Hacker News Reader

Comment by pelorat | Hacker News Reader

Us Europeans are more 'detached' from the economy than people are in the USA. We basically coast along. We don't live on credit, but debit, and most people have zero investments outside their house. We're content and risk adverse and don't care much for the stock market (even though many people's pensions are tied to it).

In places where higher education is cheap, or even sometimes free (like Sweden), there's less pressure to perform after graduation. It's quite common to study some field, but after graduation you go do something completely unrelated. A degree is just a means to an end, something to put on your CV to get an edge over those that does not have a degree. Those who study for the purpose of using their knowledge to create a successful business are very few.

And when it comes to starting a business, the EU market is rarely the target, instead the focus is the domestic and much smaller market.

It's also difficult to start a company that targets a larger market from the get go, because it means you need to advertise in multiple countries, target different languages, set up offices and contacts, and all of that costs money that startups do not have.

The EU single market is largely a myth from the perspective of wanting to start a successful company that can compete internationally. It's not any easier now than it was before the EU existed.

The EU is still a collection of different countries, with different languages, and the people in one country doesn't really care about what happens across their border or which new and up-and-coming company they have to offer.

EU citizens like American companies, because we here about them on the news constantly, but we are completely oblivious to companies from our European neighbors.

View on HN

> The EU single market is largely a myth from the perspective of wanting to start a successful company that can compete internationally. It's not any easier now than it was before the EU existed.

That's not exactly true. The single market has been a great thing for companies producing physical products. That's also what was in mind of the people who designed the single market. They wanted to unify standards for physical stuff. Because back then, there were no digital services to speak of. "Analog" services were naturally limited in their scaling capability so they weren't in focus, but mankind had back then just learned to scale up physical production, and the single market for physical goods has largely worked out great to shape global standards and stay competitive in the area of anything that's traded and touchable.

What's been created is a bad fit for digital products and services, unfortunately. The legal frameworks covering purely digital services are far less unified than the standards for physical goods. And digital services are way more reliant on localization than physical stuff is. No amount of EU single market legislation will ever be able to eliminate the language barriers, much less other cultural barriers that are often hindering digital services successful in one EU country from being adopted in neighboring EU countries.

Therefore, for those digital services that benefit greatly from network effects, it'll be hard for European variants to ever beat their US counterparts on the domestic turfs, and virtually impossible on the global market. However, not all digital services are dependent on network effects, so there are good reasons to continue trying to make the EU single market more applicable to digital services and to foster domestic offerings whereever possible, even if that strategy will probably never lead to the next Facebook or Instagram or Amazon to be built by a EU company.

Simple way to eliminate language barriers is to introduce English as main language of schooling, thus making all next generation bilingual. It's done by middle and upper classes anyway so idk why commoners are intentionally left in the dust by the System.

Let's face it: our culture (all across the EU), is American, anyway. It's stupid to pretend otherwise.

> idk why commoners are intentionally left in the dust by the System.

There's extreme wealth inequalities between EU countries (we're talking about one order of magnitude in the extreme cases), language barriers are the main things holding back the demographic crisis that would come from mass economic immigration within the EU.

> Let's face it: our culture (all across the EU), is American, anyway. It's stupid to pretend otherwise.

EU is a big place (and so is the US). Perhaps you've mainly visited major urban centers of both and so don't see the rather unique cultures both hold.

>There's extreme wealth inequalities between EU countries (we're talking about one order of magnitude in the extreme cases), language barriers are the main things holding back the demographic crisis that would come from mass economic immigration within the EU.

But that was the whole point of EU's existence: to make it easy for people to move countries. Do you claim that removing extra point of friction will make things somehow worse?

> Do you claim that removing extra point of friction will make things somehow worse?

Yes, did you not read my comment?

The peripheries of the EU (Portugal, Spain, Southern Italy, Greece, Bulgaria, etc) already see massive youth immigration and brain drain to the richer areas of the EU.

Make the majority of EU citizens fluent in English, and you can imagine how that would quickly massively increase this issue and destroy local economies and create massive political issues.

If that was true, it means whole idea of EU was wrong and people should have been forced to stay in their countries? How about building a wall huh?

I hate that you are right regarding the cultural aspect. I wish we were better at preserving our respective identities. That's why I like going to small movie theatres; they tend to play local films. And you do stumble on gems from time to time.

> introduce English as main language of schooling

Good idea - wrong language. English would make EU less European. German would be a better choice, or French or <inset an actual EU language>. Not that I believe in the idea.

English is the language spoken by the broadest base of people in the EU, and since Brexit lacks the kind of partisan status that e.g. French or German would have.

Ireland beg to differ.

There are 5mn people in Ireland, English is now effectively a neutral language in the EU.

At least in the wealthier western European countries, English is already a mandatory subject from a young age. It of course varies by country, but for example Danes are learning English by age 10, followed by German/French/Spanish by age 13.

English is taught in Norway from the the first year at school at age five or six.

English was European before the EU existed and will still be after it is gone

the EU tries very hard to conflate itself with "Europe", but it is not Europe

it is a political entity that happens to be based in Europe, and one that does not even represent a majority of the European population

it does not get to decide what is and what is not European

English is still the most widely spoken foreign language in the EU. And with UK out, it would be an almost neutral choice for a common language.

Well it should be English or Mandarin Chinese depending on which superpower they want to hitch their wagon to and trade the most with

I would even go as far as to say that whichever superpower language they pick should also be used additionally for legal contracts and government work

How many people in the EU speak English, and how many speak Mandarin??

After Brexit, English is as neutral of a national language for the EU as Esperanto but starts with 10,000x better adoption.

> Let's face it: our culture (all across the EU), is American, anyway.

No, it isn't. At most you could say that a part of our culture is American, but even amongst each other, EU countries differ quite a bit in terms of culture.

> At most you could say that a part of our culture is American

Don't forget that American culture mostly comes from Europe. The influence goes both ways.

the fact there is no EU single market for services is why I was not concerned on a long term basis for the UK economy as a result of leaving the EU

the UK is a service based economy, all growth from the next century is going to come from services, not by increasing cheese exports or trying to compete with the Chinese on battery production

almost all UK startups branch out to the US before they try the continent

no single market legislation is ever going to change this

>all growth from the next century is going to come from services

Why do I feel like many workers in the service industries are gonna be unemployed or working for pennies in the future following this hype leading to labor oversupply of service workers, while the likes of tradesmen will be making more money? There was even a south park episode about this.

The UK is already heavily fractured between the rich service based City of London and the rest of the country being relatively poor by comparison, especially the areas that suffered industrialization and haven't recovered and need constant subsidies from London.

Min-maxing a society like that doesn't usually end well but usually in some dystopian way, like rich workers needing to driver everywhere to avoid the masses of unemployed homeless people on drugs roaming the streets.

Not everyone can be a hot-shot banker or AI engineer, we should have career paths that can fit every level of skill and intelligence.

Read up https://www.eu-inc.org

> The EU single market is largely a myth from the perspective of wanting to start a successful company that can compete internationally. It's not any easier now than it was before the EU existed.

[citation needed] because I think this is extremely false.

It is easy to underestimate the pain caused by having all the pre-euro currencies and pre-EU tax laws (yes there was the Schengen zone and EEC, but the EU uniformity helps a lot) and pre-EU borders.

Source: me, who is a middle-aged American founding a tech startup in the EU and visited Europe many times before the EU existed.

They're most likely talking about digital.

Look at Netflix, a different catalog in every country.

They said it was currently worse than it used to be before the EU. That is not true.

Netflix engaging in complicated IP rights negotiations does not mean the existence of the European Union is pointless.

The current EU laws (especially tax laws) aren't helpful for businesses. If you want to do business in every EU country you basically have to register a business in each of them.

Sure, you can sell goods for €10.000 - €20.000 to another EU country without much trouble, beyond that you need to setup a business in each country, sometimes you even need employees or at least an office in a country to be able to do so. I worked for a company that shipped to a number of EU countries, from an EU country. It has taken them 15 years to expand from shipping to three countries to nine. Every time they want to enter a "new market" it is years of planning and insane fees or doing business in a supposed "single market".

The current situation is better than before the EU, but it's by no means good. Certainly no where as good as a Nebraska company wanting to sell their product in New Mexico. EU business will never grow to the size of American companies if they cannot bootstrap themself in a true single EU market. An American business immediately have a potential customer base of 350 million consumer, an EU business have at most 80 million if they start in Germany and will have to add an insane bureaucracy if they want to expand.

EDIT: My information is out of date: In 2021 a solution was introduced where you can pay your VAT locally, and the tax authority in your own country will handle the transfer of VAT to the other EU countries.

There are still some taxes (e.g. taxes on tobacco or alcohol) you may need to handle for each country, and to do some you may need to be a registered business.

Really? Most companies I know have just a single representative or billing endpoint in the EU.

This is just straight up not true. You need a legal body in a country if you want to hire someone on payroll there, you most definitely do not need one just to sell your goods and services, that's the entire point of the single market. It sounds like you've misunderstood a second hand recollection of someone else's struggles?

> You need a legal body in a country if you want to hire someone on payroll there

Even this is not strictly true. One can often just register a foreign company with the local tax agency for a direct hire. The most frequent scenario is that a foreign hire comes through their own legal entity, as a hired contractor. Now, the sad part of that statement is that often a hire comes as a hired contractor not because of cross-border taxation, but because of tax management reasons. In some EU countries, high value employees cost three euros in taxes for every two euros paid after taxes. A lot of people prefer to set up a corporation that allows them to better manage that majority of their income that goes to the tax office.

That's not employing someone in a different country though, that's contracting. And it's the same arrangement you can use to hire someone in the US from the EU.

> One can often just register a foreign company with the local tax agency for a direct hire.

This is the non-contracting employment part of GPs comment. I don’t think it’s frequently used, but it is possible.

> If you want to do business in every EU country you basically have to register a business in each of them.

This is false. Some types of business that are more heavily regulated do require you to set up a local branch.

I think it is getting better year after year, in small steps. For example, B2B taxation within the EU (by use of the reverse-charge mechanism) has become quite easy in recent years. Of course, depending on the product, diverse local rules may apply.

> [citation needed]

Of the top of my head.

Uber, has to do all sorts of gymnastics to make rides work across different EU countries. And still they are routinely asked to stop serving in a country for some reason or another.

Amazon. It took them years to launch across EU, they went country by country and didn’t launch across EU at once.

I think you're both correct.

EU Single market is a massive improvement, but it's not yet really single market like in the States (although there can be a bit of legislation/tax barriers between states there as well, depending on your location and line of work).

Also, it's hard to understate just how open the US is. For me, an European living in the EU, it's as easy, or easier (larger wallets, single language) to sell (digital/online products/services) to Americans. For digital goods, might as well skip the EU.

The EU is not a federal state (yet) so the problem of having a EU wide company that could operate in all the member states is who gets the money and what do they do with it.

If I live in Portugal but my customers are mostly located in Ireland, what share does Portugal get of the corporate taxes? What share gets Ireland? What about the other countries? What if my country of residence changes in the meantime?

This seems incongruous:

  > most people have zero investments outside their house.

  > stock market (even though many people's pensions are tied to it)

To the extent the average American has any non-house investments, they consist of retirement savings in (defined contribution) pension accounts. How does this differ from your description of the average European?

While the underlying mechanics are similar (pension funds), the average European (at least in my corner of the EU) is completely unaware. They know some (government-mandated) amount is withheld and paid out to the government (which then routes it to appropriate mix of pension funds), and that's it.

While you can be aware of the details (and make your own pension fund choice), most people are blisfully unaware.

> The EU single market is largely a myth from the perspective of wanting to start a successful company that can compete internationally. It's not any easier now than it was before the EU existed.

This is simply not true. There is freedom of movement for workers which means it's easy to recruit top talent across the continent. Remote work is also much simplified. There's no friction moving goods and company assets across borders. The regulatory environment is significantly unified under the EU so there are few regulatory risks for companies growing outside their country within the region. Every EU company also has access to the entire continent's consumer base – 450 million residents, which is 50% more than the US.

This benefits many EU tech companies – Spotify, Revolut, Klarna, Bolt Mobility, Wise, N26, and so on and on and on.

> EU citizens like American companies

As an EU citizen, I don't bank with an American company, I don't drive an American car, I don't shop in American grocery stores nor is importing many American foods allowed on safety grounds, I don't buy American fuel, my private health insurance isn't American, and so on and forth. I only buy American tech where there isn't a more competitive Chinese alternative. I'm not against the US in any way, shape or form. I just don't think we think about the US in the EU as much as you think.

You are right in the sense that the European way of life is very different from the US way of life and we don't care that much for the economy. Yet Europe is still home to some of the largest stock markets in the world including LSE, Euronext, FSE, SIX Swiss, etc. We just don't value it as highly as other aspects in life – there is a strong sentiment of rejection of the rat race, growth of shareholder value at all costs, and other such American things in Europe.

Perhaps it would benefit you to first examine the evidence on the ground, and then re-evaluate if your belief in American values (which I respect – totally great values in many cases) blinds you to European culture around capitalism. Europe is quite socialist, after all. Naturally, less effort will be spent on capital, more on society.

This is absolutely not true. Moving across Europe is significantly harder than in US. On top of that companies hiring across Europe need to go B2B or EoR. The countries are absolutely not harmonised in terms of regulations, labor law or employing people.

I am sorry but you absolutely have no clue what you are talking about.

Moving across Europe may be harder than moving across the US. But moving across Europe (at least the EU) today is much easier than it was 40 years ago, pre-EU.

It is much easier now but that is not what was sold to the people of the EU.

We were told you could easily move to another country. The fact is that in some case you can and in others you cant.

So on that front, the promise of freedom of movement is if not broken one not reality either.

I agree, it's definitely much easier than it was. But when comparing EU to USA and asking 'why', I think it's extremely important to remember how much less of a single market Europe is than the US/China.

The bureaucracy can be a nightmare. Ironically one of the best country to move to pre-brexit was the UK. I did that without a lawyer. My other moves across EU needed a lawyer to sort out the local applications and required months ahead bookings. I also had all sort of stupid issues which prolonged one immigration situation for 3 years. I complained to the EU the host country was in violation of EU rules and they came back after 2 years saying it was my problem and that the host country was free to do whatever.

The EU is an absolute joke and a bureaucrauts' dream, no wonder our economy shrunk to half the USA's in the last 10 years.

Yes, that was the claim I responded to as well. Non-EU vs EU.

> This is simply not true. There is freedom of movement for workers which means it's easy to recruit top talent across the continent. Remote work is also much simplified. There's no friction moving goods and company assets across borders.

There is absolute friction for people to even move across the borders. I moved to Sweden a few years ago and it took 8 months before I was fully part of the system. Now I am looking to move to Norway, and it's going to be the same ordeal.

There are countries where you can just show up with your bags and start living there but it doesn't apply to all of them.

So good luck recruiting talent, when the talent has to jump through hoops to get an ID card or open a bank account or even rent an apartment.

> The regulatory environment is significantly unified under the EU so there are few regulatory risks for companies growing outside their country within the region. Every EU company also has access to the entire continent's consumer base – 450 million residents, which is 50% more than the US.

It's not about regulatory risk but about overheads. The rules for selling cross border are vague and opaque and you need a PHD just to make sure that you comply with all the regulations or a good lawyer.

Yes, in theory you can reach 450M customers, in practice much less so.

> I just don't think we think about the US in the EU as much as you think.

Maybe you don't but I can assure you that our leaders think of the US for the simple reason that the EU is not in position of strength at the moment.

Case and point, the EU leadership is scrambling to avoid Trump starting a trade war with the EU while also trying to placate China who is also starting to show it's strength.

If we were in a position of strength, things would be different but the EU simply does not have the muscle to put up a fight.

The EU has stopped investing it's its armies and can barely help Ukraine. It has some tech companies but an order of magnitude less than the US. It is currently losing the space race against the US and China and it obliterated it's industrial base.

All of this is going to come back to haunt us at some point and not in a good way.

> Spotify, Revolut, Klarna, Bolt Mobility, Wise, N26,

You have to realize that most of the businesses you mentioned are completely dependent on American infrastructure. Where do you think that Klarna et al are deploying their applications? On Hetzner? No on AWS or GCP or Azure.

How do you get access to those applications? Through the app store or Google play which both belong to American companies.

Who is driving the innovation in AI , self driving cars, robotics? No the EU.

> You are right in the sense that the European way of life is very different from the US way of life and we don't care that much for the economy. Yet Europe is still home to some of the largest stock markets in the world including LSE, Euronext, FSE, SIX Swiss, etc. We just don't value it as highly as other aspects in life – there is a strong sentiment of rejection of the rat race, growth of shareholder value at all costs, and other such American things in Europe.

You don't care about the economy until your government services start shutting down because the economy is in the dumpster due to 20 years of under-investments and over taxation.

If productivity does not go up, if people don't care as you said then the outcome is stagnation and a decline of quality of life.

The services you rely on are paid for by the taxes raised on the companies of Europe. Who is going to fund the European lifestyle when companies decide to leave the EU taking their profits and taxes elsewhere because the EU is smothering them with rules and regulations?

Welcome to Norway! I hope you like bureaucracy :)

The business I mentioned depend on American infra which depends on Chinese components that run, often, open source code written by Americans, Europeans, Russians, and many others. It’s a globalised world. But your claim was that EU has an environment that can’t sustain or cultivate new successful businesses. Evidence suggests that is not the case.

Countries with a strong social safety net are not experiencing the stagnation in quality of life you describe. Once again, look at the evidence. There are various quality of life indices.

Sorry but chasing money at every opportunity does not lead to better outcomes. This is very evident in capitalist western countries now with record inequality, private capital dictating politics, CEO and other shootings in the streets, healthcare poverty and so on. I’m not against capitalism as many EU welfare states are still fundamentally capitalist, but I’m just saying the quality of life claim doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

Yeah, you need an accountant and a lawyer to do business across the single market if you don’t want to learn the local laws. I don’t think you wouldn’t in the US though. Compare and contrast CA consumer and corporate laws to TX laws. They are quite different. You would benefit from a lawyer. They aren’t that expensive in the EU compared to running a business though — I currently retain a lawyer for €2.5k per year. So about €200 per month. This is from a private corporate law firm in Eastern Europe. They prepare 4-5 documents every year for statutory needs for that price and do an excellent job. If your business has at least 5 employees or meaningful investment (VC, angel, etc), this becomes a negligible cost. You are totally right that dealing with bureaucracy in the EU is a total headache, as I believe it is in Cali and so on. But I claim that this headache can be removed with a minor expense and therefore it is not a meaningful obstacle.

> Yet Europe is still home to some of the largest stock markets in the world including LSE, Euronext, FSE, SIX Swiss, etc.

Total valuation of LSE Euronext is laughable compared to NYSE or Nasdaq. (5,7 vs 30 + 16 trillion USD). Not to mention that largest European company is producing scarfs and handbags vs Nvidia, Apple or Amazon. It is XIX century vs XXI century comparing EU to US.

I thought the largest European company is making a miracle drug that is making fat Americans less fat?

IIRC novo nordisk is worth more than the rest of the danish gdp combined

Novo Nordisk also makes cheaper insulin which probably keeps Eli Lilly in check in free markets.

Come to think of it, Airbus is a similar example of European competition with the US that keeps the unfettered capitalist competitor in check. Boeing stands to lose something if there is a competitor waiting to eat their market share. Of course, the US is a bit protectionist so free market rules don’t always apply there. But they do in many other parts of the world.

Not for long. There are a lot of similar drugs, some already on the market and others in the pipeline. Recent clinical trials have shown that Eli Lilly's Zepbound (tirzepatide) is superior to Novo Nordisk's Wegovy (semaglutide).

https://investor.lilly.com/news-releases/news-release-detail...

> There is freedom of movement for workers which means it's easy to recruit top talent across the continent.

It might be possible, but it’s not easy and is rarely done outside a few select countries, such as Switzerland. I’ve received offers from recruiters in Poland and Germany, but most of them seem to be trying to cut labor costs since hiring a foreign worker is often cheaper than employing a domestic one. However, when factoring in cost-of-living adjustments, these opportunities aren’t very appealing. The same principle applies in reverse; for instance, a German wouldn’t move to Lithuania for work because the wages there are significantly lower.

> Remote work is also much simplified.

If I’m employed in Lithuania and want to work remotely in Germany, I can only do so for less than 50% of the calendar year. Otherwise, I’d need to be employed in Germany. As far as I know, this restriction doesn’t apply in the United States.

> The regulatory environment is significantly unified under the EU so there are few regulatory risks for companies growing outside their country within the region.

The same applies to the United States, which is the point of comparison for the EU in this case. Additionally, this is highly dependent on the industry you’re targeting, as the requirements can vary significantly for certain products.

> Every EU company also has access to the entire continent's consumer base – 450 million residents, which is 50% more than the US.

In theory, Germans will buy German products, and Poles will buy Polish products. This used to be true for digital services too, such as contracting, until companies started cutting costs by looking for cheaper labor in Eastern Europe.

I’ve worked all over Europe in the games industry as did some of my long-term friends. Relocating for employment is a broader discussion but from a regulatory perspective, it just involves driving a car. No visas, no national insurance registration, no right to work worries, etc.

Yes, salaries vary but not much in companies hiring at the global level.

The point of comparison was not the US, but pre-EU Europe as the claim in the comment I responded to was that the single market is a myth. It is not.

I don’t think Germans buy German, Poles buy Polish, etc. Many Europeans drive German cars and many play Polish games like Cyberpunk 2077, French games like Dishonored and what Ubisoft makes. Many use Scandinavian banks and so on.

Regarding employment, you are right that it is still not effortless, but you can often be employed in one EU country and live in another. This used to be called being a frontier worker I believe. With remote work, that label isn’t used anymore. But yes, living in Lithuania you’d want to be employed in Germany probably in your situation. Before Brexit, I lived in England and was employed in Italy — no problem aside from getting a taxpayer ID of sorts in Italy which was a minor hassle (mostly slow process).

I really didn’t face much of the issues people present in this thread while moving around in the last few decades. Nor have my friends. One year they work in Oslo, the other in Lisbon, then in Warsaw. Some start their own companies to contract all over Europe as supplier agreements are relatively easy from a tax perspective. I think this whole moving around Europe concern is something solved by filling out some forms for 8 hours every year and maybe paying a local accountant sometimes to sort out taxes.

> I’ve worked all over Europe in the games industry as did some of my long-term friends. Relocating for employment is a broader discussion but from a regulatory perspective, it just involves driving a car.

This simplifies the entire process. For fields like software, it is easier. For other fields - not so much.

> Yes, salaries vary but not much in companies hiring at the global level.

For Western Europe this might be true. But if you take into account Eastern Europe and Central (or Southern) Europe, this is entirely off the mark. Until very recently a Software Engineer in Lithuania could have expected to earn anywhere from 35 000 to 50 000 Eur while the same salaries in Western Europe would be double that. For other fields the difference is even more noticeable.

> but you can often be employed in one EU country and live in another

This isn't true. Most companies don't want to deal with cross-border taxes. If you live in Lithuania and work in Germany for more than half the calendar year, you (need to) start paying taxes in Germany. This either means you'll be employed in Germany (by a parent/child company that is listed there) or you won't work there.

> But yes, living in Lithuania you’d want to be employed in Germany probably in your situation.

This is no longer the case. Germany is not an attractive country anymore. It would only make sense to emigrate to the United States, if strictly speaking about salary. There are far less opportunities in Germany and not so many interesting projects to work on.

> I don’t think Germans buy German, Poles buy Polish, etc. Many Europeans drive German cars and many play Polish games like Cyberpunk 2077, French games like Dishonored and what Ubisoft makes. Many use Scandinavian banks and so on.

You are looking at consumer products (cars, games) but in industry they will buy local. It is very difficult to get into such markets, unlike the United States. There is a label of 'quality' attached to German engineering (even though most of their engineering is outsourced nowadays).

I don't want to get into a lengthy discussion on a case-by-case basis because experiences will differ based on the field you work in. The core issue is that it isn't as seamless an experience as in the United States and it is rarely done in practice. Unfortunately, I do not see any changes in this regard because of the difference in wealth across countries in the EU, a huge issue that wasn't dealt with.

Just to clarify — hiring on a global level means an employer is competing in the global market, offering a global rate for a role.

There is an ex-Uber engineer on YouTube who has a video breaking down SWE salaries by local, regional, global and probably more levels. If you can compete at a global level (companies around the world want to hire you), the employers have no chance to get an expert like you if they don’t pay the global rate, even in Poland (for games). If you only compete in the local market, then the local economy becomes relevant and you get salary differences between East/South and West EU.

By working in Germany I meant living in LT and being employed in DE. I only have an example of living in the UK and being employed in IT in my experience, but it wasn’t difficult. I just had to pay my primary taxes (against salary) there.

>Remote work is also much simplified.

No it isn't. Or more exactly, not my experience. Nobody hires remote workers in Austria for example due to labor and tax laws discouragin this.

If by simplified remote work you mean B-2-B contract from rich countries hiring cheaper labor in Poland, Bulgaria, etc then sure.

Mostly agree, but this is not entirely correct:

> Every EU company also has access to the entire continent's consumer base – 450 million residents, which is 50% more than the US. This benefits many EU tech companies – Spotify, Revolut, Klarna, Bolt Mobility, Wise, N26, and so on and on and on.

Here are two examples:

Spotify, a Swedish company, had to go country-by-country to cover the EU because each country has separate regulatory bodies (eg GEMA in Germany,ZAMP in Croatia, etc...). It was in the US a lot earlier than in some EU countries.

Klarna is still not available in my country (Croatia). The banking union is not there yet and Croatia is too small a market (understandably). So, by mere fact of being in the EU, Klarna does not cover the entire EU.

> The EU single market is largely a myth from the perspective of wanting to start a successful company that can compete internationally. It's not any easier now than it was before the EU existed.

Everything I've heard from small UK businesses post-Brexit says that the EU single market is actually pretty useful.

> The EU is still a collection of different countries, with different languages, and the people in one country doesn't really care about what happens across their border or which new and up-and-coming company they have to offer.

14 million EU citizens who live (as of 2020) in a EU country other than their own beg to differ. I'm one of them and know about the plentiful of rights that I enjoy as a EU citizen to live in another country. There are dozens and dozens of cities that attract students and workers from all EU countries.

Regarding the single market, well the Brits are learning the hard way how easy the flow of goods and wares was when they were still part of it.

> It's not any easier now than it was before the EU existed.

Perhaps you don't remember how it was before the EU existed. Compare a Polish company doing business with France before Poland joined the EU vs today.

"The EU single market is largely a myth"

People in the UK might disagree now.

The Leave campaign was significantly duplicitous about post-Brexis access to the Single Market; they've always known it's a real thing or they wouldn't have had to lie about it.

> We don't live on credit, but debit, and most people have zero investments outside their house. We're content and risk adverse and don't care much for the stock market (even though many people's pensions are tied to it).

This is a contradiction. We all have pensions, and in many cases multiple pensions, up to three or more in Sweden.

All the points you listed apply to India as well, with its multilingual states and conservative scarcity-driven mindset. Yet entrepreneurship is growing here at rates never witnessed before.

Indians don't coast like Euros. Average standard of living is much lower in India which motivates them to do things to raise it.

Maybe, but then standard of living in India was always poor - in fact, much poorer before than it is now. Yet it is only now that entrepreneurship is at a peak never seen before in the country.

The EU and Globalism is a mechanism for corporations/companies to get constant cheaper labor. The other implications are not important for the parties that make these decisions.

> Us Europeans are more 'detached' from the economy than people are in the USA.

I think you're referring to "finance" or something. As to why we americans mostly speak in economic terms relating to the stock market—I honestly think we're just a really dumb people incapable of expressing our needs.

not much to say except that i agree very much with it in general

This is so true. I’m a software engineer in Berlin, and I’m from Sri Lanka. It amazes me how many young people are still pursuing bachelor’s or master’s degrees in business management or related fields instead of specializing in STEM fields, where they’d have a better chance of securing a high-paying job and making a meaningful impact. It seems like everyone wants to work for big four audit firms, but they often end up doing poorly paid internships in companies unrelated to their higher studies field.

As you mentioned, the EU single market is just another bureaucratic monster. If you want to expand your business to other countries, you’ll need to apply for passporting. Then, if you ever want to provide services related to local taxes, you’ll have to have a physical office registered in the respective country. Each country also has its own nationalistic preferences regarding which services and products they use. For example, the French tend to prefer French companies over any other company that provides the same product, or even a better version from another European country.

In essence, the EU is simply a massive tax burden on European citizens, benefiting only a handful of countries within the continent.

I think EU simplifies things a lot and accelerates the economy.

I'm from a small country. Almost whatever business you do, you usually start thinking export really fast. One thing to say about EU is what they say about Africa. It's not one, there are different places in there. If you've been in one, then that might not apply somewhere else.

I don't think EU countries have that many domestic businesses anymore. Companies operate in multiple countries and have supply chains crossing borders. People can freely just go and work wherever they want just like that. EU has removed so much friction and middlemen.

Maybe German and French people could learn English a bit better and it would be smoother for business. And taxation of work could be harmonized and simplified so it'd be easier to buy labor (and not just products or services) from anywhere. That's a hard problem though because of the different societies and services and thus different taxation.

What would you improve?

> In essence, the EU is simply a massive tax burden on European citizens, benefiting only a handful of countries within the continent.

The tax burden is absolutely not "massive", either in relative or absolute terms. Money going to underdeveloped parts of the EU is by design. Helping them helps everyone. It creates a huge internal market and companies and people benefit, even from net contributing countries. There sure are issues to solve, but in pure monetary terms, the EU is a no brainer, just look at the UK.

> Money going to underdeveloped parts of the EU is by design. Helping them helps everyone.

That is your take on it. But is it true? How does a French/German person benefit from the money from their taxes being sent to another country when their own economies are in the dumpster?

> It creates a huge internal market and companies and people benefit, even from net contributing countries.

Maybe for big companies. I don't think a plumber in Spain cares that they can sell their services to someone in Latvia.

> There sure are issues to solve, but in pure monetary terms, the EU is a no brainer.

Then why is it that we are having this conversation?

If the EU is a no brainer, we should be swimming in cash, shouldn't we?

Even the most ardent supporters of the EU have finally admitted the truth (such as Mario Draghi), the EU is falling behind on many fronts including but not limited to AI, EVs, economic output, industrial output, defense spending and so on...

> Just look at the UK

That's a bit disingenuous. There are many countries in Asia or elsewhere that are doing just fine without being part of a union such as the EU.

What about Germany currently? What about Greece after 2008? What about France which had a 10%++ unemployment rate for the majority of the 2010s?

The UK is not doing well at the moment, that is a given, but let's not pretend that the countries in the EU are doing any better either.

At least the UK has a functioning government whereas France is in a deadlock and will soon go through it's 4th prime minister/government of the year.

> How does a French/German person benefit from the money from their taxes being sent to another country when their own economies are in the dumpster?

I benefit when I can use a Latvian bank that does not take an arm and a leg for basic services, and when I can get decent and cheap goods from all over Europe. I benefit when I can go and work in another country with different opportunities. People who complain about the EU and inflation have no clue how it was before the single market.

> If the EU is a no brainer, we should be swimming in cash, shouldn't we?

Well, firstly by most standards we are. The problem is inequality and the way wealth is distributed, not the lack of it.

> Even the most ardent supporters of the EU have finally admitted the truth (such as Mario Draghi), the EU is falling behind on many fronts including but not limited to AI, EVs, economic output, industrial output, defense spending and so on...

This is true, but none of this is the EU’s fault. It does not control the industrial policies of the member-states. And how would any of these member-states fare in an ideal timeline where the EU does not exist? Would having 27 different currencies, 27 different tariffs systems, 27 completely different tax structures with controls at each border help with developing any of this?

> That's a bit disingenuous. There are many countries in Asia or elsewhere that are doing just fine without being part of a union such as the EU.

I never said it would not be fine outside the EU, I am just saying that it would be measurably worse. That other countries in other circumstances do better or worse is neither here nor there. The UK provides data on a single country being inside and outside in a short time span. All the complications it is going through is something it did not have to do when it was in the EU, and any other country would have to deal with the same issues.

> What about Germany currently? What about Greece after 2008? What about France which had a 10%++ unemployment rate for the majority of the 2010s?

You are cherry picking. All these except (in part) Greece are the consequences of national politics. You cannot say that the EU is to blame for every single bad outcome in the last 30 years while saying nothing about the successes. It’s just dishonest.

> The UK is not doing well at the moment, that is a given, but let's not pretend that the countries in the EU are doing any better either.

The UK is doing spectacularly badly. I sincerely hope that it’s getting better but let’s not fool ourselves: I cannot name a French prime minister or president that was as bad as May, Johnson, Truss, or Sunak (I could name a couple of Camerons though, so it’s certainly not all good). Good luck to Starmer and I hope everyone will get better, but in the meantime it was the opposite of smooth and painless, and the UK is still not where it would have been.

> At least the UK has a functioning government whereas France is in a deadlock and will soon go through it's 4th prime minister/government of the year.

None of these governments were as inept as Truss was and the reason why there is some instability currently is that the parliament is more representative of the people. I’ll take that any day instead of a party having an absolute majority with 37% of the vote.

> I benefit when I can use a Latvian bank that does not take an arm and a leg for basic services, and when I can get decent and cheap goods from all over Europe. I benefit when I can go and work in another country with different opportunities. People who complain about the EU and inflation have no clue how it was before the single market.

So first off, there are many countries where moving is not just a walk in the park within the EU. There are some countries where you can just show up with your bags but it's definitely not all of them.

Then about the cheap goods/services part, how does it benefit someone from France when a company from eastern Europe can undercut them and send a team to do job at a 30% discount compared to the normal price?

You see the good side of the single market without acknowledging that it has also been used to create unfair competition between the different countries due to the difference in social contributions and lower wages.

That is exactly what has happened with globalization and while there are some clear winners, we can say that a part of the middle class was sacrificed in order to reduce the costs of production of goods and services.

The same is happening now in Europe.

> Well, firstly by most standards we are. The problem is inequality and the way wealth is distributed, not the lack of it.

You cannot be serious. Many countries such as Greece, Italia, France, and now Germany are all in bad shapes. If the situation was good, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

The GDP of Greece is still 30% lower than what it was in 2008? How's that for doing well?

Also what does wealth inequality have to do with the under investment that the EU has done for the last 30 years? Has wealth inequality stifled productivity or stopped the EU from developing it's own Cloud or stopped the EU from investing the EVs?

> This is true, but none of this is the EU’s fault. It does not control the industrial policies of the member-states. And how would any of these member-states fare in an ideal timeline where the EU does not exist? Would having 27 different currencies, 27 different tariffs systems, 27 completely different tax structures with controls at each border help with developing any of this?

A currency is a tool that is linked to industrial outputs and therefore can affect the economy of a country.

When the Euro was introduced it forced Germany into a devaluation of it's currency since the euro was weaker than the Mark. That in turn made Germany into the power house of Europe whereas in France, it made goods more expensive and increased the labor costs which means that most of the industrial capacity of France left and went overseas and unemployment started rising.

The euro's problem is that it is not adapted to the countries with weaker economies who could do a devaluation if they did not have it in order to boost their exports.

Secondly, you mention 27 different tax structures which is exactly what Marco Draghi is highlighting in his report. If he is talking about it, that surely means that these problems still exist.

For the last 30 years, the EU has been sold to the people of Europe as the Messiah.

It will produce economic growth they said, it will make things better for everyone they said and so on and so forth. From my little corner of the world, we can see that these promises have not been fulfilled and far from it.

If the EU was meant to protect us, it has failed. The EU can't even help Ukraine properly. What kind of deterrent is that?

If it was meant to create economic growth, look at what is happening now, sandwiched in a trade war between the US and China with no way to respond to either one of them as we depend on China for our stuff and we depend on the US for all our tech.

America innovates, Europe regulates and China copies.

> You are cherry picking. All these except (in part) Greece are the consequences of national politics. You cannot say that the EU is to blame for every single bad outcome in the last 30 years while saying nothing about the successes. It’s just dishonest.

Ok,let me get this straight, you are saying that all the problems that these countries are having is not because of the EU and also saying that if only the UK had stayed it would have not any of these problems (low growth, low productivity and so on...).

Yet, the countries within the EU are having many problem, so how is being in the EU supposed to help with these problems?

You can't just absolve the EU from all it's failures while only claiming the successes.

I bet you that if a country is doing well within the EU, you would probably tell me that it is because of the EU. When it's doing badly, it's not the EU's fault.

Heads you win, tails I lose, right?

> The UK is doing spectacularly badly. I sincerely hope that it’s getting better but let’s not fool ourselves: I cannot name a French prime minister or president that was as bad as May, Johnson, Truss, or Sunak (I could name a couple of Camerons though, so it’s certainly not all good). Good luck to Starmer and I hope everyone will get better, but in the meantime it was the opposite of smooth and painless, and the UK is still not where it would have been.

Macron has added 1000 billion euros of debt in 7 years and his government had a shortfall of 60B euros this year. Instead of being honest he instructed his finance minister to hide the truth. Once fired, his minister decided to leave France in a hurry and moved to Switzerland in order to avoid having to answer difficult questions.

Now that the truth is out, he decided to spearhead a budget to tax the middle class even more while protecting his rich friends.

If think, if you look hard enough, you will see that he is as bad as any of the ones you mentioned in your comment.

> A currency is a tool that is linked to industrial outputs and therefore can affect the economy of a country.

The EU is not the Eurozone, you are conflating two concepts.

> When the Euro was introduced it forced Germany into a devaluation of it's currency since the euro was weaker than the Mark. That in turn made Germany into the power house of Europe whereas in France, it made goods more expensive and increased the labor costs which means that most of the industrial capacity of France left and went overseas and unemployment started rising.

Everywhere the Euro is introduced sees a spike in prices from corporations taking advantage of it, again you are conflating the Eurozone with the EU, they are different things.

> The euro's problem is that it is not adapted to the countries with weaker economies who could do a devaluation if they did not have it in order to boost their exports.

Completely agree, the ECB's monetary policy is not ideal when there are so many different economies under it.

> Secondly, you mention 27 different tax structures which is exactly what Marco Draghi is highlighting in his report. If he is talking about it, that surely means that these problems still exist.

Yes, the problem exists, exactly because the EU is first and foremost an economic union, not a federation, allowing countries to maintain their sovereignty including set their own tax policies is the only way it can exist right now. There's no appetite to create a EU Federation in its member-states, while that doesn't exist there will be many issues with the EU.

It doesn't mean that without the EU the countries would be faring better, you are jumping into conclusions from a non-logical standpoint, conflating that the EU isn't perfect for everyone doesn't mean it's not good for everyone, separate these concepts in your head.

> For the last 30 years, the EU has been sold to the people of Europe as the Messiah.

No, the EU has been sold as a bloc that makes Europe stronger than if it didn't exist, I'd invite you to describe exactly how you think its member-states could be faring better by themselves outside of the EU agreements. Let me know how 27 small states could be doing better on their own rather than in an unified trading bloc with common regulations to reduce friction in trading.

> It will produce economic growth they said, it will make things better for everyone they said and so on and so forth. From my little corner of the world, we can see that these promises have not been fulfilled and far from it.

It did, the problem is that we live in a world where the EU exists so you can't see how Europe would be without it. Again you are conflating the EU having issues with the non-existence of the EU being better, those are very different things...

> If the EU was meant to protect us, it has failed. The EU can't even help Ukraine properly. What kind of deterrent is that?

The EU was not a defence alliance, it's slowly growing into taking defence as part of its mandate. Again, since it's not a federation there was no appetite to create a common EU defence force, each member-state kept its sovereignty in defence matters. With the war in Ukraine there is a new appetite to push the EU into those matters, it takes time to enact changes across 27 different countries with their own cultures... You are just too eager and cannot comprehend that it seems.

> If it was meant to create economic growth, look at what is happening now, sandwiched in a trade war between the US and China with no way to respond to either one of them as we depend on China for our stuff and we depend on the US for all our tech.

> America innovates, Europe regulates and China copies.

America has 350+ million consumers in its market, with no language barriers, and as varied as each state is in the USA it's really much more homogeneous than the differences between Denmark and Greece, or Poland and France, etc. You can't expect the same in the EU, which again is not a federation.

Still, Sweden as an EU member is above the USA in rankings of innovation, the EU can foster that since Sweden can trade freely with all its members and other member-states can learn from the innovative ones.

Stop trying to dismantle the EU because there are issues, the spirit of it has always been to acknowledge those failures and work together to build it stronger, you are exactly the type of person who will undermine that tenet instead of helping it.

If you don't like it, move away from it, go to the USA.

> How does a French/German person benefit from the money from their taxes being sent to another country when their own economies are in the dumpster?

Both France and Germany are above EU average GDP PPP, how is this equivalent to a dumpster?

> If the EU is a no brainer, we should be swimming in cash, shouldn't we?

How did you reach that conclusion?

> In essence, the EU is simply a massive tax burden on European citizens, benefiting only a handful of countries within the continent

Ummm... The EU budget and workforce is smaller than that of a big European city, let alone a country. If you look at the numbers, the actual EU machinery is very small for what is basically a government institution.

It really is an eternal September.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com