Millions of Europeans continue to struggle with low incomes, yet the level considered sufficient for a comfortable life differs sharply across the continent. New Eurostat data shows that more than 72 million people in the EU were classed as “at risk of poverty” in 2024, equal to 16.2 percent of the population, underscoring how living conditions vary dramatically between countries.

The impact of the slowdown in major global economies will be “smaller” on the UAE’s growth and exports due to its relatively less exposure to those markets compared to other markets across the region, the World Bank said.

Eurostat defines the at-risk-of-poverty rate as the proportion of people whose median equivalised disposable income falls below 60 percent of their national median. The agency stresses that this measure reflects low income relative to peers rather than actual deprivation, meaning it does not directly indicate whether someone is unable to meet basic needs.

Across the EU, the median equivalised income per person in 2024 was €21,582. Anyone living on less than €12,949 per year, or roughly €1,079 per month, is considered at risk of poverty. Country-level thresholds, however, reveal wide economic divides. In the EU, the level ranges from €391 per month in Bulgaria to €2,540 in Luxembourg. When including candidate countries and EFTA members, the range stretches from €201 in Turkey to €2,596 in Switzerland.

Several countries, including Latvia, Portugal, Croatia, Lithuania, Poland, Greece and Slovakia, have thresholds below €750. Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia and Turkey fall below €500. Among the EU’s largest economies, Germany records the highest threshold at €1,381, followed by France at €1,278, Italy at €1,030 and Spain at €965.

For households, the gap becomes even more visible. A family of two adults with two children under 14 faces a threshold 2.1 times higher than that of a single person. This equals €2,266 in the EU, €423 in Turkey and €5,452 in Switzerland.

Economists note that these variations reflect differences in productivity and industrial structure. Giulia De Lazzari of the International Labour Organization said countries with strong finance, technology or advanced manufacturing sectors tend to generate higher wages, which lifts their poverty thresholds.

The gaps narrow when measured in purchasing power standards, designed to account for price differences. Even then, significant contrasts remain. In PPS terms, thresholds range from 449 in Serbia to 1,889 in Luxembourg. Turkey, Hungary, Slovakia and Greece rank among the lowest, while Norway, Switzerland, Austria and the Netherlands sit near the top. Among major economies, Germany has the highest threshold, with France next. Spain and Italy are both recorded at 1,060.

Eurostat’s 2024 figures show that the overall at-risk-of-poverty rate stands at 16.2 percent across the EU. The lowest rate is found in Czechia at 9.5 percent, while Turkey and North Macedonia exceed 22 percent. Many Balkan and Eastern European countries register higher exposure. Among Europe’s largest economies, Spain has a rate of 19.7 percent and Italy 18.9 percent, while France at 15.9 percent and Germany at 15.5 percent remain slightly below the EU average.

Bitcoin remains under pressure after a turbulent two months in which the cryptocurrency shed significant value, rattled by global economic uncertainty and intense market speculation. The token, which surged to record highs earlier this year, briefly fell below $90,000 this week for the first time in seven months before edging back to around $91,800 by Thursday afternoon in Europe. It did enjoy a modest 0.73% lift on Thursday, helped by a rebound in global stocks after stronger-than-expected earnings from Nvidia eased fears of an AI-driven market bubble.

Analysts say Bitcoin’s troubles can be traced back to 10 October, when a dramatic crash erased more than $1 trillion in value across the broader crypto market. The selloff accelerated after US President Donald Trump threatened new tariffs on China, sparking fresh anxiety about the global economy. More than $19 billion in leveraged positions were wiped out as prices tumbled sharply.

“There have been several catalysts, but it seems as if the biggest drivers are long-term selling by ‘OGs’, an uncertain economic climate, and a mass deleveraging event on the 10th October,” said Nic Puckrin, CEO of Coin Bureau. He noted that “OGs” — long-time Bitcoin holders sitting on large reserves — have been steadily offloading their positions, adding considerable supply to the market.

The downturn has coincided with a period of heightened uncertainty in the United States, where a government shutdown has delayed key economic data releases and complicated forecasts for growth and inflation. Investors are now reconsidering expectations of an interest-rate cut at the Federal Reserve’s December meeting. Transcripts from the Fed’s October discussions show policymakers split on whether borrowing costs should be reduced, adding to volatility across financial markets.

“Bitcoin is increasingly driven by macro moves,” Puckrin said, reflecting concerns that as crypto becomes more intertwined with mainstream markets, shocks in one sector could trigger turbulence in another.

But not all analysts blame the losses on economic policy or geopolitics. Carol Alexander, a cryptocurrency expert and finance professor at the University of Sussex, said Bitcoin’s price swings often stem from aggressive tactics used by professional traders on offshore exchanges. These platforms, which face minimal oversight, allow hedge funds and high-frequency trading firms to employ strategies such as spoofing and order-book manipulation to trigger rapid movements.

“Their business model relies on generating sharp volatility. They do not care whether the price rises or falls; they care only that it moves quickly,” Alexander said. She warned that retail investors often take on extreme leverage in an attempt to chase gains, only to be wiped out when markets swing against them. Liquidity dries up once those smaller traders are forced out, she added, often triggering a sharp rebound that encourages new speculation. “The whole system behaves like a football match played in a stadium with no referee.”

Despite the setbacks, some analysts believe the market is nearing a floor. Puckrin expects a recovery, citing growing institutional participation and broader adoption of crypto-related technology. “Crypto has been through multiple cycles and it always emerges stronger,” he said.

Meta secured a major legal victory on Tuesday after a US federal judge ruled that the company’s acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp do not violate antitrust law, ending a high-stakes challenge that aimed to break up one of the world’s largest technology firms.

US District Judge James Boasberg issued the ruling months after the trial concluded in late May. The decision rejects the Federal Trade Commission’s attempt to prove that Meta holds a monopoly in social networking and maintained that position through unlawful tactics. The outcome contrasts sharply with recent rulings against Google, which was found to hold illegal monopolies in online search and digital advertising.

In a detailed opinion, Boasberg wrote that the FTC failed to demonstrate that Meta currently dominates the market to the extent required to justify federal intervention. “Whether or not Meta enjoyed monopoly power in the past, the agency must show that it continues to hold such power now. The Court’s verdict today determines that the FTC has not done so,” he stated.

The FTC argued that Meta followed a strategy expressed by CEO Mark Zuckerberg in 2008: “It is better to buy than compete.” The agency said Meta monitored rising rivals and acquired promising companies to avoid competitive threats. Prosecutors pointed to internal emails from the period surrounding the Instagram purchase as evidence that the company acted to shut down competition.

Zuckerberg, testifying in April, disputed claims that Instagram was bought to neutralise a challenger. He acknowledged the authenticity of the emails but said they did not reflect the full reasoning behind the acquisition. Boasberg stressed that the case hinged not on events from a decade ago — including the acquisitions the FTC previously approved — but on whether Meta now violates antitrust law. To win, prosecutors were required to prove a current or imminent breach.

The agency also accused Meta of adopting policies that made it harder for new entrants to build scale as the industry shifted from desktop computers to mobile devices. The judge noted that the tech landscape has transformed significantly since the FTC filed the lawsuit in 2020. Platforms such as TikTok, absent from early rulings in the case, now play a central role in global social media competition.

Meta welcomed the ruling. Chief legal officer Jennifer Newstead said it “recognises that Meta faces fierce competition” and added that the company will continue working with US authorities while investing domestically.

Analysts said the decision aligns with recent industry trends as Meta races to keep pace with newer rivals. Still, they noted that major social platforms face upcoming US trials next year tied to concerns about young users’ mental health.

Meta’s acquisitions of Instagram in 2012 for about $1 billion and WhatsApp in 2014 for $22 billion helped the company shift from desktop to mobile and retain younger audiences. Despite the significance of Tuesday’s ruling, shares of Meta closed slightly lower, matching movements across broader markets.