Of course, I may be using a different definition of urban and rural. For me rural really means rural, at most a village of 1000. No real shopping services available.
European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 936
Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
Of course, I may be using a different definition of urban and rural. For me rural really means rural, at most a village of 1000. No real shopping services available. | ||
Velr
Switzerland10417 Posts
That is what diffrentiates an actual Village or small Town from a Suburb where there is nothing but cheap housing and you have to get everything from the City/by car. | ||
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
Berlin (Reuters) - Die Zahl der Amerikaner, die Deutsche werden wollen, ist seit der Wahl von US-Präsident Donald Trump erheblich gestiegen. Im ersten Halbjahr 2017 wurden nach Zahlen des Auswärtigen Amtes bereits mehr Einbürgerungsanträge gestellt als im gesamten Jahr 2016. Seit November 2016 - dem Monat der Wahl Trumps zum US-Präsidenten - gehen die Zahlen nach oben. Hatten 2016 792 Amerikaner einen Einbürgerungsantrag gestellt, so waren es im ersten Halbjahr 2017 bereits 940. Im Juli und August kamen weitere 250 Anträge dazu. source: de.reuters.com tl;dr ... or can't read: The number of applications for naturalization from US citizens wanting to become german citizens are apparently going up since Trump. It says that in all of 2016 they had 792 such applications while they already had 940 in the first half of 2017 alone. With another 250 from July and August not included in that number yet. Don't take it too seriously. I'm having a laugh here more than anything else, thought it was funny and so I wanted to post it Just be sure to not be this women when you leave the US: + Show Spoiler + American woman arrested after throwing away massive supply of bullets in Tokyo airport trash can [...] At around 3:50 p.m., though, workers at Haneda discovered 100 rounds of .22 caliber handgun ammunition in a trash can. Upon analysis of security camera footage by the Tokyo Metropolitan Police, the bullets were traced back to the woman. When questioned, she admitted that she had placed the ammunition in the trash can, going on to explain that she had unknowingly brought the bullets from America, having forgotten to remove them from her bag and not noticing them until after arriving in Japan. [...] | ||
CuddlyCuteKitten
Sweden2351 Posts
On September 08 2017 00:36 Toadesstern wrote: God damn it, first we have to deal with the refugees and now we have to deal with the Americans as well? source: de.reuters.com tl;dr ... or can't read: The number of applications for naturalization from US citizens wanting to become german citizens are apparently going up since Trump. It says that in all of 2016 they had 792 such applications while they already had 940 in the first half of 2017 alone. With another 250 from July and August not included in that number yet. Don't take it too seriously. I'm having a laugh here more than anything else, thought it was funny and so I wanted to post it Just be sure to not be this women when you leave the US: + Show Spoiler + American woman arrested after throwing away massive supply of bullets in Tokyo airport trash can [...] At around 3:50 p.m., though, workers at Haneda discovered 100 rounds of .22 caliber handgun ammunition in a trash can. Upon analysis of security camera footage by the Tokyo Metropolitan Police, the bullets were traced back to the woman. When questioned, she admitted that she had placed the ammunition in the trash can, going on to explain that she had unknowingly brought the bullets from America, having forgotten to remove them from her bag and not noticing them until after arriving in Japan. [...] It's not that surprising. I remember a reddit thread on shit people accidentally brought through airport security without being stopped. The best one was a girl who had a bowie knife model XL in her carry on luggage (that was scanned). Like how do you miss that? | ||
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On September 07 2017 06:08 Ghostcom wrote: It's the wrong people who have fewer children for your plan to work. Similarly fairly obvious points of contention can be levied against most of the rest of your post which is overly simplistic in its description of rural vs sub-urban vs urban life. (Take quality of life for example: It has pretty big geographic variations within Europe and things such as age and gender hugely impacts as well. Another point would be the higher life expectancy in rural areas compared to urban areas) If the first sentence is a soft attempt to say that stupid people outproduce smart people, that's actually a sort of myth. Birth rates converge between different demographics after a generation or two in most developed countries. In the West they've generally fallen to a point where we're close to /have already reached negative pop. growth. I'd also question that rural life expectancy is higher than urban one. The only quick numbers I could find come from the US, where this is not the case. It would surprise me if this was different somewhere else. Rural life is generally more dangerous and can lack access to medical treatment and so forth. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2017/p0112-rural-death-risk.html | ||
Ghostcom
Denmark4776 Posts
On September 08 2017 02:25 Nyxisto wrote: If the first sentence is a soft attempt to say that stupid people outproduce smart people, that's actually a sort of myth. Birth rates converge between different demographics after a generation or two in most developed countries. In the West they've generally fallen to a point where we're close to /have already reached negative pop. growth. I'd also question that rural life expectancy is higher than urban one. The only quick numbers I could find come from the US, where this is not the case. It would surprise me if this was different somewhere else. Rural life is generally more dangerous and can lack access to medical treatment and so forth. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2017/p0112-rural-death-risk.html The first sentence had nothing to do with intelligence. It had something to do with social class. I would like for you to qualify your statement because I'm unsure: 1) which demographics you refer to when stating "different demographics" 2) I'm unsure who "they" are 3) Whether or not it is true that moving single children up the social ladder is easier, as I see it, little to nothing to do with the pop. growth. As you hopefully noted I qualified in my post that things aren't black and white and that there are regional differences. In the US it is correct that rural life expectancy is overall lower than in urban cities. However, in the UK the picture is reversed (although the most destitute in the rural zones suffer the shortest life expectancy). Numbers for the US: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24439358 Numbers for UK: PDF from google - not sure if it works but I literally googled "life expectancy rural vs urban" to retrive it | ||
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
A few examples: In case of an illegal dismissal, there will be a scale and a ceiling for your indemnities. Companies will know precisely how much it costs to illegally fire someone! This measure had been removed from the first labour bill due to the contestation. This is like the third time that Macron tries to pass it… The floor sanction to fire someone in a discriminatory manner (pregnant woman, handicapped person, etc.) was halved (6 months of salary instead of 12 before). You have only one year to contest your dismissal, down from 3 years before. (The 2015 Macron bill had already made it harder to go to court, which resulted in a collapse in legal actions…) The boss pretty much no longer has to justify your dismissal. He can also change his motivations after. The floor sanction for dismissals without cause is now 1 month of salary, down from at least 6 before. The government will publish a standard letter for dismissals! Profesional branches will now decide for how long and how many times precarious contracts (CDD [fixed-term contracts], interim) can be renewed, instead of the current cap provided by the law. Currently CDDs can last at most 18 months and be renewed 2 times maximum with a delay between contracts to avoid abuses. Tomorrow CDDs will be able to last 5 years, with no cap to the number of renewals and no delays. Professional branches can now decide to use the orwellian “CDI de chantier” [permanent contract linked to a project, currently limited to the construction industry]: you have a “permanent contract,” but it's terminated as soon as the project is done! This is a disguised CDD with even less guarantees. Professional branches will now decide the length of the trial period (3-4 months now by law)… with no cap foreseen. Economic difficulties of a company will now be appreciated in France only instead of globally; i.e. a company which makes benefits globally but has troubles in France (real or through balance sheet tricks) can now fire people. (This had been removed from the first labour bill because of the mobilization.) Company deals prevail over your work contract. If you refuse the new conditions, you get fired. For example, with a company deal your boss can now decide that you will have to work elsewhere. If you refuse, take the door. There is a new disposition to make people leave “voluntarily” their job while bypassing the usual procedures (controls and various obligations) for grouped dismissals. Primes (seniority, thirteen month, etc.), which are now managed by professional branches, will now be decided by company deals. Company referendums at the request of the employer in very small companies (less than 20 workers). Merging of the 3 institutions representing employees within the company (= less means and time to discuss things like hygiene, satefy, prevention, work conditions…). Pretty much all workers' trade unions are against this point. Bosses no longer have to negotiate with trade unions in companies with less than 50 workers. This represents 97% of the companies and 50% of the workers. I'm not even sure they put a legal safeguard to avoid the case where a boss “negotiates” with a direct relative! As for the hierarchy of legal standards, company deals > professional branches (with a dozen of domains where company deals do not prevail) > law instead of the reverse before (roughly). Macron blasted the labour law, where the law protects the weak link of the contracting parties, to make it a “company law”. Pretty much the only progress in that law is that workers get +25% indemnities in some cases of dismissals. | ||
warding
Portugal2394 Posts
On September 08 2017 21:14 TheDwf wrote: (a fairly obsessive topic for liberals; according to them, French bosses don't hire because “laying off people is too hard” and “workers are too protected”) This isn't a philosophy/obsession/opinion of a few liberals, it's pretty much Microeconomics 101. I hire people and I'm constantly weighing the risks involved in the long term. I've seen a lot of companies here get totally f'd when the 2010 crisis came because they simply couldn't readjust to the new reality. The more flexible a contract is, the easier for me it is to make a decision to hire someone. This is especially true for tech companies whose business faces a lot more risk and volatility. | ||
r.Evo
Germany14054 Posts
I've seen a lot of companies here get totally f'd when the 2010 crisis came because they simply couldn't readjust to the new reality. The German approach to that for quite a few companies, at least to my knowledge, was trying to avoid firing people but massively cutting down hours short-term. Workers were fine with it because it beats being fired due to a crisis, companies were fine with it cause it allowed to cut costs short-term and it turned out pretty well in the long run because you could simply bump hours back up when the worst was over instead of having to re-hire sometimes qualified and well-trained personnel. All in all, if I understand what Dwf provided correctly, the French reforms sound like measures that *will* bring unemployment down and push the economy forward but at the cost of higher inequality caused by weaker unions, weaker legal protections and companies getting bigger choices in who and when they hire and fire. The main question is whether there are things that can combine both this and avoiding people getting stuck in temporary and low-paying jobs that end up causing more and more inequality. | ||
warding
Portugal2394 Posts
On September 08 2017 23:39 r.Evo wrote: The German approach to that for quite a few companies, at least to my knowledge, was trying to avoid firing people but massively cutting down hours short-term. Workers were fine with it because it beats being fired due to a crisis, companies were fine with it cause it allowed to cut costs short-term and it turned out pretty well in the long run because you could simply bump hours back up when the worst was over instead of having to re-hire sometimes qualified and well-trained personnel. All in all, if I understand what Dwf provided correctly, the French reforms sound like measures that *will* bring unemployment down and push the economy forward but at the cost of higher inequality caused by weaker unions, weaker legal protections and companies getting bigger choices in who and when they hire and fire. The main question is whether there are things that can combine both this and avoiding people getting stuck in temporary and low-paying jobs that end up causing more and more inequality. IMO the ideal is very flexible labour conditions and a very strong social state. What is really really bad for those at the bottom is long-term unemployment and a lack of employment opportunities, which are both strongly exacerbated by rigid labor market conditions. You want companies in your country to be as competitive and efficient as possible in order to maximize employment and tax revenue. The role of redistribution and social equity is for the government. | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41115 Posts
Former Ukip leader Nigel Farage will appear at a rally held by Germany’s far-right party Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) inside a renaissance fortress in Berlin on Friday. The South East England MEP will appear at the Spandau Citadel in the west of the German capital to talk about “developments in the European Union, Brexit, direct democracy” and “how to make the impossible possible”, according to AfD MEP Beatrix von Storch, who is hosting the event. A granddaughter of Hitler’s finance minister, Lutz von Krosigk, von Storch is a leading member of the anti-immigrant party, which has realistic aspirations to enter Germany’s parliament for the first time in federal elections on 24 September. Von Storch has been a member of Farage’s group in the European parliament since being expelled from the more mainstream European Conservatives and Reformists Group in April last year, following comments in which she called on European border guards to use firearms to deter illegal immigrants, including women and children. She later described the comments as a “tactical mistake”. In her Facebook post, von Storch said that Farage had been so impressed with the AfD’s campaign that he had accepted “without hesitation” her invitation to appear at a campaign rally. Protesters are planning to organise a counter-rally outside the Spandau Citadel while Farage is giving his speech, though by Thursday afternoon no official demonstration had yet been registered with Berlin police. Farage has frequently criticised German dominance of decision-making in the European Union, while the AfD complains that the European Union dominates decision-making in Germany. In its manifesto, the party, which is currently polling between 8 and 11%, calls for a referendum on leaving the eurozone and for a British-style referendum on EU membership, unless the bloc returns to being “a federation of sovereign states”. On the AfD’s social media channels a majority of users welcomed the announcement of Farage’s appearance, praising the former leader as a “straight-down-the-line” and “fiery” speaker. But some party members worried the event could backfire. “Mr Farage was also the guy who bowed out after the referendum and left others to go through with Brexit,” said one user. “I will definitely vote for the AfD, because it’s the only alternative to our ‘government’. But is Nigel Farage really that helpful for our campaign given that the coverage is already so negative?” In the run-up to Britain’s EU membership vote in June 2016, Farage said the then-US president, Barack Obama, had behaved “disgracefully” by warning on the economic consequences of a leave vote, and praised the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, who, he said, “maintained his silence throughout the whole campaign”. Two months later Farage appeared at a rally with Donald Trump, where he stated: “I wouldn’t vote for Hillary Clinton if you paid me.” Source | ||
r.Evo
Germany14054 Posts
On September 09 2017 00:15 warding wrote: IMO the ideal is very flexible labour conditions and a very strong social state. What is really really bad for those at the bottom is long-term unemployment and a lack of employment opportunities, which are both strongly exacerbated by rigid labor market conditions. You want companies in your country to be as competitive and efficient as possible in order to maximize employment and tax revenue. The role of redistribution and social equity is for the government. Agreed, that'd be the ideal. Let's hope the French manage such a reform without axing the social state like the Germans did. We kinda need an example to learn from at this point. Regarding Farage & AfD: lol. Good company I'd say but not truly surprising considering previous affiliations. In her Facebook post, von Storch said that Farage had been so impressed with the AfD’s campaign that he had accepted “without hesitation” her invitation to appear at a campaign rally. This one especially is amusing. Before they went openly right-wing extremist around last December they polled around ~15% and dropped to 8-10% since. Turns out that if you have people in your party who might as well be a part of the NPD while deflecting criticism of those people with: "Oh, yeah, we're determining whether it's necessary to exclude them" for over nine months then that might just be a hard-cap in terms of the amount of people who vote for you. | ||
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On September 09 2017 03:26 r.Evo wrote: Agreed, that'd be the ideal. Let's hope the French manage such a reform without axing the social state like the Germans did. We kinda need an example to learn from at this point. That literally is what we did. Social expenditure is up by about 20% compared to the 80s/90s and at the level of ~2000. https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=SOCX_AGG We didn't "axe the welfare state", we simply reduced regulation of the labour market. | ||
Yurie
11536 Posts
Historically you could have those protective laws and put up tariffs on goods produced abroad. Which is still used by developing nations where for example trucks are sent knocked down and assembled near the destination since the tariffs are so much lower. For free trade nations this gets harder, maybe one needs to pay them to come and then lock them in by making it expensive to leave? | ||
r.Evo
Germany14054 Posts
On September 09 2017 03:43 Nyxisto wrote: That literally is what we did. Social expenditure is up by about 20% compared to the 80s/90s and at the level of ~2000. https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=SOCX_AGG We didn't "axe the welfare state", we simply reduced regulation of the labour market. Meanwhile overall inequality is up and 20% of German youth live under the poverty line, also a record high. The percentage of people living in poverty also increased twofold since the early 2000s. Another amusing indicator comes up when you compare international unemployment rates (here working even 1h per month counts as employed) with German national unemployment rates. Germany right now gets 3.9% in international comparisons compared to the current official German number of 5.7%. In practice that means that for every 2 people who are completely unemployed there is 1 person who has so little work that they're effectively unemployed - they just don't show up in international comparisons. This type of thing literally only looks good in one specific way of interpreting the stats available. Then there's another number: 7.7% as of today. That's the number of everyone who is unemployed in some form plus those who are considered "underemployed". This includes long-term sicknesses, people who are getting various different qualifications, short-term workers and similar things. Notice how close we're suddenly to the 9.5% unemployment rate e.g. France has, presuming their international number isn't as screwed up as the German one when compared to reality? In a nutshell what Germany did was reduce regulation and force people into short-term employments which in return caused massive spikes in inequality across the board. Sure, the nation as a whole got wealthier - but that gain in wealth was distributed way more top-heavy than usual. That's simply not a sustainable course and it's only a matter of time until it's genuinely irreversible. | ||
sc-darkness
856 Posts
| ||
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On September 09 2017 08:19 sc-darkness wrote: Is Macron still losing support? Yup + Show Spoiler + Approval ratings from various pollsters For September, Yougov has him at 30 (-6) and Elabe at 37 (-3). | ||
sc-darkness
856 Posts
| ||
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On September 09 2017 05:21 r.Evo wrote: Meanwhile overall inequality is up and 20% of German youth live under the poverty line, also a record high. The percentage of people living in poverty also increased twofold since the early 2000s. Another amusing indicator comes up when you compare international unemployment rates (here working even 1h per month counts as employed) with German national unemployment rates. Germany right now gets 3.9% in international comparisons compared to the current official German number of 5.7%. In practice that means that for every 2 people who are completely unemployed there is 1 person who has so little work that they're effectively unemployed - they just don't show up in international comparisons. This type of thing literally only looks good in one specific way of interpreting the stats available. Then there's another number: 7.7% as of today. That's the number of everyone who is unemployed in some form plus those who are considered "underemployed". This includes long-term sicknesses, people who are getting various different qualifications, short-term workers and similar things. Notice how close we're suddenly to the 9.5% unemployment rate e.g. France has, presuming their international number isn't as screwed up as the German one when compared to reality? In a nutshell what Germany did was reduce regulation and force people into short-term employments which in return caused massive spikes in inequality across the board. Sure, the nation as a whole got wealthier - but that gain in wealth was distributed way more top-heavy than usual. that poverty rises when inequality goes up is a matter of definition, because poverty is defined as falling under a fraction of the median income. Inequality in itself is not bad, at least not in moderate forms. And while it is true that inequality in France has grown much more slowly than in most other places, income inequality in Germany is actually lower. More importantly, there are different ways of looking at inequality than just a poverty statistic. France has bought it's strong middle class with a very rigid system that has produced a two tier labour market. You have the organised French workers who have a lot of bargaining powers, jobs for lives, the academia and elites, and you have a huge underclass of people living in segregated banlieues. The upside is that the politically vocal people in France can still claim to live in a just society, but there is a huge portion of immigrants, natives without education and so forth who don't politically participate at all. In a flexible labour market this is less of a problem. You can hire easier, you can get more apprentices and you have a more open society, at the expense of a core middle-class who has it a little harder. I consider this to be a good thing honestly. This bursted out in Le Pen's poltics over the recent years reaching nearly a third of the voters. If Germany was as unjust as you're portraying it here the AfD would have more votes. | ||
| ||