[extropy-chat] Europe vs America (was Depressing thought....)

[rand-y]

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 19:28:27 +0100, you wrote

>Randy wrote (10.11.2003/10:45) :
>> 
>> Greg wrote
>> 
>> >The corporate form per se is no more or less problematic than any
>> >other means of holding and using property and contract rights. The
>> >problem arises when state power is fused with the form through
>> >corporatist government policies. Blaiming "corporations" is like
>> >blaming any other interest group that bids for and buys government
>> >favor, be they "farmers," "unions" or other organized groups that
>> >manage to garner preferential treatment from the state.
>> >Corporations are RELATVELY weak in the EU (compared to the US), but
>> >these other organized interest groups have done just as much harm
>> >by co-opting state power for their special interests in the EU --
>> >viz. France and their endless strikes and labor-driven politics,
>> 
>> But how do you define "harm"?  The strikes in Europe are simply the
>> expression of solidarity of the people and have resulted in the
>> superior living conditions of the French (and other NW European
>> countries), as compared to the Americans:
>
>Randy,
>
>I wish the picture you are drawing of France was true.
>
>France has 10% unemployment (that's NOT counting people on social
>welfare, only people who were employed some months ago) and rising.


Actually, the USA also has unemployment approaching 10%. It just so
happens that France and other european countries use stricter
guidelines in counting their unemployed. Also, you see we do not count
those in prison as unemployed. However, they are actually unemployed,
and SHOULD be counted. Perhaps France does not either, but we have FAR
more in prison than does France.

I am a numbers/stats kind of guy, so if you do not mind, before we
proceed further, I would like to establish as precisely as possible
just what it is that we are talking about here when it comes to living
in France/western Europe, or the USA. These numbers and financial
situational comparisons fascinate me. I would like to write a book
about this subject, as there is nothing that descibes this adequately,
that I can find anyway. 

The median wage/salary in the USA is somewhere in the 20K-25K US
dollar range.  That number means different things for different areas
of the country because of price differentials. 

In large metro areas, 23K (we will call that the median for our
purposes) is enough to live on, but owning a home in those areas is
generally impossible on that wage. That is why less than 60% of
Americans own their own homes, despite that contrast with Europe where
there is less land per capita--surprisingly (I am sure)  to most
Americans, home ownership is actually more common in many western
european countries than in the USA.

People who make 23K and under are generally taxed at about 23-27% from
their paycheck, and other taxes or fees generally amount to about
7-13%. Those are rough approximations.  So the bottom half of AMerican
earners lose about maybe about 27-33% of their pay to taxes. And what
do they get for their taxes? That is really the big question.

Those in the 50-70 percentile range, with incomes of 23K-35K, roughly,
lose about 33-37% of their income to all taxation. 

Those who make more, than about $35K, the top 25% of so, lose perhaps
40% to taxation. THe AMerican tax system is set up so that these
earners are more able to escape federal taxation.

Now I know that taxation rates for western europeans are higher. But
for the lower 50% or so, how does taxation compare?. That is hard for
me to find out.  Perhaps you can establish income and taxation rough
desscriptions as I have done. My research indicates that the bottom
50% of western euros are taxed at maybe 40%.  And what do they get for
that extra 12-15% in taxation? My research indicates that they receive
"free" medical (or very low priced medical). Also, welfare is more
available. Unemployment is more extensive and availabe. Also,
university education is much cheaper, or even free.  Please feel free
to correct me or provide more detailed information.

As for  SOCIAL BENEFITS, when laid off (or fired under certain
restricted conditions), one may apply for approximately 6 months
unemployment, which usually works out to about US$200-350/month.

After 6 months, nothing more, usually. Able bodied single persons are
not eligible for welfare.  However, if one has less than about $US2000
in saving, you may obtain ~$US90/month for food. No housing subsidy
unless you are have children and have a very low income and very
little savings. Same for medical--none except for very poor families
with children.

Perhaps you can now do the same for France, i.e., describe the
benefits  -- such as unemployment, medical, welfare, etc.

These financial/numerical situational comparisons are actually rather
hard to establish/determine.  One would think that will the resources
available, these scenarios would be common knowledge. One would think
that American-European comparisons such as I am trying to establish
here would be common in the media or provided by our govt. But they
are not. Seems like a conspiracy (tightens tin foil cap....).


>The social security (meaning free health services) has a HUGE deficit,
>so it won't be able to carry on very long that way.


In the western democracies governmental deficit/surpluses all seem to
oscillate about a mean depending on the business cycle. Correct?  Can
you be more specific about this deficit? Was there a surplus a few
years ago?



>The government has every difficulty to make the least reform, because
>of the unions and strikes, especially in the public service.
>Meanwhile, problems accumulate, and seem to never get solved.

Can you be more specific?


>Here's my current view of things: Liberty and responsability directly
>correlate with collective prosperity through creative competition. If
>you are not sure you want to say to the weak: "find a way to make
>yourself useful or die", and to the strong: "you're welcome to become
>a half-god by accumulating wealth", because you value equality, and
>the support of the weak, you can do it, but it will lower collective
>prosperity. Even in France, there are many people who work very hard
>the whole day only to sustain themselves. I find it reasonable to be
>appalled at it.
>

Your meaning is unclear to me. Perhaps there is a language problem.  

I submit for starters that MOST people in western europe, and France
specifically, prefer their system to ours. You seem to prefer ours.
Come on over. We will take you in. But it is harder for me to get into
France. In fact, it is basically impossible unless I have a job there,
correct (a parent who was born there)? Citizenship? Very hard....


>Neither the US nor France are at one extremity of the theorical
>spectrum. But France is a bit more on the equality-support side. It
>has some good aspects (humble people feel more empowered and less
>"enslaved", and there may be a general "quality of life" and more
>relaxed approach of things), 


I COMPLETELY AGREE.  And also, by the way, people also live about 3
years more in France, on average. Correct? This is a subject not in
the least off-topic here on this list, of course.


>and it has some bad aspects (less
>prosperity, which means even more support needed, and so on in a
>vicious circle).

Vicious circle, huh? Race to the bottom, American-style, anyone?

>One thought which I never heard voiced, but which seems rather obvious
>to me, is that by being more on the liberty-responsability end of the
>spectrum, the USA pay the "inequality price" for some of its
>creativity, 

Umm, I do not concede that America is more "creative" than western
europe. 


>that is then available for free to other countries. It
>might be that Europe would have been forced a long time ago to get
>back to more liberty-responsability if it couldn't use what the US
>create (think computers, Internet, etc.). I'm not an economist,
>though.
>
>I don't think there is one definite answer about
>liberty-responsability versus equality-support. 


What about what the majority of the citizens of France think?


>Within the bounds of
>our ape psyche (and maybe beyond), the redirection of competitive
>"instincts" into production at the exclusion of coercion (which is
>what the political philosophy of liberty is about seen at our
>contemporary light) may well be the best way to go. It has to be
>acknowledged that it does pressure individuals, though, even if more
>collective prosperity tends to make things easier even for the weak.

The "weak" as you say, amount to perhaps half the populace.

>In the end, it's probably more difficult in France than in the US due
>to less prosperity, but the perception people in lower situations have
>of life may be a bit better and less harsh, which possibly produces a
>"better atmosphere".
>
>Silly French joke: You know why they chose the rooster as the embleme
>for France? Because it's the only animal that still sings even with
>his feet in the mud. I am afraid this is what you get with too much
>equality-support: some kind of warmth with material misery.

YOu make it seem as if it is simply a psychological thing. That is
part of it. In fact, there is a nascent meme that maintains that the
peculiar form of corporate slavery that is encroaching upon the bottom
50% of Americans is one reason why Americans live several years on
average than western euros. There is a psycho-biological price to pay
for worry about losing medical benefits if ones loses a job, overwork,
lack of vacation time, etc.... Not inappropriately, studies of *lab
rats* have shown this time and again (with appropriate lab rat jobs,
lab rat vacations, lab rat healthcare, lab rat worries, etc.).

American-style rat-race, anyone?

But it is more than just psychology: as I have begun to show above,
for the majorityof American citizens, the european style of govt would
work out better--in hard numbers. But please, give us a numerical
description of how the bottom half lives in France.


---------

Randy






-------------
The United States of America: If you like low wages, you'll love long hours!