but they are there.

[Corth]

There are groups that believe in pretty much everything. :)

[oteb]

As recently as the 1960s, federal soldiers were enforcing civil rights legislation within southern states which the governors there refused to enforce. I'm referring to schools segregated by race which were deemed to violate the constitution in Brown v. Board of Education. Thats more or less the same thing if you think about it. Its an assertion of Federal military might over the sovereignty of the state.

Does this even apply? As I understand it the general idea was that states are sovereign in regards to matters not transferred to federal government. In this case both use of army and federal legislature (and its enforcing) were transferred. It doesn't seem like a violation of of the cardinal idea.

Civil War of course happened but even you have no doubts about it illegality. My gut feeling still says US wouldn't use force if such situation ever actually happened.

[Corth]

Well let me put it this way Oteb. The Federal Government sent soldiers down and literally forced Arkansas, by threat of physical force, to let black kids enter the white schools. I would submit that the assertion of this power against a state implies that the state does not have the power to simply walk away from the union. If someone is voluntarily part of your club (and can leave at any time), you don't threaten to kick their ass if they refuse to obey the rules. Perhaps you ask them to obey the rules, use reason etc. If Arkansas had threatened to leave the union, as it had 100 years earlier, it certainly would have once again been rebuffed by force.

[oteb]

Well I partially I agree with your reasoning but at the same another possible view on this matter would be: As long as you are part of the club you go by the rules. You can leave if you don't intend to follow them.
Anyway thanks for info. So far I thought of US as voluntary federation.

[Corth]

Theoretically it is voluntary. It was founded on that basis. The ideals of the Declaration of Independence were very much alive in the minds of the founding fathers. The Civil War was very strong evidence to the contrary. My argument would be that the Civil War issues in the mid 20th century provide further evidence that its not so voluntary anymore.

[avak]

This seems like a decent place to inject a random thought.

My father called me today all in a huff about the federal holiday. He was talking about how the news this morning was about the "sacrifices" the American public will have to make to help us get out of the recession. Then he points out that he was calling me (at work) while he was trying to get something accomplished at his business...all the while we are paying people not to work...and all while private businesses are laying off employees.

I tried to find information about what it costs the taxpayer to grant paid holidays and I wasn't very successful. When MLK day was declared it was estimated to cost 12 billion by Jesse Helms. In today's world that is 24 billion.

[Corth]

I don't think most private employers close shop on MLK day. Its mostly government workers that are off.

My feeling on holidays, as an employer, is that its all baked into the cake anyway. For a salaried employee, I don't look at a holiday as a deprivation.. that I am paying the employee that day and not getting anything in return. I look at it more that I am paying $X per year for him/her to work Y days during the year. Ultimately, when you employ someone, you are buying their time. So at the outset you know how much time you are buying, and can negotiate salary accordingly.

[kiryan]

Whenever I get a job offer, I look very closely at PTO/Holiday/Sick time and vesting schedule for retirement. If the offer is low, I ask for another week or two off which I generally get... I ask for more if their "paid holidays" are closer to 6 than to 10.

If I'm already vested at my current position, I ask to be vested immediately or compensated another 1k a year. I've never gotten the 1k, but I've started vested on day 1.