> European economy is slow compared to the US

Define "slow". Growth rates are comparable everywhere with France and Germany fractionally ahead of the US:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/31/uk-comes-bo...

(of course all of those are pretty low at the moment, which may be a more general post-2008 problem)

"Too much social protection" and "high taxes" seem to me to be memes aimed at benefiting the top 1-10%, with little grounding in truth. If you look at marginal tax rates faced by median families, and compensate for the ways in which this includes things like healthcare which aren't included in the US, it's much less of a difference.

Slow as in not robust enough. It's essentially on life support since the EU crisis of 2011. The US has pretty much recovered after 2008. Euroscepticism is just a symptom of things going south just about everywhere in Europe except maybe Germany and Switzerland. Just look at the failed ECB stimulus policy with negative interest rates.

The US is at the opposite pole, meaning too little social protection. I was thinking about some kind of middle ground, like in Canada or the UK.

> Euroscepticism is just a symptom of things going south just about everywhere in Europe except maybe Germany and Switzerland. Just look at the failed ECB stimulus policy with negative interest rates.

That sounds wrong. Example: Czech rep. had much more expansive monetary stimulus policy (we printed quite a bit of money), is booming on Germany-level and yet is super eurosceptic.

Euroscepticism is just newest brand of populism in Europe. Especially after ECB stimulus Europe is getting better, "on life support" sounds like ridiculous hyperbole.

Its because of the migrant quotas that were imposed unilaterally.

Devaluing the CZK wouldn't have been possible if your country had switched to the Euro like Slovakia did.

The problem is the ECB does not want to devalue the Euro mainly because German fears of hyperinlfation. So they're trying to stimulate sluggish growth with negative interest rates. Which doesn't work. It only destroys pensions because it's esentially a tax on money.

And then no one will have jobs and be able to buy any of the goods produced by robots.

Which part of Waitress, Bus Drivers, Cleaners, etc get Robots took over in the past 20 years? ( Not now when AI and Robots are in use, but in the past )

Yes technology was part of it, but rampant inflation or vast increase of liquidity is also another factor, and economist are still puzzled as to why wages aren't going up.

They weren't cheap enough over the last 20 years. But they took over various manufacturing sectors, from vehicles to food.

Your obvious cleaning suspects are maybe the first ones to go. Most of the floor cleaning nowadays is done by people operating some sort of cleaning vehicle. Also, most niche cleaning jobs requiring more detail won't be replaced by robots soon. Truck and bus drivers will probably go as well, maybe in 20-30 years. Until then, this sector is just going to get more regulated with electronic log books, dynamic weight checks, satellite tracking and such. Waitresses I rather doubt will go away doring my lifetime.