This is unpersuasive on several levels. Unemployment in Limerick is higher than in Lodz, though obviously GDP per capita is higher in Ireland. Second, subsidized relocations, in my book, should always be banned. If a company wants to relocate on its own dime, that is its right, but governments shouldn't be encouraging it. Finally, even by the Commission's own logic, that the development of the EU as a whole would be maximized by putting the plant in the region with the lower income, the argument fails. It's not like Nitra was much richer than Lodz. Large firms investing in Nitra are eligible to receive subsidies of up to 40% of the investment, whereas in Lodz the limit is 50%. I would argue that, at most, the incentive given in the poorer region should be no more than 10 percentage points higher than in the richer region. Instead, the Commission allowed Poland to give a subsidy equal to the cost difference at the two locations (in other words, it was more efficient to produce in Slovakia) of 27.81% of the value of the investment (versus 0 at Nitra). Thus, the decision was inefficient with respect to developing the new Member States, and unfair to the Irish workers.
EU state aid rules are generally fair, efficient, and a lot better than unregulated competition for investment like we see in the U.S., but subsidized relocations are still a glaring hole in their rules, as I argue in Investment Incentives and the Global Competition for Capital (see https://www.palgrave.com/products/title.aspx?pid=358902).
North Carolina state and local governments gave Dell at least $242 million in incentives in 2005, but the plant only employed 1400 at its height and had already dwindled to 905 at the time of the closure announcement. Note that this is a whole lot more than Ireland gave over the life of all Dell Ireland facilities (about $72 million at $1.35 to the euro) and a whole, whole lot more on a per-job basis ($172,000+ in NC based on maximum employment vs. $16,000 in Ireland based on employment at the time of the closure, which is being generous to NC), underscoring my point that the EU rules are generally much better. Fortunately, like the EU, North Carolina has clawback rules for its subsidies, so Dell will have to repay most if not all of the money it had already received because it had not kept the plant open 5 years. Clawback provisions are spreading in the U.S., but are hardly universal as in the EU.
]]>"In Britain, only 8 percent of the population is Catholic (compared with 25 percent in the United States). Abortion there is legal. Abortion is free. And yet British women have fewer abortions than Americans do. I asked Cardinal Hume why that is.
"The cardinal said that there were several reasons but that one important explanation was Britain's universal health-care system. "If that frightened, unemployed 19-year-old knows that she and her child will have access to medical care whenever it's needed," Hume explained, "she's more likely to carry the baby to term. Isn't it obvious?""
If you want to choose an arcane budget rule over actually reducing the number of abortions in this country, that is simply self-defeating.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/12/AR2010031202287.html
The vocal opponent of health care reform in the U.S. steered largely clear of the topic except to reveal a tidbit about her life growing up not far from Whitehorse.
''We used to hustle over the border for health care we received in Canada,'' she said. ''And I think now, isn't that ironic.''