News and information from Europe 🇪🇺
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
(This list may get expanded as necessary.)
Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media (incl. Substack). Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com
(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)
We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.
If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.
If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the primary mod account @EuroMod@feddit.org
Ich bin ein großer Fan der EU, sehe mich selbst als Europäer first und Österreicher second aber man darf eines trotzdem nicht vergessen:
Mit dem gestiegenen GDP kamen auchch die gestiegenen Lebenserhaltungskosten. Mietpreise, Lebensmittel etc.
Trotzdem würde ich nirgendwo anders als der EU leben wollen. (Allerhöchstens Norwegen)
wat
Sorry... thought I was on a german sub
My bad
;tldr yes
who would have guessed that cooperation is the winning strategy 😯
not the far right at least
As an (important?) side note: Europe is among the region with the highest equality, together with Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, Indonesia, Philippine, Papua New Guinea. Of course, there is a lot room for improvement, but inequality has not risen in the last 20 or so years - unlike in countries like Russia, China, India, where the gap between the richest and the poor has widen significantly.
Addition: Here is the data - https://wid.world/world/#shweal_p99p100_z/US;FR;DE;CN;ZA;GB;WO-PPP;QE-PPP;XR-PPP/last/eu/k/p/yearly/s/false/12.912/100/curve/false/region
Because it’s not worth engaging with this person I just copy paste my answer to the other place where they posted this.
Thanks for linking a source but this is a misleading interpretation, please don’t try to argue with data if you don’t know how to interpret it.
You need to look at e.g. the top 10%, middle 40% and bottom 50% to get a proper idea. And then look at it country by country because the scales don’t match. Yes, the USA are extremely inequal, I think back to like 1913 level in 2013 or something like that iirc, so if you put them on a plot with e.g. France, France will look great.
But if you look at France alone you get a different picture and inequality is rising again since the 80s. Here’s an article by a French economist with research focus on inequality which cites the same data: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/inequalities/2025/09/24/global-inequality-in-historical-perspective-part-1/
OP didn't even mention the US, though. I'm not sure what you're arguing against.
You obviously did not look at the data they used as source
I actually did. I have nits to pick with the map, but the conclusion that Russia has a lot and Europe has (relatively) little is well known. And again, what does the US have to do with it?
Reading the thread back again, you're probably right that inequality in Europe has grown somewhat, if that was your main point.
Edit: And your source is excellent, by the way. Very interesting. Picketty delivers.
Yeah, you may have misunderstood my point. So once again for you: It's not perfect in Europe, inequality rises here, but inequality in China is now higher than it is in Europe.
Thats nice, but also largely due to the fact that Europe has been industrialized much longer. We already had the wealth inequality going before
And the US hasn't been? And how does Canada fit into this?
Can you elaborate?
Well historically the industrial revolution began in GB and then the rest of the "west" as we know it today. All under existing structures of old wealth such as monarchies and nobility, eventually giving birth to capitalism.
The countries mentioned above were going through that same process only some decades later.
China is a great example because they are so thorough and totalitarian in their societal progression, they essentially forced through all this change in just a few decades and there is a lot of statistical information available that you could have a look at illustrating the process of an emerging middle class and their ultra rich class along their economical development.
there is a lot of statistical information available that you could have a look at
Where are these statistics about China?
I dont know and really dont care to look them up for you. I would think you could google for whatever year and wealth distribution / productivity indicators of China, iirc they are fairly proud of what "the party" has done in that regard. Shouldnt be hard to find.
If you want to believe we germans live in some equality paradise thats your call of course, but we dont.
You say there is a lot of statistical information available, but then you admit you don't even know where it is. Classic.
Why are you like this, fucking exhausting lol
I'm not trying to defend a masters thesis while taking a shit, thank you very much. My comment is based on what i know and learned about China over the last few decades, why do you treat this as some outrageous claim i am making?
Industrialization under a system of private ownership leads to a general increase in the standard of giving, yes, but still causes an extremely rich owner/capitalist class to emerge. In Europe that happened earlier, sometimes meshing with old hierarchical structures such as the nobility, in the other countries later.
What the fuck kind of proof do you want? Thats not contested information.
Shouldnt be hard to find.
and yet...
I guess the part I don't understand what you're trying to assert re: time since "industrialization" vs wealth inequality.
Are you saying industrialization is responsible for lowering inequality or creating it?
If you're suggesting it creates inequality, then I would expect Europe to have higher inequality than China. It does not.
If you are suggesting it reduces inequality, then I would expect China's wealth inequality to be trending downwards since the 70s. It is not. It has risen sharply in that time frame.
I'm still assuming that I'm just misunderstanding your hypothesis... so I guess my question would just be:
What do you hypothesize the process of industrialization does to weath distribution?
Europe has industrialize more then 20 years ago. So inequality does not increase due to that process, but it does in China.
Tldr: No. Look at Britain right now. It's finally flourishing.
!/s
Had me in the first half 😭
This is a confusing issue to me.
On one hand I understand the value of the EU to my country's (Portugal) development on the other I take real issue with how the influx of foreign capital has priced out most common workers from buying a house before they're 30/40, which directly impacts one's ability to start a family. Two of our greatest obstacles to wellbeing.
I love some initiatives like the tighter regulation on big tech, but fear the power of a supranational organisation over Portugal's democratic process. An organisation which is perceived as not so democratic.
Why don't you just build more houses? That's what my country is doing to solve our problem.
Great question.
We are building, although not enough, a lot of houses, unfortunately, a big chunk is high income/luxury housing and another big chunk is used as an investment vehicle which can sit idle for years even when it's placed in the middle of our biggest cities.
For some extra context I leave this excerpt from another comment:
In Portugal we have more than 170,000 (state/private) empty houses. A fund of more than 100 million euros (and counting) for the renovation/construction of public/cooperative housing which has been collecting dust for 2 years now. We have the resources to fix this, but our politicians seem more preoccupied in punishing 10K people for being Muslim (they have valid concerns, wrong solutions)
Canada is building more houses? Since when?
That's a funny way of wording the question since it never stopped, but there's a few recent things I can point to. If you need a time frame, I'd say the last several months.
The city nearest to me abolished single-family zoning and is seeing a ton of construction and sharply falling prices. I might finally be able to break into the market. We have a new federal government department designed to start producing housing en mass, called Build Canada Homes. Housing prices are also easing off across the country, although certain cities are having more trouble, and the temporary scaling back of immigration while building continues is probably the main factor.
Maybe in Portugal there's more space issues, but it's not Hong Kong so I don't think that's the whole problem.
Every country should heavily tax non-resident property owners. They should also increasingly tax every property someone owns over 1, to the point that owning more than 3 homes becomes completely unrealistic for most and middle class landlords disappear.
Everyone should own their own residence (or have the opportunity to). Housing prices would collapse if they weren't being used as a financial vehicle for investments instead of housing that degrades without upkeep.
I believe those are every societies largest priorities.
Often these landlords incorporate though. They have well paid real estate and inheritance lawyers on their payroll, looking for every opportunity to snap up properties - be it apartments or land - on the market for development.
This problem can be solved by good lawmakers, good public servants, and a good amount of public will.
If I had to take a crack at it, it sounds like this would be solved with taxing corporations as landlords in a similarly punitive way. I'm fine with one corporation owning one apartment complex as a service for transient people, but I'm not okay with a corporation owning multiple properties and making their bag entirely via enshittifying people's housing and jacking up rent.
If we're worried about a person having ownership in multiple companies that each own one apartment, we can solve that too. Again, I'd focus on tracing back ownership of these assets and taxing those individuals accordingly. If a person owns 10% of 20 companies that own an apartment building each, they should be taxed like they own 2 apartment buildings. Abstraction and obfuscation should not be a successful defense against supporting the society one is a part of. We all have to do our part, and we will be better off if we did both as individuals and as a collective.
I'd attribute that problem to Portugal specifically though. Especially to the taxation policies that incentivized people to move to Portugal but without requiring them to specifically set up business in Portugal. This resulted into many people working in other countries to move to Portugal to pay lower taxation. This indeed increased prices, especially for rent but also in general, as those people had higher purchasing power but did not significantly increase salaries. There is a reason why Lisbon is the heaven of digital nomads. I hear things are changing, but I don't know too much about it. Indeed I know many people in Lisbon who work mostly in other countries. Sure they pay taxes, but that doesn't directly translate into higher paying jobs.
The tax incentives for digital nomads are a big issue for sure. I love meeting digital nomads, always a fun conversation, I just don't understand why we should subsidize highly paid individuals looking for a cheap place to live for a while. They do not create roots or care much about the country they live in. If things go south they will leave and the people of the country they enjoyed will be burdened with all the issues.
I say we welcome all digital nomads if they wish to live with us, but they should pay their due like everyone else.
Indeed, however this is not a common problem across Europe. That would not explain otherwise why most digital nomads are mostly Europeans. Such issue was mostly generated by the specific tax policies of Portugal who incentivized rich people to move into the country without ensuring this would lead to a common good. All in all, I do not believe this is a problem strictly related to the fact that Portugal is part of the European Union, but rather the result of poor policy planning. Mind you, I'm not saying the policies were without reason, but probably did not obtain the expected results.
I'm mentioning this issue in the context of the EU, due to the EU naturally allowing a more free flow of people and capital. Which is great for the "core" of the EU and at the same time the cause of big issues in the peripheries.
The same would occur in any kind of free movement agreement.
I give the benefit of the doubt to those who implemented this ideas, I understand the logic, I'm just not convinced by the results.
The same or at least similar increase in real estate prices has happened in non-EU countries around the world, and the primary beneficiaries are the local upper-class not the foreign investors. It is a complex topic, and EU regulation does play a role in it, but overall I would say that the EU isn't the primary driver behind this.
I don't think the EU per se is the reason for this. I think the free flow of foreign capital into industries of essential goods is more to blame, and that lax regulation does come with the EU.
Because at it's core, the EU is still a neoliberal organization that promotes business interests over public welfare. It exists to ensure giant corporations in Europes developed core can compete against massive non-European firms. The only reason they don't push for American levels of cruelty is that the people of the EU would riot and overthrow their governments if their hard earned benefits (universal healthcare, worker protections, pensions, mandatory vacations) were severely threatened.