So what are the opportunities there? Opening shop in spain to take advantage of an educated and competitive workforce?? Or it follows the greek way avoiding it altogether???
Its still too early, IMO. Prices aren't that cheap yet and the cost of living, while cheap, hasn't plummeted. Yes, there are a lot of people out of work, but speaking with a few folks in the last 6 months they say it is still hard to fill IT jobs.
Wait until (if) Spain exits, then capitalize. But remember, the work ethic here is not the same as elsewhere. And people who don't fit that mold are leaving the country.
If it doesn't exit... Hard to see what will happen here.
That's what I see; we tried to establish a developer team in Spain and we found out that good people went to Germany and a large portion of the remainder don't actually don't want to work. We are talking university level CS people. I was amazed by this. Even when I met one who was willing to work he wanted a contract for life and part time.
I know a lot of kids there who finished school, live with their parents on (some kind of; I'm not totally clear on this; I know they receive a few $100/month) benefits. I'm from the Netherlands and this concept is alien to me. None of the people from the schools I went to would consider living off benefits unless very ill or something like that; the ones who did not get a regular job opened companies. Probably it depends on the part of Spain but it was a strange experience.
I'm Canadian and have lived here (Spain) for 10 years.
I think it is partly a generational thing. If you find a mid-30's developer with kids, my experience is they will take what they can get. The trouble is, as you said, many have left (I know a few now in Germany) and others have simply created their own little space/niche of work.
The younger gen seems exactly as you say: back to home, parents footing the cost (I know one guy whose parent's are paying the loan on his BMW!).
At some point the pain is going to become too much and the "ni-ni"s, as they call them, are going to have to do something. Their country has already been sold, what next?
It might be true about the mid-30s for developers, but as anecdote: I read in a local newspaper about a small taxi company almost going bankrupt and we needed a taxi for quite a bit of a ride. So I called them, asked if they had time for a half day ride; they guy sounded happy and said they had. Then I told him where we live. No that was too far away (it isn't; it's a little more than half an hour drive from him); I told him we would pay for it. But it was a definite no; too far he wouldn't do it.
I see that mentality everywhere; builders (who are all out of a job now), pool cleaners, car repair etc. If something is slightly out of the comfort zone it's usually a no. How bad does it need to become before people see it doesn't work that way (anymore; obviously before 2008, if you were lucky and not too greedy, money was rather 'free' for a lot of people; for instance the local bar owner didn't have to work at all; his bar was packed every day before 2008 so he hired people, put the profit into building; unfortunately he got out too late and there you go; hard working which he 'doesn't do'. Rather live in poverty.).
The majority of the people here don't get it yet; how much pain will have to pass to sort this out. Its been a windfall for the last 10 (to 20) years, and then it is just too easy to blame the government.
I wish some form of serious, respected Spanish person, who isn't in politics, would stand up and stir the people into action as what happened in Iceland. Its sad to see a country rotting out from its core, the anger yet the complacency, the loud voices but muted actions...
The traditional way of a leader taking command and saying 'we can fix the problem sticking together, working together, with a common goal, etc' is almost impossible in Spain because we're a broken nation.
We have a huge problem with nationalism (specially in Catalonia, Basque Country, and some testing in Galicia) and in the autonomous communities (regions) without that kind of problem --like Andalusia or Valencia-- the political caste is a real tribal mafia.
Of course, in the nationalist zones the political caste is a mafia as well. 'The Caste' is the only common denominator in Spain.
Adding more emotion to the Spanish puzzle, Catalonia is trying to annex Andorra, a piece of Southern France, Valencia, and the Balearic Islands.
Basque Country is trying to annex Navarre, and another piece of Southern France.
Worth mentioning the very different Tax system in every region (in some places with huge privileges).
my experience in the Netherlands is "odd": people work, no question about that but most of the ones I know work 4-day weeks (good for work-life balance) and there are interesting benefits for people who don't work.
I'm sure it's not exact but I met people who had a high paying job, decided to leave/were fired and immediately got unemployment benefits from the government while they were looking for a new job.
Which is cool but mmmm maybe premature? If you had a high paying job for 3 years why should the government immediately step in giving you something like €500/month while you are looking for a new one? kinda removes the pressure to find a new one from day 1, doesn't it?
> If you had a high paying job for 3 years why should the government immediately step in giving you something like €500/month while you are looking for a new one? kinda removes the pressure to find a new one from day 1, doesn't it?
"The government" here is the tax payers, including the person in question, who has decided to pay into an insurance system exactly to avoid that pressure and give people a chance to look for a job without panicking over how they'll be able to pay the mortgage next month.
I'm Norwegian - the Norwegian system is similar - and was shocked when I moved to the UK, where unemployment benefits are a joke (still better than most US states) and notice periods are ridiculously short by my standard (in the UK 1 months notice is pretty standard; in Norway it's 3 months). In Norway you also get most of your salary for the first 12 months or so, I believe (it's been 12 years since I moved out, so not kept up to date how it's changed) so for most people it's way above €500/month).
If you look at unemployment in these countries when the economy is good, it's still usually low - the people who don't want to work will eventually be moved over to the regular benefits system which is far stricter and with lower amounts, and the people who do want to work rarely see unemployment benefits as some kind of paid holiday, but want to get back in work ASAP. Especially since a gap in employment will be something prospective employers will see as a worrying sign, so people are acutely aware that the longer they wait the harder it will be to get a new job at the same level.
And when times are not good is exactly when these benefits are important: We pay or dues to have a safety net in particular for those situations when it's not our fault we can't get a new job right away.
I wasn't criticising it but as usual it depends where you come from: I'm Italian, have been living in UK for 7 years and run a bunch of companies in both countries. As such I've never even considered job benefits, the way I see it is: I put enough money aside when things are good in order to be prepared for when things might not be that good.
I'm sure there are situations where really "it's not your fault" but most of the time I talk to people in dire situations they completely failed to do anything when things were going great for them. I have little sympathy for them, especially when they end up blaming everything but themselves.
Most "normal" people don't make enough money to set aside additional cash on top of the national insurance they already pay in part to cover unemployment benefits.
This is not "free money" - it is insurance payments that people in most cases have paid premiums for.
Why should people need to set aside additional money to avoid claiming benefits they are paying towards their entire working life?
> Most "normal" people don't make enough money to set aside additional cash on top of the national insurance they already pay in part to cover unemployment benefits.
please note I always referred to "people who had great periods" work and money wise
> Why should people need to set aside additional money to avoid claiming benefits they are paying towards their entire working life?
because if you are doing great how fair is it for you to be careless only because "if I need it the state will support me?" Looks to me like it quickly becomes your fault and you only subtract funds that should better be used for the people who really need the support (the people you mentioned at the beginning of your reply)
>kinda removes the pressure to find a new one from day 1, doesn't it?
Probably better both for society and business if people take a month or two to find a job that's a good fit rather than having to jump on the first one that comes.
Yeah you are right, however as I have seen, most people I have ever talked to in NL do not like getting benefits. If they are able to work, they do feel it their responsibility to do so. Of course there are plenty of exceptions, but for people say they are on benefits is something they are ashamed off. Which is a larger stimulation than money for most.
fair enough. As I wrote there is no question about the fact they work (I might not be crazy about the rhythm but that's a different thing and changes from company to company).
I'm very surprised about your experience. Unemployment hasn't hit that hard the IT sector,and finding good people ain't easy, but people willing to work on IT? There are plenty and doing very long hours...
I would guess it depends on the market you are after. I know Java devs working long hard hours and people who want to hire them that cannot find anyone. But I'm guessing those folks aren't the young crowd.
It depends a lot on how the local government want to address the issues of the debt. If it goes through massive tax increase, it's probably not a good time to setup a business there.
Best opportunity is to invest in physical silver and gold, as the euro (and by extension the dollar) will not be able to hold their value as the printing presses run ever faster...
Seriously, all the commodities guys are. If you look at gold/silver demand guess what the major determinant is - OH YEAH - JEWELLERY! You know the stuff people buy when veblen goods are popular (i.e. a strong world economy).
Your baubles are worth nothing if the 2 largest economies go down.
Everyone dumped emerging markets, the euro and stocks to buy dollars and treasuries (flight to quality during high vol.).
Not because anything drastically changed, but because of the beauty contest dynamic in markets. You predict what others may predict to happen in the short term and act accordingly.
Go buy yourself a gun, food, and some survival training if that is your position. You can't eat gold. You can't live in silver. And you most certainly can't sell it when everything goes down.
Notice the graph and its constituents. Gold/Silver guys mock us fiat currency types (i.e. everyone) when they themselves are trading the same trust based tulips as the rest of us.
Everything you trade is based on trust, and trust is, and always will be, a bet on the future being better.
Gold/Silver is a bet for the world getting better, not worse.
You can't invest in the end of the world. You can merely prepare for it.
You certainly sound ferociously biased. In another comment, you implied you're making huge trades, so it's not very surprising.
> You can't eat gold. You can't live in silver. And you most certainly can't sell it when everything goes down.
Hyperinflation in Zimbabwe ring a bell? They sure didn't seem to mind that you can't eat gold, and just went ahead and exchanged it for food instead: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HD0NWRSEjU
Your dismissal of gold as "baubles" doesn't change the fact that it does seem to work as a medium of exchange, even in a situation where a fiat currency no longer doesn't.
Sure, that's based on trust, just like you said. But mcantelon's point that gold can't be created out of thin air is relevant to that trust.
> Well seeing as my tbills represent the future output of the world's largest economies
Your T-Bills are IOU's from one of the world's largest economies, and guess what? -Those are based on trust too.
> Money moves to safety during times of high vol. People think money moves to gold, when in fact it moves to the highest quality bonds and currency.
Yes, money moves towards perceived safety. The mainstream perception of the ultimate safe investment has been US bonds.
But you know, it's possible that something else might end up being perceived as safer than US bonds. Perhaps something that's not controlled by any government, and can't be created out of thin air. Perhaps something that is still trusted as a medium of exchange.
Government bonds in general have been thought of as a safe investment, but Greece's bonds are government bonds too. Care to buy some?
I trade large currency/bond markets, not the relatively small markets like gold. I was making a point. I can't make people do things, the market is way too big (just ask the Bank of England!). Gold huggers can. Hence why I stated:
> Don't buy t-bonds, don't buy gold. Look at incentives. Look for production of useful goods. Make your own decisions.
Yeah you're picking and choosing your examples there. I only talked about super clusters (euro/dollar/yen/yuan/rupee), not POS countries in Africa that have 0 impact on global markets, as they aren't connected, or correlated. Care to read my other comments, they indicate when hyperinflation occurs:
> Hyperinflation is often associated with wars or their aftermath, political or social upheavals, or other crises that make it difficult for the government to tax the population.
Sounds like Zimbabwe now then doesn't it?
Barter > Gold. Barter is the normal medium of exchange. It scales nicely in the developing world, where things are slow, and people are poor. Gold is a POS medium of exchange for the exact reasons gold huggers love it. There isn't enough of it to do anything with. It's nothing but shiny baubles for the uncritically thinking. Why not diamonds? They're just as rare, just as hard to handle? Why not cacoa beans? Or platinum? Or terbium? HUH!
> Sure, that's based on trust, just like you said. But mcantelon's point that gold can't be created out of thin air is relevant to that trust.
Yeah that's the point. Your gold has no use in a developing country, despite what you think. People trade in dollars for a reason.
> Yes, money moves towards perceived safety. The mainstream perception of the ultimate safe investment has been US bonds.
The US has the fastest nukes, the best standing military and one of the greatest economies.
> But you know, it's possible that something else might end up being perceived as safer than US bonds. Perhaps something that's not controlled by any government, and can't be created out of thin air. Perhaps something that is still trusted as a medium of exchange.
Nothing is safer than the US government.
And do you know why?
Because if the US government isn't safe, well then, none of this matters. The US is a conduit for massive capital. It exports huge amounts of goods and services, and consumes far more. You want to bet on the end of the US? You can't, because that bet is the exact same as the one for the end of the world. You cannot invest for catastrophe. Merely depression!
Buy gold all you want. Your bet, if you look at it closely, is exactly the same as mine.
"Not.. sure.. if intentionally obtuse, or just messing with me.."
> Yeah you're picking and choosing your examples there.
Ah yes, the classic "cherry-picking" -accusation. Always a good distraction.
You said:
>> Your baubles are worth nothing if the 2 largest economies go down.
>> You can't eat gold.
I pointed out that gold was actually "worth" food in Zimbabwe, and that therefore it was unnecessary to try and subsist on it. Gold has been used as a medium of exchange for ages, and it's still useable in that capacity. It doesn't really matter why, as long as you can trade in it.
You claim that if one "super centre" goes down, all others will follow. That may be true, but it's just as possible that all super centres going down would not affect gold's useability as a medium of exchange. For example, all those piece of shit backwaters outside of your super centres may just happily continue trading in gold and whatever other currencies they happen to use.
It's also possible that all other super centres would not fall in a chain reaction.
> Barter is the normal medium of exchange.
No. Barter is a method of exchange. Gold is a medium of exchange.
Here's how barter works:
Let's say you have 10 apples, and you meet some other guy with 10 oranges. You feel like eating an orange might be fun for a change, so you suggest a trade with him. He figures he could use some apples too, and so, he accepts some apples in exchange for his oranges. You both walk away munching on your newly acquired fruity loot, and there is much rejoicing.
Now, if for some reason you don't feel like eating oranges at the time, but feel like making a trade, then a medium of exchange is necessary. You want to exchange your apples for something that you can later exchange for something other than oranges. So, the guy with the oranges needs to give you a few apples' worth of "money" - be it gold or dollars, or whatever medium of exchange you trust enough. You might even accept cocoa beans, if you believe you can exchange them for something you want later on.
OK, I suppose you get the idea, but let me know if there was a part you didn't understand.
> Your gold has no use in a developing country, despite what you think. People trade in dollars for a reason.
I'm sure we all understand that physical gold is just pretty fucking inconvenient as a medium of exchange when you want to deal with someone who's not standing right in front of you, because it can't be converted into ones and zeroes and zapped across the world. But that is completely irrelevant to gold's "worth" as long as you can, in fact, exchange gold for things of value.
On the other hand, you need to consider the possibility that fiat currencies may actually end up dying, if taken over by de-centralized, cryptographic currencies like Bitcoin. That would be a welcome change, in fact.
> But gold huggers work on a small market, and it is their incentive for others to buy into this farce. Take from that what you will (reminds me of pump and dump and the tulip mania).
You're thinking like someone used to the idea of manipulating markets to their benefit, much like a Wall Street trader might. Do you think that gold's exponential rise in the past few years just might have something to do with the on-going disaster that the world woke up to in 2008? http://www.usagold.com/reference/prices/2012jangoldprice.jpg .. or is it just "gold-huggers" working their evil schemes pumping up the price, in a time where the vast majority of investors are completely oblivious to gold as an investment or even a store of value?
Do you think that the prices of gold in various fiat currencies might actually reflect the their perceived trustworthiness as mediums of exchange?
> Nothing is safer than the US government.
Right, and the fact that your nation's external debt is more than 100% of your GDP, and currently increasing at 1.5 trillion dollars per year does not affect the trustworthiness of your IOUs? Just like it doesn't matter that various US states and municipalities are bankrupt?
> Because if the US government isn't safe, well then, none of this matters.
There are other countries out there you know. No one knows what will/would happen if the US went down in flames. But it might also not be the end of the world.
> The US is a conduit for massive capital. It exports huge amounts of goods and services, and consumes far more.
Its main export seems to be global economic calamity. I'm not sure if iDevices count as US or Chinese exports.
Most of the "assets" sloshing around the globe are of imaginary value. Debt sliced and diced into various financial instruments, etc. Bullshit, pretty much. Tens of trillions of dollars "worth" of bullshit. Again, no one knows what will happen in the world's economy, but I'm sure we could do with less bullshit.
> It's just that you don't know what you're doing.
Well what exactly am I doing? Besides, you know, educating you? :p
Well seeing as my tbills represent the future output of the world's largest economies, and one of the greatest consumers of veblen goods (which includes most of the demand for your commodities), you and I aren't so different. We bet the same.
But you have no idea what you're doing.
I merely wish to point out that you can't bet for the end of the world. You can merely prepare for it.
I can short the end of the world; as long as there is enough time between when I profit and when I cash that profit out into something that will provide me with long term value (house, etc).
For this argument, I define value as providing ME something, not value that can be traded.
Not really. You make a tonne of assumptions stating that gold will be better than paper. You assume rule of law, efficient markets, a government that will protect your assets, a place where you can spend your gains. etc. etc.
Reports of paper money's death have been greatly exaggerated.
Floating paper is here to stay people. If the world falls apart, all that matters is guns, food, water and shelter.
Your baubles are worthless without the society to back it up. And since we move trillions across nations everyday, I'm going to go ahead and say the world trade markets are synced up and highly correlated/dependent. If one super centre goes down, so does everyone else.
We live in one world now, people just don't know it yet.
>You assume rule of law, efficient markets, a government that will protect your assets, a place where you can spend your gains. etc. etc.
It sounds like you equate a hyperinflation scenario with a complete societal breakdown. That isn't necessarily the case.
>Reports of paper money's death have been greatly exaggerated.
Paper money as a tool will never die because it's convenient. Individual currencies, however, have and will. This is historical fact.
>Your baubles are worthless without the society to back it up.
Of course, but currencies collapse more commonly than societies. Value stored in commodities can be recovered. Currency value killed by hyperinflation can't.
Hyperinflation in a super centre will lead to societal meltdown, massive change in rule of law, and a massive reallocation in assets. I wouldn't be surprised if we had a revolution on our hands.
Those countries you speak of were when the markets weren't tied to each other and weren't highly correlated/dependent (1700-1960s). This was due to flux in global geopol structure where the countries didn't have much to do with each other.
Tell me the last time a developed nation got hyperinflation.
Stick your money in uncorrelated risky countries, and you take the yield, but you take the risk of hyperinflation.
>Hyperinflation in a super centre will lead to societal meltdown, massive change in rule of law, and a massive reallocation in assets.
What's a "super centre"?
>Those countries you speak of were when the markets weren't tied to each other and weren't highly correlated/dependent (1700-1960s). Tell me the last time a developed nation got hyperinflation.
Argentina (ended 1991) and Yogoslavia (ended 1994).
You have a country that went under massive transformation and another under the thumb of dictators. Two risky countries. Two high yields. Two cases of hyperinflation. Just like I said.
Hyperinflation is often associated with wars or their aftermath, political or social upheavals, or other crises that make it difficult for the government to tax the population.
Obviously the next comparison will be with the largest and most stable economies the world has ever seen, moving the largest quantities of wealth it has ever seen. Not.
Super centres are where the majority of cash moves through, either for trade or as an intermediary. Eurozone, Japan, China, America, India. Those are the places that matter.
Some small POS country in South America and another in Eastern Europe are rounding errors. Hyperinflation is only a concern for relatively risky, isolationist countries that are still undergoing societal flux.
Once again, the reports of paper money's death have been greatly exaggerated - ESPECIALLY by those who stand to benefit from it - long gold/silver etc.
>Hyperinflation is often associated with wars or their aftermath, political or social upheavals, or other crises that make it difficult for the government to tax the population.
The western world may be headed for upheaval. Globalization and technological progress are making western labor redundant and the economic center of gravity may eventually move to the East.
Transformation brings uncertainty. Paper money will always remain as a tool, but when global orders change, as they have throughout history, individual currencies may be casualties.
Thanks for the reply. Interesting, I thought (speaking roughly here) entities put money in gold during high volatility - times where its hard to find stable bonds and currency. Thinking about it, perhaps that last condition is rarely the case.
So why the "flight to gold" that is spoken of in the media?
Same reason puppies and natural disasters are in the news.
It sells papers and ads - it's link baiting in real life.
You need to look at the incentives of parties before you take their word. My incentive is obviously for people to buy dollars and treasuries, but guess what, everyone does that every day of the week (business/buying/stocks/retirement accounts). So I don't really care what gold huggers think.
But gold huggers work on a small market, and it is their incentive for others to buy into this farce. Take from that what you will (reminds me of pump and dump and the tulip mania).
Don't believe what I say, go figure stuff out for yourself. Everyone is biased.
Don't buy t-bonds, don't buy gold. Look at incentives. Look for production of useful goods. Make your own decisions.
My point was that if you bet on commodities, you bet for increased production, and increased consumption of scarce resources.
Not the end of the world.
It's no different from buying the stock of companies that sell the goods the commodities are composed of (since they demand those commodities and in turn set their prices in the market via demand).
The bonds Greece/Spain/Portugal hold and are defaulting on were largely purchased by German and French banks. These banks turned around and hedged the default risk with US banks. When the defaults occur (or if...they could choose to inflate to the moon or call the default by another name), the German banks will go to their US Bank counter parties asking to be made whole en mass. US banks will be unable to cover this pay out (unless the fed steps in with truly massive amounts of capital) and have no real reason to do so...
What we saw in the US housing crisis is now playing out on a scale of nations.
