Is the Euro going to collapse?

[lunakilo]

I found this on wikipedia
The number of people over the age of 55 who are employed seem to vary a great deal between european countries.

Country ______ Employed, 55–59
Sweden _______ 78%
Denmark _______77%
Switzerland __ 77%
Norway _______ 74%
United Kingdom 69%
Germany ______ 64%
Netherlands __ 53%
France _______ 51%
Spain ________ 46%
Belgium ______ 45%
Austria ______ 39%
Greece _______ 31%
Italy ________ 26%

United States _66%


There is probably an effect from general low empolyment in some of the countries, but I still think the difference between 78% in Sweden and 26% in Italy is telling.

3 out of 4 people in northern Europe work at age 59.
1 out of 4 people in southern Europe work at age 59.

You cannot run a functioning economy if too many people are on welfare.

 

[sandandfoam]

I found this on wikipedia
The number of people over the age of 55 who are employed seem to vary a great deal between european countries.

Country ______ Employed, 55–59
Sweden _______ 78%
Denmark _______77%
Switzerland __ 77%
Norway _______ 74%
United Kingdom 69%
Germany ______ 64%
Netherlands __ 53%
France _______ 51%
Spain ________ 46%
Belgium ______ 45%
Austria ______ 39%
Greece _______ 31%
Italy ________ 26%

United States _66%


There is probably an effect from general low empolyment in some of the countries, but I still think the difference between 78% in Sweden and 26% in Italy is telling.

3 out of 4 people in northern Europe work at age 59.
1 out of 4 people in southern Europe work at age 59.

You cannot run a functioning economy if too many people are on welfare.

I don't think the Swedish model is what our Chinese friend had in mind. Do you?

 

[lunakilo]

I don't think the Swedish model is what our Chinese friend had in mind. Do you?

No, I doubt it

The comment was more an attempt to say that something is wrong with the retirement age in southern Europe. Maybe in all of Europe actually, but deffinately in southern Europe.

 

[sandandfoam]

No, I doubt it

The comment was more an attempt to say that something is wrong with the retirement age in southern Europe. Maybe in all of Europe actually, but deffinately in southern Europe.

I don't see it.
I don't expect ever to be able to retire myself but I see nothing wrong with an aspiration to be able to retire young.
If a person has a pleasant job that they enjoy - by all means work 'till you drop if that's whay they want to do. But if someone has a misearable job that they hate - and there are many such people because often jobs are not pleasant - what is wrong with aspiring to a society where people have lives after work.
Is the object to live to work or to work to live?
I opt for the latter.

 

[Kathryn]

Also, don't forget the difference between countries when it comes to mandatory paid time off. I don't know about other countries, but Germany and Belgium require companies to pay for a minimum of FOUR WEEKS of vacation a year for even the most entry level job, and this increases with seniority/position, sometimes up to six weeks per year.

Not saying this is right or wrong, but it's not common in the US. Most entry level jobs pay for one week of vacation after the first year, two weeks after about three years, and usually a max of three or four weeks after many years, or if you're in an upper management position.

In Germany the average work week is 35 to 40 hours a week - in the contract, and regardless of position. In the US, overtime (working over 40 hours a week) is common. In fact, working over 8 hours a day average is against labor law in Germany and Belgium.

SIX WEEKS of paid sick time in mandatory in Germany. In some cases, it's mandatory for TWELVE weeks. Female employees have 14 weeks of full paid maternity leave.

These laws apply to government and private sector jobs.


Features of German Labor and Employment Law | WilmerHale

I'm not saying these benefits are right or wrong.

Most European countries have very comprehensive retirement plans as well.

Here's how those retirement plans and state benefits are paid for:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...try.svg/800px-Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg.png

The tax rates are really unbelievable to this American. Americans, I want to ask you something - check out these income tax rates and think about it. This is what it costs workers to live in a basically socialist country. Are you willing to pay this much out of your own pocket?

And in spite of these high tax rates, the economies and benefits are still unsustainable. Interesting.

 

[sandandfoam]

This is what it costs workers to live in a basically socialist country. Are you willing to pay this much out of your own pocket?

Socialist????
You've got to be kidding. I wish.

 

[Kathryn]

Socialist????
You've got to be kidding. I wish.

OK - socialist or not - the tax rates are amazing. And the economies are still failing. No wonder my friends in Belgium are ticked off. They are paying nearly sixty percent of their income in taxes!

 

[Revoltingest]

Also, don't forget the difference between countries when it comes to mandatory paid time off. I don't know about other countries, but Germany and Belgium require companies to pay for a minimum of FOUR WEEKS of vacation a year for even the most entry level job, and this increases with seniority/position, sometimes up to six weeks per year.

This reminded me of a time I worked for a German company in Maryland. I was run down by a drunk & suffered a broken leg.
Twas just the fibula, so all I needed was a cast & regular doses of bacon. At work, the Germans were shocked that I would
show up to work wearing a cast. They said that in Germany, I'd be on vacation til it was removed. I figgered that they're
paying me to work, so I work. The Krauts are a strange lot.

 

[sandandfoam]

OK - socialist or not - the tax rates are amazing. And the economies are still failing.

Neither tax nor social policy are at the root of the economic crisis. Lack of regulation and a failure to intervene are.

 

[lunakilo]

Also, don't forget the difference between countries when it comes to mandatory paid time off. I don't know about other countries, but Germany and Belgium require companies to pay for a minimum of FOUR WEEKS of vacation a year for even the most entry level job, and this increases with seniority/position, sometimes up to six weeks per year.

Not saying this is right or wrong, but it's not common in the US. Most entry level jobs pay for one week of vacation after the first year, two weeks after about three years, and usually a max of three or four weeks after many years, or if you're in an upper management position.

In Germany the average work week is 35 to 40 hours a week - in the contract, and regardless of position. In the US, overtime (working over 40 hours a week) is common. In fact, working over 8 hours a day average is against labor law in Germany and Belgium.

SIX WEEKS of paid sick time in mandatory in Germany. In some cases, it's mandatory for TWELVE weeks. Female employees have 14 weeks of full paid maternity leave.

These laws apply to government and private sector jobs.


Features of German Labor and Employment Law | WilmerHale

I'm not saying these benefits are right or wrong.

Most European countries have very comprehensive retirement plans as well.

Here's how those retirement plans and state benefits are paid for:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...try.svg/800px-Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg.png

The tax rates are really unbelievable to this American. Americans, I want to ask you something - check out these income tax rates and think about it. This is what it costs workers to live in a basically socialist country. Are you willing to pay this much out of your own pocket?

And in spite of these high tax rates, the economies and benefits are still unsustainable. Interesting.

This was so much fun to read. You sound outraged

I don't see it.
I don't expect ever to be able to retire myself but I see nothing wrong with an aspiration to be able to retire young.
If a person has a pleasant job that they enjoy - by all means work 'till you drop if that's whay they want to do. But if someone has a misearable job that they hate - and there are many such people because often jobs are not pleasant - what is wrong with aspiring to a society where people have lives after work.
Is the object to live to work or to work to live?
I opt for the latter.

To both of you...

It is a simple question of making the income the state makes match what it has to spend on welfare.

An example:
I was basically on welfare untill I was 30 years old. My parents recieved child support (yes you actually get oaid to have children in this countrty), I recieved education support (yes you actually get paid to go to school in this country) from I was 17 to I was 28 an then I was unemployid for almost 2 years and recieved money as well.

Now I have a job (I work 40 hours a week, pay about 60% of what I earn in taxes, have 6 weeks paid vacation and have been on maternity leave twice ) and can start giving back to society what was given to me plus pay for all the people currently on welfare.

The numbers have to match. If I were to retire at age 50 and live to be 100 then I would have been on welfare 80% of my life. That would not add up.

How long I will have to work for the numbers to add up depends on a lot of things, but age 70 or 80 or there about sounds more realistic to me. that would mean I contribute for about 45 years and then let others (like those children I was paid to make) take over.

 

[sandandfoam]

To both of you...

It is a simple question of making the income the state makes match what it has to spend on welfare.

That's not the problem. In Italy (for example) the books are balancing, the European debt to GDP is lower than America's. If the issue were simply balancing books the crisis would be far worse for America than it is for Europe.

 

[lunakilo]

That's not the problem. In Italy (for example) the books are balancing, the European debt to GDP is lower than America's.

Hmm, I am not sure that is true.
From what I haer Italy has borrowed money same as Greece. Just bigger amoutns

I realise I am not providing any evidence for my claims, and that is because I don't have any. Just rumors. But then again you are not providing any either

If the issue were simply balancing books the crisis would be far worse for America than it is for Europe.

I have not been to America lately, so I can't tell you how bad things are there. I fact it has been years since I left Scandinavia so my view on this is probably a bit one sided, but I don't feel this crisis very much.

Yes unemployment had doubled in Denmark since before the crisis began, 7.1% last I checked (10 seconds ago). Yes the government has rased taxes a bit and salaries seem to be falling slightly, but I don't see a lot of desperate people.

We have a roof over our heads and food on the table.
I don't hear a lot of complaints

Maybe I have just been lucky or have gone completely deaf and blind, but that is the world I see.

 

[sandandfoam]

Hmm, I am not sure that is true.
From what I haer Italy has borrowed money same as Greece. Just bigger amoutns

I realise I am not providing any evidence for my claims, and that is because I don't have any. Just rumors. But then again you are not providing any either .

No. Here are some figures.
The Italian deficit is at 4.6% of GDP in 2010 (source Italy Government Budget). The US figure is about 9%. (source U.S. budget deficit seen topping $1.3 trillion - MarketWatch )Yields on US 10 year Bonds are at about 2% (source U.S. Economy Growing at Fastest Pace of) wheras yields on Italian 10 year bonds are heading for the usustainable 7% source ( Italy Govt Bonds 10 Year Gross Yield (GBTPGR10:IND) Index Performance - Bloomberg)

If spending v expenditure was the problem America would be worse than Italy. It is not so as evidenced by the bond yields.

 

[lunakilo]

No. Here are some figures.
The Italian deficit is at 4.6% of GDP in 2010 (source Italy Government Budget). The US figure is about 9%. (source U.S. budget deficit seen topping $1.3 trillion - MarketWatch )Yields on US 10 year Bonds are at about 2% (source U.S. Economy Growing at Fastest Pace of) wheras yields on Italian 10 year bonds are heading for the usustainable 7% source ( Italy Govt Bonds 10 Year Gross Yield (GBTPGR10:IND) Index Performance - Bloomberg)

If spending v expenditure was the problem America would be worse than Italy. It is not so as evidenced by the bond yields.

Right, but the way I remember the story is that when you calculate the deficit, debt in publicly owned companies doesn't count.
If that is true then the numbers don't tell the truth.

 

[sandandfoam]

Right, but the way I remember the story is that when you calculate the deficit, debt in publicly owned companies doesn't count.
If that is true then the numbers don't tell the truth.

That's a seperate argument.
Ireland nationalised the bank debt - the figures are all out there. Why should that debt be included in a consideration of current deficit?


The point is to refute your earlier statement

It is a simple question of making the income the state makes match what it has to spend on welfare

 

[Kathryn]

This was so much fun to read. You sound outraged



To both of you...

It is a simple question of making the income the state makes match what it has to spend on welfare.

An example:
I was basically on welfare untill I was 30 years old. My parents recieved child support (yes you actually get oaid to have children in this countrty), I recieved education support (yes you actually get paid to go to school in this country) from I was 17 to I was 28 an then I was unemployid for almost 2 years and recieved money as well.

Now I have a job (I work 40 hours a week, pay about 60% of what I earn in taxes, have 6 weeks paid vacation and have been on maternity leave twice ) and can start giving back to society what was given to me plus pay for all the people currently on welfare.

The numbers have to match. If I were to retire at age 50 and live to be 100 then I would have been on welfare 80% of my life. That would not add up.

How long I will have to work for the numbers to add up depends on a lot of things, but age 70 or 80 or there about sounds more realistic to me. that would mean I contribute for about 45 years and then let others (like those children I was paid to make) take over.

No, Luna, I'm not outraged -I'm bemused.

I don't understand why people can't do the math, as you point out. You can't pay all that on the front end (free education, free healthcare, YEARS off work while the state pays) and then expect to retire at 50 or even 60. And let me tell you something - those living past 70 are nearly always dealing with some sort of health issues that are very expensive to treat over time, and when you're living with a health issue your productivity is going to be affected. You talk as if working until you're 80 sounds like a great trade off for all that non working, state subsidized time in your youth. I can ASSURE you you won't feel that way when you're 65.

Pay now, or pay later. Later really sucks. Life tends to become more complicated.

Plus - younger people generally have their health. They may be immature and inexperienced comparatively, but they aren't dealing with the physical challenges, and just the general slowing down that the elderly are dealing with. You can't front load all the benefits and then expect people to keep working till they're 80 to pay it off. You're betting on the come, so to speak, and there's no guarantee that these same people will be ABLE to continue working till they're 80.

 

[Revoltingest]

The answer is clear.
We must work the young much much harder.
Conscription to a grinding life of serving oldsters is best.
At age 50, if they survive that long, they get their reward of a life of ease.
Hmmm.....maybe 55 is better.

 

[lunakilo]

No, Luna, I'm not outraged -I'm bemused.

I don't understand why people can't do the math, as you point out.

Well the math isn't simple to do in detail because it depends on a lot of things.
As I pointed out I sounds silly to expect to be able to be on welfare for 80% of your life. But how long one has to work for the numbers to add up is not so easy ti figure out.
I may have not started to earn money until shortly before I turned 30, but I have a quite well paid job now and am paying plenty of taxes
A person who spend less time in school will probably have a lower salary and even if he works for more years than me may not end up paying as much as me.

But what I unemployment rises. More people end up on welfare and the numbers may suddenly not add up even if they did when unemployment was low.

And how many children people have is part of the equation too.
I could work hard all my life but I (or people in general I suppose ) didn't spend time making children then there would not be enough people around to take care of me an my generation when I get old (assuming that I do).
It is actually part of the problem. All those people in the 60' were bussy making love but forgot to make babies. Now they are retiering and ther are not enough people to take over.

Your country may get lucky and find a lot of oil in the north sea to pay for all their hearts desires, or maybe on a smaller scale your country may actually export more than they import. That would cut down on the number of years you would have to work.

Those points are just some of the math. it is not simple.

You can't pay all that on the front end (free education, free healthcare, YEARS off work while the state pays) and then expect to retire at 50 or even 60. And let me tell you something - those living past 70 are nearly always dealing with some sort of health issues that are very expensive to treat over time, and when you're living with a health issue your productivity is going to be affected. You talk as if working until you're 80 sounds like a great trade off for all that non working, state subsidized time in your youth. I can ASSURE you you won't feel that way when you're 65.

Pay now, or pay later. Later really sucks. Life tends to become more complicated.

Plus - younger people generally have their health. They may be immature and inexperienced comparatively, but they aren't dealing with the physical challenges, and just the general slowing down that the elderly are dealing with. You can't front load all the benefits and then expect people to keep working till they're 80 to pay it off. You're betting on the come, so to speak, and there's no guarantee that these same people will be ABLE to continue working till they're 80.

My example of 80 may be overdoing it a bit, but the current standard age of retirement is 67 years (65 if you retire early) and by the time I get there it will have gone up to at least 70.

And as Revoltingest pointed out if people work too hard from an early age, they end up all broken
Plus they don't have time to get a propor education which I think is bad for society in general.

And it doesn't really matter if you pay for retirement (and school and health care) over taxes or save it all up your self. You still have to work a certain amount of time before the the numbers add up. It is just that if you do it over taxes the people who can work help pay for the ones who can't.

 

[sandandfoam]

10 days at most until Euro collapse according to FT columnist

Italy’s disastrous bond auction on Friday tells us time is running out. The eurozone has 10 days at most.

source The eurozone really has only days to avoid collapse - FT.com

Bloomberg reckon it's on the way out too
The Euro Area Is Coming to an End: Peter Boone and Simon Johnson - Bloomberg

I read somewhere else that the British Government is making plans for its citizens in the event of civil unrest following a collapse.

Very worrying.

 

[Kathryn]

Time for massive government intervention, of course.