Do you have any sources for the claim that a large part of growth is off-shoring?

Because that seems extremely implausible, and actually very insulting to the incredible success of Eastern Europe, before and after joining the EU, in closing the gap to Western Europe over the last 3 decades.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-worldbank?...

Large part is due to offshoring, but not the IT. Offshoring the manufacturing.

Also some companies are moving their offices from Poland to India now.

China was the offshore haven and built their own domestic economy off the expertise while still maintaining very low income taxes and 15% corporate tax for tech companies.

You dont have money, you complain. You (as in your country) get the money, yet you still complain.

Sure, its not ideally distributed, but nowhete is. Such economic success will drag many parts of the country up. Yes, jobs not paid the best will have to commute from further. But compared to where Poland was 2 decades ago (been there many times), its great growth and success.

Plus you guys have correct mentality to by far the biggest threat to Europe - russia. Not so common in eastern Europe, russian-paid politicians are quite successful in some places. But of course Poland has a history with russia to remember so thats luckily not an option.

Hungary is massively pro-EU as shown by polls (86% in 2025).

They didn't do a 180 at all. Tusk basically shares Orban's entire platform, particularly vis-à-vis the EU. Orban just got caught in corruption scandals.

Thankfully most people have learned from the absolute shambles of Brexit and either of these countries leaving is extremely unlikely.

There is pretty common trend of people complaining about X being bad coz EU but most of the time it turns into one of

* It was pretty sensible EU directive implemented badly by national govt * It was pretty sensible EU directive implemented okay but communicated badly * Outright lie about the problem and the scope of it.

One example: The people complained that "EU will force them to pay to scrap solar panels"

The truth: Some countries added price of recycling into price of the solar panels, some didn't. Those that did had free recycling, those that didn't needed owner to pay a fee when scrapping it. So, naturally, buying solar panel from country with no fee was cheaper and scrapping it in country with fee was free. EU noticed that loophole and forced countries into including the fee in panel cost:

The truth: Poland applied it by just applying fee to panels bought before the rule unification

The lie number 1: EU forced that implementation on Poland. Nothing was forced, that way of "fixing it" (vs eating the cost was what Polish govt chose

The lie number 2: (and I have no idea where it came from) "You will have to scrap your panels made before this date AND pay for it".

Sometimes I suspect most of that is just russian propaganda using anything to undermine EU

Thinking about that risk increases said risk.

Also, for Germany, and I assume, other EU countries, cohesion and economic strength of the EU is the most important value that exists.

This is how it works. Ireland was a net beneficiary until 2018, and now it is a net contributor (one of only 10 net contributors). These are decades long investments, Poland joined in 2004. Per capita Poland is not the "greatest" beneficiary but I don't think that will help win any arguments for those already resistant to facts or reasoning. https://www.euronews.com/business/2024/12/09/eu-budget-who-p...

The argument that red states receive handouts is essentially a myth. Almost the entirety of the "handout" is social security/medicare based on where retirees live (notably the sunbelt), where military bases are located (rural areas of less populous states), and where most Federal land management offices and employees are located (the mountain west). Ironically, it counts Federal employment as "welfare" with more steps.

Two of the three are intrinsically tied to the locale. You can't move the National Forests to Manhattan. They closed the military bases in the most expensive areas like California decades ago to save money so they are mostly located in flyover country now.

Social Security actually is a welfare handout but retirees are choosing to move to red states. Unless one is arguing to forcibly prevent retirees from moving to the sunbelt, Social Security dollars will disproportionately flow into those states.

There is no red state "handout".

People need something to resent or hold in disregard. Government and taxes are a good target. The problem only really begin when someone actually tries to reduce or eliminate that target. It's the old "be careful what you ask for, you might just get it".

>This is something I tell people I am generally politically/socially align with (liberals/progressives) when they start talking about “handouts for red states.” California and other areas were not developed on their own, they required years of sustained federal investment and interest in the area.

If they were to ask where you think this "federal investment" funding came from, what would you reply?

A rising tide lifts all boats

> California and other areas were not developed on their own, they required years of sustained federal investment and interest in the area.

In a similar way, Western Europe benefited from a lot of investment after WW2, while Eastern Europe didn't receive the same investment then.

So the recent investment OP mentioned is just balancing the scales.

Economic zones are NOT zero sum.

OTOH, the more developed EU countries want the less developed countries to be reasonably well-off, so they can keep buying stuff from them. E.g. 56% of Germany's exports went to other EU countries in 2025. And, while Trump and Xi Jin Ping are around, that's only going to become more important...

The Holocaust was a decision taken by one of the two pillars of the EU, Germany, so countries nowadays being rich or poor has nothing to do with past “good” decisions of those countries populaces. And before anyone commenting that the Holocaust and the German economy are two orthogonal subjects, just look at the corporate history of German industry giants VW and Bayer.

Not the same extent like it was before… Now most of the times is just slowed down traffic (quick glance who's in car and move on), and more than that I was maybe stopped two times for quick chit-chat (where/why I'm heading). And I crossed, multiple times, borders of DK (they had checks since 2018?), DE, A, IT, CH, CZ…

Quick ID check happened once - when I was traveling with bus across border.

Back in a days it was a lot, lot slower and more detailed.

Try going to Switzerland by car (from France for example), and you'll see what an actual border check is.

Pretty different from having a chance to be stopped by a random check while crossing.

I was just in Europe this February. I took a bus from France to Germany and customs checked the passports of everyone on board.

I think this is the hidden reason why the American alt-right/far-right/MAGA/techbro types hate the EU with so much apoplectic rage. For all its problems, big-picture-like it actually works to gradually coalesce a huge rich continent with a bigger population than the US into something increasingly more coherent, and if it continues to work it will mean that the Western world now has two heavyweight leaders, not one. For people who tend to view the world as a giant zero-sum dominance competition, this is of course a big threat. One more big player = one more competitor.

(The techbros hate it for a different, if related, reason - they aren't nearly as successful at capturing regulators, astroturfing and controlling discourse, and otherwise taking charge of that second entity as they are with the hapless US federal government).

>Today they're the most dynamic economies in the EU in many respects

In what sense are they "dynamic economies"? Their GDP per capita has barely increased at all over the past two decades, they're mired in debt, and haven't produced a single new company that's significant on the global stage.

That is incorrect for Portugal. We didn't took part on the WWII and came out with a rich country that kept growing on double-digits. Eventually it was attacked simultaneouly by the US/Russia proxies for 10 years until 1974.

It was after that US/Russia sponsored this communist takeover of our country that the new puppet governments have thrown the natives into extreme misery until someone from the EU decided to reduce the levels of corruption and misery. We simply swapped one master for another and hasn't been good for our land.

So please don't compare our country to whatever "solutions" brought by the same entities who caused our problems in the first place. We needed almost 50 years to remove socialism from this country and reduce the venezuelan/cuban style poverty forced upon us.

Spain is often given as an example of a failed economy ruined by socialists. GDP per capita is basically flat over the last 2 decades, $30K. https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/esp/spa... vs Poland that tripled or let's say Israel that had the same GDP as Spain and now has double.

So your measure for success is how people get to put a piece of paper in a box every four years whilst their issues get ignored.

As noted in the other comment Poland is not even getting that much money per capita, it’s just a fairly large country.

They are still getting half of what Belgium is getting and unlike the overwhelming majority of bureaucrats in Brussels Polish farmers actually produce something useful.

Yes, in the EU they call it 'sharing'

That's like the entire point of the EU yes, most people agree it's better than what we used to have, considering how it went in 1914 and 1939 for example

Money is a claim on future work - it only works if the system works.

This is what capitalists literally do with workers. It's not like capitalists are creating anything valuable, they're just leeches extracting wealth.

I rather have workers get the money than more corporate welfare.

Lots of people who work in Luxembourg don't live there so anything "per capita" is a bit misleading.

Additionally a lot of the EU's institutions are based there or have offices there, some of which might count as investments as well.

Lastly, everything there is really expensive. So you need to invest a larger amount to achieve the same thing as elsewhere.

I presume this is because of the EU institutions there and that expenditure to maintain those institutions counts towards receipts (and this effect is then exaggerated due to Luxembourg's small population). Certainly no one in the EU is under any illusion that Luxembourg is poor, much less vastly poorer than the next poorest EU country.

Notoriously difficult to portray correctly in EU money-shuffling statistics. Some money not granted to the grand duchy still filed under "beneficiary country: Luxembourg" due to some program or institution being headquartered there. And it is essentially impossible to compare apples to apples what happens in actual EU budget and what happens in Kirchberg, home to EIB.

Small population plus lots of EU institutions.

The largest EU benefit is that it makes democratic and rule of law backsliding unlikely. So if you invest money in Poland you can be reasonably sure that it won't get stolen from you. Hungary was a demonstration that this works over the long term.

Yes - main benefit of EU is regulatory stabilization and open market. Ironically also this was working also before joining EU (most of the adjustment happening as requirement to join EU and implemented before joining).

Indeed. The self-congratulatory narrative around "EU funds" is obnoxious and ignorant. As you say, Poland's economic growth was similar before it had joined the EU. (Many economists then thought Poland's accession in 2004 was premature and should have been postponed.) Causes were cultural (there is a strong, traditional entrepreneurial streak in Polish culture) and related to the economic reforms undertaken during the transition from the centrally-planned economy of the socialist period. People need to remember that Poles did not choose the communist regime after the War. It was thuggishly and violently imposed onto Poland by the occupying Soviets. Poles merely endured a provisional acceptance of the regime, because they had no choice.

Furthermore, as the GP hints, EU funds earmarked for Poland don't necessarily remain in Poland as investment. Much of that money circulates back into the pockets of contributing countries. You have to look at the entire paper trail to understand where money is actually ending up.

Also worth noting: Poland didn't receive a dime of reparations after the War. Germany (and with later contribution by the Soviets) had unleashed such mind-boggling destruction on Polish cities, towns, cultural inheritance, industry, etc. that only the so-called Swedish Deluge matches or exceeds this devastation.

The EU presents certain clear economic benefits for member countries. Nobody disputes that. But the patronizing and paternalistic narrative of some countries - reminiscent of their goofy rationalizations for their occupation of that region during the 19th century - need to go away.

At one point, don't remember when, the money sent back home by Polish immigrants was about 8% of Poland's GDP. So 1% is not that much.

That's not really my experience as a person born and raised in Poland.

If anything the decades of communist occupation destroyed the work ethic.

We have a famous saying "whether you stand or lay down, you deserve 1000zł".

And intelligent, hence the Nazi stereotype.

Well not forced no, but if the people of both countries agreed to it, sure why not?

Ever closer union is the official slogan of the EU, this is working as intended.

> Mind you that Polish workers are the next in line to be screwed if Ukraine joins the EU.

So when German workers got screwed when Poland joined EU it was fine, but Poland is where you draw the line?

NAFTA was pretty beneficial until people went nuts about it.

Per capita Slovakia gets more EU funding than Poland yet the results are poor.

Conservative estimates put the embezzled amount around 60,000,000,000 Euros. The upcoming government says it’s at least the double of this.

The article on AP literally has a graph showing outsized growth of Poland compared to these countries (measured in GDP per capita).

Indeed hilarious considering my grandparent still remember being put into a german nazi concentration camp.

> As someone who has lived in both countries its such a hilarious anxiety.

What's hilarious about it? It seems pretty well-rooted given the actual history of the two areas.

- 1939: Germany invaded in 1939, officially starting World War II.

- 1941: Germany occupied the rest of Poland after attacking the Soviet Union, which had previously occupied Eastern Poland.

- Teutonic Order/Prussia: Throughout the 13th–16th centuries, the Teutonic Order fought numerous wars against Poland.

- Medieval Period: Records show invasions by Margrave Gero (963), Margrave Odo I (972), Emperor Otto II (979), and multiple campaigns by King Heinrich II between 1003 and 1017.

It’s been barely two generations since the death camps. My grandma, who is still alive, can tell you stories of seeing trains take half her village away.

Intergenerational trauma is a real psychological phenomenon.

A „hilarious anxiety” is an incredibly naive world view.

Germans probably won't attack anyone anymore, that is true.

But Germans making huge mistakes out of misguided idealism is still a problem. And given the size and influence of Germany, the rest of the continent has always to process those mistakes as well.

I'm wondering how much of the net contribution comes from tech companies and how it compares to the loss of taxes due to Ireland acting as a tax haven for tech companies.

EDIT: Net contributions seem to be $3bn/year (total, independent of tech) while loss for other EU countries due to corporate tax evasion is $6bn/year.

> Notice also that German social security institutions are filled to the brim with Eastern European claimants.

Utterly false: nationals of Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania account for approximately 4.9% of all SGB-II Leistungsberechtigte (~256,000 of 5.24 million as of December 2025).

> The Marshall plan also did not involve the US having completely free access to Germany economically and move all their companies to Germany for cheaper wages.

This is such a bizarre point. The openness of the common market goes both ways, you do realise that, right? For more than the first decade after the accession of the Central Eastern European countries to the EU, Western European countries saw an influx of workers that were well educated (or skilled in trade professions), which helped fill the gaps in their labour market. So if you were going to try to draw an analogy here, you’d also have to point out that the US didn’t import millions of Germans after the war into its own labour market. Well, barring some rocket scientists who had built weapons of mass destruction and death for Hitler.

Anyway, yes, that’s how the common market works: companies can move operations to countries where labour is cheaper (in Poland), but other companies have encouraged labour to move where they already operate (in Germany). And what’s forgotten in this discussion is that the cohesion subsidies are in fact a form of compensation for the inherent imbalance that a pure common market would exhibit. That’s why it took years in negotiations for those poorer countries to decide under what terms they’re actually willing to open up their markets, and in many cases it’s been a very controversial issue.

>How can you honestly say that though. A blatant overgeneralization of a large group of people, but this has been a recurring theme on HN lately.

Perhaps there is a miscommunication. What I meant to say is, I have not seen it mentioned a single time over many hours of arguing on HN about the US/Europe relationship. It's not an 'overgeneralization', simply an observation.

>In the meantime, streets have been named after Marshall, plaques and statues have been erected (including recent times) at least in the more Western parts of continential Europe where much of the Marshall Plan funds ended up, and its extreme importance is quite an ingrained part of WW2 school history education. Just as one example, Arnhem was largely rebuilt using these funds and has historically paid homage and still does today with such tributes and memorials.

That is nice to hear. But it doesn't seem to stop US-bashing from being the continent's trendiest hobby. I never saw a European say to another: "Hey now, they did do the Marshall Plan for us. Maybe the Yanks aren't always bad."

The problem is that US establishment politicians have traditionally sold US foreign policy to voters as "a responsibility to uphold freedom and democracy" and so forth. Then Americans hear directly from the supposed beneficiaries of this "responsibility", and the sentiment is overwhelmingly negative. The American voter feels betrayed, and wants out of the arrangement. It contributes to (1) anti-establishment sentiment, and (2) isolationist sentiment.

The condescending attitude of Europeans ("NATO is mainly to benefit US interests, you American fool", without being very specific about those interests aside from vague handwaving towards the Middle East, where most of us want less involvement anyhow) is not helping matters.