You keep confusing mean with average. The BEA figure is for the *mean* of jobs, which tells us nothing of what the average American earns.
The AVERAGE American wages are represented in the MEDIAN. Half of Americans earn less and half of Americans earn more.
The US Census determines the median wage in the US is $24,000.
http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/0...c/
new01_001.htm
You also confuse unemployment rates with proportion of population unemployed. A higher unemployment rate does not mean a greater proportion of the population is unemployed - that figure is obtained by dividing the population by the number unemployed and is virtually the same in Europe and the US.
If your criticism is of social capitalism, then you should only be concerned with Western European nations. The Eastern European countries lost 2/3 of their wealth by adopting "shock capitalism" libertarian governments, which most only recently abandoned in the last couple years.
Likewise, Europe has several basic economic systems. There is a system practiced in the UK, one for France & Germany, and another by the Nordics, Luxembourg, and Switzerland.
The US cities have dropped relative to Europe because the dollar has depreciated, as the source states. Since Americans are paid in dollars, their income has also declined.
Certainly at incomes above $200,000, individuals will pay more in taxes than those in the US. They receive them back through government services. The point made previously was that the American median wage is so low, it is taxed at an even lower rate than in the US in many European countries.
If your individual expenses are really as low as you stated in the other post, then a minimum wage earner in France could be a millionaire by saving the extra income at your rates. Unfortunately, a person earning minimum wage in the US would end up $150,000 in debt by age 65 and would never have healthcare, university education, or any of the government services granted.
Actually this will be my last reply to Nietz since he, on the other post and here, has tended to dominate the comments board with relatively long comments each time.
First you say I confuse “mean with average”. According to Inactive Introduction to Statistic the term average “usually refers to the (arithmetic) mean.” Mean is “the sum of a list of numbers, divided by the total number of numbers in the list.” That is precisely what I am referring to and I’m not confusing them at all. As they say the term average “usually refers to the mean” So how is that confusing the two when they say the term usually means the same thing?
Median can be very deceptive and you know it. It always refer to the top half and the bottom half no matter how much bottom half is worth.
And I have to wonder what kind of brain (yours) argues that saying the unemployment rate is not the rate of unemployment among the population and htat “higher unemployment does not mean a great proportion of the population is unemployed”. That is moronic. Actually it is extremely moronic and only someone blinded by some ideology could say something that utterly stupid. I will leave the other bullshit you toss in for now since a favorite tactic of the far Left is to throw out about 40 accusations and then scream if you don’t reply to every single one of them ignoring the ones you do reply to.
You lie about the tax paid by the average person in Europe. I am average and I know what I pay. My sales tax in the US was about 6% and here it is more than triple that. In Denmark it is 33% and those are very regressive taxes that impact the lowest paid individuals the hardest.
You imply that when I say what my living costs were I was lying. As if you would know what my living expenses were in the US. I can itemize the basic costs I faced each month. $620 for apartment with utilities, about $300 for food. I didn’t commute a lot and paid about $60 for petrol (its three times that cost in Europe). My car insurance ran me about $50 per month. I paid $25 per month for unlimited telephone usage in the US and $50 for cable TV with DSL for the net. Those were my basic costs every month and they come to under the $1100 I mentioned. The only thing else I did was spend a few dollars a month on the dryer (washers were free in the building). Anything else was entertainment expenses and not basic living costs. The same thing in Europe, using a bus instead of a car, and without the cable TV is 327 euros for the apartment, 300 euros for food, 50 euros telephone. And around 70 euros for the transit pass. That comes in around 750 euros per month and is about $1020. So the costs are almost the same but I have about a third the living space, no car, no cable TV, less quality food since I scrimp here and without the unlimited free phone calls across Europe similar to what I had in the US. If you have secret information about my finances that I know about please share it.
By the way the EU has around 490 million people and the US 301 million. Yet the GDP of the EU is lower than the US. If they produce less wealth with 40% more people how does one conclude that on average they are wealthier?
To be fair, one must take into account the value of the so-called "merit goods" provided by the governments of the European social democracies. That money taken into taxes may be largely wasted, but it isn't all baked into pies.
I don't purport to know what this value is, nor how to compute it properly, nor how to take into account the loss in "intangible capital" caused by taxing people into latent poverty and only giving the funds back to pay for certain things deemed worthy by their keepers.
I was sent this comment on behalf of Nietz, of the graduate department. I understand he was banned from responding. He seems to have used no improper language and cited sources thoroughly.
--------
According to the US Census: "The median income is considered by statisticians to be a better indicator than the mean income as it is not dramatically affected by unusually high or low values among the wealthy or poor."
http://www.census.gov/prod/2003p...pubs/p70-
88.pdf
Median is exactly what you want to use when you talk about the "average" American. You are trying to determine how most Americans compare to most Europeans, which is determined by the median, not the mean.
By definition, France's higher median income means most French earn more than most Americans. Certainly, the top 1% of Americans earn more than everybody, but they do not represent the average American.
I never said you lied about your expenses. I think Americans could learn a lot by looking at your expenses - it shows how few things you need to pay for in Europe to live when the government provides for so much.
A minimum wage worker in the US only makes $9K a year so they couldn't do it. A minimum wage earner in France makes $22K and could easily live as you do, with an extra $10K a year to save or spend.
An "average" American worker could not even live as well as the minimum wage French worker. A Median wage earner ($24K) has no money left over once they add basic necessities not provided by the government: Health care ($7000/yr), education ($100,000 lifetime), childcare ($2000 yr), car payments ($4000/yr), etc.
You are including sales-tax, but it seems you are not a resident because you don't mention the sales-credit you receive each quarter. At expenses like your's you would be making a profit from the government sales tax.
No, a higher unemployment rate does not mean higher proportion of the population are unemployed. France is a perfect example, as 8% of youth are unemployed and 8% of American youth are unemployed. The French enter the workforce later and don't participate while in school as Americans do, so their unemployment rate increases as the denominator shrinks even though the proportion of unemployed population are the same.
The lower GDP per capita in European states is quite obvious. As the OECD study I cited pointed out, America's higher GDP is due to the extra hours Americans work. The question should be: Why don't Europeans work as long as Americans?
The answer here is in the median income. American median income is so low, most Europeans don't need to work as long to earn the same income as most Americans. Americans produce more in their longer work hours, but their income share of that output is much lower.
"I never said you lied about your expenses. It shows how few things you have to pay for in Europe when the government pays for so much."
Now that's cute, perhaps, but it appears as though either you or I missed the point. As I read it, CLS is spending roughly the same in Europe as he was in the US, and receiving less. What is he getting cheaply from the government?
Means and medians have their respective advantages and disadvantages. Should people living as dependents--i.e. students in their parents' households--count toward the median?
If he were a European, he would get the free University, Healthcare, and so forth. He did not need to pay for a depreciating vehicle and his transportation costs were no higher than insurance + maint. He would also get back his VAT if his expenses are that low.
OECD & IMF claim European retail is higher, housing is equal, and telecommunication is cheaper. Phone, Internet, TV is usually cheaper in Europe.
Most countries also allow visitors to reclaim sales tax.
A US dollar goes farther in the US than if you converted it to Euros. A person earning Euros would not experience that decline. That is simply the result of a recent decline in the US dollar, which US inflation has not yet priced in.
Nice two handed back-hand. Very well done.
I can see why CLS said that Nietz has a tendency to send long comments with dozens of assertions each demanding a reply making it impossible to reply. That certain is a tactic used by shoddy debaters. It is a shotgun approach that is impossible to deal with hence the reason it is used.
The remark that CLS’s expenses “show how few things you need to pay for in Europe to live when the governments for so much” is fallacious. Other than bus service that is far less convenient and just as expensive as his monthly care expenses what government service is he obtaining? And anyone who thinks anyone with a full time job in the US is only making $9000 per year is either a fool or a liar.
He then tries to claim that average French worker gets all sorts of “free” things. That is dumb. There’s no such thing as a free lunch. What the government gives it first confiscates. It produces no wealth but confiscates wealth. Only real idiots with out a sense of economics think government gives away anything for free.
That this guy is lying is clear. He says the youth unemployment rate in France is the same as in the US, which he claims is 8%. The French rate of unemployment is actually closer to 9% for the whole workforce. This would be claiming that the youth have a lower unemployment rate than other French workers. Various reports on France (just google French youth unemployment rates) show the rates are actually between 20% and 22% not the false figure of 8%.
As for the “free” goods. The average person with a university degree anywhere in the world tends to come from families that were well off to begin with. Poorer families, even when university is free (as it is much of the US, or very cheap contrary to stupid European claims) tend not to send as many kids to university. In reality a “free” university taxes everyone to finance the more well off segment of the society. It transfer wealth from the poor to the rich. So compassionate of them.
“He did not need to pay for a depreciating vehicle”. Vehicle apparently was all paid for and offers a lot more convenience than any bus can. The car goes exactly where he wants it to at exactly the time he wants. No waiting, no buses not showing up, no standing in the rain. Door to door service at the same price as his transit ticket. Housing is not equal. He pays the same amount for a third the size and he doesn’t have laundry facilities and the pool he mentioned. And he listed what he paid for phone and internet and the prices were higher than in the US for less service (no cable TV included in that price and no unlimited calling continent wide).
All in all it seems as if Nietz is being dishonest and is trying to dominate the comments with long lists of claims.
My comments have been no longer than the articles I reesponded to. I deal with these numbers every day so perhaps it is easier for me to report them.
My primary points have been made clear repeatedly.
1) Median income is higher in Europe.
2) Higher median income causes Europeans to work less.
3) Those who spend very little receive far more benefits in Europe.
4) Median US income would be considered poor in Western Europe, and receive more benefits than taxes.
Of course there is no free lunch. The higher wages are paid by lower inequality. France has the lowest poverty rates in the world, but they don't have many billionaires.
I stated earlier French youth unemployment rate was 20%. The mistake is assuming a larger proportion of youth are unemployed. In reality, 8% of French Youth are unemployed and 2 million go to school without working. If these 2 million worked as they do in the US, youth unemployment would be 10%, like the US. The denominator has changed, not the numerator.
The claim about the car was that he did not get one for the same price in Europe. Yet, he did not include the cost of a car in his US costs, so it is unfair to say he received less for the same pay. Had he included the price of the car, he would have certainly paid more in the US.
The comments haven't been longer that the original. Gee, how nice. Most comments are comments not full fleged essays. What kind of person says that a 20% unemployment rate is really 8%. Did this guy say before it only includes people looking for a job? Now he says it includes people not looking for a job but living off other people while at university. He's all over the place with his claims contradicting himself.
And that last remark about the car is weird. Makes no sense. The costs given were monthly living expenses not one off purchases.He did not claim that he did not get one for the same price though cars in Europe are much more expensive than in the US. What he said is that for the same transportation cost per month he has a lot less convenience. He waits in line for buses, they don't go where he needs to go when he needs to go and they take longer. So all in all he gets a lot less service for the same price.
Anyone who thinks a bus ride has the same value as driving from door to door is bonkers. But this guy looks like someone faking facts, twisting defintions and making stuff up along the way.
I think I'm figuring this out. When Amnericans have 5% unemployment it means what it says. When the French have 9% normal and 20% youth unemployment it doesn't mean what it says. Why? Because France is a socialist paradise and America a capitalist hell hole where everyone is poverty stricken.
And the French govt. gives things away free. They magically appear and no one pays for them. They pull the goodies out of thin air. And what the govt takes in taxes is actually given back in things worth more than the taxes taken -- even if you want a different baske of goodies than what the govt. gives out. How do they do that? Because govt. in France doesn't cost anything. They do the miracle of the loaves and the fishes every day. Of course the French have always had a Messianic complex.
And then we are told Americans all work long hours which is why they whip EU butt in GDP even though the EU has 200million more people. As if a few hours a week accounts for a difference that huge. But I remember a NY Time article CLS blogged about. The time men spend with their kids went up by from 3 hours per week in 1965 to 7 hours per week now. Women increased time with their kids from 10 hours to 13 hours in the same period. Time on housework was cut, even as homes grew larger, due to all those labor saving devices that aren't as common in the smaller houses in Europe. So more time with the kids and less time working on the house as it doesn't need as much time as it used to. And work? Well apparently men are working 5 hours per week less. The average woman worked only 23 hours per week. And the average man was working about 40 hours. And the French call that overworked. Lazy SOBs.
Slate magazine says that in 1965 the average man worked 42 hours per week. They say the average today is 36 hours. The French mandate a 35 hour week on the stupid theory (and wrong one) that it increases jobs. So neither sex is working a 40 hour average week. So where do Lefty Europeans get the crap about Americans all putting in these massively long hours.
You know if they used the same sort of statements about Jews that they make about Americans they would be considered Anti-Semites. Why do they think it is any less bigoted to push stereotypical views about Americans? These people are just bigots. And like all bigots they lie about the people they hate.
Among academic blogs and journal responses, comments tend to be significantly longer. Individuals are more interested in improving and clarifying their position.
The added convenience of a car comes with the price of a car. You cannot claim the cost is the same for European public transit and private transportation in the US if you do not include the price of the car.
The unemployed to population ratio is the most common comparative tool of employment living standards between nations with different participation rates.
France intentionally discourages youth from entering the workforce by preventing students from working. This raises their graduation rate and skill base, justifying their higher wages and low turnover rates. It does increase the unemployment rate and lower short-term GDP though as those individuals do not contribute to the economy right away.
German writer Olaf Gersemann writes:
“Sure enough, you may argue that this is compensated somehow by the fact that college attendance in the U.S. might cost you a fortune -- while in Germany the federal government explicitly "repudiates tuition fees to ensure equal opportunities". Nevertheless it is the U.S., not Germany, where a larger share of high school graduates go on to college. Or, use a different indicator: According to the OECD, in 2001, a 17 year-old in Germany could expect to receive 2.1 years of tertiary education. In Italy and France, this average was 2.4 and 2.6 years, respectively. In the U.S., it was 3.5 years, the second highest among industrialized countries.
Thus, the German system of tuition-free college attendance does not yield more equal opportunity. What it creates, though, is massive transfers from the bottom of the income ladder to the top. According to the most comprehensive study available, "up to 90 percent of the entire cost for educating university students" is borne by non-college graduates. “
He also notes that from 1970 to 2003 employment in the US rose by 75 percent. In France, Germany and Italy it was by 26%.. He also said that about two thirds of Americans who lose their job are rehired within 3 months. In Italy, Germany and France it was between 12% and 26% who were able to find a new job that quickly.
And that proUS right wing outfit, the UN, in their Human Development Index rates the US as #8 on the list. France is ranked #16. The idiots probably think that unemployed actually means unemployed. The UK was #18; Germany was #21. Why do you think they missed that France was so much better?
And isn't it great the real reason all those youths were rioting in France was because the govt. discourages them from working -- it raises their graduation rate (even if most of them weren't in university either). And the average young person in America gets more college education that the average French young. Nietz/Empericman is full of crap.
Olaf Gersemann is a self-published libertarian, misrepresenting what the OECD report stated.
In fact, the OECD report specifically states US tertiary graduation was #1 when the US government dominated education spending... back when higher education was not highly subsidized in Europe. It goes on to explain how Europe copied and expanded the model, and passed the US.
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/41/...13/
35341210.pdf
"The United States built a strong tertiary education sector long before other OECD countries, dating from the GI Bill under which many ex-military personnel returning from World War II were able to obtain a college degree."
"Many countries have closed the gap and, in upper secondary education attainment, a growing number have moved ahead of it. In addition, as indicated in the PISA results, many other countries are building a higher-quality base in the knowledge and skills of their young people."
"University science graduates produced per 100 000 persons employed aged 25 to 34 years in the United States was 1 069 in 2003, just below the OECD average of 1 157 and well behind the rates in a number of countries such as Australia (1 942), the United Kingdom (1 926) and France (1 900) and some with newly strong knowledge economies such as Finland (2 172), Korea (2 000) and Ireland (1 765)."
"There are causes for concern in the United States' education system. The advantage it had over other countries of much higher completion rates of upper secondary education and tertiary education has been eroded."
"But whereas in the past the US topped the league on these measures, other countries are catching up and in some cases surpassing the US performance. In addition, the upper secondary and university graduation rates of the most recent cohorts in the US are now both below the OECD average."
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/51/...20/
37392850.pdf
Olaf needs to update his information. The higher rates belong to Americans educated during the government education booms during WW2 and Vietnam. Once Europe implemented their Lisbon education plans, they caught up. France now has higher enrollment and graduation rates than the US, as the data shows.
More on Graduation Rates and Dropouts from the OECD Education Report
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/51/...20/
37392850.pdf
"Comparatively high drop out rates in the United States are contributing to the United States' relative standing against other countries. On average across OECD countries some 70% of those who enter tertiary-type A programmes go on to successfully graduate.
The "survival rate" for the United States is however the lowest of OECD
countries for which data are reported, with only just over 50% of the entry cohort achieving graduation, similar to the rate for Mexico and New Zealand"
"Rates of current participation suggest that even more countries are likely to catch up and surpass the United States graduation rates. The increase in tertiary enrolment between 1995 and 2003, which will influence future graduation rates in the United States, was, at 21%, considerably below the OECD average level of 38%"
This will be my last post, as it is clear this is not a place interested in the figures I am presenting. I work for a consulting firm that specializes in comparative business cost locations, so I discuss these issues every day and have learned a few things you may want to consider.
Critics are not trying to change your mind - they are trying to make you look stupid or biased to objective, educated readers.
Every time you use the incorrect measurement, you send the perception that you are either confused or intentionally biased. Check with the data first and do not let your critic be the one to show you the US Census's explanation of why median is the proper measure of average wages.
Most people know what an employment population ratio is, so don't keep confusing it with unemployment rates. The former tells you if more people are unemployed in a population.
Do not cite publications such as Slate or NYT.
Never, ever, ever cite political organizations such as NRO, or editorials - especially blogs from some fringe political group.
Only use sources you would use in a thesis or dissertation. Government publications, respected NGOs, intergovernmental organizations (UN, OECD, Eurostat), and peer-reviewed academic journals.
Don't use abstract speculation. If you want to know how teenage workers effect the median, go into the Census data and check it out (fyi: this group is excluded in Census data, but it wouldn't matter much since median is not affected by small poor or rich groups). Go ahead and look at participation rates, poverty rates, or median family income if you believe nonworkers will lower living standards. Objective readers will do this and realize families still earn more, poverty is very low, and participation rates are only ~5% lower.
Don't refer to a report you haven't read. If you believe an OECD report says Americans have the highest enrollment/graduation rates, you look really bad when someone posts the report and it actually says Americans have below-average enrollment and the highest dropout rate.
Recognize when your view is a minority opinion among academics and do not emphasize it. Only 3% of American economists are libertarian, and Social markets as they exist in Europe are the norm. Nobody is going to believe the mainstream adherents are less informed than you.
Critics love when you insult the French, the UN, or academia. You just look crazy and biased.
Do not ban individuals who do nothing but post cited facts that contradict your claims. It looks like you aren't interested or too lazy to evaluate criticisms.
Don't email threats or use vulgar language. You want your views to be based on reason, not emotion.
You say Americans have more money and Netz says Europeans have more money but you both quote different numbers.
Netz seems to be right if we want to know if most americans have more money than most europeans. Your article sort of suggests that most americans earn as much as europeans but that is not true.
The article should say the richest americans make more than europeans but most americans earn less.
"Empiricman"/Nietz doesn't seem to understand that this is a 'blog, not a doctoral thesis, nor is it academic in nature, and that it is casual, thus he falls into the trap of requesting that we all spend hours researching our comments before we deign to post.
Meanwhile he posts his own inaccuracies, such as only 3% of American economists being libertarian. If by that he means liberal, it's a blatant falsehood. (That isn't to say that if it were true it would mean the liberal position was not credible...)
If I were to take him on his own terms, however, I'd find this obsession with median income vulgar; he's ducking the bit about taxes being higher and about everything being more expensive. If those "merit goods", as the social democrats call them, really make up for it--contrary to the predictions that would be made by mainstream (i.e. non-fringe-Left) US economists--that's an assertion that needs to be proven. Why is someone so obsessed with the numbers not doing this? I daresay he's been engaging in misdirection, not rebuttal.
Some subtler method needs to be used to determine who is better off. CLS gives a sketch, Nietz is attempting to oversimplify the matter.
Food for thought: If life is so much better in Europe, why are Americans not relocating in more significant numbers, and why do Europeans still move here (or to the relatively liberal Ireland or UK) for better opportunity to make a living? (And why do Americans--even left-leaning Americans--returning from extended stays in even such rich European states as Belgium--let alone France or Germany--almost universally remark on how relatively poor the people are?) Those aren't arguments I'd publish, they've questions that need to be answered directly or indirectly by any social democrat who'd claim the kept peoples of the Continent are better off than Americans.
Can Nietz/Empiricman, by the way, rebut Gersemann, or would he rather dismiss him because he wrote for a popular audience?
"Boo hoo, it's not an academic journal. You're not going to duplicate Gersemann's effort, so I win by default, because I say so!"
Reading through the thread it seems as though Nietz1950/Empiricman thinks that these numbers he throws up about life expectancies and whatnot substitute for arguments. Whereas I'm being sloppy because I can't bring myself to spend the time on it--and it's not my blog-- it appears that he's being intellectually sloppy, to the core.
Didn't you say something about only citing sources that could end up in a doctoral thesis, Nietz? Extend that.
I know that if I said "the unfolding free eneregy of [insert RNA tertiary structure here] is X pN*nm" in mine without taking some deeper look at what it means, I'd be laughed out of my defense.
I was asked to post a response from another economic forum I regularly frequent. I have read the threads and hope to comment on each topic.
@ Empericman: those are standard academic criteria used in formal debates and probably in your profession. Perhaps this is a blog of like-minded people who aren't trying to convince anybody.
* Europeans earn less on average
----------------------------------
When you use "on average" like this, it reads as "MOST" Europeans earn less, so Nietz is probably right that median income is what you want. If the US had no inequality then Americans would earn more, but only wealthy Americans earn more than Europeans right now.
You seem confused on how to convert exchange rates to purchasing parity values, CLR. All you have to do is look up the SDR (international standard currency) from the IMF and multiply the currency you want. Everything is calculated based on the standard "basket of goods".
http://www.imf.org/external/np/
f...eportType=SDRCV
Even adjusted for purchasing power, the median French income is definitely higher.
6427 (US Min Wage), 15600 (US Median Wage)
13500 (France Min Wage), 22500 (France Median Wage)
* Europeans pay more in taxes
---------------------------------
The rich pay more in taxes but everyone else pays less in taxes. Everything paid in taxes is received as government services, which tend to be consumed by the low-middle earners the most.
Since most Americans earn 15600 SDR or less, most Americans are earning the bottom 20% of French wages (French minimum wage accounts for 14% of workers). Certainly, French earning the bottom 20% of wages receive more services than they pay in taxes.
Instead of Taxes % GDP, we should be looking at government spending % GDP because G spending is a component of GDP. As Milton Friedman says, "To Spend is to Tax"... spending is just a tax paid now or pushed onto future taxpayers. Taken this way, French government taxation is only 15% higher than the US.
http://members.forbes.com/global.../
024chart2.html
Does the French Government spending include anything American consumers pay privately? Of course it does! US Healthcare spending alone is 16% of GDP, approaching 20% by 2009.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp...6010901932.html
So, the French pay 15% higher taxes, but Americans pay 16% on healthcare after taxes. After healthcare, Americans don't keep more of their income.
The French also receive all of those other standard benefits Americans pay privately (more retirement, unemp. comp, childcare, additional vacation time, higher education, et cetera). They also get basic living credits Americans do not. If we add these things up, we quickly find it is the Americans who actually keep less of their income... this is because the French government tends to cost less than the US providers (health, education, and social insurance especial
insurance especially) through economies of scale.
* Europeans pay more on average
---------------------------------
The PPP conversion done earlier shows this is generally true for many retail items, but even after the adjustment, the median earner still has significantly more than Americans. Over the long term, higher US inflation will cause the PPP to match the rational exchange rate but the fall of the dollar has been fast and inflation takes time to settle in.
As a proportion of income, Europeans don't spend more because their income is higher.
This is quite irrelevant as well, unless you are being paid in a currency other than your own country. One only experiences the dual-currency problem when they exchange one currency for another.
* Intangible Benefits
---------------------------------
I've noticed this mentioned here and in another thread on this post. By minimizing inequality, Europe also reduces poverty and has the benefits of low poverty, less crime, infant mortality, higher education, job security, more free time, higher savings rates, longevity. Homicides and serious assault seem to be particularly high in the US, across all demographics. Median incomes have had a much harder time moving up in the US than Europe. The Human Poverty Index usually ranks the US near the bottom in quality of life for the poor.
Mobility is also very low in the US. The chances of a person moving to a higher income quintile (or out of poverty) are much higher in Europe. The latest major study was even written by the conservative Heritage Foundation:
http://www.economicmobility.org/...am%
20Report.pdf
* Unemployment
---------------------------------
France has particularly high unemployment at 8.4%, but this is nearly entirely a result of the youth. Mid-life French have even lower unemployment than Americans, mostly due to job security. Most Western-European nations don't have this problem, as France and Germany pull up the average. Germany's unemployment is isolated to 20% unemployment rates in East Germany after integration.
Perhaps France could do more to improve youth unemployment, but if Nietz is correct on the best fix then the French won't want to. Encouraging students to work through school will probably lower completion rates and will do nothing for the currently unemployed. There is also a desire to accept longer job searches in exchange for greater job security and productivity.
@BSK: The OECD "Education at a Glance" Empericman posted did show the US dropout rates were higher than any other country - especially France. The high working rates of US students does seem to lead to high dropout rates.
Gersemann was wrong when he suggested the study was critical of government-supported education. The conclusion was that the US once had high graduation rates when the government gave soldiers free education (Gersemann quoted these stats) but Europe has since surpa
Europe has since surpassed the US with universal education programs (Gersemann ignored this). It recommends the US expand subsidized higher education again.
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/51/...20/
37392850.pdf
* Hours Worked
--------------------------------
The OECD does a good job comparing hours worked, adjusting for sick-days, vacations, etc. I undertstand Europe used to work considerably longer than Americans in the 70s, but as they grew wealthier they cut back hours. According to the latest report, Americans work longer than anybody, even the Canadians, Australians and Japanese. The poor East-European nations do work longer, but this is common in poor countries with fewer social support systems and low wages.
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/30/...41/
29867131.pdf
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/36/...30/
35024561.pdf
* Libertarian Economists
--------------------------------
The report clearly referenced was going around the EconBlogs and has been cited a lot in the last year in journals. Most economists support free trade and mobility of capital, but only 8% accepted free-market principles and less than 3% agreed with the extreme views advocated by libertarian groups like NRO.
That doesn't mean they are wrong, but if you want to convince others of your view, you might want to recognize this.
http://www.sofi.su.se/wp/WP06-6.pdf
Well no wonder Europe seems expensive to you. You are visiting a country that adds the highest sales taxes in the world into the price (25%) but you aren't collecting any transfers or services. You would get it back if you lived in Denmark.
But your arguments are inconsistent if Denmark is your complaint. They don't have high unemployment at all. They make even more money than the French and 90% earn more than Americans. GDP growth has been much higher than the US (adjusted for population growth) for a decade. Even per capita GDP is expected to overtake the US in the next few years.
They have a very strong flexicurity economy. The only difference is that people tend to get more of their services through the government than private companies.
Olaf Gersemann is lying. He must think you guys are too stupid to look at the OECD report he "cites".
I read the report he is quoting and it doesn't say what he suggests at all. The report says Americans drop out of university more than everybody else and most of those are working students. 70% of Americans attempt to enter university, but only about half find enough time or money to finish.
It attributes America's early lead in education to free university for soldiers - Americans over 40 are more educated than Europeans but anyone younger is less educated. It predicts America will continue to worsen, as Europeans are graduating at higher rates than Americans ever did and current enrollment / dropout rates are very bad in the US.
In every case, it concludes government spending in each country led to a rise in graduation. On the plus side, the shortage of graduates and very low wages in the US does give them a higher wage premium.
quote: "All in all it seems as if Nietz is being dishonest and is trying to dominate the comments with long lists of claims."
quote: "And then we are told Americans all work long hours which is why they whip EU butt in GDP even though the EU has 200million more people."
I thought EU GDP is far more than US GDP? (World Bank, IMF, FactBook)
EU: $13.73 trillion
US: $13.21 trillion
Please note, Mr. EU that there are 200 million more Europeans than Americans. Your figures show that, in fact, the US has a higher GDP per capita than Europe. Divide $13.73 trillion by 500 million and $13.21 trillion by 300 million and you will see what I mean.
Yes, I am aware of it as well as no one can expect Eastern Europe to be on Western European level anytime soon - even if their GDP continue to grow 6-8% a year. I just noted that American GDP is smaller, but per capita is higher.
Also when talking about "average American" we should remember income inequality (which is highest in US): against every billionare and millionare, there must be someone earning less than "average" - perhaps much less than "average" - if there's "average" in a nation with such inequality?
Rich are taxed heavily in Europe, for average European it actually means "free" services, because they're often getting much more than they could afford by themselves. And when they leave hospital, they won't get $100 000 bill. 
Your calculations like most always slant towards your belief system. You will note in the US with a 3 trillion dollar federal budget and a 300 million population the average tax per person is $10,000. Taking into account your own income numbers, Mom and Dad both working with thier family of four loose 50% of their income to Federal Taxes in all forms. That doesn't include the local taxes paid which is for most states about 1/3 of the federal paid.
Taking in to account the average earnings as a percentage of GDP offers nothing more than a comparison in cultural habits, technological advantage, organizational skills, and creativity which is arguably unparalleled in the world in the US. (Some exceptions would be Japan, and Germany)
I say the U.S. breaks up into smaller sovereignties, so that we don't all have to agree on the exact same economic regime to live under. Obviously, there would be disagreement within each region, but free marketers could concentrate in a region, socialists could concentrate in another, and so on. This way at least there would be a better chance of people being able to live under a chosen political structure as opposed to one that is imposed upon them.
On a bit of a side note, I am really curious, though, to see what will end up happening in the future. Specifically, when Asian countries decide not to loan Western countries anymore money to fund their deficit spending. Not to mention when oil producing countries refuse to price oil in dollars? (The dollar would fall like a stone. We ain't seen nothing yet!) And now, with the baby boomers retiring, whether one is for or against social welfare programs on principle, it is very difficult to see how a new domestic program (especially one as large as universal healthcare) would be solvent for long. But, I suppose that is precisely what the military is for. Make them work in order to be our lender indefinitely and prop up the value of our currency while they are at it. We've already seen what has happened when countries threaten to price oil in other currencies (Saddam, Ahmadinejad, and Chavez come to mind). I can only imagine the future aggressions that are in store for the world.
But, aftere reading through the comments my initial assumption about my fellow citizens has been confirmed. Most are satisfied with rearranging chairs on the Titanic, debating about whether or not the US or Europe is better off. They are both debtor nations and credit won't be extended indefinitely. Why should it? What's in it for the rest of the world?
Oh, I appreciate that you have reappropriated "liberal," pointing out its initial meaning. There is so much confusion over that term in the U.S. I think Britain does a much better job, using the phrase "social liberal" as opposed to "liberal" to indicate where one falls on the political spectrum.
The US unemployment rate that is published by the press is the Bureau of Labor Standards (BLS) U-3 rate (the BLS calculates 6 rates, the U-3 rate is the rate that insures that the US unemployment rate will appear lower than the rate in the EU). Eurostat publishes a single rate which is equivalent to the BLS U-6 rate. The BLS U-6 rate is over 11%, higher than the equivalent EU rate.
Having acquaintances in the US, I know that higher education for children is an expensive affair for Americans. For us, sending a child to university does not change family finances much as it is included in our higher tax burden. Healthcare is the same. Our higher taxation pays for it and it is less expensive than the private system in the US.
Then there is holiday. I know few Americans that are able to go on holiday for 6 weeks a year with their families. We can. In a lifetime, this is a benefit that has no price.
Alfredo: Try studing some economics. You say an education doesn't cost much because it is included in higher taxes. Add those higher taxes up and it is far more than the burden in the US. Worse, you rip off a lot of people who never get that education but are paying so that others can go. So lots of working people pay for the social elite to get a "free" education. You are redistributing wealth from the poorer segments of society to the wealthier. Of course I'm sure those who get the money are pleased.
Your knowledge of economics indicates that university education didn't do you much good. You fell for the oldest fallacy in economics. You think you get lots of free goodies when you pay through the nose for them and, in total, pay far more over the long rung. But then actually fall for the idea that it was a bargain. Not very bright.
Here is what I do know. Americans have a much higher standard of living. Far larger homes, spend more on entertainment, have more of all the various things that people enjoy in life. They are far wealthier than you, have much lower tax rates and living costs. In the end the typical US family runs rings around the typical European family in basic comforts. And I speak from having lived in both Europe and the US>
GDP PPP is NOT average wage.
UK average wage $44,000, USA average wage $38,000.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci...gget.asp?
id=285
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/AWI.html
Tax is the same, fuel is the same [americans drive further etc].
However homes and goods cost more in the UK than the USA.
UK heal 18th in WHO, USA 37th in WHO and NOT universal.
www.WHOrankings.
Little or no homelessness in the UK, hundreds of thousands in the USA.
46% of people in university in the UK, to just 33% at best in the USA.
The weather is indeed better in the USA and land cheaper and easier to buy.
The USA is behind the UK but has better weather.
Dashingprince: I have lived in both the US and the UK. Let us take your average wage figure as factual for the sake of argument. Taxes are not the same in the US as in the UK. The UK has much, much higher taxes especially when all levels of government are taken into account.
It is pure nonsense to say fuel costs are the same. Here are current petrol prices as of yesterday. For unleaded the average price in the UK is 109.9p per litre. . The US average is $3.56 per gallon (which is about 24 cents more than I am paying). In dollar terms at current exchange rates that is $1.95 per litre. To convert that from metric to gallons that means you are paying $7.38 per gallon in the UK. You call that the same. That is $2 more per gallon than the most expensive gasoline station in the United States. You comment it is the same because Brits drive less -- duh., that's a no brainer. At prices like that of course they drive less, the higher the price the lower the demand, its basic economics.
And the WHO health rating is well known for being rigged. I have discussed how it is rigged here in several places. The US is penalized because Americans move more often than Brits. It is penalized because we are freer to change doctors. It is penalized for not being socialist -- the authors of the report are socialists so they mark down nations that aren't. Yet our cancer survival rates are better -- in fact our actual survival rates for most illnesses are better.
cls have you actually got any links?...because I do not believe a word you say.
The average wage was from government websites, so we will take that over someone like you.
The average wage in the UK is indeed higher than the USA, so is the minimum wage and so is our life expectancy and deaths from cancer are lower int he UK than the USA.
Survival rates in the USA are higher, but thats for 5 years the overall deaths from cancer are less int he UK.
Taxation in the UK is identical to the USA, thatcher made it that way in the late 80's so we could try to catch you guys up.
We have caught you up and overtaken you I am afraid.
The UK socialist?...hehe we invented the free market and parliamentary democracy we hate communism as much as you guys do, hence the special relationship.
The EU average wage is indeed smaller than the USA and the UK, the UK is NOT in the euro just the union.
Goods are more expensive in the UK than the USA, but healthcare is more expensive in the USA because you basically give your wages to insurance companies instead of to hospitals.
I like the USA for its good weather and movies, but you have fallen behind the likes of UK, Netherlands, Switzerland and Ireland.
The reason is the UK has more people in university, a service based economy and higher minimum wages.
Dashingprince: Thanks for calling me a liar. You are such a prince! I have blogged on these topics and provided links in those posts.
You say taxes are the same in both places because Thatcher made it so. Well, no, she made it more competitive but not the same and while you weren't paying attention you had other government's that worked to undo the cuts Thatcher put in. According to Wikipedia's most current listing taxes in the UK take 37% of GDP versus 27% for the US.
Secondly life expectancy is a very weak form of comparison since it measures lots of things including smoking rates, etc, which have nothing to do with the issues under discussion. In addition different countries calculate this differently. The US includes all live births while other countries don't count infants as born live if they weigh under a specific weight -- even if it takes them a couple of days to die.
As for cancer survival rates my essay directly quoted Lancet Oncology for its figures. Those figures show that women diagnosed with cancer in Scotland have a 48% survival rate, 51% for Northern Ireland and 52.7% for England. The rate for the US for women was 62.9% -- well above England in particular or the UK as a whole. For male cancer patients the survival rate was 40,.2% in Scotland, 42% in Ireland and 44.8% in England. In the US the rate was 66.2%.
For lung cancer the rate in England for surival is about 6% for either sex.The US survival rate is two to three times that with new treatments in the US showing survival rates of 29%.
You can do a search on this blog and find those posts with all the links which you claim I fail to provide. I provide them and they show you are wrong.
Thanks for the article and the candor.
Commenting by HaloScan
