Why Does England want to join the EU

[irishmick79]

It's one step on the way to making the ultimate US nightmare a reality...FULL EUROPEAN INTEGRATION.

[Azeron]

you know, I don;t think that we fear EU intergration, its kinda like seeing your good buddy purposely shoot himself in his foot, for the sake of pride and not being able to admit he was wrong.

Oh well, Yuou can;t stop em if they want to.

[Crown]

Ahh the tragic comedy is continuing....

Crown,
It what reality do you live, in which any statement from the Blair Government could be cinsidered fact, or generally truthful?

In a reality where a speach given by a person who is in an actual position of authority and responcability out-weighs....you. Duh!

People invest in england, becasue of the potential in England, not becasue of the EU. England speaks ther same langauge and precieves the world in roughly the same way America does. Our values are not really that different, and how we deal with out problems isn't either. Thats why we have been working together on nearly everything for the past 120 some odd years.

Potential in England? You must mean the huge wealth in their national resources right?...No that's not it. What could it be? Oh yes! They are a convinient way into the EU.

whats going on here, is that the EU, is a big idea. It sounds nice, everyone plays by the same rules, same currency, laws, customs etc. That sort of awes people into thinking that its a good idea. But what do european countries have in common? the only thing I can think of is borders (and maybe disdain for the french, but thats a universal thing).

Ahh yes, more French bashing, because that is so relevant.

when you are forming this EU, it appears to me, that you are not using any system in particular, but an amalgamation of all the systems of europe. Who here from europe or america thinks the French Legal ysstem is fair, where the judge jury and prosecutor are same person? You cna be arrested for having a friend too close to the fringe of the political system regardless of what your own beliefs are. You thinks that a system that has a view like this can be combinied into a system that will produce an ounce of fairness?

You make the assumption that the French system is the only system on offer, like the other states must just through out their system and embrace the French...idiot.

Now it has been suggested that italy is a rich counrty, and that Europe is wealthy in gerneal. To dispell that notion, the cold harse relaity is, that if Europe joined the US, the average worker would fall under the poverty line. Now before you get all huffy and puffy about a specific number I am using $23,000 as the poverty line, since there is no single number becasue poverty depends greatly on dependents, so I am using a family with 2.5 kids or a family of 5)

No there is a number that could have been selected rather than arbituary pulled out of you arse. What number say you? Well how about the numbers used by the US census bureau to find out how many of it's own citizens are living below the poverty line!

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, an individual younger than 65 was living in poverty in 1999 if his or her annual income was less than $8,667. For individuals 65 and over, the poverty threshold was $7,990. A family of four, with two adults and two dependent children under 18, was considered to be living in poverty if its household income did not exceed $16,895. These definitions were derived from estimates of minimum nutritional and housing standards that were made in 1963 and updated annually on the basis of changes in the Consumer Price Index.

How many US citizens were living under the poverty line in 1999?

In 1999, 11.8% of Americans lived in poverty, the lowest rate since 1979.

11.8% of some 250million is what 25million and up people in America living below the poverty line. Does that mean that America was poor? No you dipshit it doesn't!

Euro inability to compete in the mass market volume areas, probably accounts for the way the Euro economies gears up for high tech products and high qulaity products, because the margins for profit are much fatter there and they can;t compete where they are slim and making allot of money involes allot of turnover (the number of times you can sell an item. Like a supermarket where they only make 1-2% on each sale, but if they sekll the same item enough times they can turn that into a hefty profit)

How can you function without a brain? The EU has a prduction of food and services in a surplus! EU subsides make US subsides look harsh by comparison! Honestly Azeron, try, try to form a thought. You might enjoy it after the pain resides..

[Admiral Piett]

less than 50 years ago you were killing each other a massive scale as part of fueding that has lasted more than 1000 years in one form or another. In the past 50 years, you have been pitted aganst eastern europe awaiting a bloodfest of epic proportions. In other words you have been at each others throats for as long as can be remebered and becasue of this you have developed into very different civilizations. Its so artificial you have to remind people to be happy about it by naming your EU athem "Joy to the World". Your currency adores no actual places or monuments, not even a single European of note. really a tribute to pointlessness and the meaningless void which the EU inhabits. So you are telling me that in the past 12 years that europe as evolved to the point that they arte going to just give up whatever meaning thier civilization has given them, the propensity for killing each other, and decide to sing thier national "happy song" and move forward in progressive mannert. Excuise while I barf. Anyone who would believe in post modern nationalism is someone who doesn't have any past, thus no idea where they are going. Yes perhaps your politicitions need that viagra to remind them that they are in fact men.(and women).

If civilization means killing each others on the Rhine then I am more than happy to give it up.

I would hardly call the rise to nationalism in Italy like how Switzerland exists. They had a shared history of helping each otehr and fighting together to draw upon, not killing eachother. Thats far different then the bonds of killing each otehr europe has gone through. Instead of dealing with your issues and working toigether to eventually have enough cominality to come toether in mutual trust, you have deicded to say "lets forget who we are" and proceeded to castrate yourselves from your nationality to embrace a post modern utopia where the words Germany, Spain, Italy, France, Briton have no meaning. Instead of embracing the differences between yourselves, you have dicided to politically erase them. Perhaps EU really stands for Eunuch Union.

[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]

Explain yourself better.

[Nicholas Stipanovich]

Admiral Piett,

I would be *very* careful about using black market figures to argue that the Italians are in fact richer than they are. In fact, wealth tied up in the black market can often be almost as bad as not having that wealth at all. The reason is that black market assets cannot be used for investment, as one cannot use illegal goods as collateral for loans and such. In fact, the economist Hernando de Soto (I believe) has argued that the proportion of black market activity to that in the legitimate market is a strong indicator of underperforming Third World status.

In short, black markets are bad. It is almost always much better to reduce the regulatory and tax burden so as to allow these enterprises to flourish in the light of day.

[Admiral Piett]

Admiral Piett,

I would be *very* careful about using black market figures to argue that the Italians are in fact richer than they are. In fact, wealth tied up in the black market can often be almost as bad as not having that wealth at all. The reason is that black market assets cannot be used for investment, as one cannot use illegal goods as collateral for loans and such. In fact, the economist Hernando de Soto (I believe) has argued that the proportion of black market activity to that in the legitimate market is a strong indicator of underperforming Third World status.

In short, black markets are bad. It is almost always much better to reduce the regulatory and tax burden so as to allow these enterprises to flourish in the light of day.

IT IS NOT BLACK MARKET.It is simply people that DO NOT PAY TAXES and whose wages ARE NOT REGISTERED.Do you see the difference?
Mr Azeron has labelled this black market because he thinks probably the EU is communist and in a communist society there is black market.
BUT IT IS NOT THE SAME THING.

[Nicholas Stipanovich]

Calm down, Admiral Piett.

Strictly, it is a black market in wages, since it is not happening aboveboard. You are right that it is not the same thing as those markets that sprang up in Communist countries. You are also right that Azeron is overstating his case some.

But you seem awful flustered over a simple discussion of the EU's economic policy. Just chill out. This discussion is not a big deal in the great scheme of things.

[Admiral Piett]

Calm down, Admiral Piett.

Strictly, it is a black market in wages, since it is not happening aboveboard. You are right that it is not the same thing as those markets that sprang up in Communist countries. You are also right that Azeron is overstating his case some.

But you seem awful flustered over a simple discussion of the EU's economic policy. Just chill out. This discussion is not a big deal in the great scheme of things.

I have written in that way so that mr Azeron can understand.I wanted to underline the concept.I suppose that tax evading can be classified as black markeeting.However in practice we are speaking about quite different things.
There are factories and workers that are not registered but whose goods are normally sold on the market.

[Admiral Piett]

Ok let us give a few example.
Case one:small factory,the factory itself is registered,and so are some of the workers.The others are not so that the entrepeneur has to pay to that portion of the workers only their wages but not their contributions for the retirement plans etc.The goods manufactured are normally sold on the market.
In some cases it is temporary measure:the entrepreneur takes a new worker,keeps him in "black" for a couple of years and then he registers him.
Case two:the factory is not registered and neither the workers are.The entrepreneur can pay his workers(often illegal immigrants) a wage determined by the market,let us say 300 EU,while instead he would be forced to pay maybe 600 EU + taxes + contributions and give them better working conditions etc...Even in this case the goods are normally sold on the market.
Case three:shopkeeper "forgets" to declare a portion of his sales.
I could go on but I hope you gets the picture.

[Azeron]

Well consdering the contents of the srguments, I am not going to go quote by quote refutation of both crown and Admiral Peitt on this subject. There are issues of preference,and interpetation that are best left alone, and addressed in a larger context to which I will get to in a little bit.(looks like I will tackle EU intergration later tonight)

Whatever argument Crown has raised about the specific dollar value of the poverty indicator is not really relevent. He would have you beleive that using the rate for a single with no dependents is the rate to use. Yes indeed all families of any size would be inpoverished at that rate, but most people want to have a family, you know some lil ones to watch grow up and inprint thier values on. Thats why I pick the numbers corresponding with a husband a wife and 2.5 kids or 1 worker with 4 dependents. Yes it does take more money to put a roof over 4 dependents heads than it costs to just support yourself. I also think its more valid, because people who live closer to the poverty line tend to have more kids. I am going to leave it as a fact for now becasue I don;t think anyone is seriously going to dispute that assertion Furthermore, the differences Crown are trying to establish are not very relevent. If you make a couple grand more over the poverty line, you are still pretty poor. This is not even taking into account that in europe thanks to among many things teh VAT tax goods that people want and need are significantly more expensive and are pushed out of the reach of the working poor, thus the dollar does not go as far so the poverty level should be readjusted upwards to compensate for it, by a few thousand dollars, perhaps more. Forget it, if this hypothetical worker wants to buy a toy for the kid, they would have to give up a substanstial amount of thier disposable income. with this kind of disparity, it would take a husband and wife working to earn what 1 american worker earns.

this is why I say the average worker in Europe is poor, and why by comparison to the US, europe is poor by comparison. By Comparing Europe to the rest of the world, its rich, but as a first world nation, its on the poor side of the block. If Europe were admitted into the US taking cost of living into account, The richest Major European state would be poorer than the poorest US state. this suggests mismagement of europe at its best, -- graft, waste and corruption becoming ingrained into the government at its worst.

Admiral Piett, would like us to beleive that the existance of the black markjet is a good thing, and that with the proper estimation it should be added to the GDP, and then to per capita. Nicholous rightly replies that the existance of a black market is not an indication of strength but indeed measures weakness, so throwing the Black Market into the stew would be a bad practice and misleadeing at best. I take a more middle ground approach, I aggree that the black marjket iteself is a very bad thing, but at times its very useful, as through my youth i have participated in it. I generally think that a black market should not be referenced becasue I think its bad qualities out wiegh the good ones. Gerneally in the US, the people who tend to participate in it, are historically very low wage earning groups, like immigrants who can't speak the language, or kids working thier way through school, generally people who really can't afford to pay taxes (I don't think they should pay any as well). If we were to add the additional income to the GDP and register the workers, the actual income per worker would go down no up, making the case even more stark. The rest of the bag are allot of criminals who make thier doe by hurting other people through extortion, addictive drugs, etc. I think it should be the objective of every state to destroy that kind of income, not revel in it.

By establishing this type of economic paradigm where working in the black market is viewed so benefically and in many cases the only way to survive, you steal away legitimacey away from people, making it a crime to earn a living. government is no longer the entity that is beneficial to creating the market for business to flourish, but has become its enemy, who is constantly trying to riegn in and control people who manage to do well. this view is fundmentally flawed, because governemnt was not created to beat up on people, but to create a system in which people could grow without the threat of being stomped on or robbed. Any attempt to do otherwise would be couter productive and foolish.

Admiral Piett, ther is no way of getting around economic law, despite what 3rd wayists or marxists might have you bleleive. You will just hurt yourself trying.

Now reading your new posts and reviewing some older ones, it is apparent that you think in terms of factories, capital investment and the such. Yes a Factory could not register some workers so they could keep all thier eages, and him not have to poay supplementary costs like unemployment insurance and such. I will tell you this, that this will not happen. If the factory owner has workers, it will report them. why? Because they need the write off's associated with paying employees to reduce thier profits so they will pay less taxes.

Suppose I have workers that make $600. My profits are taxes in totality at 65% (less than what it really is europe)
if it cost me 20% of $600 in employment expenses that brings my total expense to $720/worker.
now if my tax rate is 65% of profits, the worker really costs me comparitavely:
registered: $720 * 35% = $252 (total cost of worker * after tax profit)
unregistered: $600 (Cost of the worker)
As you can see an unregistered worker actually costs about 130% more, and carries the possibility of prison terms which is a cost modifier aboive 1.0, and who final value is set by the personal gain of the individual making the decision to do hiring. Typically a factory will not engage in this type of activity. They like to not report income, but will be more than willing to report workers. If they do engage in this activity, the profits that the person are trying to make, make the wages of the people trivial by comaprison, and are really doing it as a favour to the WORKER as an incentive to gain loyalty not to themselves for profit motives. Operations that are this shady are probably not the best places to work.

Obviously a worker would only operate under these conditions where they would not accrue normal beenfits would only do so for 2 reasons
1) Lack of demand for skills (or lack thereof)
2) Or the profits of industry that an worker is in, are not substantial enough to legitimately employ a worker at a liveable wage

the first point is self explanatory, the second poiunt is takes more explaining but is equally demonstrable.
People don't want to go to jail. People don't want to invest in shady businesses. Why because no matter how smart you are, and how slick you are, sooner or later you are going to your hand caught in the cookie jar. If your profit margins are between the difference of total cost of employment, and the payroll cost of emplyment you are in a dammed business because all the people in it, are breaking the law and showing contempt for the role of the state in the marketplace.

This is where governemnt regulation and excessive taxation comes in. If you over regulate employment thus drive up the cost, if you over regulate the business in general -- you drive down profits, you raise taxes thus take away incentive to operate (reducing Retrun On Investment), you are taking away the capacity of private industry to actually produce anything, hence lowering the availibility of jobs, and decreasing the how much people are willing to pay for wages regardless of wether they are liveable or not. You are purposely impoverishing your own people to satisfy some utopian notions of workers rights, and corporate responsiblity. The best way to increase worker wages and living conditions is by cutting taxes and regulation. Make it easier for workers to find a job they like and take it. by making workers more valuable you increase thier worth by shifting the demand curve (which represents the willingness of employers to employ a worker at a given cost) to a higher equalibrium point that intersects the nearly vertical supply curve.

This also has ther added benefit of bringing prices down prices and makeing the goods more availible to everyone, increasing productivity and standards of living of the population as a whole. Everyone wins!! to be pro-business is to be pro-worker.

Alright I am taking a break and get some more work done (working late tonight after everyone starts heading home), I am going to deal with the issue of the EU and what it represents in a while.

[Admiral Piett]

Mr Azeron,I am not praising black market.I am simply reporting what happens in Europe.I know that black market(let us call so for the sake of discussion) is bad for the reasons you mention.However it takes place and occupies a sproportionately huge portion of the EU economy and italian in particular.
Yes I have readed your "reasons for why an entrepreneur will register his workers",yet it does not happen.Probably I should have mentioned that it is much easier to fire off a non registered worker than a registered one,so at the end having some non registered workers is often advantageous.
Also taxes arrangement is geared towards taxes on labor.
Apparently you are not familiar with eurpean and italian economical practices.

[Admiral Piett]

If we were to add the additional income to the GDP and register the workers, the actual income per worker would go down no up, making the case even more stark

This is true only if you divide the GDP per the number of the workers.
If instead you calculate the income per capita the black market raises the income.

By establishing this type of economic paradigm where working in the black market is viewed so benefically and in many cases the only way to survive, you steal away legitimacey away from people, making it a crime to earn a living. government is no longer the entity that is beneficial to creating the market for business to flourish, but has become its enemy, who is constantly trying to riegn in and control people who manage to do well. this view is fundmentally flawed, because governemnt was not created to beat up on people, but to create a system in which people could grow without the threat of being stomped on or robbed. Any attempt to do otherwise would be couter productive and foolish.

Yes you are correct.

Admiral Piett, ther is no way of getting around economic law, despite what 3rd wayists or marxists might have you bleleive. You will just hurt yourself trying.

Hope that you are not comparing 3r wayist to marxist.Someone might turn in the grave and cause an earthquake

Now reading your new posts and reviewing some older ones, it is apparent that you think in terms of factories, capital investment and the such.

It is called "Economy"

Obviously a worker would only operate under these conditions where they would not accrue normal beenfits would only do so for 2 reasons
1) Lack of demand for skills (or lack thereof)
2) Or the profits of industry that an worker is in, are not substantial enough to legitimately employ a worker at a liveable wage.

Both points are true but they are only a part of the equation

the first point is self explanatory, the second poiunt is takes more explaining but is equally demonstrable.
People don't want to go to jail.

Black market is partially tulerated.Partially is the key word,but it is tulerated neverthless.

People don't want to invest in shady businesses.

A debatable statement.

Why because no matter how smart you are, and how slick you are, sooner or later you are going to your hand caught in the cookie jar.

Remeber,we are speaking about Italy,not the US.

If your profit margins are between the difference of total cost of employment, and the payroll cost of emplyment you are in a dammed business because all the people in it, are breaking the law and showing contempt for the role of the state in the marketplace.

In the textile industry,especially in the low quality sector, this is routine.
And in anyway even if you are not exactly in this condition you can still profit more not paying taxes than paying them.

This is where governemnt regulation and excessive taxation comes in. If you over regulate employment thus drive up the cost, if you over regulate the business in general -- you drive down profits, you raise taxes thus take away incentive to operate (reducing Retrun On Investment), you are taking away the capacity of private industry to actually produce anything, hence lowering the availibility of jobs, and decreasing the how much people are willing to pay for wages regardless of wether they are liveable or not. You are purposely impoverishing your own people to satisfy some utopian notions of workers rights, and corporate responsiblity. The best way to increase worker wages and living conditions is by cutting taxes and regulation. Make it easier for workers to find a job they like and take it. by making workers more valuable you increase thier worth by shifting the demand curve (which represents the willingness of employers to employ a worker at a given cost) to a higher equalibrium point that intersects the nearly vertical supply curve.

You are correct by the first part.However for unskilled but registered and unionized labor wages determined by the market will be lower than in an unionized system.So it is understandable that the average "mr Joe working his heart out in the factory" is not happy about this.


This also has ther added benefit of bringing prices down prices and makeing the goods more availible to everyone, increasing productivity and standards of living of the population as a whole. Everyone wins!! to be pro-business is to be pro-worker.

If it was that simple.

[Admiral Piett]

Ok probably you needs some explanations to understand the peculiarity of the European and italian economy.
In Italy the official work market is rigid.It is not uncommon that one worker is taken in a factory and works there until retirement.Firing off workers is difficult for a manger.This is a consequence of the legislation which has been approved under trade unions pressure.
Then the amount of taxes that the entrepreneur has to pay for each worker is high.This is for several reasons.First of all the retirement system is public
and with a population which is getting older the contributions necessary to keep the system balanced are pretty high.
Then governments prefere to tax labor instead of capital in order to attract capitals.Believe me or not they do so.

[Admiral Piett]

Due to the peculiarity of the labor market I have described above using registered workers is not very convenient.In many sectors where profit margin are low it may simply be impossible.Try to ask yourself why the low quality textile shifts from the industrialized world to third world countries.And the European-italian taxation system is so little labor friendly that this is true even for other sectors,and more specifically subsectors.
So there is a big incentive for using not registered workers or to not to register the activity in first place.
Do the entrepreneurs risk jail? Not exactly.
In some cases black work is the only work available.So the government close an eye,or maybe two,because the other option would be unemployment with all the unpleasant political consequences.And in this way even industries that could afford to use registered workers use black work to increase their profits.Of course there is not a 100% tulerance.If you business grows a bit too much you will have to register yourself or the police will come after you.Also big factories use only registered workers.

[Azeron]

Alright, first off, method of taxation. If businesses were taxed on how many workers there were instead of by income.....well that would be insane. The person who implemented it would be like one of those people who stole candy from children and beats up old ladies for fun. Taxing businesses on how many people they empolyed BUAHAHAHAHA!! you would have to smoke a lot of crack to come up with a tax system like that. You would really have to hate people to do somethign that momumentally stupid. I am pretty sure Italy taxes business prinarilly on income, since I used to collect simplifed finianical reports of italian joint ventures, and one of hte biggest tax items if I recall was income tax.

How do employeers hire people who shouldn't be working and maintain flexibility oif hiring and firing? by creating dummy worker accounts with the government. They set up a few of these, and hire some people, and report and withhold taxes accordingly, but give whats left over in cash to the worker. This represents a dual black market report model, thats probably recorded in your estimate ofth eblack market. Actually registered as far as the government is concerned, actaully paying taxes but getting none of the benefits. That happens mostly with undocumented workers.

Remeber,we are speaking about Italy,not the US.

That reminds me of a pakistani prime minister made before he was replaced by an army gerneal for corruption.

In the textile industry,especially in the low quality sector, this is routine.
And in anyway even if you are not exactly in this condition you can still profit more not paying taxes than paying them.

The only way you come out ahead in this route is not reporting income for taxation.

You are correct by the first part.However for unskilled but registered and unionized labor wages determined by the market will be lower than in an unionized system.So it is understandable that the average "mr Joe working his heart out in the factory" is not happy about this.

depends on the industry you are talking about. Unions are more considered about getting and keeping more people employed into thier union than wages. I can think of many instances in america where workers were making too much so the management borught in a union so they could chop down the payscale. (a particularily telling case is what happened at UPS)

If it was that simple.

Yes it is that simple. Economics is not brain surgery, you just have keep from trying to outsmart the system, or you are going to get your country in the shit hole real quick.

[Admiral Piett]

Taxation on income is in place of course.But taxes FOR EACH SINGLE WORKER are high.

[Admiral Piett]

Alright, first off, method of taxation. If businesses were taxed on how many workers there were instead of by income.....well that would be insane. The person who implemented it would be like one of those people who stole candy from children and beats up old ladies for fun. Taxing businesses on how many people they empolyed BUAHAHAHAHA!! you would have to smoke a lot of crack to come up with a tax system like that. You would really have to hate people to do somethign that momumentally stupid. I am pretty sure Italy taxes business prinarilly on income, since I used to collect simplifed finianical reports of italian joint ventures, and one of hte biggest tax items if I recall was income tax.

There are several type of taxation. Taxation on each single worker is for his retirement plan and the other stuff.This type of taxation is very high.
Then there is taxation on profits and so on.Probably I have not explained myself.

How do employeers hire people who shouldn't be working and maintain flexibility oif hiring and firing? by creating dummy worker accounts with the government. They set up a few of these, and hire some people, and report and withhold taxes accordingly, but give whats left over in cash to the worker. This represents a dual black market report model, thats probably recorded in your estimate ofth eblack market. Actually registered as far as the government is concerned, actaully paying taxes but getting none of the benefits. That happens mostly with undocumented workers.

Sorry,while it is likely that sometimes dummies are used usually this is not how the system works.Many workers are simply not registered.

That reminds me of a pakistani prime minister made before he was replaced by an army gerneal for corruption.

Italy would be so if the military had a decent amount of prestige.

The only way you come out ahead in this route is not reporting income for taxation.

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENS.Income is often not fully reported

depends on the industry you are talking about. Unions are more considered about getting and keeping more people employed into thier union than wages. I can think of many instances in america where workers were making too much so the management borught in a union so they could chop down the payscale. (a particularily telling case is what happened at UPS)

Probably you are referring about skilled labor.


Yes it is that simple. Economics is not brain surgery, you just have keep from trying to outsmart the system, or you are going to get your country in the shit hole real quick.

A decade ago we were in the shit hole.

[Admiral Piett]

[quote="Azeron"]Alright, first off, method of taxation. If businesses were taxed on how many workers there were instead of by income.....well that would be insane. The person who implemented it would be like one of those people who stole candy from children and beats up old ladies for fun. Taxing businesses on how many people they empolyed BUAHAHAHAHA!! you would have to smoke a lot of crack to come up with a tax system like that. You would really have to hate people to do somethign that momumentally stupid. I am pretty sure Italy taxes business prinarilly on income, since I used to collect simplifed finianical reports of italian joint ventures, and one of hte biggest tax items if I recall was income tax.

Try to remember.Probably they were registered as INPS contributions or something like that,I do not know much about bookeeping.Also it depends:
if an industry generates high profits using a limited number of workers it is obvious that the taxes paid on income will make the contributions paid for the workers look like small in comparison.But retirement contributions(and other taxes),which are paid for each worker and thus depend on the number of workers,are quite high.This is one of the main problems of the italian labor market.

[Admiral Piett]

If you have followed me so far you should start to see the whole picture.
Thanks to trade unions pressures the labor market is rigid and regulated.
Workers do not like flexibility and the unions obviously support this view.
As a consequence there is in many cases a substantial difference between
wages and working conditions dictated by market laws and those dictated by
the Law.So the difference is covered by black market.Also even when this is not the case simply not paying taxes,not denouncing the full income etc is more convenient than doing it.
All this is possible because controls are minimal.Some zones live thanks to bunches of small factories which are not registered.From a political point of view mass unemployment is not a good thing so closing an eye is a better option.The government does the controls necessary to assure that tax evasion does not bankrupt the state.That small factory is tulerated until remains small.If it grows larger it will be forced to register itself,as often happen,or facing the legal consequences.
This system is not awhim of someone who is using crack.It is simply the result of a combination of political and economical forces.

[Azeron]

As for your last 3 or 4 replies, they fall in line with what I was saying was wrong with europe. And represent a fundemental problem in your economy and the ability of the worker to work. Granted its more acceptable, becasue of the hoops you go around to hire and fire someone, is exactly the reasons why the EU is being so badly mismanaged and Why UK should not commit itself to the EU, but should back off instead.

Now this argument you are making is not new, and I have heard it many times before. I feel that it arises from a misconception about how wages are fomulated and exactly how businesses actually view government mandates for benefits.

The money that comes directly from your paycheck into mandatory savings accounts, is your money.
the contribution that the employer makes to it as well, is your money.,
unemployment insurancecomes from your pocket.

there are no employee related taxes that aren't reallypaid by the employee himself/herself. The system makes yu feel better by making you think that your employer is investing in you, But he is not, its simply an unrealized part of your wage, that you never even had ther chance to hold before it was ripped out of your pockets.

this is how a company determines your wage with an untaxed employee market:

(How Much I am willijng to pay for this type of work) = How much I pay this guy
$30k = $30k

this is how a company determines your wage in a higly taxed employee market
(How Much I am willijng to pay for this type of work) - ( Company matching pension conrtibutions) - (other employee taxes) = How much I pay this guy
$30k - $5k - $3k = $22k

Yah it doesn't seem fair, but thats how the world works.raise employee benefits just cuts take home pay. All the other costs are passed onto the consumer. Business taxes really are a fools game. Business shouldn't be taxed -- people, like owners and investors should be. trying to tax the business are just raising consumer prices and restricting supply to those who are least able to buy to buy the goods and services..

something about shit hole a decade ago

Now you have to realize this, that in a free market, you have variation in market performance. Sometimes its high, somtetimes its negative. It ussually dips when money has been overallocated to an industry or an investement scheme, and when that industry fails to form, a massive sell off or dip occurs ,followed by a recession or something like that. After a reavaluation of where resource allocation was deficent, a rally ovvurs, and the economy goes up up and up. You have to realize that the average up lasts 3x longer than the average dip, so growth is sustained and built upon. In a socialist economy, you trade dynacism for statism, in the hopes that you won;t have any longer lines at the unemployment office. The major problem with this is, that when resource allocation becomes severly out of whack, it takes longer to recognize it since resource alloaction took a llot longer to build. ineffieceny grows and the dips start to last longer approaching the length of rallies. Basically you have traded the life blood of the market place for certantity. Thats not a good thing, nothing is certain, and making things so they can't change when change occurs, prolongs and deepens the dmaage.

this is why Europe's fundementals are wrong. You have growth now, and maybe some strength, but becasue you thought you could straddle the bull, you are goning to find your ass on the gorund when it decides to throw you alittle curve. trying to wrap it up in complex market therory, is not going to help anything.As you have already stated, people may like the stability, but you are tearing yourselves apart trying to live under it. An entire class of workers are being disenfranchised by it. Look by having strict hiring and firing laws, you are taking away economic freedom to a great number of people who do deserve to work.

As for UPS, thats unskilled labour. They deliver packages. You have to realize, whats good for the union is not neccessarily good for the employees.

Look I am not saying the USA has all the answers, we just have more thiings right than anyone else in the world. Perhaps you should emulate it. Perhaps the UK would be better off with us than with the EU.

Its insane, and I still haven't gotten to the political core of EU which I find to be reprehensible.

[Admiral Piett]

Ok let us try a bit of Economy 101.
Wages in a free market are determined by the encounter of the demand and the offer of labor.This is not a misconception,it is simply how market works.Yes you are correct probably without taxation the net wage received by the worker would be higher.However he would still have to pay contributions for his retirement plan,sanitation etc.So there is not a true difference,unless he prefers to choose between private insurances.And in the UE this is surely not the case.
Now,I have laughed my ass off at your statements about UPS workers.That was surely a particular situation,a situation of great economical growth.Are you really arguing that trade unions make always wages lower
than in a free market situation?This is the most stupid thing I have ever heard so far.
As I said above it is a matter of demand and offer.If the offer of labor is greater than demand's need,which is the typical case with unskilled labor except in some specific situations,wages will be relatively low.And vice versa:
if demand is greater than offer wages will be higher.
Trade unions modify the situation creating a (imperfect) monopoly or an (imperfect) oligopoly of the offer of labor.A monopoly means that they can sell their good,labor,to the price they want.And obviously this price will be higher than that determined by the market.Of course in practice the difference will not be big but there is.
Understood?
About being in a shit hole I meant on the verge of bankruptcy,thanks to inefficient economic policies.
Is the US more efficient?Probably yes.Better? This is a matter of values.
Can US system be exported here?No,unless you plan to use machine guns against the mobs of angry workers who do not want flexibility.

PS
ECONOMY IS NOT SIMPLE.IT IS A COMPLEX MATTER.TRADE OFFS ARE THE NORM AND WIN WIN SCENARIOS FOR ALL ARE THE EXCEPTION.

[Crown]

Azeron you are using the most pathetic arguments I have ever seen. You obviously did not read my last post, or you simply tried to ignore it, so let me say it again;

Whatever argument Crown has raised about the specific dollar value of the poverty indicator is not really relevent.

Why? Because it shatters your point?

He would have you beleive that using the rate for a single with no dependents is the rate to use.

No. You would have us believe that the entire population of Italy falls below the poverty line which you pulled right out of your arse;

Now it has been suggested that italy is a rich counrty, and that Europe is wealthy in gerneal. To dispell that notion, the cold harse relaity is, that if Europe joined the US, the average worker would fall under the poverty line. Now before you get all huffy and puffy about a specific number I am using $23,000 as the poverty line, since there is no single number becasue poverty depends greatly on dependents, so I am using a family with 2.5 kids or a family of 5)
here are some stats on per capita income

http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/
(all numbers are USD, 2000 est)
Italy - $22,100
Germany - $23,400
France - $24,400
UK - $22,800
US - $36,200

The important points to note Azeron is that you used the single worker of Italy making and average of $21,000. Now this is not wrong, however you go and arbitually pull a figure of the poverty line of $23,000, thus placing the single Italian worker conviniently under it. Sure you go and say that you are basing your argument on a family (2 adults and 2.5 kids), however if the average figure of Italy's workers is $21,000 then how could the income of two Italian's be below $23,000?

They can't you moron! Two multiplied by $21,000 is $42,000! Idiot.

Now as for me using the very same tactics that you are applying I say again read my post. I will quote myself here and bold the relevant sections so that your small attention span may be able to recognise it...

No there is a number that could have been selected rather than arbituary pulled out of you arse. What number say you? Well how about the numbers used by the US census bureau to find out how many of it's own citizens are living below the poverty line!

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, an individual younger than 65 was living in poverty in 1999 if his or her annual income was less than $8,667. For individuals 65 and over, the poverty threshold was $7,990. A family of four, with two adults and two dependent children under 18, was considered to be living in poverty if its household income did not exceed $16,895. These definitions were derived from estimates of minimum nutritional and housing standards that were made in 1963 and updated annually on the basis of changes in the Consumer Price Index.

Now you arbiturely pulled the $23,000 figure out of your arse and used it (erroneously, I might add), to argue that the entire population of Italy falls beneath the poverty line! The correct figure, as used by the US census bureau is $16,895 for an average family of 2 adults and 2 children.

That is a $6,105 difference!

DO NOT EVER AGAIN TRY AND PLACE BLAME FOR YOUR MISTAKE ON ME!

am going to leave it as a fact for now becasue I don;t think anyone is seriously going to dispute that assertion Furthermore, the differences Crown are trying to establish are not very relevent.

Liar. They are and you can not accept them, that is fine. But don't try and muddy the waters now that you have pissed in it! You made the mistake, and when I caught you on it, you remembered only the first god damn sentence. I am not impressed by your repeated attempts to avoid correction Azeron. Your post's are irrelevant and stupid.

If you make a couple grand more over the poverty line, you are still pretty poor. This is not even taking into account that in europe thanks to among many things teh VAT tax goods that people want and need are significantly more expensive and are pushed out of the reach of the working poor, thus the dollar does not go as far so the poverty level should be readjusted upwards to compensate for it, by a few thousand dollars, perhaps more.

Given your past realibilty (yes that was sarcasm), I don't want to even try and bring you up on this Azeron, except to ask this.... Where does the money of all of this outrages tax go to? Wanna know? WELFARE. A concept that you guys in the states wouldn't know too much about. It goes to the pension of the elderly and the hospital system. Something else that the US lacks, tell me do you even know what Medicare is?

You are an idiot, you are hung by your own statements;

Forget it, if this hypothetical worker wants to buy a toy for the kid, they would have to give up a substanstial amount of thier disposable income. with this kind of disparity, it would take a husband and wife working to earn what 1 american worker earns.

The hypothetical worker earns $21,000, given by you.
A family, as defined by you would also earn $21,000. What the fuck? Don't you define a family as 2 Adults and 2.5 kids? Your logic is as flawed as ever!

The richest Major European state would be poorer than the poorest US state. this suggests mismagement of europe at its best, -- graft, waste and corruption becoming ingrained into the government at its worst.

What?! Are you claiming that the richest Major European state's average worker makes less than $8,667 which is the poverty line for 1 working individual as defiened by the US Census Bureau?

Ladies and gentle men I humbly submit that Azeron has been given another opportunity to display his debating skills and has failed yet again. He is either an idiot, or a liar or in serious need of professional help. Maybe all three. Never take his word for the matter.

[Admiral Piett]

Now it has been suggested that italy is a rich counrty, and that Europe is wealthy in gerneal. To dispell that notion, the cold harse relaity is, that if Europe joined the US, the average worker would fall under the poverty line. Now before you get all huffy and puffy about a specific number I am using $23,000 as the poverty line, since there is no single number becasue poverty depends greatly on dependents, so I am using a family with 2.5 kids or a family of 5)
here are some stats on per capita income

http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/
(all numbers are USD, 2000 est)
Italy - $22,100
Germany - $23,400
France - $24,400
UK - $22,800
US - $36,200 [/quote]

The important points to note Azeron is that you used the single worker of Italy making and average of $21,000. Now this is not wrong, however you go and arbitually pull a figure of the poverty line of $23,000, thus placing the single Italian worker conviniently under it. Sure you go and say that you are basing your argument on a family (2 adults and 2.5 kids), however if the average figure of Italy's workers is $21,000 then how could the income of two Italian's be below $23,000?

They can't you moron! Two multiplied by $21,000 is $42,000! Idiot.

Mr Azeron,if the expression "per capita" was referred to each single adult (worker or non worker) and not to each worker then mr Crown is correct.You take a per capita figure and then you use it as the income of a medium family.It is a clever trick but it has not worked with mr Crown.
Your attempt to demonstrate that the average european citizen is as much rich as an american homeless it is clearly failing.
Is the average american citizen richer than the european one? Yes of course.
Is there the quantum leap you are attempting to demonstrate? NO,NO AND AGAIN NO.

[Pablo Sanchez]

This thread has been reported to me, and I see that my initial impression was correct. Unless there are any objection, I will be closing this thread presently.

[Azeron]

I was assuming that the wife was not working, and implying the case that she would have to work.( as you note I didn;t shift the US wage up to 72k either, so your objection is idiotic) But I was pointing out the gross disparity of opportunity against the US. But if you want to compare working couples vs working couples than its $42,000 vs $72,000. In europe this gets you a decent flat, in the US you get you a decent size home for you and you 2.5 kids and an ability to build equity through a buying a house. I don't think you understand the argument. And yes crown, I got my numbers from the US census beareu poverty estimate grid for the year 2000. I don't know where you got your numbers from but they look like you quoted someone quoting the Census Beareu for the single person rate.

In case you don;t know what the VAT (Value Added Tax) is, its approximately 23% of what you pay for most items in Europe (its built into the price so you can't tell how much you are paying in tax)

If you pay an additional 23% in taxes, your money is not going as far as in the US, therfore the poverty line has to be shifted up. Any objection to that? its not brian surgery.

You 2 are morons. Go back to basic economics. You Euros are a joke.

Boy, you're a dickhead. Thread closed.
--Pablo