Eastern countries added to the union benefit from Union. They are the ones who are given quite a lot of money. They are not squeezed, they are directly financially benefiting.
They do receive a lot money through the funds, cheaper loans and investments, but it has to be compared to the money their counterparts earn by exploiting the much cheaper workforce, resources and energy prices in the global east. The minimum wages discussed in the article are at a 1:3 ratio. It's trivial to funnel some money back if you've managed to gain 3 foreign workers for the price of 1 domestic. There is a word for such phenomena and it's social dumping.
Why does it matter that somebody benefits more if everybody benefits?
Btw 1 foreign worker rarely equals to 1 local. Even just the quality of their work isn’t equal usually and averagely, and language, culture, distance, etc differences are on top of that. Interestingly, who moved to Western countries usually works better than those who stayed, even with the same background. Source: my Eastern European ass, who still waits a project which has outsourced workforce and they really worth it not just on paper.
> Btw 1 foreign worker rarely equals to 1 local. Even just the quality of their work isn’t equal usually and averagely, and language, culture, distance, etc differences are on top of that.
Full agreement here. 1 exploited foreign worker will have much more output than 1 local unionized, low working hours worker.
Do you have any source that an environment where quality is secondary to quantity produce more value than where quality is more important? Because, GDP on paper tells us exactly that they don’t.
For example I have a friend who worked next to the production line the exact same job for Mercedes both in Hungary and Germany. In Hungary, the quantity was way more important than quality. In Germany, the opposite. So where that same exact person produced more value?
Over time cheaper countries and regions of countries get improved standards of living etc and stop being cheap.
The Poland that joined the EU is so different from the Poland of today etc. It is subtle and not instant so perhaps younger people don’t see it so easily?
The ridiculous part is making this comparison on a per-country basis. Whole regions and their populations have been ruined by industries closing overnight to move abroad. Yet, by simplistic accounting, they should be considered winners?