I can give you anecdotes, but they are not data, here is some data instead: - 2013, not today, still it is data. 26% unemployment rate, 53% of Spanish companies have no employees.
Startups Fill Void Left by Spainâ(TM)s 26% Unemployment Rate
Angeline Benoit August 27, 2013 â" 7:13 AM EDT Share on FacebookShare on Twitter Start-Ups Fill Void Left by 26% Spanish Unemployment: Jobs Jobseekers wait outside an employment office in Madrid, Spain, on May 8, 2013. Photographer: Angel Navarrete/Bloomberg The rush starts at about 8 p.m. at La Infinito. Thatâ(TM)s when Antonio Rojas Fernandez and Paloma Perez Rodriguezâ(TM)s Madrid cafe usually fills up, typically keeping them busy until midnight. While they have two part-timers to help prepare food and bus the dozen tables a few times a week, the couple hasnâ(TM)t taken more than a day off each since opening in May 2012, five months after they lost their jobs. She was a teacher, while he installed television antennas. âoeItâ(TM)s not easy, but itâ(TM)s working,â said Perez, 36, popping her head through a beaded curtain from the kitchen as the fruit blenderâ(TM)s whir covers the music. âoeI tell people itâ(TM)s true I still have problems,â said Rojas, who is a year older. âoeThe difference is that now theyâ(TM)re the ones Iâ(TM)ve chosen.â
As Spaniards endure the worst economic crisis and deepest austerity measures in their countryâ(TM)s democratic history, start-up companies are proliferating. Over the first seven months of the year, registrations of self-employed people increased by 21,992 while they fell by 6,826 over the same period a year earlier. The number of companies created increased by 8.2 percent in the first half as a 26 percent unemployment rate spurs entrepreneurship in a country where the government still accounts for one in six jobs. Necessity Entrepreneurship That compares with a 20 percent increase in new businesses in neighboring Portugal, where unemployment is at 16.4 percent. The number of start-ups in Germany and France, the euro areaâ(TM)s two largest economies, is declining, data from national statistical offices show. âoeThere are indications that necessity entrepreneurship, people who create a business to exit unemployment rather than by opportunity, is increasing in Spain,â said Mariarosa Lunati, Paris-based economist at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development who specializes in entrepreneurship. âoeThis seems to be happening in other countries that are in a situation of crisis as well.â Spainâ(TM)s gross domestic product contracted more last year than initially estimated, INE, the national statistics institute, said today. It revised the data to a 1.6 percent drop from 1.4 percent. In 2011, the only positive year since 2008, growth was 0.1 percent instead of 0.4 percent, it said. Comfort Zone The crisis has jolted people out of their comfort zone, said Paris de Lâ(TM)Etraz, general director of the Venture Lab at the Madrid campus of the IE Business School. âoeNecessity is changing this unfortunate chip in peopleâ(TM)s mind that led to a situation in which, even four or five years ago, more than half the population wanted to work for the government.â New companies will help foster an economic recovery in Spain if they can generate jobs, business for other firms and revenue for the state, said Pedro Nueno Iniesta, an entrepreneurship professor at Madridâ(TM)s IESE business school. Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy predicts the economy will grow this quarter after the recession abated in the first half of this year, reducing the unemployment rate for the first time since 2011 in the second quarter. Spainâ(TM)s parliament last month approved a law simplifying paperwork and creating tax breaks to encourage more Spaniards to become self-employed or start a company. Lawmakers are in the process o
'so special' I may be or may not be, but I do understand economics better than the vast majority of you here, regardless whether you hired somebody or not.
I have a name for you, but I'm too polite to write it down here.
. I have no such issues, why don't you say exactly what you mean? I hire novices but even people with experience are not immediately useful, why would they be? More importantly, each and every hire is a huge risk. How many people do I have to go through to get somebody worthwhile? Every person I took on and got rid of is a waste of time that I do not need at all. Give me good people every time and I wouldn't have to do that, but we live in the real world, where easily half of the potential hires are useless or disinterested or cannot work in the team.
Paying every single person who doesn't become an employee but takes my time and time of my people? They are already getting more than they should. Actually in two cases people paid me to even try and work for me at least I knew they really wanted it.
I know quite a bit. You have never hired anybody, to you everything seems simple. The reality is that Spanish laws are probably the worst in Europe in terms of difficulties related to employing people. It is extremely expensive to hire there and to fire is also extremely expensive.
I would never let anybody come close to touching my codebase without them training in my company on a standard set of test projects for a few weeks, which is the training they are receiving. The test projects are the same ones for everybody, they start with a completely empty machine, installation of the OS and of all systems and software, compiling the db, doing a bunch of training with he os first, building the same test applications that everybody else working for me already built, learning the concepts they are missing that they must know before touching my code.
The people that are able to perform in the test projects and who show good team skills are hired.
As to Spain, you have no idea how difficult and expensive it is to hire and fire people there, which is the reason for the insane unemployment and it is not just Spain. Italy, Portugal, France as well, they are preventing employment with laws designed to prevent employment under the guise of 'protecting the employees'.
Once you hire somebody in Spain you can't fire them, it is extremely difficult to get rid of an employee, the government has protected the people from having jobs, thus huge unemployment and disinterest from hiring and training.
I hire and train people in my business but I can only do it because I can easily get rid of them. In fact I don't even pay them during the first few weeks of training and if they are unable to learn and cannot show potential I get rid of them.
This is impossible in Spain, thus nobody wants to hire and nobody wants to risk someone without knowledge and experience.
Sure, maybe it's me. Then again, maybe it's the women who didn't have the motivation, some of who came to the interview with their parents, no less, and never came back.
The limited success was with one developer and one designer and they worked out fine. The vast majority of women that even bothered to apply didn't get past the trial period.
Not that we have trial by combat and not that anybody was less than pleasant with them, they are just not interested enough.
I hire people who I pay to do the work, so I expect a competent employee, however I train my employees so in the beginning the most important factors are aptitude to learn and attitude, interest in the job and ability to work in group. So far I had very limited success with females.
Sherman act exists to destroy private property rights and provide governments with ammunition to destroy individuals who are so good at providing excellent products and services that they take over an industry by doing the best of all of them.
Since Standard Oil was dismantled, oil never went down in price, only up, while government never shrunk in size, it only grew.
How about applying Sherman act where it actually matters: to the government itself?
I honestly don't care about a bunch of anybody ahead of people in my car. We'll deal with the settings first of all, dealing with insurance, etc., that's secondary.
I am perfectly happy with any and all of it when gettimg a new car as long as I can reset the parameters myself to: protect the driver and the passengers, that is priority number one, everything else is truly secondary.
More importantly this shows that the free market here solves a problem that a government created an oppressive law to 'solve' and couldn't actually solve anything. Government forcing employers to pay employees in specific type of health care is oppressive (I am not talking about any religious arguments, my argument is completely from point of view of government oppression of the individual, which takes place with every law).
I completely disagree that anybody should be giving up any control to anybody by force. I am against all forms of government, I think dealing with neighbours should be done on case by case basis and without any government. Government is oppression of the individual freedom by definition, oppression is always the wrong answer.
EU was an American project, it never made sense from point of view of creating free trade (if that was ever the goal, which I do not think is the reality). If you want free trade as a nation all you have to do is stop creating barriers to trade at the government level, people will trade, that is never the problem. Creating a larger, transnational corrupted government to reduce the trade barriers associated with a smaller, national corrupted government (all governments are corrupt by definition, there is no such thing as a government that is not corrupt, that is patently, historically, factually impossible to achieve, which is why governments shouldn't exist AFAIC and if they exist, they should be as tiny and irrelevant on large scale as possible, maybe government at the street level, not even municipal, maybe none at all).
Anyway, good for UK. I am sure that it will still trade with the rest of the EU countries as do countries that never participated in the EU project in the first place. China is not in the EU, neither is the USA or Australia, etc., yet they trade with the EU. UK will trade with the EU of-course and it will do so on terms that will not put its sovereignty in a questionable position.
My ultimate position is that there should be no governments, but if they exist, they should be as small as possible (hopefully small enough to kick them in the balls singlefootedly, so to speak).
UK will do fine and in the next few months ideas of EU exit will spread among many other countries in that block. Portugal, Italy, Spain, France, Sweden will be looking at it very closely now.
EU was a flawed idea from every perspective from the very beginning, what is Greece doing in the same 'economic zone' with the same common currency with Germany? Latvia? Lithuania? Romania? Cyprus? That's not only a different league, that's not even the same game. When Germany joined this idiocy, the Germans immediately lost over half of the value of the Mark. Germany needs to quit this project, but of-course it will double down instead, but I think now that UK left, Merkel will not be re-elected and hopefully for the Germans they will get somebody who will do something that is in the best interests of the Germans.
Get rid of the Euro and reduce trade barriers with other countries but do not let others just step all over yourself.
Well, first of all that's nonsense. There is no magical 'we' here. You mean there won't be future humans if the humans of today decide they don't want to continue the species one way or another? That's not 'we', that's somebody else, it's 'them'.
Secondly, and more to the point, people do want to survive today and their current fight for survival continues for thousands of years (millions even) and will continue not because of some ephemeral future generation but because we are trying to live now.
Well, apparently the money not collected in extra 'carbon taxes' from oil buyers that oil producers would have to collect are somehow a subsidy to those very oil producers, so....
Correct. However there is another side of it, this bill is for a so called 'right'. What is a 'right'? A right is protection of an individual against government oppression, nothing else at all. To say that somebody has to provide someone else with something is the opposite of a right. It is government oppression used to impose an obligation on a party to provide a selected group with an entitlement.
The bill should be called 'an entitlement to have something provided to the bigger block of voters at the expense of a smaller block of voters' bill.
A bill providing information on how to repair government would not be introduced either. Government 'works' as it is intended. As to consumer electronics - companies can advertise products based on 'repair ability' but until the market starts caring there will be no money in that. Minituriasation ensures that people will not be able to repair much. Once the entire computer is in a single processor what are you going to repair? You can replace some parts, but even knowing what to look for and what needs to be done will not make it economical to repair certain things. Where things are repairable they can be repaired without any government intervention but simply because the market wants it and pays for it. Let's say you need a tool like this one to do a repair, and that is one of the tools and you need many more of them to do the work.... What is the next thing, forcing companies to repair stuff regardless of the economics of it?
How about repairing the government instead, making sure it does not oppress, steal, redistribute, get its hands where they don't belong? How about not starting wars that create economic and environmental problems that they will try to 'solve' with more oppression and aggression?
I was replying to a hypothetical situation of free food being offered without any time limits. Maybe you should try to see the context of things before getting into them.
100,000 chickens will not flood the market with free food. However if somebody did in fact flood the market with free food the effect would be elimination of starvation. No more hungry people, that would be the first consequence. The second consequence would be urbanization, business formation outside of food productiin
Gates wasn't offering 100,000 chickens to the wealthy and established chicken farmers. He was offering it to the poor, those who don't have anything. Of course it was 'insulting' to the government elite. How are they supposed to buy another gold plated Rolls with that?
Slashdot Mirror
I can give you anecdotes, but they are not data, here is some data instead: - 2013, not today, still it is data. 26% unemployment rate, 53% of Spanish companies have no employees.
Startups Fill Void Left by Spainâ(TM)s 26% Unemployment Rate
Angeline Benoit
August 27, 2013 â" 7:13 AM EDT
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Start-Ups Fill Void Left by 26% Spanish Unemployment: Jobs
Jobseekers wait outside an employment office in Madrid, Spain, on May 8, 2013. Photographer: Angel Navarrete/Bloomberg
The rush starts at about 8 p.m. at La Infinito. Thatâ(TM)s when Antonio Rojas Fernandez and Paloma Perez Rodriguezâ(TM)s Madrid cafe usually fills up, typically keeping them busy until midnight.
While they have two part-timers to help prepare food and bus the dozen tables a few times a week, the couple hasnâ(TM)t taken more than a day off each since opening in May 2012, five months after they lost their jobs. She was a teacher, while he installed television antennas.
âoeItâ(TM)s not easy, but itâ(TM)s working,â said Perez, 36, popping her head through a beaded curtain from the kitchen as the fruit blenderâ(TM)s whir covers the music. âoeI tell people itâ(TM)s true I still have problems,â said Rojas, who is a year older. âoeThe difference is that now theyâ(TM)re the ones Iâ(TM)ve chosen.â
As Spaniards endure the worst economic crisis and deepest austerity measures in their countryâ(TM)s democratic history, start-up companies are proliferating.
Over the first seven months of the year, registrations of self-employed people increased by 21,992 while they fell by 6,826 over the same period a year earlier. The number of companies created increased by 8.2 percent in the first half as a 26 percent unemployment rate spurs entrepreneurship in a country where the government still accounts for one in six jobs.
Necessity Entrepreneurship
That compares with a 20 percent increase in new businesses in neighboring Portugal, where unemployment is at 16.4 percent. The number of start-ups in Germany and France, the euro areaâ(TM)s two largest economies, is declining, data from national statistical offices show.
âoeThere are indications that necessity entrepreneurship, people who create a business to exit unemployment rather than by opportunity, is increasing in Spain,â said Mariarosa Lunati, Paris-based economist at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development who specializes in entrepreneurship. âoeThis seems to be happening in other countries that are in a situation of crisis as well.â
Spainâ(TM)s gross domestic product contracted more last year than initially estimated, INE, the national statistics institute, said today. It revised the data to a 1.6 percent drop from 1.4 percent. In 2011, the only positive year since 2008, growth was 0.1 percent instead of 0.4 percent, it said.
Comfort Zone
The crisis has jolted people out of their comfort zone, said Paris de Lâ(TM)Etraz, general director of the Venture Lab at the Madrid campus of the IE Business School. âoeNecessity is changing this unfortunate chip in peopleâ(TM)s mind that led to a situation in which, even four or five years ago, more than half the population wanted to work for the government.â
New companies will help foster an economic recovery in Spain if they can generate jobs, business for other firms and revenue for the state, said Pedro Nueno Iniesta, an entrepreneurship professor at Madridâ(TM)s IESE business school.
Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy predicts the economy will grow this quarter after the recession abated in the first half of this year, reducing the unemployment rate for the first time since 2011 in the second quarter.
Spainâ(TM)s parliament last month approved a law simplifying paperwork and creating tax breaks to encourage more Spaniards to become self-employed or start a company. Lawmakers are in the process o
'so special' I may be or may not be, but I do understand economics better than the vast majority of you here, regardless whether you hired somebody or not.
I have a name for you, but I'm too polite to write it down here.
. I have no such issues, why don't you say exactly what you mean? I hire novices but even people with experience are not immediately useful, why would they be? More importantly, each and every hire is a huge risk. How many people do I have to go through to get somebody worthwhile? Every person I took on and got rid of is a waste of time that I do not need at all. Give me good people every time and I wouldn't have to do that, but we live in the real world, where easily half of the potential hires are useless or disinterested or cannot work in the team.
Paying every single person who doesn't become an employee but takes my time and time of my people? They are already getting more than they should. Actually in two cases people paid me to even try and work for me at least I knew they really wanted it.
I know quite a bit. You have never hired anybody, to you everything seems simple. The reality is that Spanish laws are probably the worst in Europe in terms of difficulties related to employing people. It is extremely expensive to hire there and to fire is also extremely expensive.
I would never let anybody come close to touching my codebase without them training in my company on a standard set of test projects for a few weeks, which is the training they are receiving. The test projects are the same ones for everybody, they start with a completely empty machine, installation of the OS and of all systems and software, compiling the db, doing a bunch of training with he os first, building the same test applications that everybody else working for me already built, learning the concepts they are missing that they must know before touching my code.
The people that are able to perform in the test projects and who show good team skills are hired.
As to Spain, you have no idea how difficult and expensive it is to hire and fire people there, which is the reason for the insane unemployment and it is not just Spain. Italy, Portugal, France as well, they are preventing employment with laws designed to prevent employment under the guise of 'protecting the employees'.
Once you hire somebody in Spain you can't fire them, it is extremely difficult to get rid of an employee, the government has protected the people from having jobs, thus huge unemployment and disinterest from hiring and training.
I hire and train people in my business but I can only do it because I can easily get rid of them. In fact I don't even pay them during the first few weeks of training and if they are unable to learn and cannot show potential I get rid of them.
This is impossible in Spain, thus nobody wants to hire and nobody wants to risk someone without knowledge and experience.
Sure, maybe it's me. Then again, maybe it's the women who didn't have the motivation, some of who came to the interview with their parents, no less, and never came back.
The limited success was with one developer and one designer and they worked out fine. The vast majority of women that even bothered to apply didn't get past the trial period.
Not that we have trial by combat and not that anybody was less than pleasant with them, they are just not interested enough.
I hire people who I pay to do the work, so I expect a competent employee, however I train my employees so in the beginning the most important factors are aptitude to learn and attitude, interest in the job and ability to work in group. So far I had very limited success with females.
Sherman act exists to destroy private property rights and provide governments with ammunition to destroy individuals who are so good at providing excellent products and services that they take over an industry by doing the best of all of them.
Since Standard Oil was dismantled, oil never went down in price, only up, while government never shrunk in size, it only grew.
How about applying Sherman act where it actually matters: to the government itself?
AFAIC your question is secondary. The most important part of it is to stay alive and unharmed for the driver. Who goes on trial is a distant tenth.
I honestly don't care about a bunch of anybody ahead of people in my car. We'll deal with the settings first of all, dealing with insurance, etc., that's secondary.
I am perfectly happy with any and all of it when gettimg a new car as long as I can reset the parameters myself to: protect the driver and the passengers, that is priority number one, everything else is truly secondary.
More importantly this shows that the free market here solves a problem that a government created an oppressive law to 'solve' and couldn't actually solve anything. Government forcing employers to pay employees in specific type of health care is oppressive (I am not talking about any religious arguments, my argument is completely from point of view of government oppression of the individual, which takes place with every law).
I completely disagree that anybody should be giving up any control to anybody by force. I am against all forms of government, I think dealing with neighbours should be done on case by case basis and without any government. Government is oppression of the individual freedom by definition, oppression is always the wrong answer.
So Johnson is an idiot? I think it is the global government collectivists that are the idiots. Collectivists lost this time around. Super!!!
A 3000 year old 'teenager' leaving his 23 or so year old parents?
Time for Texas to find its balls and USExit the federation as well.
EU was an American project, it never made sense from point of view of creating free trade (if that was ever the goal, which I do not think is the reality). If you want free trade as a nation all you have to do is stop creating barriers to trade at the government level, people will trade, that is never the problem. Creating a larger, transnational corrupted government to reduce the trade barriers associated with a smaller, national corrupted government (all governments are corrupt by definition, there is no such thing as a government that is not corrupt, that is patently, historically, factually impossible to achieve, which is why governments shouldn't exist AFAIC and if they exist, they should be as tiny and irrelevant on large scale as possible, maybe government at the street level, not even municipal, maybe none at all).
Anyway, good for UK. I am sure that it will still trade with the rest of the EU countries as do countries that never participated in the EU project in the first place. China is not in the EU, neither is the USA or Australia, etc., yet they trade with the EU. UK will trade with the EU of-course and it will do so on terms that will not put its sovereignty in a questionable position.
My ultimate position is that there should be no governments, but if they exist, they should be as small as possible (hopefully small enough to kick them in the balls singlefootedly, so to speak).
UK will do fine and in the next few months ideas of EU exit will spread among many other countries in that block. Portugal, Italy, Spain, France, Sweden will be looking at it very closely now.
EU was a flawed idea from every perspective from the very beginning, what is Greece doing in the same 'economic zone' with the same common currency with Germany? Latvia? Lithuania? Romania? Cyprus? That's not only a different league, that's not even the same game. When Germany joined this idiocy, the Germans immediately lost over half of the value of the Mark. Germany needs to quit this project, but of-course it will double down instead, but I think now that UK left, Merkel will not be re-elected and hopefully for the Germans they will get somebody who will do something that is in the best interests of the Germans.
Get rid of the Euro and reduce trade barriers with other countries but do not let others just step all over yourself.
Well, first of all that's nonsense. There is no magical 'we' here. You mean there won't be future humans if the humans of today decide they don't want to continue the species one way or another? That's not 'we', that's somebody else, it's 'them'.
Secondly, and more to the point, people do want to survive today and their current fight for survival continues for thousands of years (millions even) and will continue not because of some ephemeral future generation but because we are trying to live now.
Well, apparently the money not collected in extra 'carbon taxes' from oil buyers that oil producers would have to collect are somehow a subsidy to those very oil producers, so ....
Correct. However there is another side of it, this bill is for a so called 'right'. What is a 'right'? A right is protection of an individual against government oppression, nothing else at all. To say that somebody has to provide someone else with something is the opposite of a right. It is government oppression used to impose an obligation on a party to provide a selected group with an entitlement.
The bill should be called 'an entitlement to have something provided to the bigger block of voters at the expense of a smaller block of voters' bill.
A bill providing information on how to repair government would not be introduced either. Government 'works' as it is intended. As to consumer electronics - companies can advertise products based on 'repair ability' but until the market starts caring there will be no money in that. Minituriasation ensures that people will not be able to repair much. Once the entire computer is in a single processor what are you going to repair? You can replace some parts, but even knowing what to look for and what needs to be done will not make it economical to repair certain things. Where things are repairable they can be repaired without any government intervention but simply because the market wants it and pays for it. Let's say you need a tool like this one to do a repair, and that is one of the tools and you need many more of them to do the work.... What is the next thing, forcing companies to repair stuff regardless of the economics of it?
How about repairing the government instead, making sure it does not oppress, steal, redistribute, get its hands where they don't belong? How about not starting wars that create economic and environmental problems that they will try to 'solve' with more oppression and aggression?
I was replying to a hypothetical situation of free food being offered without any time limits. Maybe you should try to see the context of things before getting into them.
100,000 chickens will not flood the market with free food. However if somebody did in fact flood the market with free food the effect would be elimination of starvation. No more hungry people, that would be the first consequence. The second consequence would be urbanization, business formation outside of food productiin
Gates wasn't offering 100,000 chickens to the wealthy and established chicken farmers. He was offering it to the poor, those who don't have anything. Of course it was 'insulting' to the government elite. How are they supposed to buy another gold plated Rolls with that?