Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
^ It's hard to say really, I don't care that much about Western EU visitors as where I live 90% or more of the longterm residents are russian "turists" but they also sell massively and want to go back + Greece is very serious competitor when it comes to tourism. An easy fix will be to develop other industries and not just tourism, fishery or whatever, again I'm only talking about my city here not even about the country or other cities.
I doubt it. The best of Eastern Europe (Czech Republic, Estonia) will catch up with or surpass the worst of Western Europe like Italy or Spain (they already have in many ways, though it's mostly the latter's problems), but it will take decades for them to catch up with the likes of Germany or Sweden. And that's the best case scenario. For countries like Poland or Hungary or Romania that day is most likely never going to arrive, and they've got way more population in the West.
I don't think so. Czech Republic has almost caught up already, and Poland and Hungary are on their way.
2000 GDP Per capita PPP
Sweden 36854
Germany 36764
Italy 36500
France 34900
Greece 24800
Czech Republic 21200
Hungary 17900
Poland 14700
2017 GDP Per capita PPP
Sweden 46900
Germany 45229
France 38605
Italy 35200
Czech Republic 32600
Poland 27200
Hungary 26700
Greece 24500
source: tradingeconomics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greysholic
Besides I don't think Europeans are too bothered by the affirmative actions at all. If anything people are more concerned with the cost of living, especially the rent (except in Norway and Switzerland), which often doesn't reflect what people earn at all (which hasn't seen any significant growth in a long time), especially in big cities.
You can't be bothered by something you don't have.
To be able to implement affirmative action there must be a need, we need enough minorities, and the right parties needs to be in power.
Hence, I can definitly see countries implement it after the next recession, because immigrant unemployment rate will surge, there is a lot more immigrant voters, and the left is likely to return to power. That will definitely upset many europeans living in western countries.
^PPP is not a good measurement. Nominal GDP is better.
That is totally wrong, and here you can see why
2013 GDP per capita nominal
Norway: 100600
Iceland: 45400
2017 GDP per capita nominal
Norway: 74900
Iceland: 70300
We need to use ppp, because it adjust for cost of living.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greysholic
And I seriously doubt affirmative action would ever happen in Europe. That sounds very far-fetched.
Affirmative action is already a reality in the United States, Brazil, France and South Africa. it is not far fetched at all.
Of course it won't be based on race, but it will be based on other factors such as immigration, religion or hand picked locations. Programs like this already exist in Europe, but it is not widespread.
2013 GDP per capita nominal
Norway: 100600
Iceland: 45400
2017 GDP per capita nominal
Norway: 74900
Iceland: 70300
We need to use ppp, because it adjust for cost of living.
For Norway it's more like adjusted to oil prices.
PPP is only designed to make poorer countries look better. For example Taiwan's PPP per capita is quite a lot higher than Japan's.
Quote:
Affirmative action is already a reality in the United States, Brazil, France and South Africa. it is not far fetched at all.
Of course it won't be based on race, but it will be based on other factors such as immigration, religion or hand picked locations. Programs like this already exist in Europe, but it is not widespread.
PPP is only designed to make poorer countries look better. For example Taiwan's PPP per capita is quite a lot higher than Japan's.
Let me explain Taiwan and Japan.
1. Taiwan is a cheaper country, it is 45% cheaper according to PPP.
2. Taiwanese get 23% less of their nominal GDP.
Taiwan has an average salary of $19,300 and Japan has an average salary of $39,500. But if we adjust for these factors then Taiwans salary becomes higher than Japan, which explains the GDP per capita.
The main problem with using GDP per capita (PPP or nominal) is that sometimes GDP is not real. For instance money just passes through the country. Examples of such countries are Taiwan, Singapore and Ireland. That is an argument for using wages adjusted for cost living instead of GDP adjusted for cost of living. But it is definitely not an argument for using GDP per capita nominal. You tried to explain away Norway that it is an oil country, what is your excuse for Sweden?
2013 GDP per capita nominal (2017 dollars)
Sweden: 61,000
Iceland: 47,800
2017 GDP per capita nominal
Sweden: 53,218
Iceland: 70,300
Do you really think these numbers reflect living standards?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greysholic
I think this is fearmongering.
If some people said in 2000 that in 20 years Sweden will have about 10% with muslim background, people would call it fearmongering. If they said that in many european countries you can just go on a website and change your gender, they would think you were crazy.
I expect the politicans to pander to the new voters, just like they did in France, Brazil, United States and South Africa.
Idk where you got that from. If we're talking about getting less than nominal GDP, all of Europe would get way less as half of the income goes straight into taxes. Most of Western Europe get like 25,000 EUR when the GDP per capita is usually >40,000.
Quote:
Taiwan has an average salary of $19,300
Again where did you get that from? It's more like 22,000 or something.
Quote:
Japan has an average salary of $39,500.
That's gross. Net is like 31,000 or something.
Anyway, my point is Taiwan's living standards are not higher than Japan's (give me a break) just because PPP per capita is higher. Same goes for a bunch of other countries.
Quote:
2013 GDP per capita nominal (2017 dollars)
Sweden: 61,000
Iceland: 47,800
2017 GDP per capita nominal
Sweden: 53,218
Iceland: 70,300
That's the devaluation of SEK (and Euro for other Euoprean countries). Besides Iceland is practically a micro-state population-wise, of course their GDP per capita would be very high.
Quote:
If some people said in 2000 that in 20 years Sweden will have about 10% with muslim background, people would call it fearmongering. If they said that in many european countries you can just go on a website and change your gender, they would think you were crazy.
I expect the politicans to pander to the new voters, just like they did in France, Brazil, United States and South Africa.
Pander to the new voters? Yes. Moving to Eastern Europe? No.
Idk where you got that from. If we're talking about getting less than nominal GDP, all of Europe would get way less as half of the income goes straight into taxes. Most of Western Europe get like 25,000 EUR when the GDP per capita is usually >40,000.
We are obviusly talking about gross salary pluss employers taxes. That should be obvious considering that we are talking about GDP that is not real. GDP spent by the government is real.
Then you divide what the employer has to pay with the gdp, and it will show if some of the GDP is not real. Taiwan got a lower number than Japan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greysholic
Again where did you get that from? It's more like 22,000 or something.
Here you show the problem with using wages. It is hard to find the correct source. Also, the salary in Taiwan being higher strengthen my point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greysholic
Anyway, my point is Taiwan's living standards are not higher than Japan's (give me a break) just because PPP per capita is higher. Same goes for a bunch of other countries.
That's the devaluation of SEK (and Euro for other Euoprean countries). Besides Iceland is practically a micro-state population-wise, of course their GDP per capita would be very high.
Now you are just trying to move the goal posts. Your point was that you should use the nominal gdp instead of ppp.
But as i shown and you agreed, devaluation leads to large changes that does not reflect living standards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greysholic
Pander to the new voters? Yes. Moving to Eastern Europe? No.
Again, you are moving the goal posts. You quoted the part where I talked about affirmative action.
Now you are just trying to move the goal posts. Your point was that you should use the nominal gdp instead of ppp.
But as i shown and you agreed, devaluation leads to large changes that does not reflect living standards.
My point is a high PPP doesn't necessarily mean living standards are as good. Russia and Malaysia's PPP is close to Czech Republic and Estonia's, but their living standards are not. Not even a little bit. The countries with high nominal GDP are the ones with high living standards. Even if the difference isn't always as dramatic as the figures suggest (like Iceland and Sweden, or Ireland and pretty much every other country in Western Europe), it's still a better measurement.
Besides, a lot of things are more expensive in the poorest countries, such as an iPhone. In those cases PPP means horse****.
Quote:
Again, you are moving the goal posts. You quoted the part where I talked about affirmative action.
You were arguing that affirmative action would make W. Europeans move to Eastern Europe, which I don't think will ever happen. Let's just leave it at that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
