Those laws are what is more enlightened about Europe. Most people recognize that Unions are an important part of their social fabric over there and they support that, not just tolerate it.
Saying something--anything--"shows enlightenment" is nothing more than the speaker's opinion. If what you like is acted on, then of course, they're "enlightened." If they do what you don't like, then they just obviously don't know any better. Statistically speaking, with this country's continually declining union membership numbers, would you say that the US is becoming "less and less enlightened"?
After the tragedy of WWII, they recognized that extremism of any kind is not good for the public good. They therefore embarked on a strategy of making sure that most things remain calm and steady, middle of the road. Socialism is not considered a bad thing over there, nor is the term purposely misused to scare people like it's being done here in the US.
Again, it is opinion that making things "calm, steady and middle of the road" is the best thing for everyone. And I renew my opinion that the people of Europe are so used to being told what to do for centuries, that they go along with whatever they're told to do. That ovine behavior is not necessarily good.
Well, Bubba if you put it like they do on Hannitty's show or Fat Bastard Radio Hour then of course that doesn't look fair. The hidden blessing is that their version of what they want to tell us about Europe is a gross exaggeration.
I've heard of Hannitty, but not Fat Bastard Radio Hour, but my opinions are my own. I don't watch Fox news OR MSNBC. Do right wing people accentuate unions' missteps and problems? I'm sure they. But I'm just as sure that left wing people minimize and cover them up. That's called politics.
Europe did not loose its battle about Unionization, they won it and put it to bed!
This is of course purely opinion, held by left wing believers. Others think differently. Kinda' like the US thinking the Vietnam was was lost, while the Vietnamese communists think the war was won.
Europe is also not collapsing under its own weight of financial obligations. Instead, they are suffering from an identity crisis which has led them to not finishing the conversion to the Euro completely. In other words they share a currency while still allowing separate monetary policies. This has predictably devolved into the current fiscal mess. They could fix it quite easily though by just issuing a European Bond and the whole thing goes away.
This is what's called a rationalization. They most certainly are collapsing financially. It's pie in the sky to think that it's simple to fix, just by "issuing bonds" or finishing the Euro conversion. The countries in the biggest trouble are already using the Euro; there's only a few that don't these days. As a matter of fact, the UK (one of the few countries who don't, hasn't because they're afraid it will hurt them too much). And saying that issuing anything will solve the problem of absurdly excessive obligations tied to insufficient income is nothing more than denial bordering on lunacy.
(Kind of like the US Bond compensating for the fact that Mississippi is a total financial basket case.)
Ironic that you should use Mississippi as your US example. In 2010 (the year I saw data for), there were only three states that took in more federal dollars than they contributed in taxes. Do you get what that means? The federal government was helping support them with other states' money, i.e. they were a drain on the rest of us. Know what those states were? California, New York and Michigan. The first two, the most left-leaning, "trying to be Europe" states; while Michigan made the list probably due to the massive unemployment tied to problems with the auto industry.
The problem is that many people in Europe, just like here in the US, are nostalgic for the past and don't realize that this irrational, emotional baggage is keeping them from a more prosperous and stable future. The obvious and sane economic solution is being held up by tribal political concerns that are difficult to manage by politicians who may still feel the need to stay in office.
Got it--if they'd only let go, and let big brother take care of them, everything will be fine. The government will give you everything they tell you that you need.
Why is it that Americans like you, are always so convinced that life in Europe is so bad, when in actuality Europe exceeds the US in quality of life scores by almost any measure you care to look at? Do you have personal experience of having lived there?
Quality of life is the most subjective term of art in existence. Hell, just ask any Airtran pilot about that. I've spent a lot of time in Europe, and although I've lived in Asia, I haven't in Europe. However, I would never want to LIVE anywhere but the US. In my opinion, quality of life starts first and foremost at freedom. Part of that means the freedom to achieve whatever I can through MY work; and to not have my wealth "averaged" with everyone else, for the collective good.
If you think their system is so much better, why don't YOU live over there? That's not a gibe, it's a legitimate question. Speaking of immigration and emigration, and discounting Latin America, why do you think more Europeans immigrate here than Americans emigrate to Europe?
BTW: Are you also against SWAPA making it more difficult for LUV"s management to pull off the merger between you and the AT crews, or are you in this case fully on the "socialistic" side in order to protect what you feel is rightfully yours? I guess it really is just a matter of perspective.
I'm trying to figure what you mean here; you have too many negatives. To answer what I think you're asking, I'm for SWAPA and management working together to get this deal done as quickly and efficiently as possible for everyone's sake--employees', management's and shareholders' alike. I don't know if I answered what you asked or not.