3 ms·

Unfortunately this is a problem in many EU countries. Most of the job descriptions require perfect English + the local language (whatever that is). In the worst

by kfk 13y ago

Unfortunately this is a problem in many EU countries. Most of the job descriptions require perfect English + the local language (whatever that is). In the worst case the local language is not mentioned, but then they fire your CV too fast not to suspect language had something to do with it. It's a real hassle, especially when you don't become "loyal" to any EU country in particular, thus it makes no sense to learn its local language as there are way too many languages around, me the last 4 years: I lived in Denmark (Danish), Germany (German), now I live in Belgium (Dutch AND French). The whole situation creates "sticky" jobs, where people end up stuck in 1 country, sometimes a very small country, and they can't really embrace the full power of a unionized economic area. I mean, only for this US is so much better than EU, 300ML people all speaking the same language...

w1ntermute 13y ago
> 300ML people all speaking the same language... Not to mention the culture. The cultural difference between Washington state and Mississippi (for example) is much smaller than the difference between Germany and France.
Brakenshire 13y ago
> The whole situation creates "sticky" jobs, where people end up stuck in 1 country, sometimes a very small country, and they can't really embrace the full power of a unionized economic area. I understand your frustration, but the purpose of the policy is precisely to create 'sticky jobs', and this is really the only way things can work unless countries like Denmark and the Netherlands wish over time to lose their languages, and become more or less undifferentiated provinces of Europe. Labour market mobility is important, but it is not the sine qua non of modern Europe. Small countries accept immigration on the basis that the immigrants will over time learn the language and adjust to the culture, it's impossible for them to maintain the integrity of their state if a major percentage of the population are transitory.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- kfk 13y ago
  Please, if those countries really wanted to keep their identities, their inhabitants wouldn't consume so much US music, movies, style and products (iphones, anybody?). People are already buying into the "just a province of Europe (I'd say, just a province of US)" with their wallets. I don't see how forcing a local language is helping in counteracting the "provincialization" trend. Finally, in my ramblings around Europe, especially north and central Europe, I noticed that people really love to keep a "fake" identity. They would wear weird dresses (the Germans), eat weird stuff (the Danish), have a weird Santa Claus (the Belgian, pardon, Flemish), just to think they are "different". They are not different, most of the EU countries are very, very, similar to each other. I really wish we realized that and stopped this craziness about "losing our culture", we already lost our culture, because that was the good/optimal thing to do, please let's get over it.
  - Brakenshire 13y ago
    You should try asking the people around you whether they wish to give up their language and culture to become an undifferentiated province. Even in the internationalized circles in which expats move you will find almost no-one (who is not an expat) who agrees with the proposition. It may well be that many people make many small decisions which tend towards that outcome, but that is what democratic, civic decision making processes are for. You might as well say that people vote with their wallets to build on the countryside. And you only have to look at the way in which the political systems operate in different European countries to see the massive cultural differences which exist. How do you think the Danish would react to a politician like Berlusconi?
    - kfk 13y ago
      Interesting discussion, a pity HN is not made for long conversations. Political system are a complicated beast. We all watch the same movies, buy the same stuff, but, somehow, vote in completely different ways. I think it's because of how incentives are set in the respective countries. They are not really culture, but just something that's there and it is very difficult to remove. For example, the Italian systems protects pharmacies (you can have only 1 each xyz inhabitants). But the Danish system protects its economy taxing cars 180%. The principle behind those 2 policies is the same (the State can and has to affect the economy), yet the incentive this creates and the impacts on the economy are very different.

by kfk 13y ago

w1ntermute 13y ago

> 300ML people all speaking the same language... Not to mention the culture. The cultural difference between Washington state and Mississippi (for example) is much smaller than the difference between Germany and France.

Brakenshire 13y ago

> The whole situation creates "sticky" jobs, where people end up stuck in 1 country, sometimes a very small country, and they can't really embrace the full power of a unionized economic area. I understand your frustration, but the purpose of the policy is precisely to create 'sticky jobs', and this is really the only way things can work unless countries like Denmark and the Netherlands wish over time to lose their languages, and become more or less undifferentiated provinces of Europe. Labour market mobility is important, but it is not the sine qua non of modern Europe. Small countries accept immigration on the basis that the immigrants will over time learn the language and adjust to the culture, it's impossible for them to maintain the integrity of their state if a major percentage of the population are transitory.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
kfk 13y ago
Please, if those countries really wanted to keep their identities, their inhabitants wouldn't consume so much US music, movies, style and products (iphones, anybody?). People are already buying into the "just a province of Europe (I'd say, just a province of US)" with their wallets. I don't see how forcing a local language is helping in counteracting the "provincialization" trend. Finally, in my ramblings around Europe, especially north and central Europe, I noticed that people really love to keep a "fake" identity. They would wear weird dresses (the Germans), eat weird stuff (the Danish), have a weird Santa Claus (the Belgian, pardon, Flemish), just to think they are "different". They are not different, most of the EU countries are very, very, similar to each other. I really wish we realized that and stopped this craziness about "losing our culture", we already lost our culture, because that was the good/optimal thing to do, please let's get over it.
- Brakenshire 13y ago
  You should try asking the people around you whether they wish to give up their language and culture to become an undifferentiated province. Even in the internationalized circles in which expats move you will find almost no-one (who is not an expat) who agrees with the proposition. It may well be that many people make many small decisions which tend towards that outcome, but that is what democratic, civic decision making processes are for. You might as well say that people vote with their wallets to build on the countryside. And you only have to look at the way in which the political systems operate in different European countries to see the massive cultural differences which exist. How do you think the Danish would react to a politician like Berlusconi?
  - kfk 13y ago
    Interesting discussion, a pity HN is not made for long conversations. Political system are a complicated beast. We all watch the same movies, buy the same stuff, but, somehow, vote in completely different ways. I think it's because of how incentives are set in the respective countries. They are not really culture, but just something that's there and it is very difficult to remove. For example, the Italian systems protects pharmacies (you can have only 1 each xyz inhabitants). But the Danish system protects its economy taxing cars 180%. The principle behind those 2 policies is the same (the State can and has to affect the economy), yet the incentive this creates and the impacts on the economy are very different.