StubbornFacts
Stubborn Facts
Stubborn Facts

Navigation

User login

Subscribe via RSS

Resources

The latest from our partner, the PoliGazette

Blog Roll

That wonderful Europe

Submitted by Pat on Wed, 02/21/2007 - 8:55am

King and Queen at a senior citizens' ballEuropeans (not all Europeans, just the most vocal) often waste no time detailing how much cooler, hipper, happier, and generally better they are than us crude Americans. We are "dumb" because we re-elected George Bush as President and we're insensitive to the poor because we don't route most of our money through government-run social programs. The truth, as usual, is not so stark.

First, read through Michael van der Galien's post at The Moderate Voice on the Swedish Welfare State. Citing a piece in The New Libertarian, Michael notes that the popular image (both internally and abroad) of Sweden as a near-perfect blend of capitalism and a strong social safety net came about in the 1970s, before a steep rise in taxes to pay for their many social programs stifled entrepreneurship and job creation. From The New Libertarian:

Entrepreneurship has declined to an international low, none of the 50 largest Swedish corporations have been started after 1970, the working morale has declined drastically and unemployment is staggering high.

It's not just Sweden, it's all of Europe. Recently, the European Commission released a report on poverty across Europe. According to this summary, it's quite high, with 1 in 6 Europeans (16%) living below their country's poverty line, which is defined as 60% of a country's median income. Note that this means that Poland is not being compared to France or vice versa; poorer countries will have a lower poverty threshold, richer countries will have a higher one. Worse, 10% of Europeans live in a household in which nobody has a job. Get all the relevant statistics from the Joint Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion 2007, released in Brussels on 19th February 2007.

Here in the U.S., the poverty rate is about 12.6%. Note that this figure may not be exactly comparable. The U.S. periodically adjusts the poverty rate figure, based on family size, rather than using a strict 60% of median income. The U.S. poverty rate is noticeably less than 60% of U.S. median income. On the other hand, median income in European countries tends to be rather lower than U.S. incomes, and varies significantly across its member nations, particularly the more recently admitted ones that used to be communist (see Crooked Timber for the difficulties of trans-Atlantic income data comparisons). Still, the fact is that, based on the calculations and definitions each set for themselves, the U.S. has a 12.6% poverty rate while Europe has a 16% poverty rate.

And what about the children? According to the E.U. report, 19% of European children are living below the poverty rate of their own country. In the U.S., the poverty rate for children under 18 is 17.6%. Not great, and obviously something that needs working on, but still better than Europe as a whole.

Do take a look at the whole report, which breaks down the European poverty data by member nation. You can see how Americans stack up to each individual E.U. member.

As the Crooked Timber post I cited earlier suggests, this isn't about which countries are better or worse, it's about the choices each society makes on how to live their lives. Americans on the whole value work more and leisure a bit less. The French put a higher premium on leisure and a slightly lower premium on work. There are pros and cons to each set of choices. Neither choice is inherently good or bad, just different. Europeans rightly insist that we should respect the choices they make to shape their societies and cultures. They should do the same for Americans.

As someone

As someone who immigrated to the United States from a small island off the coast of Europe, I take an extremely dim view of anyone in Europe criticizing anything about America. Frankly It continues to bemuse me how anyone who has had the experience of living both in and outside America could mount a serious comparative criticism.

good points; comparison still silly

I don't quarrel with your basic thesis at all.

Still, it's hard to defend the notion that the comparison of 16% to 12.9% represents anything that's meaningful in an underlying way. It's the same point Tully hammers on with infant mortality rates...the data doesn't allow for anything remotely near an apples to apples comparison. In this case, the fact that our 12.9 percet is less than another nation's 16% might is not much more meaningful than a pure random coincidence.

Obviously there are serious disparities as you point out. If we came up with a US figure on percent of folks below 60% of median, we'd have a higher poverty figure, which would suggest that we were doing worse. But that would just perpetuate the silliness of Europe's method of having different yardsticks specific to each nation. The problem is that by setting an arbitrary bar (like 60% of median) you only get a single fact that's mostly reflective of the distribution of incomes, not the lifestyle which is provided.

That's the thing, the notion of poverty relates to the quality of your lifestyle, not your income or how incomes compare from person to person.

Obviously, even a total moron would rather get 60% of median in the US than in some 3rd world hellhole. There's a substantial difference between the poorness of having a leg parasite swell your leg to 3 times its size and being reduced to sitting in the dirt and hoping someone takes pity on you, and the poorness of living in a dirty single room in a rundown boarding house while working a minimum wage job and eating bologna and mac and cheese and going to the local health center.

If we really wanted to compare, we'd want to know the percent of folks that has food, water, a decent place to live, a job or reasonable income, access to medical care, and so on.

Yep...

That's why I loaded the post with all those disclaimers. One could dig deeper into the raw data to do a more accurate comparison, but that's a lot of work. I leave it as an exercise for the reader.

None of Europe is part of the third world, so there's not the extremes of the parasitic infections and what not.

Note the figure from the European report that 10% of kids live in a household with nobody working in any job. I haven't found similar data for the U.S., but it's probably out there.

Note that the report shows a great deal of variation between different nations within Europe in income, health care, and other areas.

Cross-national comparisons

Note that this figure may not be exactly comparable.

You can say that again--about a million times.

Different nations report different figures in different ways, and big meta-comparisons are misleading. As Brian correctly notes, my favorite example of how that works in practice is Infant Mortality (IM) stats. Every country uses a different definition of what infant mortality is, every country collects their stats in different ways with differing degrees of accuracy, the figures can't be compared without accompanying (and accurate) perinatal mortality (PM) stats--which very few nations compile at all. And some, like Cuba, actively (gasp!) lie about their IM figures.

To get even remotely good comparison figures for economic well-being, you'd have to translate available income per capita into figures adjusted for purchasing power parity (PPP)--a standard unit of purchasing power. And that in turn would have to be compared to a standardized "basket" of goods and services that were agreed to constitute a basic minimum.

And there's several dozen basic variables to compare and adjust for. For example, the Swedish population median age is about 3.5 years older than that of the U.S., Germany's about 5.5 years older, and people have different wants and requirements at different ages...

In general, GDP per capita as measured in PPP is about 50% higher in the U.S. than in the higher-income nations of Europe, but that still has to be converted back to what is actually received in the way of goods and services.

Yep, yep, yep...

Truly accurate comparisons are difficult if not impossible to make, and are certainly very time-confusing and expensive.

I just think it's interesting to note that, with each party using the definitions they themselves chose to use, poverty, including child poverty, is higher in the much-vaunted Europe than in the U.S. In fact, properly measured along the lines that Tully suggests, we might find very different results. Next time a European tells me how much better their country is, I'll tell him that the E.U.'s own figures show they have a higher poverty rate than we do. Not solid analysis, but good for rhetorical purposes.

Another issue to keep in mind is the definition of "income." In the U.S., "income," for census bureau purposes, does not include non-cash government assistance to the poor such as subsidized housing, food stamps, nor does it include things like food and goods produced and consumed on individual farms. And, like everywhere else, there is a noted tendency to fib on non-wage sources of income. Keep this in mind the next time Democrats are demanding even more taxes for even more social programs. Many families "living in poverty" may not actually meet that definition once you plug in the value of their section 8 housing and their foodstamps and other benefits (and self-employment, cash-under-the-table income).

It's harder to tell what is included as income in the European data. See here and here.

Tangential note

And, like everywhere else, there is a noted tendency to fib on non-wage sources of income.

And that tendency is itself somewhat driven by tax rates. The higher the tax rates, the greater the incentive to NOT report any income that doesn't show, and the greater the "frictional drag" of non-productive spending designed to avoid taxes. Folks spend a lot more money on (otherwise) non-productive tax-avoidance strategies as rates rise. That's great for tax planners, but doesn't generate much in the way of real national production growth for the rest of us.

That's also a major reason why projections of increased tax revenues from tax hikes are almost always, shall we say, "overly optimistic." And the reverse--why the projections of tax revenue loss from tax cuts are almost always exaggerated. That's all before you consider the actual growth & income effects on the economy as a whole. I'm just speaking of avoidance and evasion. (As the old tax accountant's joke goes, what's the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion? Two to ten years on a first conviction....)

Euroconomy

About two years ago, I got into a verbal with my band, who collectively thought Europe had it better than us Yanks. I later sent them links to articles written by Europeans discussing the flagging economic conditions throughout the region. No one ever brought up the subject again.

By the way, on the subject of trans-national happiness

Just ran across an old link I made in a posting on another forum, which reminded me of another data point for comparison. The U.S. ranks about 40th in the world based on male suicide rates, according to the U.N. World Health Organization. We're 50th for females, but the rank order stays about the same. Here's some key country-to-country comparisons on the male suicide rate: Belgium is 14th, Switzerland 17th, France 18th, Denmark 29th, Germany 32nd, Sweden 33rd, Canada 34th, Norway 35th. Note that the U.K. beats us out, coming in 54th.

And yet another stat for

And yet another stat for reliability questioning! Suicide is oft misreported. The more intensely religious (particularly Catholic or Muslim) the population of a country, the more likely authorities are to give the dead (and the survivors) the benefit of the doubt when any doubt at all is possible, and thus the greater the misreporting.

One would expect the rates to be lower in religious nations anyway, given that suicide is a mortal sin and there is grave social stigma attached. But the reported rates often stretch the suspension of disbelief severely.

I have no way to assess that empirically offhand, though I've seen it in action in local law enforcement response with gun "accidents."

Europe is not necessarily more free, either...

I used to get embroiled in very intense conversations with folks over at DPReview.com. While DPReview is an excellent site devoted to photography, its extensive world-wide readership often generated good trans-Atlantic interaction on hot-button political topics.

Once, I was in an argument with a Swede who was busy denouncing America and promoting Europe as one of the places around the world where they take democracy a lot more seriously than in the United States.

Here's one of my several responses:

You mention Sweden as an example of a more enlightened form of democracy than the U.S. Did you know that in Sweden, every resident is required to be registered with the central government at birth, and that you are required to constantly update the government on your current address? And that to enable this registration system to function correctly, every resident is assigned a unique identifying number upon registration? http://www.rsv.se/broschyrer/711/711b03.html

As for how America ranks in its values and its commitment to such things as education and health care, as well as cultural freedom and commitment to diversity, the U.N., in its annual human development report, ranked the U.S. 8th in the world. Not as good as I would like it to be, but well above 16th place France and 19th place Germany. http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2004/

Contrary to the assertion that criticism of the current administration is shouted down as treasonous or unpatriotic, the American public has shown itself to be very tolerant of even the most ludicrous of attacks on our government, so deep is our commitment to freedom of speech. I would point out, too, that Michael Moore criticizes not only our goverment but also our people as a whole, calling his fellow countrymen stupid and ignorant. His recent efforts to tell other countries who they should vote for and what policies they should adopt have led some foreign media to suggest that he himself is the prototypical "ugly American", arrogant and condescending to others.

Please take a moment to investigate the actual facts, and not just those that suit your own predetermined opinion.

I thought his response was rather classic, proclaiming that when his government tracked people, it was for good, not evil:

Yes, and your point is?

The fact is, most civilised countries have that requirement. That's how the monthly childcare, compulsory health insurance, voting card and a million more things succeed in reaching 98% of the people all the time, every time.

Actually, the rest of his response cited figures on relative poverty rates around the world. According to the figures he used, which came from the U.N.'s annual human development report, several countries in Europe had poverty rates much lower than the U.S. I'm going to have to go back and take a look at this U.N. report to see how it calculated poverty rates across countries.

Europeans do occasionlly

Europeans do occasionlly suggest Americans are stupid. But they're pretty even-handed, applying the same term to members of the opposite party or to other European nations. So I don't take it personally. They're more likely actually to say we're fat. Since we are in fact fat, it's hard to take too much offense there, either.

As for comparative poverty. I used to snark to Europeans that I could at least get through an American city without being panhandled ten times. No longer true. Here in relatively prosperous Chapel Hill, NC I can't pull up to a stoplight without some hobo asking me for money.

And I would note that despite being well above the American poverty line I can no longer seriously contemplate relocating to Europe because the currency I own, the USD, is worth about as much as Monopoly money when traded for Euros.

Hey, M Tak!

Good to see you around.

Mostly I don't like obnoxious people. Unfortunately, the continents on both sides of the Atlantic have more than their share of them... I remember once hanging out with a friend of a friend in France at my mother's apartment (she's American but was living and teaching in France at the time for an American university). This guy had just been in the country for about 3 days, and he was complaining loudly about how the waiters didn't bring him ketchup for his French fries, and used that as a reason to criticize all the French. Now, there's plenty of reasons to criticize the French, but their tardiness in delivering "le catsup" to a rude American not even trying to speak in French is not one of them. And to criticize them in front of my mother, who loves France, was particularly rude.

We're still in good shape, hobo-wise, here in Baton Rouge. We had a slight increase right ater Katrina, but it's ramped back down again. It's quite rare to be accosted, even downtown.

Je parle le francais mal,

Je parle le francais mal, tres mal! Parlez Anglais, sil vous plait?

My French is so bad that the one phrase I made sure to memorize was Je ne parle pas le francais. And merci and sil vous plait, of course. Please and thank you are always helpful, especially when you're obviously sincere.

Mais oui...

Most French waiters speak enough English to get by (i.e., enough to get a tip from you), but they really appreciate it if you make an effort, and at least acknowledge that you're in their country, and should be appreciative that they know your language. The Americans (and other tourists) who get bad service are the ones who expect them to speak English and make no effort at all even at the please and thank you.

Oui oui!

Oh, I can read a menu and pronounce it well enough to be understood (and have my atrocious accent sneered at) in several languages, it's the listening and understanding that's the hard part. Written words give you time to search your synapses and figure them out. :-)

But in every country I've ever been in I've found the effort to be nice pays off. "Thank you very much" is the one phrase you should always know, and smiles are universal. (OK, that and "I am a traveller with an urgent need. Could you please direct me to the men's restroom?")

It's their country, and you're a guest. The quintessence of the Ugly American is whining that they treat you like a foreigner and don't do things YOUR way, like in AMERICA. I bet your FOAF not only failed to ask for ketchup (same in both languages, no?) but actually asked for FRENCH FRIES instead of pommes de terre frites. It woulda killed him to add on le avec ketchup, sil vous plait?

Even in the slums of Port au Prince or the dirt-floor cantinas of Chiapas a traveller who smiles and is polite is much better received (and much safer!) than one who scowls.

C'est tout Grec ? moi.

C'est tout Grec ? moi. ;)

Cheeky monkey....

Cheeky monkey....

LOL

Everyone think their own nation is the best, even as they curse their leaders for being evil idiots. (I've noticed that bit is universal...)

They're more likely actually to say we're fat. Since we are in fact fat, it's hard to take too much offense there, either.

Speak for yourself--I fight hard to not resemble that description! :-) But it's both odd and telling that obesity is now a much greater threat to the poor in America than hunger.

Here in relatively prosperous Chapel Hill, NC I can't pull up to a stoplight without some hobo asking me for money.

Funny, that never happens to me in the poor parts of the country!

More seriously, if your local government won't combine a concerted law enforcement effort (backed with jail-time statutes) with some hefty residential rehab/treatment programs, it's not gonna get better.

Recent comments

Advertisements
StubbornFacts.us does not endorse the content of any advertisement

Featured Movie

Syndicate

Syndicate content

Who's online

There are currently 0 users and 2 guests online.