Americans and European welfare states.

[Thorgalaeg]

Maybe on a state or regional-level, but nationwide? No.

That is an argument i read in this sort of topics again and again. What do you mean exactly? Do you mean what only some states could have it but others not?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Whoa. Who said social mobility was a right or easy?

You didn't say that, but its a commonly held myth by the capitalists that run this place.

I put in long ass hours (sometimes bored out of my skull, sometimes busy as hell) and make less than 30K a year. And since I am self-employed, I pay a nice big federal tax bill to cover what an employer takes care of for employees normally.

I'm sure you know better than most, then, the insane things a small businessman goes through to start and maintain a business, most of all the taxes which, I assure you, big businesses do not pay. They are specifically designed to strangle competition before it gets too strong to be a threat to their markets. Basically, they don't care what you do until it threatens their money.

Someone whining about $10/hr doesn't have to worry about paying their own self-employment taxes, so excuse me if I don't give them a hanky while they cry me a river.

Huh?

By and large (yes, there are of course examples where this doesn't pan out) if you work hard and don't give up, you'll be financially stable in America. I do not say rich, or even middle class, but you'll have a roof over your head and food and clothing.

I'm don't disagree. But we were talking about the viability of self-employment.

I don't recall reading anywhere in the Constitution about a right to two brand new cars, a new big house, and the ability to go out to eat all the time or the movies.

Indeed it doesn't.

You are straying very far from the original issue here, which is that capitalists deny their workers part of the money they are entitled to by having produced the product his company sells, and thus, the wealth that his company creates.

Back that claim up. I bet you if I went through every independently owned business in a ten county surrounding area, the majority of them are run and owned by the very people who started them. Ted probably still runs "Ted's Heating and Cooling", Martha probably still runs and owns "Martha's flowers", and so forth.

Probably, because most small businesses fail. But at any rate, he was probably referring to corporations and larger businesses. Indeed, even I have no problem with private small business ownership, its how the businesses are run that I take issue with.

Well, he said "nominal", and we have a huge GDP.

In that context, then, his statement means absolutely nothing.

 

[Antilogic]

Just look at the American responses to the ''Whats wrong with socialism'' thread to get an idea of the American perspective.

That's actually both a really good indicator of how much Americans know about socialism (read: the average guy knows nothing, and a handful who actually know stuff are shouted down).

Don't underestimate the iron grip that American corporations have on our political system. Take health care for example. Insurance companies and big pharma own most of Congress, and have the money and organization to shoot down any reforms that seriously threaten them. The American people may overwhelmingly prefer something a lot closer to European health coverage concepts than the existing American system, but that matters little.

Obama has already revealed enough about his character to show that he will not be launching a dramatic move to the left on safety-net issues. His endorsement of the Great American Bank Robbery - the giant corporate welfare grab where banks take $trillions from taxpayers - is proof enough.

Corporate interests are stronger in the US than Europe. I think that has to do with both the lively lobbying community (okay, every first-world "democracy" probably has one) and the way litigation is handled here. When a law is finally passed, it is typically vague and its exact application is hammered out when somebody finally sues over the new law in court. Then, the group with the best lawyers gets to decide the outcome.

And yes, it's the lawyers that decide, not the jury. After all, the lawyers can object to a potentional juror based on "bias", and no good lawyer would be stupid enough to let somebody on the jury who remotely knew anything about the case or wasn't an impressionable moron.



I read the article awhile ago, and I don't think the vacation money or anything like that will happen in the USA. But a switch to a state healthcare system currently has some political momentum, and that might get through.

 

[mangxema]

That is an argument i read in this sort of topics again and again. What do you mean exactly? Do you mean what only some states could have it but others not?

There are several things... the main one is the fact that normally it's in response to someone who says 'If countries in Europe can do it, the US can do it too.' You have to remember the scale involved, though. The article is on the Netherlands, which is a tiny, relatively homogenous country. The United States is neither of those things. You are not going to get the folks in Alabama and Massachusetts to agree on anything. So really, the proper analogy is to compare States, which are oftentimes bigger than countries in Europe.

Also, there is the fact that the federal government has only so much authority, by design. Anything not specifically given to the federal government is a state issue. I suppose you might be able to interpret certain parts of the Constitution to allow that sort of thing (I am by no means a constitutional scholar) but at any rate it has never been interpreted that way before and would need a lot of convincing, I think. So federal action is tricky. The states, though, can due whatever the hell they want; it's their prerogative and they don't need anyone else's permission if that's the direction the want to go.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

There are several things... the main one is the fact that normally it's in response to someone who says 'If countries in Europe can do it, the US can do it too.' You have to remember the scale involved, though. The article is on the Netherlands, which is a tiny, relatively homogenous country. The United States is neither of those things. You are not going to get the folks in Alabama and Massachusetts to agree on anything. So really, the proper analogy is to compare States, which are oftentimes bigger than countries in Europe.

Lots of countries in Europe are comparable to USA in population, Germany or UK have big populations and his healthcare system is similar to the ones from much smaller countries. Even countries much bigger than USA have or are planning some sort Universal Care Systems, as China or India. It is about GDP per capita not about gross numbers. About homogeneity, take for instance Spain, a fairly large country (45 millions AFAIK) more heterogeneous than USA. However everybody here agrees on universal care.

Also, there is the fact that the federal government has only so much authority, by design. Anything not specifically given to the federal government is a state issue. I suppose you might be able to interpret certain parts of the Constitution to allow that sort of thing (I am by no means a constitutional scholar) but at any rate it has never been interpreted that way before and would need a lot of convincing, I think. So federal action is tricky. The states, though, can due whatever the hell they want; it's their prerogative and they don't need anyone else's permission if that's the direction the want to go.

There is no need to have a centralized homogeneous system. Like USA, Spain is divided in something similar to states called "Autonomous communities". ACs have his own healthcare systems which are independent about the way they work, inside some common rules of course.

 

[Imperialmajesty]

http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/05/wo...-world-happiest_slide_11.html?thisSpeed=15000

This, in my opinion, is pretty damning evidence that the European welfare states got it right, along with the states that emulated it.

 

[fugazi]

The problem is that every problem needs a different solution that has to be tailor made for the person in question. The US can look to certain European states, but will have to make their own mold to pour the solution for their problem in. Discussing the flaws of our system won't fix your problems and as it is too easy to point out the obvious fact that the US has no right of speaking thanks to certain events in the last years, I hope you'll understand that you cannot help but agree with me on that.

A certain level, if not a maximum possible level, of a 'good' life should always be looked after for the citizens of a nation by the state. Wether the state does this with a big bureaucratic system or a small one doesn't matter, but when the state listens to corporations when it comes to real issues and not the populace, you should scratch yourself on the back of your head and wonder how you got to this point. In Holland we're actually getting the same problem (if we hadn't had it already for many many years). Corporations have such strong lobbies that no matter what campaign promises parties make, they'll always go for what keeps them in power and that's more often than not listening to the corporations.

Now I sound like a socialist, which I'm not

 

[mangxema]

Lots of countries in Europe are comparable to USA in population, Germany or UK have big populations and his healthcare system is similar to the ones from much smaller countries. Even countries much bigger than USA have or are planning some sort Universal Care Systems, as China or India. It is about GDP per capita not about gross numbers. About homogeneity, take for instance Spain, a fairly large country (45 millions AFAIK) more heterogeneous than USA. However everybody here agrees on universal care.

We're still many times larger than Germany or the UK. There are also logistical issues due to the much bigger size (and in some places lower density). China in a way doesn't really count because their government is much more authoritarian; whatever they do there, it would never work here. India is an interesting case that merits watching, although I don't really know anything about it.

I am also skeptical of your Spain claim, but I've never been there.

There is no need to have a centralized homogeneous system. Like USA, Spain is divided in something similar to states called "Autonomous communities". ACs have his own healthcare systems which are independent about the way they work, inside some common rules of course.

I said state systems might work?

 

[Cutlass]

Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps. Don't be lazy and ask Uncle Sam for a handout. We do that too much and he'll be changing his name to Uncle Joe quicker than you can say Bolshevik revolution.

The only thing likely to bring on the revolution is people like you who do everything in your power to stop people from pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps.

 

[Dachs]

The only thing likely to bring on the revolution is people like you who do everything in your power to stop people from pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps.

So why was the KPD so virulently against the SPD again?

 

[Tekee]

americans already work 3 times as long as Europeans. Europeans are lazy bums who pay taxes up the wazoo and most of their money is lost through beaucrats probably... everything the government does is such a waste of money and is more efficiently spent if we spend the money ourselves.
Poor people are better in this situation, poor in america are probably better off then poor in europe who do not qualify for welfare.

 

[Bill3000]

So why was the KPD so virulently against the SPD again?

Precisely for that reason! The SPD was preventing a communist revolution.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Precisely for that reason! The SPD was preventing a communist revolution.

And violently so.

 

[Dachs]

Precisely for that reason! The SPD was preventing a communist revolution.

...and allowing a fascist one...my brain hurts...

I suppose trying to view history through immutable political glasses is probably a bad idea.

 

[Masada]

I suppose trying to view history through immutable political glasses is probably a bad idea.

You know what your duty is

 

[Shekwan]

americans already work 3 times as long as Europeans. Europeans are lazy bums who pay taxes up the wazoo and most of their money is lost through beaucrats probably... everything the government does is such a waste of money and is more efficiently spent if we spend the money ourselves.
Poor people are better in this situation, poor in america are probably better off then poor in europe who do not qualify for welfare.

Americans work three times as long as Europeans but have about the same quality of life (many countries have a higher quality of life, but Europe wide its probably about the same). Seems like the European is getting the better deal to me. I guess I'm just lazy.

I don't get your last statement, but taking France as an example only 6% live under the poverty line whereas in the US its 12%. I don't get how you can have a functioning welfare state and have more poverty than the US.

 

[Arwon]

Whoa. Who said social mobility was a right or easy? I put in long ass hours (sometimes bored out of my skull, sometimes busy as hell) and make less than 30K a year. And since I am self-employed, I pay a nice big federal tax bill to cover what an employer takes care of for employees normally. Someone whining about $10/hr doesn't have to worry about paying their own self-employment taxes, so excuse me if I don't give them a hanky while they cry me a river.

By and large (yes, there are of course examples where this doesn't pan out) if you work hard and don't give up, you'll be financially stable in America. I do not say rich, or even middle class, but you'll have a roof over your head and food and clothing.

I don't recall reading anywhere in the Constitution about a right to two brand new cars, a new big house, and the ability to go out to eat all the time or the movies.

Why is it that the United States has less cross-generational social mobility for the bottom 20% of income earners than Sweden? Why is correlation between income levels of fathers and their sons higher? Why do many European countries' lower income earners have such effective bootstraps compared to the American poor?

Yet the curious thing is that European society—at least in the Nordic countries—is far less stable than America's. Two new research papers* confirm that, if one compares the incomes of children with those of their parents, or considers how long people in one income group stay there, Nordic countries emerge as far more mobile than America. Britain shows more class stability than its northern neighbours, but it is still a lot closer to them than it is to America.

The authors rank countries on a scale from one to zero, with one meaning no mobility at all (ie, a child's income is identical to its parents') and zero meaning perfect mobility (ie, a child's income bears no relation to its parents'). The Nordic countries score around 0.2 for sons, Britain scores 0.36, and America 0.54 (meaning that a son's earnings are more closely related to his father's in America). These figures are roughly in line with the conclusions of other studies, though they have the advantage of using standardised data, thereby minimising problems of definition that usually bedevil cross-country comparisons.

The biggest finding of the studies is not, however, about overall social mobility, but about mobility at the bottom. This is the most distinctive feature of Nordic societies, and it is also perhaps the most significant difference with America. Around three-quarters of sons born into the poorest fifth of the population in Nordic countries in the late 1950s had moved out of that category by the time they were in their early 40s. In contrast, only just over half of American men born at the bottom later moved up. This is another respect in which Britain is more like the Nordics than like America: some 70% of its poorest sons escaped from poverty within a generation.

The Nordic countries are distinctive in one further way: the sons born at the bottom (into the poorest fifth) earn roughly the same as those born a rung above them (the second-poorest fifth). In other words, Nordic countries have almost completely snapped the link between the earnings of parents and children at and near the bottom. That is not at all true of America.

Social mobility at middle-income levels is more similar everywhere (it is a bit higher in most European countries, but not by much). That may partly explain why Americans think their society is more mobile than it is (the middle classes tend to set the political agenda, and mobility is genuine enough for them). It may also explain why few Europeans appreciate quite how much movement up and down the income ladder there is, because much of it takes place off the radar screen of the politically influential.

 

[Cutlass]

There isn't actually that large a disparity in hours worked. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lab_hou_wor-labor-hours-worked

 

[Shekwan]

Yeah I thought three times more was a bit odd, but it is a fact that Europeans work less. Its also something to note that long working hours are more of an Anglo-American thing than a specifically American thing.

 

[Arwon]

Yeah, I've seen claims that Australians work longer hours than the Japanese.

I think the difference is, we get paid for overtime most of the time but the Japanese workers usually don't, because overtime pay is required by law and backed up by an effective industrial relations system here.

Might a lot of European countries might well be working a lot of unpaid, therefore undocumented, overtime?