Earned Wealth Versus Redistributed Wealth
In the WSJ, James K. Glassman reviews Thomas Geoghegan's book, Were You Born on the Wrong Continent?, a book about Geoghegan's conclusion that Americans would lead richer lives if only we adopted European social and economic policy:
Early on, for example, he talks about an American expatriate living in Paris with her French boyfriend, a drummer in a band: "I wondered: If she went back to America, what would she do? First, she'd have to get a job. We don't subsidize the arts [the drummer gets state support]. It might be as a cashier. She'd have a no vacation. . . . No health insurance. Second, what if she had a kid? No paid maternity leave. No cornucopia of subsidies. Third, she'd have to pay for school. Unless she threw the child into the public schools. Fourth, no child care. No one to help her. Fifth, her rocker husband would have to work."
Tragic, simply tragic.
Europeans have traded leisure for wealth. The only problem with this formula is that Europe has tried to have its gâteau and eat it too. Creating wealth, if only to redistribute it, ultimately requires hard work. But Europe's welfare state, and its incentives for leisure, have continued to grow. (Never mind that America has subsidized Europe's domestic benefits for decades by bearing the lion's share of its defense costs.) Mr. Geoghegan portrays Europe as warmer, fuzzier, fairer, more intellectual, more healthy and less stressful than America. Perhaps so. But if Europe is a paradise, it is an evanescent one.I suspect that Mr. Geoghegan realizes this sad fact--the unsustainability of the whole arrangement. Near the end of this stay in Berlin, he meets an American friend, living in Germany, who asks him how his trip is going. "I've never been so happy in my whole life," Mr. Geoghegan replies. The only thing that makes him miserable, he says, is the thought that he has to go back to the U.S. and to a life of "work, work, work." "You'll poison the whole experience if you worry about that," his friend says. "Just enjoy it now. And when it's over, it's over."
From this exchange Mr. Geoghegan arrives at a way of thinking about the European model. "Maybe one day," he writes, "Europeans will have to work till they drop as we do in America. So? Then the Europeans should just enjoy it now. When it's over, it's over."
Who do they think pays for this lifestyle? (Well, for one, we do -- with our tax dollars to support our military, and with our relatively free-market system that provides drugs and innovations used by the Europeans.) The rest is paid by the Europeans who actually work for a living to support the parasites crawling to the state welfare agencies to collect their checks.
Makes me keep thinking of immigration and the welfare state. I would like the big countries to sit down and trade people. Send those Buddhist/Taoist Hippy hemp wearing shmuck for one East Indian University Graduate. Send some black power - African/reparations all white people are scum Dashi wearing idjot from the US for a east african man who will drive taxi for 14 hours, study for 6 and sleep for 2 just to become and engineer. Those welfare bums who have been on welfare for 10 plus years trade for a handful of Chinese workers.
John Paulson at August 16, 2010 1:23 AM
The only thing that makes him miserable, he says, is the thought that he has to go back to the U.S. and to a life of "work, work, work."
...if Europe is a paradise, it is an evanescent one
Because he finds the European lifestyle nice, it must be doomed? What an idiot. To take a few specific points:
- The idea that the US is somehow subsidizing Europe is both wrong and, frankly, typical American arrogance. Sure, the US did a lot after WWII, and during the cold war. Both events were quite some time ago. Anyway, there was a healthy dose of self-interest involved. Right now, if there is a subsidy, it is running the other way: keeping the US dollar afloat amidst a sea of red ink.
Economically? To take Amy's example, look at drug companies. Of the biggest 12, 6 are based in the USA, 6 in Western Europe. Seems like a pretty fair split. Financial figures come out pretty much the same way.
Working till you drop? You can fine workaholics everywhere - lazy people too. When people mention this, one of the big factors is usually vacation. No one in Europe has only two weeks of vacation a year - indeed, the idea is regarded as insane. On the other hand, lots of people in the USA have more than two weeks vacation (not least the entire military and civil service). If you don't, there is no reason not to negotiate vacation time right along with your salary. Earn a bit less, be a lot saner - your choice.
Do some European countries (Greece comes to mind) have financial problems? Certainly! So does California. Indeed, so does the USA. As a percentage of GDP for 2009 (and climbing rapidly), the USA ranks 47th in the world. Compared to Western Europe, the USA has more debt than Poland, Finland, Denmark, Switzerland and Sweden.
bradley13 at August 16, 2010 4:50 AM
It never fails to amaze me how people can visit a place on vacation or short visits and think that it must be exactly the same experience to live there permanently. I like aspects of Europe and I prefer others in the US, but Europe is neither the utopia of balanced living some people on the left like to envision nor the socialist hell of the right.
Astra at August 16, 2010 6:24 AM
bradley - if Europe had been responsible for its defense throughout the cold war, there is no way they'd have the social democracy they lord over everyone else.
brian at August 16, 2010 6:35 AM
I'm an American who thinks two weeks of vacation is ridiculous, too. That's why I don't accept full-time positions with companies that only offer that, and make a living doing temp/contract work. I save my pennies while I'm working and then enjoy some time off between assignments.
I have to put up with fluctuations in my hourly rate, the length of assignments, and I have to pay for 100% of my health insurance premiums. It's still completely worth it, and workable, since I don't live in a heavily-mortgaged McMansion, have debt, or kids. If you're willing to keep your lifestyle simple and your expenses low, yes you can enjoy a lot more time off each year, because you don't need as much money.
This just sounds like a bunch of adolescent whining from someone who wants to have their cake and eat it too. Gee, wouldn't we ALL like to live in perpetual vacation and never have to work. Duh.
Pirate Jo at August 16, 2010 7:02 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/08/16/earned_wealth_v.html#comment-1743306">comment from Pirate JoPirate Jo, what I love about you is the way you seem to reconsider everything, and don't follow the pack. I would like to make serious money so I won't have to lick my dinner out of catfood cans in my old age, but aside from having a guest house so I could have friends stay with me and have them remain friends, I would just live in a normal-sized house, and only get new cars when the old cars get wheezy. Marlon Brando drove the same white Lexus for years and loved a bargain. People who don't need to show off to other people often don't.
Amy Alkon at August 16, 2010 7:12 AM
Astra writes: It never fails to amaze me how people can visit a place on vacation or short visits and think that it must be exactly the same experience to live there permanently.
Bingo
Brian writes: if Europe had been responsible for its defense throughout the cold war, there is no way they'd have the social democracy they lord over everyone else.
Alternate history - there is no way to know how it would have turned out. In any case, it's water under the bridge, and has nothing to do with today's situation. Neither feuds nor gratitude travel well across generations.
In any case, as Astra points out: there are some great things about living in Europe (do note: European countries are also very different from each other). And some great things about living in the USA. Neither side has any place lording it over the other.
bradley13 at August 16, 2010 7:40 AM
Although they both have one thing in common - if they don't do something about government spending, they won't be here in a generation or two.
brian at August 16, 2010 7:53 AM
Alternate history - there is no way to know how it would have turned out. In any case, it's water under the bridge, and has nothing to do with today's situation.
Here's an experiement: the US can withdraw from NATO, and tell Putin that we no longer have an interest in defending Europe and Russia should be the big dog over there.
Think they'll go for it?
Oh, BTW: feuds do travel well over generations. See: the former nation of Yugoslavia. But you're right, gratitude doesn't travel well, and is quickly forgotten.
I R A Darth Aggie at August 16, 2010 8:40 AM
- The idea that the US is somehow subsidizing Europe is both wrong and, frankly, typical American arrogance
Right, explain then why there is a permanant training facility for German air force officers only outside of Luke Air Force Base in Phoenix, az?
lujlp at August 16, 2010 9:14 AM
Name a great French rock band. State supported art is almost always junk.
KateC at August 16, 2010 11:14 AM
First of all, talking about Europe as just one country is, too bee polite. Stupid. Yes, that is the polite way of putting it. Seriously, it is ignorant, stupid and offensive. I live in Scandinavia and the difference between my country, Denmark, and say Italy or Greece or even France is tremendous. Europe is not just this big, one place where everyone is the same.
Second, yes, we probably value leisure more than americans. We do have longer vacations and we do subsidize way more heavily than you guys. But it's not lazyness - we just don't like for anyone to be really poor. Most of us would much rather pay high taxes than having loads of people being unable to sustain a decent life and not buying their kids proper food or clothing. So, basically, screw you for calling us lazy. I've been self employed for nearly a decade. For six years I took four weeks of - two weeks for each of my kids. Lazy?
Denmark has, to my knowledge, sent more troops to Iraq and Afghanistan than any other country, even the US, considering the size of our countries. At 5.3 million inhabitants, we could propably fit all of us in Manhattan and have room to spare. So you supporting us? Well, thank you for supporting us, how very nice of you guys.
We just do things differently - your way isn't the god given, only right way of doing things and stuff like this makes it real easy to find americans patronizing morons.
You are the ones with huge deficits - if anything, the world is supporting you guys now. China is lending you money by 100.000$s of dollars a minute and without them, you'd be bancrupt in no time. So please, do stfu with you supporting us; we do our stuff and we don't have people starving or living on the streets by the millions. Your way isn't paradise and ours isn't either, but I'd take my country over yours any day of the week.
Jesper at August 16, 2010 11:28 AM
The point here, Jesper, is that overly generous welfare states are not sustainable. Not even in Denmark:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/business/global/17denmark.html?ref=world
"Denmark Tightens Its Generous Jobless Benefits"
Claus Hjort Frederiksen, Danish Finance Minister: "Four years of unemployment is a luxury we can no longer allow ourselves"
Martin at August 16, 2010 11:54 AM
The US military and foreign policy complex is parasitic and coprolitic.
Our military protects Europe? Who is going to invade Europe?
Tell me, when the Soviet Union collapsed, and the Russians stopped spending on their military, did Russian living standards go up or down? (Answer: They went way up--they have terrible traffic jams in Moscow now).
Did anyone invade Russia, despite the fact they have almost no military?
Would any sane person contend that Russia would be better off spending huge amounts of their money on a military?
But the US is better off for spending huge amounts of money on our military?
BOTU at August 16, 2010 11:59 AM
I just noticed that. And there is a way to know how it would have turned out. If we'd just walked away after WWII (the way many advocated then, just as they did after the 2003 Iraq invasion) much if not most of western Europe would have been part of the USSR, or at least "independent" socialist states under Soviet influence.
In other words, without the US you'd be speaking German or Russian. You're welcome.
Yeah, because we aren't criticizing our way of doing things. Oh, wait - yes we are. Our ruling elites want to push us further along the path that your nations have taken, which we see leads toward stagnation. Only they want to try it with 300 million people, not 5 million.
England or France or Germany can dismantle parts of the social welfare state with minimal circumstances. Here? Forget about it. We have rallies that march on our capital with a half a million people - and that's with more than half our population asleep. You'd have to get 10% of your nation together for one such protest.
brian at August 16, 2010 12:03 PM
International Living rates best countries to live in for 2010
Submitted by Sandy Smith on 2010-01-07
The French have long claimed that while other nations may know how to work, they know how to live. The editors of International Living magazine apparently agree, for they have rated France the best country to live in in their 2010 Quality of Life Index of 194 countries.
This is the fifth straight year that France has taken top honors in the magazine's annual rankings. "Its tiresome bureaucracy and high taxes are outweighed by an unsurpassable quality of life, including the world's best health care," the editors wrote in their article listing the 10 best countries to live in.
You Americans are suckers and douchebags for
BOTU at August 16, 2010 12:05 PM
BOTU - you know nothing about Russia. The standard of living there is shit unless you happen to be one of the oligarchs. Russia is a failed state.
They dismantled their military because they couldn't pay them. They have to hold Europe hostage with gas shortages to extract more money out of them. They kept their nukes so that nobody would invade them.
Of course, they aren't really WORTH invading, because even if you win, and you get access to their resources, you get a bunch of fucking Russians as part of the deal.
You talk like Pat Buchanan, noted anti-Semite and Hitler apologist. He doesn't like the military either, because he figures we should just rely on nukes as a deterrent and leave everyone else to fate.
brian at August 16, 2010 12:07 PM
Guess BOTU had a heart attack. If only he'd been in France.....
brian at August 16, 2010 12:09 PM
BOTU, the problem with France is that it is full of French people. And the only time they tried to defend themselves recently, they sank the f'ing rainbow warrior and killed two naturalists who's only crime was trying to stop an above ground nuclear explosion in the south pacific. F*ck France, and Germany, and Poland, and all the other ingrates in Europe who owe their very existence to America and chose to look down their nose at us. I am all for getting out of NATO and letting you f'ers pay the full cost of your defense.
ron at August 16, 2010 1:14 PM
Actually, it's Amy Alkon who rhapsodizes about the French. I don't like them them much. I prefer Italians. Still, the French have created a stable and prosperous society, and people get six weeks off a year.
Russia is a creepy place, to be sure. Still, they have much higher living standards than before (they have millions of "oligarchs" in Moscow driving cars), and they are indisputably better off without a parasitic military. They have plenty of natural resources worth coveting (think oil, gas, timber and huge amounts of wasted farmland), and lots of sexy women, still no one invades. As an aside, Slavic women can be hotter than all get out.
We are in the same position as Russia, except our women are not as sexy. No one would invade us if we radically curtailed our military-foreign policy complex, and pumped that money back into the private, jobs- and wealth-creating sector.
In fact, we would be much stronger in 20 years for doing exactly that. We may suffer the same fate as Russia if we allow military-foreign policy interest groups to gobble up wealth produced by private-sector workers and investors.
BOTU at August 16, 2010 2:11 PM
Us, BOTU?Didnt your last post say "you americans"?
lujlp at August 16, 2010 3:07 PM
Ex-patriates have mixed sensibilities.
BOTU at August 16, 2010 4:41 PM
"Name a great French rock band. State supported art is almost always junk. "
Or German. The pioneering electronic group Tangerine Dream was offered subsidies back in their heyday, and they always turned them down. They had already seen, even back in the '70s, what a trap that was.
Cousin Dave at August 16, 2010 6:36 PM
On the other hand, lots of people in the USA have more than two weeks vacation (not least the entire military and civil service).
I will comment on the military having 30 days -- but that has to include travel as well. The typical civilian clocks out on a Friday at 5:00PM and if so inclined -- goes home gets the wife and kids and then gets on the road drives for six hours to the destination (family, theme park, etc.)
Now if you are a G.I. and you do that -- If you get in an accident at 8:00PM and you're farther than 100 miles (depending on your metropolitan area) from the base/home the military can consider you AWOL. They also don't have to cover any additional medical expenses the insurance doesn't cover. That also includes taking a 3-day weekend trip to someplace. Ninety-five percent of the time this isn't enforced -- but has been. An example of this is if I were stationed in Dayton, Ohio and wanted to visit my family on a three day weekend in Indianapolis, Indiana. I would technically be AWOL if there were a recall on that weekend.
And the even gets worse if I were stationed overseas. Examples of that were probably seen last year when they shut down the airlines over Europe for the volcano.
As for six weeks of vacation: how many weeks before it becomes unsustainable?
Bethlehem Steel towards the end had a system between vacation and sick leave that the senior employees could take 13 weeks (one-quarter of a year) off every year paid. This was before FMLA. Granted it was hard work -- but they couldn't get rid of the old deadwood becasue of the unions. They couldn't lower pay, etc. Essentially the company was in the position of Henry Rearden in Atlas Shruuged
Jim P. at August 16, 2010 6:50 PM
People are sure getting mad about this. We all have opinions. What about facts? How much do European countries pay for military? How much does the USA pay for military in Europe? How much money is the USA giving away to countries that don't like us?
How many people in the USA are so poor that they'd have seemed poor 100 years ago? Think about it.
KrisL at August 16, 2010 7:42 PM
BOTU has a hard-on for getting rid of the military.
He doesn't seem to grok the idea of peace through superior firepower. The credible threat of violence coming from us is what stopped the Soviet Union from stomping all over Europe. It's what's stopping China from taking Taiwan by force. It's what's stopping North Korea from invading South Korea.
Ditch our military, and there's no longer a credible deterrent.
Of course, for the acolytes of Pat Buchanan (like BOTU), this is a net positive, because China and Korea can't sell us cheap consumer goods if they've blown each other off the map.
brian at August 16, 2010 9:52 PM
I take four weeks of vacation a year, and could have six if I asked. However, my employer only pays two weeks. He pays me very well for the time I do work and gives me a fixed dollar amount towards my health insurance, which I buy myself as we're a four person office and can't get a group plan.
Sure, it would be nice to have four or six weeks paid vacation every year but I have a job I like a 10 minute bus ride from my house and if a client wants something done in the evening or on the weekend, the boss does it for the most part--if he asks us to chip in we get to take the time off later on a date of our choosing
The key is I asked for what I wanted in terms of money, duties and time off and we negotiated and we're both happy with the final deal.
It never hurts to ask for what you want. You might be surprised at what is negotiable, even in a tough job market.
Nanc in Ashland at August 16, 2010 11:09 PM
Something JimP didnt mention about the military is you dont get sick days.
lujlp at August 17, 2010 1:13 AM
After living in France for 7 years, I have come to the conclusion that socialist systems have a very dark side. The attitude towards work here is almost wholly negative, which destroys morale in the workplace. The relationship between bosses and employees here is exploitative in both directions and ambition is badly regarded because nobody wants to see their neighbor succeed. This makes it very difficult for anyone striving for excellence in their career. When one is FORCED to take 5+ weeks of vacation and is surrounded by people who are more interested in planning their next vacation than their next project, it becomes impossible to compete internationally. Plus, all the putative rights given to employees and renters make it very difficult for young French people to find a job or an apartment, unless you “know someone”. Thus there is rampant nepotism, which consequently contributes to social unrest and a two-tiered society.
I honestly think that the French obsession with vacation is indicative of a highly frustrated and stifled workforce. These “quality of life” studies just look at the surface and do not touch the deep malaise infecting this country. France is a wonderful country to visit…just don’t try to live here!
liz at August 17, 2010 3:56 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/08/16/earned_wealth_v.html#comment-1743662">comment from lizPlus, all the putative rights given to employees and renters make it very difficult for young French people to find a job or an apartment, unless you “know someone”.
This is also the case in New York City. I had a boyfriend with an eight-room apartment in a grand building on the Upper West Side that he paid somewhere around $400 for, thanks to rent control, while I was paying $900 for a tiny closet of an apartment...one I was lucky to find.
Amy Alkon at August 17, 2010 5:54 AM
Um, it's not just Americans working in pharmaceuticals. Heard of Novartis, maybe? Roche? Where are they located? Hint... not America. In addition, America is falling behind in high-tech, we no longer are capable of building all our chips and things ourselves. Europe is pushing further ahead in technology than we are. The idea that the American system is the only one where people invent things is pure nonsense.
The military subsidy is not nonsense, and I will say that it kind of sucks that Americans have to pay more taxes to subsidize a military, and get crappy schools and roads, so that Europeans can have nice roads and arts.
Having said that, most of the French people I know who have tried to live in America move back after a few years. Though I do agree with Liz, people in francophone countries often seem more haggard and stressed than middle-class Americans. However, people who come work in the US get burnt out pretty quickly and find their lives improve in France. Granted, a lot of the people I know are academics. It's easier to make a living as an academic in many European countries than here, in spite of the mistaken belief that academics get paid hundreds of thousands to work two hours a week.
However, having just moved to the Swiss countryside, I will say it is annoying that the country practically shuts down for the month of August, especially when you're trying to settle into a new house!
NicoleK at August 17, 2010 10:50 AM
If anyone wants to disabuse of the information if I'm wrong please do.
As I understand it, in France, you have limited career mobility. As in if your family were bakers, you're expected to be a baker. Vintner's children become vintners; etc.
If I'm wrong please let me know.
Jim P. at August 17, 2010 7:58 PM
Jim P: While I agree that socioeconomic classes are probably more rigid in France than in the U.S., I think that your examples have more to do with the respect given to artisans in France. But yes indeed, studies have shown that children of manual laborers tend to become manual laborers, and children of professionals tend to become professionals. I don’t know how the numbers compare with the U.S.
To break into the professional classes usually requires a diploma from a "Grande Ecole". Entrance is super competitive, and unless you really have your ducks in a row at the age of 18, you will not be admitted. The Grand Ecole system is one of the reasons the French élite is so homogenous. I also believe that the “concours” system, where applicants for jobs and higher education places are ranked according to an exam, favors theoretical knowledge over practical knowledge and life experience, and is thus biased towards intellectuals. Also, recovery from failure is very difficult in France, as there are still age limits for applying for certain jobs/educational opportunities.
Nicole K: Could you be more specific as to why you think that it is easier to make a living as an academic in Europe? It is not easy to find a permanent academic position in Switzerland, so kudos to you. In France, it is not only difficult, but you are paid a ridiculously low salary, and good luck finding funding! On the plus side, the tenure process is easier and you don’t have to work as hard, which can cause its own problems, as I alluded to in my previous post. In my field, as an American in France, I am a total anomaly, while there are plenty of French researchers forging their careers in the U.S. In fact, the French state has recently set up a special category of research positions expressly designed to encourage French researchers to come back to France!
liz at August 18, 2010 2:37 AM
Hey Liz, I typed up a response but before I sent it someone shut down my computer and it vanished and I haven't had time since, so on the off-chance you are still reading this thread I will post something.
My experience is purely anecdotal. In our case, the job in Switzerland (it's my hubby, not me) makes a ton of sense. In the states, at a highly ranked school, it was hard for him to earn enough money to live a middle class life. Here, I can take time off to have the baby, we bought a house, AND we can still save for retirement. We wouldn't have been able to do all that in the places where he had offers in the states. The salary was too low compared to the cost of living.
Having said that, it is easier to get a job in the States, because it is such a huge country (a continent, really) and there are more opportunities. But unless you're Terry Tao, it's hard to make ends meet with those jobs. Or if you happen to live somewhere with a really low cost of living. We know a couple where both are full professors at MIT, and even with their combined salaries they can't buy a house in Cambridge or the neighboring towns. Cost of living compared to salary is too high.
We know a French couple who found it easier to get by in Paris than Princeton, because of the social support. Princeton isn't exactly a bustling metropolis, yet is still very expensive. So they went home.
Others have only found adjunct positions, which pay about $18k a year if you're lucky, no benefits.
So it's all anecdotal and not scientific at all. The French people I know living in the States are living in relative poverty, all have expressed bafflement because they always thought the States was the place to go, that if you just worked hard you would be successful, but they are finding it is not the case and they are better off in France.
I agree that the concours system leaves much to be desired.
I disagree with the above poster who said German music sucks! OK, I'm going to date myself, but what about Wumpscut and Ramstein? The Germans are great on all the industrial stuff.
French music isn't great, but when HAS it been? Even before this century it wasn't great. Sure, you have a couple good opera writers... Bizet and Gounond come to mind, but only a couple amongst all the Austrians, Germans, Italians and even English. You've got Chopin and Debussy, there certainly were some good French composers, but again, they were few. The French just don't have the grand tradition of ever having been the best musicians, in any era.
NicoleK at August 20, 2010 5:58 AM
Leave a comment