# Living Standards: E.U. vs. U.S. (or U.E. vs. EE UU)



## tvdxer

I brought this up in another thread, but I think it deserves its own.  

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005242

Discuss.


----------



## Fernando

It is interesting, and I think is basically right. US is richer than EU 25 or even EU 15. Anyway, GDP is misleading (when the figures are comparatively close). I would prefer to see "qualitative" measures. Europeans like to think that a LA riot or New Orleans flood is almost impossible in Europe and that, richer or not, our citizens enjoy a better medical system.

Said this, I would say that Welfare State (well, taxes) has gone too far in some European contries and needs corrections and that US (as a whole) is wealthier than Europe.


----------



## whatonearth

No, no, no. I completely disagree. Yes, the US has a higher GDP, and yes if you are wealthy you have a very nice life indeed...HOWEVER, if you aren't wealthy, without an adequate welfare state, life is HARD. Inequality in the US is FAR more widespread. Someone famous once said 'The true measure of a country is the welfare of the most vunerable in society' (something along those lines) and in that respect the US falls well short. Sure, there is inequality and poverty in the EU but much of the EU's policy goals are to rectify this situation and countries individual social security systems also work to erode this inequality - in the USA this simply doesn't exist. I agree with Fernando, GDP is misleading...however, this isn't to say that a large proportion of the US populace don't have a high standard of living, indeed they do, maybe even higher than the "average" European (possibly...) - it's the other end of society I am more concerned about.


----------



## cuchuflete

> So Yanks have by far more cars, TVs, computers and other modern goods. "Most Americans have a standard of living which the majority of Europeans will never come anywhere near," the Swedish study says



OK, Americans have more toys.

Now, define "standard of living" taking into account qualitative measures including more than toys.  A great many of my neighbors have snowmobiles.  These are expensive toys.
They cause noise polution, air polution, deplete scarce natural resources, and are frequently the cause of serious injuries.
Is it good that lots of Americans have these things?

What about frequency distribution of wealth?  DC ranks extremely high in per capita wealth, based in part on the income levels of members of congress and the lobbyists who feed them and feed off of them.  There is also lots of very serious poverty in D.C.   
If the top 5% of the residents have absurdly high incomes, it raises the per capita level for all residents, but only on average, and on paper.

The article is good at summarizing the simple arithmetic of dividing GDP by population.  That does nothing to give insight into quality of life, which varies tremendously within European countries and within the U.S.

Discuss?  It's a superficial analysis of gross numbers.  If you are among those with a high family income in the U.S. you may feel smug about the results of the study, but it's a fairly superficial pass over a topic worth of more profound analysis.

Take, for example, the 77% of "poor" people in the U.S. who are said to have air conditioning.

Why not discuss, among other things...

--Do they need it?  How many of them live in areas that have moderate temperatures most of the year?
--What do they do in the comfort of air-conditioned rooms? Watch NASCAR races on TV while consuming junk food?
--What are the effects of so many air conditioners on energy consumption and prices, and the resulting polution from electric generation?

Does ownership of an air conditioner in a northern state really reflect a 'higher' quality of life, or just the consumerist mentality that leads people to think that microwave ownership is a necessity for a fulfilled life?

In my youth, air conditioning was a rarity, and microwaves hadn't been invented.  Are people more content, more morally centered (whatever you may want that to mean...), and healthier, emotionally and physically, if they own these objects?

Conclusion: counting toys results in a toy census, and little more.


----------



## Fernando

Cuchuflete, though I would generally agree with you, we are talking here about toys. If Americans have two books and Europeans one, they are twice wealthier than Europeans (regardless they read them or not). 

The issue of this thread (as far as I understand it) is whether this wealth gap is real or not (is not derived merely from exchange rates or inequality) and is getting higher.


----------



## GenJen54

Interesting that the "Journal" fails to mention the number of Americans who do not have health insurance. To me, that is a poverty worse than not having a TV, computer, microwave or ipod. 

Is material wealth the only form of wealth? In a consumer-driven, capitalist society like the United States, it certainly is. Forget the number of citizens who go into bankruptcy each year because of a catostrophic illness. Forget the number of citizens who cannot afford basic health costs, so clog up emergency rooms, and drain state, not to mention hospital budgets, when they cannot pay. Forget the number of seniors who are near-starvatiom or are evicted from their homes because they cannot afford medications.  But, darnit, they have ipods, so that must mean something!

Such comparisons are self-righteous and misleading.   But I should expect little else from the WSJ.


----------



## cuchuflete

Fernando said:
			
		

> The issue of this thread (as far as I understand it) is whether this wealth gap is real or not (is not derived merely from exchange rates or inequality) and is getting higher.



You are correct Fernando.  However, the simplistic counting of units of GDP per capita is not a discussion.  It's data and arithmetic calculation a child can do.   

The article states, "...less well understood is the gap in economic growth and standards of living".  Standards of living can be measured by per capita GDP alone, but that offers no insight into anything qualitative.  It simply, and tautologically, folds back onto itself, saying, "See!  1,4 is bigger than 1,0."

The discussion might include reasons for the disparity, as well as its current significance.  GenJen has raised a good point.
What is the relative wealth good for, when many members of the 'richer' family don't have basic health care?  They may have more toys to play with, per capita, and more books, read and unread, but that's small consolation to those who are too ill and full of anxiety to enjoy them.


----------



## jmx

From the article discussed :





> ... all of this is a warning to U.S. politicians who want this country to go down the same welfare-state road to decline.


This is what really angers me. Where's the proof that "european decline", assuming it really exists, comes from the welfare state ?

I'm not just angered by one sentence. I often read, or rather browse, "Time" and "Newsweek" magazines, that I get at a local library. The spirit of the quoted sentence can be felt on *hundreds* of articles on these magazines. I think there is some kind of prevalent american ideology in those articles which can be summed up like this :

- Free market is the solution to every single economic problem
- The welfare state is a hindrance to free market
- Consequently, countries paying for an extensive welfare state will inevitably lag behind the others in their prosperity

I get the impression that virtually all american journalists support this point of view. Of course they conveniently forget for instance that :

- A lot of 3rd world countries have thorough free market policies, and their economies are in a grim state anyway.
- Europe is going through the difficult process of integrating the former socialist economies, which can explain many things.
- The differences between the richer and the poorer countries in Western Europe have decreased lately.
- Europe isn't a single market yet. There are still a lot of obstacles to obtain true economies of scale, among them one that will probably never disappear : linguistic diversity.


----------



## Outsider

jmartins said:
			
		

> I'm not just angered by one sentence. I often read, or rather browse, "Time" and "Newsweek" magazines, that I get at a local library. The spirit of the quoted sentence can be felt on *hundreds* of articles on these magazines. I think there is some kind of prevalent american ideology in those articles which can be summed up like this :
> 
> - Free market is the solution to every single economic problem
> - The welfare state is a hindrance to free market
> - Consequently, countries paying for an extensive welfare state will inevitably lag behind the others in their prosperity


What I find troubling is not that so many people (and not just Americans, let's be fair) believe that dogma. It's that they seem willing to believe it regardless of any evidence.


----------



## cuchuflete

The article cited shows a per capita GDP in Washington, D.C.  about four and a half times greater than that in Mississippi. 
Belgium ranks relatively high.

The answer is clear.  Become a lobbyist or a bureaucrat.


----------



## cirrus

As someone on the left I am consistently shocked by the healthcare issue in the US.  Obscene amounts of money are spent on a healthcare system which even then doesn't cover whole tranches of the population.  Without a good job and insurance you are left without a paddle in US society if you are sick.  Walmart is reported to be investigating ways of reducing employee access to insurance so it can keep on driving costs down.  I don't see US style capitalism as a panacea.  

At the same time what I see is that Europe, certainly W Europe is literally dying on its feet.  The average age of the population is increasing.  Fewer and fewer of us are having children. As we get older and greyer who will pay the pensions of the older people?  Do we just import people from the south or do we cut the cloth according to our means?  

I love it when I go to France.  The health system is fantastic. Ditto in Holland.  The entitlements of workers in both countries are enviable.  However when the roads were blocked by a bunch of farmers protesting about fuel prices (back in August 2000) France ground to a halt and the police stood idly.  This tempered my admiration  somewhat.  Equally in Holland a mate of mine has just started working in HR for a multi national.  One of the people in his team has been signed off because he has "boss sickness":  He's sick because of his boss.  It wouldn't wash here and I very much doubt it would in the States. 

Meanwhile unemployment for young people in much of Europe remains stubbornly high.  Great if you have a job but what prospects have you without?  For those of in work, housing costs in many countries have exploded in the last ten years.  How many of us will have to work until we drop to pay off the ridiculous mortgages we have piled up around us?


----------



## tvdxer

> Now, define "standard of living" taking into account qualitative measures including more than toys. A great many of my neighbors have snowmobiles. These are expensive toys.
> They cause noise polution, air polution, deplete scarce natural resources, and are frequently the cause of serious injuries.
> Is it good that lots of Americans have these things?



What do you expect them to do?  Spend their leisure hours at a trendy sidewalk cafe'?  ...(couldn't resist)

And, at least compared to everything else, the air pollution caused by snowmobiles is negligible.  There has been a move to four-stroke and simply towards more efficient, less noisy engines.  

Certainly, making "toys" the object of one's life is wrong.  However, I see the ability to afford them as generally being a good thing - after all, it's nice to be able to choose how to spend your own hard-earned money, rather than turn it over to the massive federal government.  Have you seen the tax rates in, for example, in Sweden or Denmark, "welfare state" paradises?  They are insane.  I know for myself they would remove the incentive to work.



> What about frequency distribution of wealth? DC ranks extremely high in per capita wealth, based in part on the income levels of members of congress and the lobbyists who feed them and feed off of them. There is also lots of very serious poverty in D.C.
> If the top 5% of the residents have absurdly high incomes, it raises the per capita level for all residents, but only on average, and on paper.
> 
> The article is good at summarizing the simple arithmetic of dividing GDP by population. That does nothing to give insight into quality of life, which varies tremendously within European countries and within the U.S.



The very high per capita GDP of D.C. surprised me also, since there is a severe poverty problem there, one of the worse in the country.  The same with quality of life.  However, I think it can said that there are certain differences that separate the U.S. and most of the (western) EU nations from one another.

I'm not a libertarian, or a strict minarchist, and I think there are certain social services that the government (ideally the lowest level of such) should provide to citizens.  But the article, I think, makes a good point when it comes to the differences in self-determination between most of western Europe and the U.S.  American policies tend to encourage hard work (sometimes excessive work....just look at how ridiculously short our vacations are, and how many today do not even take them!) and self-reliance.  Lower taxes and laxer firing/hiring rules tend to give workers more of an incentive to produce more, as they must 1) be competitive and 2) can have an easier time seeing the fruits of their individual labor, while European countries have a less individualistic conception of economic freedom, where one's government-dictated responsibilities towards the social state provide a greater safety net yet at the same time do not encourage more work and consumption (which is not always a positive thing, again).  After all, if I make 100,000 euros and get 70,000 euros taken away from the government, why not produce much less and make 40,000 euros, and have only 20,000 taken from the government?


----------



## tvdxer

cirrus said:
			
		

> At the same time what I see is that Europe, certainly W Europe is literally dying on its feet.  The average age of the population is increasing.  Fewer and fewer of us are having children. As we get older and greyer who will pay the pensions of the older people?  Do we just import people from the south or do we cut the cloth according to our means?
> ==
> Meanwhile unemployment for young people in much of Europe remains stubbornly high.  Great if you have a job but what prospects have you without?  For those of in work, housing costs in many countries have exploded in the last ten years.  How many of us will have to work until we drop to pay off the ridiculous mortgages we have piled up around us?


These two points make a lot of sense.  Europe is essentially depopopulating itself.  While the fertility rate in the U.S. is also uncomfortably low (you can bet we'd have a lot less of a problem with our social security system if the otherwise was true), at 2.08 which is right under replacement level, it's still quite a bit higher than in most all European countries.  Take Italy, for example...1.28 women per children.  This is not enough to replace parents, not enough to continue the size of the society, and not enough to provide workers to maintain the large social welfare nets.  In fact, I think there's one place in Italy (Bologna?) where the fertility rate is under 1!   I've read quite a bit about this issue, as I find it very interesting, and many speak of the reason for this being 1) career development coming late (perhaps due to unemployment) and women not wanting to have children during their 20's due to jobs not being friendly to mothers (even though the government social benefits seem to be) and 2) desire for material goods and personal fulfillment over having to take care of kids. 

Whatever it is, it's a scary matter when those of long-running European cultures are only having 1 child per family, not enough to keep large enough of a working population base.


----------



## euroamerican123

Im sorry but there are too many socialist point of views on this board. Let me give you my two cents. I am the son of an Italian immigrant and I can tell you this: 
We live in America, first in New York and now in California. My father and I pool our money and we make a 160k per year cumulatively with a 800k home paid for (no mortgage). And we will never go back to Europe. (My father immigrated to US in 1969 and started without knowing any English nor having any capital). 
The US is the only country in the world where you can make something of yourself coming from nothing. Europe is extremely class based and success can only come from inheritance or having connections... at least in Italy. UK has closer ties to America and shouldn't be compared to the rest of the Europeans. 
As for healthcare... we have the best healthcare system in the world with the best technology. My uncle comes to America to have his surgeries. Barlesconi came to America for his medical care. Yes it is expensive but we make the income to have insurance. 
The liberals in this country consist of hollywood (living in a hypocritical fantasy world), the elderly (baby-boomers who messed up and didn't take advantage of the capitalist system), and the youth (who haven't paid taxes yet and get the majority of their scholastic education from MTV). You can't build wealth with a 50% income tax. In this country you have the "choice" to not have health insurance and build wealth. For instance... if you take your insurance premium and invest it in the market, you can clear 8% easily with minimal risk and that can pay for the year if you get sick... if you don't that is money in your pocket and not the government. 
The last time I went to Europe it appeared to me as borderline 3rd world...All of my father's relatives just want their free pensions without having to work and all they care about is food and socializing. Quite regressive and pathetic. I am sorry if I come off as obnoxious but it is really sad if you are an American citizen born and raised and can't make it in your own country... for those people I would gladly pay for a one way ticket to Canada or Europe rather than collect wellfare. We need workers in America, not leechers. And a socialized pension, healthcare system, coupled with high taxes would only promote the latter. 
I know I am going to get rants for my post but you can only understand what I am saying if you are a disciplined hard worker and live in America. Now, if your view of quality of life is talking and eating without having to work and living modestly at best... then by all means remain in Europe, you wouldn't do well here. By the way... 30-33% of all Americans have a net worth of $1million or more including their home... I believe that is higher than any other country. Please reply, I would love to enlighten some of you.

Oh, and in regard to the post made by tvdxer... you are right, the european population is declining...Why? Because Italians can't afford children because the rate of unemployment is too high (like I said earlier, need to come from an important family or have connections), taxes too high, and cost of goods are too high. Since they can't cut corners with their taxes, they cut corners buy living at home with their parents and staying single without having children... Is that the standard of living that a few of the above posters were boasting about?


----------



## cirrus

Actually I am not certain whether European population levels are declining any more. Across W Europe there are increasing amounts of immigration - be it from E Europe or the third world.  What we know is these people are having children and if anything population rates are stabilising, if not showing an increase.


----------



## ernest_

It seems like they have misused the term "decline" here, because what they moan about, essentially, is that economic *growth* in Europe is smaller than it is in the US. So, it's not like the European economy is declining at all, it is growing. They say so themselves.


----------



## Brioche

cirrus said:


> Actually I am not certain whether European population levels are declining any more. Across W Europe there are increasing amounts of immigration - be it from E Europe or the third world.  What we know is these people are having children and if anything population rates are stabilising, if not showing an increase.



I'm not sure that this will be Europe's salvation! Quite the opposite.

Immigrants [and even their children] in Europe remain "immigrants" and don't be come Europeans in the way that immigrants to the US traditionally became Americans. The immigrants will mould Europe to their image, not the other way round. 

The pension systems of Europe are unsustainable. Neither the immigrants nor the locals will be willing to pay hugh taxes to support the old drones.


----------



## cirrus

Salvation seems a bit of an overstatement.  What it has done is reduce wage growth at the same time as population decline has reduced. 

As for pensions, there is little point generalising on EU pensions. The systems and provisions vary considerably even within pre 2003 EU.


----------



## Outsider

Brioche said:


> I'm not sure that this will be Europe's salvation! Quite the opposite.
> 
> Immigrants [and even their children] in Europe remain "immigrants" and don't be come Europeans in the way that immigrants to the US traditionally became Americans. The immigrants will mould Europe to their image, not the other way round.
> 
> The pension systems of Europe are unsustainable. Neither the immigrants nor the locals will be willing to pay hugh taxes to support the old drones.


May I ask where all those apocalyptic generalities come from?


----------



## argentina84

jmartins said:


> 1) A lot of 3rd world countries have thorough free market policies, and their economies are in a grim state anyway.
> 2) Europe isn't a single market yet. There are still a lot of obstacles to obtain true economies of scale, among them one that will probably never disappear : linguistic diversity.


 
1) We know what you mean! 
2) Do you think language is an obstacle? I think it's an advantage. Languages and the cultural diversity in Europe make it unique. The United States may be wealthier because they may have more money..but not because they have more history, culture or knowledge...if not...have a look at their scientists and geniouses..even sportmen...most of them have been "imported".


----------



## Drechuin

Brioche said:


> Immigrants [and even their children] in Europe remain "immigrants" and don't be come Europeans in the way that immigrants to the US traditionally became Americans. The immigrants will mould Europe to their image, not the other way round.



Because Europe is not the USA, maybe.

The same things have been said in the beginning of the last century (in France) about Italians and Poles migrants, especially the Poles ones where I live.
Now, they're perfectly integrated and the only sign they're here is polish lastnames and polish cans in the supermarkets.
So I'm quite confident.



> I know I am going to get rants for my post but you can only understand what I am saying if you are a disciplined hard worker and live in America. Now, if your view of quality of life is talking and eating without having to work and living modestly at best... then by all means remain in Europe, you wouldn't do well here. By the way... 30-33% of all Americans have a net worth of $1million or more including their home... I believe that is higher than any other country. Please reply, I would love to enlighten some of you.



I may be overgeneralizing, but it strikes me as a difference between the US and the EU: the dream of becoming millionaire seems to be less widespread in EU (although it exists). People are more satisfied with more modest incomes, but with more safety nets (especially in the health sector).
I also remeber that the US spend more money in charities than the EU, who consider that taking care of those in the need is more the job of the governement (here also, it's a huge huge simplification).


----------



## Brioche

Outsider said:


> May I ask where all those apocalyptic generalities come from?



I just make them up on the spot! 

According to the UK Office for National Statistics.
_In Britain, the proportion of over-60s has risen from 16 percent to 21 percent of the population, while the proportion of those under 16 has slipped from 24 percent to 20 percent. Within 20 years, demographic experts predict, one person in four will be over 60, and by 2050 the proportion will rise to 38 percent._

According to Eurostat, 
_Germany's percentage of over-60s stands at 22.9 percent of the population today, but that is forecast to rise to 30 percent by 2020 and 41 percent by 2050.

__In France, 20.7 percent of the population is over 60, a figure that is expected to rise to 29 percent by 2020 and to 44 percent at the halfway mark of this century. In Italy, the figures are 24 percent today, rising to 32 percent in two decades and to 44 percent by 2050._


----------



## avok

Brioche said:


> I just make them up on the spot!
> 
> According to the UK Office for National Statistics.
> _In Britain, the proportion of over-60s has risen from 16 percent to 21 percent of the population, while the proportion of those under 16 has slipped from 24 percent to 20 percent. Within 20 years, demographic experts predict, one person in four will be over 60, and by 2050 the proportion will rise to 38 percent._
> 
> According to Eurostat,
> _Germany's percentage of over-60s stands at 22.9 percent of the population today, but that is forecast to rise to 30 percent by 2020 and 41 percent by 2050._
> 
> _In France, 20.7 percent of the population is over 60, a figure that is expected to rise to 29 percent by 2020 and to 44 percent at the halfway mark of this century. In Italy, the figures are 24 percent today, rising to 32 percent in two decades and to 44 percent by 2050._


 
Outsider was asking about this quote of yours:



> Originally Posted by *Brioche*
> 
> I'm not sure that this will be Europe's salvation! Quite the opposite.
> 
> Immigrants [and even their children] in Europe remain "immigrants" and don't be come Europeans in the way that immigrants to the US traditionally became Americans. The immigrants will mould Europe to their image, not the other way round.


----------



## Outsider

I think that Brioche has already answered my question: 


Brioche said:


> I just make them up on the spot!


----------



## Brioche

Yep, I just make it up on the spot, just like this South Asian blogger on a BBC web-site:
_ A second generation immigrant to the US or Canada tends to regard himself as an "American" or "Canadian". However, even a second or third generation immigrant to Britain does not regard himself as an "Englishman". Britain simply does not have a melting pot for immigrants, who tend to retain the ethnic identity of their parents. _


----------



## Outsider

We all have our opinions. I am more impressed by facts.

This Asian blogger in the U.K. may have some experience with the problems of British immigration, but immigration policies and realities differ considerably between European countries. For example, while western Europe has received a massive influx of immigrants in recent years, in eastern Europe the trend has been the opposite: massive emigration into the west. Specifically, I do not believe that immigration policies in the U.K. are in any way comparable to what it is in the rest of Europe. Additionally, if I'm not mistaken, the U.K. is one of the European countries which are most sought by immigrants, so it's not surprising that immigration is especially problematic there.

I am a bit surprised by the contrast which the blogger makes between British and American immigration. It has always seemed to me that immigration policies were more alike between the U.S. and the U.K., than between either country and continental Europe.


----------



## cirrus

Outsider said:


> We all have our opinions. I am more impressed by facts.
> ..
> I am a bit surprised by the contrast which the blogger makes between British and American immigration. It has always seemed to me that immigration policies were more alike between the U.S. and the U.K., than between either country and continental Europe.



Which aspects do you see as being common elements between the two?


----------



## Outsider

These may just be misconceptions, since I've never been an immigrant in any of the three countries. Even if so, the feedback might be enlightening.

Well, the most marked difference seems to be the following. I chose France as an example because its immigration philosophy seems to make the greatest contrast with the immigration philosophies of the U.K. and the U.S., although it isn't necessarily representative of the other countries of continental Europe. In France, immigrants are encouraged to blend in with the crowd, trading their culture of origin for French culture, and becoming 100% French citizens. In countries with an Anglo-Saxon culture, immigrants are expected to live apart from the rest of society, keeping distinct communities and cultures to some extent. This is not to say that everybody follows these trends.

I think there's also an economic side to the issue. The economic system of the U.K. is closer in many ways to that of the United States than to those of other European countries. I believe that this can have an effect on the composition of the immigrant minority, and on the way that it's structured within the host country.


----------



## cirrus

I agree with your take about the French education system making people into French citizens whereas in the UK the stress is still on a multi cultural approach.  However this may well be changing since the suicide attacks in London two years ago.  

As for whether the more free market approach here changes how immigrants are treated, I am not certain whether that is the case.  It is hard to come up with concrete figures as border control figures here are either not public or not systematically kept. 

In any event it seems this thread is developing into a discussion of immigration rather than living standards per se.


----------



## Sepia

It is almost impossible to make a fair comparison of the two - or at least one needs to take very complex socioeconomic data into consideration.

To demonstrate this I have made up two imaginary states: The Federal Community of Utipian States )FCUP and the Federation of Utopian Communities (FUC)

They are pretty much identical apart from their social and health care systems. The FCUP has everybody covered with medical insurance and state pension plan from birth  on. The FUC has these things privatized and non-obligatory. People in the FCUP live longer than those of the FUC because they have a better medical system and because they are all covered by a pension plan they have more time to stay active - among other things in supporting the politicians that struggle to keep things this way. 

As mentioned, people in the FUC die earlier and more of the senior citizens are poor and have enough to do with their daily struggle to keep food on the table. 

The populatiions of the two produce exactly the same amount of goods. But the working population of the FCUP has more old people to support than the working population of the FUC. So logically the working population of the FUC has more money to spend.

So which country has the highest living standard? 

Depends on the definition of "living standard", doesn't it?


----------



## cirrus

I think any consideration of living standard would have to look at the spread income distribution.  Comparing somewhere in N Europe with the US (or increasinlgy the UK) would not tell you that much if you just focused on average income.


----------



## Kajjo

In my opinion the GDP and average income is no good indicator of life quality. Money may be important to acquire items necessary for a high quality life, but the circumstances of this life and the price of the items is decisive for the overall quality that can be reached.

What is quality of life? Like Sepia said, the definition of "living standard" (or "quality of life") should the predominant question of this thread. For me the following items belong to quality of life:

1) Life expectancy
2) Health system 
3) Security and Safety
4) Educational system
5) Reliability and Availability of infrastructure (streets, potable water, power grids etc.)
6) Affordability and Availability of goods (like houses, computers etc.)
7) Working conditions (vacation days; hours per day; Hire-and-fire vs. secure jobs?)
8) Environmental conditions (extreme noise, dirt, refuse; possible spare-time activities)

(taken food and general shelter as a given in modern societies)

Individuals can only optimise this points for themselves to a certain degree. Personal health vs. public health, general vs. personal education, crimes and prices only extremely limited.

I my opinion, the general quality of life in Germany is more than comparable to that in US -- no matter what the GDP per population might be. It is just a wrong method to rate quality of life.

Kajjo


----------



## Athaulf

Kajjo said:


> In my opinion the GDP and average income is no good indicator of life quality. Money may be important to acquire items necessary for a high quality life, but the circumstances of this life and the price of the items is decisive for the overall quality that can be reached.
> 
> What is quality of life? Like Sepia said, the definition of "living standard" (or "quality of life") should the predominant question of this thread. For me the following items belong to quality of life:
> 
> 1) Life expectancy
> 2) Health system
> 3) Security and Safety
> 4) Educational system
> 5) Reliability and Availability of infrastructure (streets, potable water, power grids etc.)
> 6) Affordability and Availability of goods (like houses, computers etc.)
> 7) Working conditions (vacation days; hours per day; Hire-and-fire vs. secure jobs?)
> 8) Environmental conditions (extreme noise, dirt, refuse; possible spare-time activities)
> 
> (taken food and general shelter as a given in modern societies)
> 
> Individuals can only optimise this points for themselves to a certain degree. Personal health vs. public health, general vs. personal education, crimes and prices only extremely limited.
> 
> I my opinion, the general quality of life in Germany is more than comparable to that in US -- no matter what the GDP per population might be. It is just a wrong method to rate quality of life.



I would actually say that even your list falls far short of being comprehensive when it comes to everything affecting the quality of life. In fact, some very important factors are highly subjective, and what counts as an important positive factor for someone can easily count as irrelevant or even negative for someone else. People value different things very differently, and thus it makes no sense to make blanket pronouncements about higher or lower standards of living among the developed Western countries. 

For example, if your idea of a great living standard is to have a huge suburban house with a large piece of property and four cars in the garage, and loathe the idea of having to be surrounded by large crowds and forced to use the public transit, the U.S. is definitely much better than Europe. On the other hand, if you like urban living and loathe the idea of a car-bound suburban lifestyle, Europe wins hands down. If you have the ambition to get rich, or at least significantly wealthier through inventiveness and hard work, the U.S. is a far better place, whereas if you're content with staying in more or less the same social class in which you were born, you'll probably find the European social system as superior. Or, if you enjoy a hard partying lifestyle, which is tolerated and widely practiced in most of Europe, you'll find it hard to adapt to the prudishness of the greatest part of North America, where just being seen with a drink and smoke is enough to make many people think of you very negatively (not to even mention the more controversial forms of having fun). 

And so on -- an individual's impressions of either Europe or the U.S. will, at the end, depend more on subjective preferences than any objective factors (which wouldn't be the case if we were comparing either with a really poor country).


----------



## Athaulf

cirrus said:


> I think any consideration of living standard would have to look at the spread income distribution.  Comparing somewhere in N Europe with the US (or increasinlgy the UK) would not tell you that much if you just focused on average income.



That's what median incomes are for.


----------



## Athaulf

Outsider said:


> Well, the most marked difference seems to be the following. I chose France as an example because its immigration philosophy seems to make the greatest contrast with the immigration philosophies of the U.K. and the U.S., although it isn't necessarily representative of the other countries of continental Europe. In France, immigrants are encouraged to blend in with the crowd, trading their culture of origin for French culture, and becoming 100% French citizens. In countries with an Anglo-Saxon culture, immigrants are expected to live apart from the rest of society, keeping distinct communities and cultures to some extent. This is not to say that everybody follows these trends.



I don't think this is a good description of either the official policies or the real state of affairs in these countries. In reality, the most important factor in the issues you mention are the informal attitudes of the domestic population towards the notion of ethnicity, nationality, and citizenship. Here the contrast is clear: anyone will find it far easier to integrate into the society of the U.S. or any other country with a long history of mass immigration than in any European (and especially continental) country. At the end of the day, the degree of Americanization of immigrants in the U.S. is much higher than the degree of Francization of immigrants in France.

I would briefly summarize the difference between Europe and the U.S. like this. As an immigrant in Europe, you -- and even your children -- will forever be considered as foreigners, no matter what you do, and your efforts to adapt to your host country won't make much of a difference. On the other hand, in the U.S. you have good chances of being accepted as an American, and your children are virtually guaranteed to become thoroughly American, so if you resist the melting pot and insist on maintaining your foreign culture, the domestic people will look upon you with disapproval and suspicion, as someone who resists the ways that have kept the country up and running for centuries.


----------



## JamesM

Athaulf said:


> I would briefly summarize the difference between Europe and the U.S. like this. As an immigrant in Europe, you -- and even your children -- will forever be considered as foreigners, no matter what you do, and your efforts to adapt to your host country won't make much of a difference. On the other hand, in the U.S. you have good chances of being accepted as an American, and your children are virtually guaranteed to become thoroughly American, so if you resist the melting pot and insist on maintaining your foreign culture, the domestic people will look upon you with disapproval and suspicion, as someone who resists the ways that have kept the country up and running for centuries.


 
Just as an aside, since this part of the thread is straying off-topic, this is my impression as well. The greatest source of conflict in the U.S. between groups seems to be from a lack of blending, not from an attempt to blend. It is the most common criticism leveled at some black communities and some hispanic communities.

On the topic of quality of life, I agree completely with Cuchu and to a great degree with Althauf. I think there's very few who would argue that Americans tend to have the most toys but I'm not sure that qualifies as a measure of quality of life. We also (as a gross generalization) work longer, take less vacation, place work above family and friends, identify ourselves with our jobs, and have much less time to enjoy the toys we have than the people of other developed countries that I've seen.

I think the following article is very telling:

http://money.cnn.com/2006/08/03/technology/fbvacations0803.biz2/index.htm

We don't even take the time we're allotted for vacation, which is nothing compared to most (if not all) other developed countries.

We have a Swiss youth minister at our church right now and he's having a terrible time adjusting to the expectation that he will work 60 hours a week, yet this is the typical work week for all the ministers on staff.


----------



## Outsider

Athaulf said:


> If you have the ambition to get rich, or at least significantly wealthier through inventiveness and hard work, the U.S. is a far better place, whereas if you're content with staying in more or less the same social class in which you were born, you'll probably find the European social system as superior.


Sure about that? I've read the opposite from more than one source. I mean that, at present, social mobility is actually higher in Europe than the U.S., though most people aren't aware of this.



Athaulf said:


> I would briefly summarize the difference between Europe and the U.S. like this. As an immigrant in Europe, you -- and even your children -- will forever be considered as foreigners, no matter what you do, and your efforts to adapt to your host country won't make much of a difference. On the other hand, in the U.S. you have good chances of being accepted as an American, and your children are virtually guaranteed to become thoroughly American, so if you resist the melting pot and insist on maintaining your foreign culture, the domestic people will look upon you with disapproval and suspicion, as someone who resists the ways that have kept the country up and running for centuries.


I can't help noticing that that seems a bit contradictory. Americans are more accepting of migrants -- as long as you conform to their ways...?

But I actually had the opposite impression, that one good thing about being an immigrant in America is that people are less likely to look funny at you should you choose to _keep_ your foreign ways... Chinatowns, pasta food, Mexican food... these are all examples of cultural traits that were kept alive in the U.S., rather than abandoned in favour of the previous local traditions. You don't see much of that in Europe, except very recently (and perhaps due to some amount of American cultural influence).


----------



## Athaulf

Outsider said:


> Sure about that? I've read the opposite from more than one source. I mean that, at present, social mobility is actually higher in Europe than the U.S., though most people aren't aware of this.



Measuring social mobility is very tricky -- I'd really like to see the source for your statement (you sound like you're basing it on some formal study). 

I base my conclusions about social mobility on my own impressions. You'll find plenty of entrepreneurs who move from Europe to North America because they find the local climate much friendlier to start-ups and small businesses, and also because they feel that exceptional innovation and hard work are generally rewarded much better. I personally know some such people, but I don't remember ever even hearing about an opposite case.  It's little known that many Western Europeans move to the U.S. as _illegal_ _immigrants _for want of exceptional economic opportunities (a famous example is Philippe Kahn, a co-founder of Borland). 

Furthermore, there is no doubt that the cultural view of social mobility is far more favorable in the U.S. than in Europe. Observe the English phrase _American Dream_ and the French _nouveau riche_ (which is also used in a variety of European languages). They denote the same thing -- a person who has managed to climb far up the economic ladder. And yet, the American phrase has extremely positive connotations of praise, whereas the French one is extremely derogatory and scornful. The latter one basically embodies an attitude that wealth should be a hereditary aristocratic privilege. You'll hardly find any traces of such attitudes in North America.



> I can't help noticing that that seems a bit contradictory. Americans are more accepting of migrants -- as long as you conform to their ways...?


What I mean is that if you move to the U.S., it's normally enough for you to speak fluent English and conform to the local views of social etiquette to be accepted as a full-fledged American, and anyone who is born in the U.S. or moves there young enough to pick a native English accent is considered as 100% American regardless of origin. This is also true for other traditionally immigrant countries, such as Canada. Of course, even in these countries, this doesn't hold for all places and times, but it's still true at least in the major cities and other places with a high influx of immigrants. 

On the other hand, this is definitely not the case in Europe, where the notion of being "domestic" vs. "foreigner" is still largely defied by ethnicity and ancestry. Even if an immigrant in, say, Germany learns fluent German and lives there for many years, it would still be ridiculous for him to start introducing himself as a German. Even his children are apt to be perceived as foreigners if their names or physical appearances suggest so. In contrast, here in Canada, nobody would find it laughable or objectionable if I called myself Canadian, even though I've been living here for only a few years and have an instantly recognizable foreign accent and a name that English speakers can't even pronounce correctly. The situation down in the U.S. is similar to here in this regard. 

As for what happens if you disregard the prevalent social norms, this will make you a social outcast (and possibly a criminal) anywhere. It's just that in Europe, you'll never be fully assimilated even if you excel in following the local social norms, whereas in the U.S., Canada, and other immigrant countries, you can expect to be recognized as a real American, Canadian, etc. if you adapt well to the local ways. 



> But I actually had the opposite impression, that one good thing about being an immigrant in America is that people are less likely to look funny at you should you choose to _keep_ your foreign ways... Chinatowns, pasta food, Mexican food... these are all examples of cultural traits that were kept alive in the U.S., rather than abandoned in favour of the previous local traditions. You don't see much of that in Europe, except very recently (and perhaps due to some amount of American cultural influence).


Well, this is understandable, since there have been only negligible numbers of overseas immigrants in Europe until very recently. As for the ethnic diversity of many places in North America, it's easy to be fooled into believing that these places are somehow extremely tolerant of different ways of life. Sure, there is lots of tolerance towards superficial stuff like clothing, cuisine, etc., but you can't expect tolerance towards anything that would be considered deviant in the local culture, even if it's a regular part of life where you come from. Also, even when it comes to tolerance towards superficial things, it exists only as long as your differences from the prevailing norm fall into certain approved and protected categories (i.e. the ones where it's politically incorrect to be intolerant). Attempting non-conformity outside these categories, even in pretty innocuous ways, is apt to backfire very badly (in this regard, Europe is actually much more tolerant on average). 

But as I pointed out before, the issue of the U.S. vs. Europe in regard to immigration is not about being tolerant towards different ways of life -- it's about whether immigrants have a chance to fully assimilate at all.


----------



## cirrus

Athaulf said:


> It's just that in Europe, you'll never be fully assimilated even if you excel in following the local social norms, whereas in the U.S., Canada, and other immigrant countries, you can expect to be recognized as a real American, Canadian, etc. if you adapt well to the local ways.
> .


Interesting point about nouveau riche vs American dream.

However in terms of acceptance - as in the quote above are you not overstating your case? 

I live and work in London, a city which reflects its global links as much in its resident population as its links with the globe. Just taking my street as an example - 150 houses at least fifty different languages are spoken in the kitchen: passers by speak Russian, Latvian, Polish, Panjabi, Urdu, Spanish, Portuguese, German, Swedish, Finnish, Quechua, any amount of local African languages.   At work in an office with 30 odd people we did a straw poll of who speaks what - and came up with a similar amount of fluency in other languages from Bengali and Panjabi to Twi via Polish, Spanish and Portuguese.  People whose families came from elsewhere - be it the Caribbean or South Asia act and feel  as British as the rest of us  and report they are treated as Brits if they go to what their families might still call home.

Your comment also contradicts itself - in the US or Canada people from outside will be accepted according to the extent that they behave like the population around them.  Supposing they don't? Does that mean they aren't accepted? In my admittedly limited experience of the US what I noticed was a far more divided way of living. Take somewhere like Dallas - it has latino areas, black areas and white areas. It was as though there were invisible walls between them.   There were clear economic as well as social dividing lines in place.


----------



## Sepia

Just a tiny detail: Further upthread somebody mentioned the EU 25 as opposed to the EU 15. 
As a matter of fact we are now 27 member states - after that Rumania and Bulgaria recently joined the EU.


----------



## Kajjo

Athaulf said:


> I would actually say that even your list falls far short of being comprehensive when it comes to everything affecting the quality of life.


Naturally, yes. My list was only meant to point out that quality of life can mean a lot of things -- with income or GDP not being central at all.



> In fact, some very important factors are highly subjective, and what counts as an important positive factor for someone can easily count as irrelevant or even negative for someone else.


Absolutely true. 



> For example, if your idea of a great living standard is to have a huge suburban house with a large piece of property and four cars in the garage, and loathe the idea of having to be surrounded by large crowds and forced to use the public transit, the U.S. is definitely much better than Europe.


I don't agree entirely. There are many great areas to live a suurban lifestyle in Europe. I have a house in a suburban area and this is by far no exception. 



> On the other hand, if you like urban living and loathe the idea of a car-bound suburban lifestyle, Europe wins hands down.


But the US have a lot of large cities that offer urban living? I do not understand your reasoning here. 

In contrast, I would like to point out that the extremes of "very rural" to "extremely urban" are much more intensive in the US while e.g. in Germany there are urban, suburban and rural lifestyles, but the distances are much closer (both in miles as in style) and everyone can somewhat participate in urban lifestyle even if he lives in the country side.

Kajjo


----------



## Sepia

Kajjo said:


> ...
> 
> In contrast, I would like to point out that the extremes of "very rural" to "extremely urban" are much more intensive in the US while e.g. in Germany there are urban, suburban and rural lifestyles, but the distances are much closer (both in miles as in style) and everyone can somewhat participate in urban lifestyle even if he lives in the country side.
> 
> Kajjo




 Don't forget our thinly populated member states in this connection. The northern Baltic states I mean. They have pretty much the same pattern as many US states: Half the population in or around a few big cities and the rest thinly to non-populated.

Sweden e.g. is about as big as France, areawise, and totals approx. 8 mill. inhabitants I think. Finland is also big and has a lot less inhabitants.


----------



## Kajjo

Sepia said:


> Don't forget our thinly populated member states in this connection.


You are right. That's why I explicitly mentioned _Germany_ in my post. In summary, the European member states are fairly different, so easy comparisons between "US" and "EU" are kind of stupid to begin with. Even worse than to believe that GDP is a proper measurement for personal fulfillment.

Kajjo


----------



## cirrus

Sepia said:


> Just a tiny detail: Further upthread somebody mentioned the EU 25 as opposed to the EU 15.
> As a matter of fact we are now 27 member states - after that Rumania and Bulgaria recently joined the EU.



However Rumanian and Bulgarian citizens don't yet enjoy the same rights as the other 25 member states eg they don't uet have the automatic right to settle or seek work elsewhere in the EU. Their governments are also subject to much closer monitoring by Brussels to make sure they meet certain thresholds for example around corruption.


----------



## Sepia

cirrus said:


> However Rumanian and Bulgarian citizens don't yet enjoy the same rights as the other 25 member states eg they don't uet have the automatic right to settle or seek work elsewhere in the EU. Their governments are also subject to much closer monitoring by Brussels to make sure they meet certain thresholds for example around corruption.



Doesn't really have anything to do with the topic of this thread, does it? Especially not when we are talking about the economics as a whole. After their "entry period" they will have the same rights to move and to settle like everybody else. An they are not the first ones that make a "gradual entry". 

And whether you like it or not - there are 27 member states.


----------



## Outsider

Athaulf said:


> Outsider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure about that? I've read the opposite from more than one source. I mean that, at present, social mobility is actually higher in Europe than the U.S., though most people aren't aware of this.
> 
> 
> 
> Measuring social mobility is very tricky -- I'd really like to see the source for your statement (you sound like you're basing it on some formal study).
Click to expand...

For example, and the following is argued with data:



> Death of the American Dream
> 
> The strength and pride of America has traditionally been that it provides for a high level of social mobility. It is part of the “American Dream” in which the poorest of the poor can climb to the top of the social ladder in one generation. [...] Developments of the last decades have shattered this American Dream. It now appears that many EU countries have created an environment in which it is significantly easier for the poor to climb the social ladder than it is in the US.


However, I found also a report on Mobility in Europe (pdf file) which comes to an opposite conclusion about "job mobility" (though it leaves my wondering how "job mobility" correlates with "social mobility"):



> Yet, as this report reveals, both geographical and job mobility rates remain substantially lower in
> Europe than in the USA (the usual point of comparison): about 32% of the US population lives
> outside of the state in which they were born, while about 21% of the EU population has lived in a
> region or country other than their own (Krieger and Macías, 2006); the proportion of foreigners in
> the total population and in the labour force in the USA surpasses that of Europe (Turmann, 2004);
> average job tenure in the USA is lower than in any European country (Auer, 2005).


There's a curious aspect of this report which may not be readily apparent. Supposedly, because the U.S. economy is more "free market", you should expect greater mobility in it than in the EU, which is more "state-regulated/socialist". And, according to the report, that's what the data show. Yet when you look _inside_ the EU you get a startlingly different picture: it's in the _more socialist_ countries of the north that you find greater job mobility (page 68)!

Not a trivial puzzle, to be sure.


----------



## cirrus

Sepia said:


> Doesn't really have anything to do with the topic of this thread, does it? ...
> 
> And whether you like it or not - there are 27 member states.


1 no I disagree, it goes goes to the heart of it.  Rumania's average wage = 250 euros a month, UK average probably ten times that. 
2 I agree, the reason I separated them out was thinking about statistics to back up the argument. There are more for older members.


----------



## Athaulf

Outsider said:


> For example, and the following is argued with data:



Interesting; thanks for the links. I'll obviously have to study the sources more extensively if I want to comment on the topic further. It might be that my personal perspective is skewed too much by what I observe happening in my own field (computer engineering). Also, I it should be pointed out that all studies of this kind are limited by the fact that it's impossible to accurately measure the wealth of very affluent and rich people, since they have every incentive (and powerful means) to hide it. Of course, this inaccuracy might influence the results either way.



> However, I found also a report on Mobility in Europe (pdf file) which comes to an opposite conclusion about "job mobility" (though it leaves my wondering how "job mobility" correlates with "social mobility"):


I think this "job mobility" refers merely to the physical movements of people during their lifetimes, so it doesn't really have any relevance to the issue of social mobility. Obviously, in Europe there are significantly greater cultural and linguistic barriers to moving between countries (and in many cases even within a single country), and it's very hard to say how strong these barriers are in practice in different places. But as I said, this doesn't have much relevance to the topic of the discussion.


----------



## Athaulf

Kajjo said:


> I don't agree entirely. There are many great areas to live a suurban lifestyle in Europe. I have a house in a suburban area and this is by far no exception.



True; what I wrote holds only on average. Generally, it's easier to find a good place for suburban life in Europe than to find a good place for urban life in the U.S.



> But the US have a lot of large cities that offer urban living? I do not understand your reasoning here.


Actually, there are very few places in the U.S. that I would cal truly urban. American shows like, say, _Seinfeld_ or _Friends_, whose plot takes place in a real urban setting similar to large European cities, always have characters from New York -- because it would be unrealistic for people to live like that almost anywhere else in the U.S. 

In North America, there is a deep cultural aversion to living in large, crowded cities. Remember that in American English, the phrase _inner city_ is pretty much a synonym for _ghetto_. A typical large U.S. city downtown is full of corporate skyscrapers, but with little to nothing happening there outside of business hours. The idea of a real urban public space where it's pleasant to walk around and socialize, and where you're not _de facto _imprisoned if you don't have a car, is alien to most people on this continent. In some cities in the U.S. (for example, Dallas), people looked at me as if I was crazy when I said that I'd like to take a walk around to check out the town (this was before I learned how life there is organized). 



> In contrast, I would like to point out that the extremes of "very rural" to "extremely urban" are much more intensive in the US while e.g. in Germany there are urban, suburban and rural lifestyles, but the distances are much closer (both in miles as in style) and everyone can somewhat participate in urban lifestyle even if he lives in the country side.


Not just that, but also small towns and even villages in Europe are usually built tightly, so that the town centre serves as an active focus of social life. One can hardly find places like that in North America, where life is mostly organized around point-to-point commutes with the car through a seemingly endless sprawling landscape. Of course, there are exceptions on both sides, but not too many.


----------



## Athaulf

cirrus said:


> However in terms of acceptance - as in the quote above are you not overstating your case?
> 
> I live and work in London, a city which reflects its global links as much in its resident population as its links with the globe. Just taking my street as an example - 150 houses at least fifty different languages are spoken in the kitchen: passers by speak Russian, Latvian, Polish, Panjabi, Urdu, Spanish, Portuguese, German, Swedish, Finnish, Quechua, any amount of local African languages.   At work in an office with 30 odd people we did a straw poll of who speaks what - and came up with a similar amount of fluency in other languages from Bengali and Panjabi to Twi via Polish, Spanish and Portuguese.  People whose families came from elsewhere - be it the Caribbean or South Asia act and feel  as British as the rest of us  and report they are treated as Brits if they go to what their families might still call home.



I have no direct experience with the situation in Britain, but I would expect it to be somewhere between continental Europe and Anglo-America. It could well be that it's more similar to the latter. However, my points definitely hold for North America vs. continental Europe. 



> Your comment also contradicts itself - in the US or Canada people from outside will be accepted according to the extent that they behave like the population around them.  Supposing they don't? Does that mean they aren't accepted?


Obviously, acceptance of the local social norms is necessary to be accepted anywhere, unless you want to be a social outcast or a criminal. This holds for North America as well as Europe, and any other place in the world. I'm not sure I understand why you're raising this as an issue at all. (Not that I like all of these norms, of course.)



> In my admittedly limited experience of the US what I noticed was a far more divided way of living. Take somewhere like Dallas - it has latino areas, black areas and white areas. It was as though there were invisible walls between them.   There were clear economic as well as social dividing lines in place.


I don't have the impression that the divides in Europe are any weaker than in the U.S. -- on the contrary. There is also the fact that most of Western Europe had been ethnically more or less homogeneous until very recently, and the divides are only emerging now, unlike in the U.S., where they have existed since time immemorial. But opinions about these issues are always subjective, since you can't really measure the intensity of these divides objectively.


----------



## tvdxer

Kajjo said:


> In my opinion the GDP and average income is no good indicator of life quality. Money may be important to acquire items necessary for a high quality life, but the circumstances of this life and the price of the items is decisive for the overall quality that can be reached.
> 
> What is quality of life? Like Sepia said, the definition of "living standard" (or "quality of life") should the predominant question of this thread. For me the following items belong to quality of life:
> 
> 1) Life expectancy



Almost all Western European countries beat the U.S. in this category, but only by a few years.



> 2) Health system


The U.S. health insurance system is worse than almost any European country, but we seem to have better advanced medical care.

However, European countries seem to have better preventative care and their residents a more healthful lifestyle.  (Hence the very high obesity rates in the U.S. compared with those of Europe, and the very high infant mortality rates that blacks in the U.S. have)



> 3) Security and Safety


Murder rates are lower in most European countries.

However, your average middle-class, non-crime involved American is probably not much less likely to die as a victim than a comparable European.

As for crime in general, 21.1% of the U.S. population was listed as a "crime victim" in a U.N. study, compared to 21.4% in France, 24.6% in Italy, and 26.4% in the U.K.

Stat here: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_vic-crime-total-victims



> 4) Educational system


The U.S. has a rather poor K-12 (primary and secondary) educational system, especially in inner city areas.  However, the average American has more years of schooling than any other country listed here.  This is probably due to the fact that going on to university (or at least technical school) after completing secondary school has become nearly standard.



> 5) Reliability and Availability of infrastructure (streets, potable water, power grids etc.)


Don't know what to say here.



> 6) Affordability and Availability of goods (like houses, computers etc.)


U.S. definitely wins in this category.  Housing in most European countries is ridiculously small and expensive by American standards.  This is largely due to geography - population density in the U.S. is much lower, and there also seem to be fewer restrictions on land development (which has a negative side effect, sprawl).  Consumer goods, at least books and electronics, are cheaper in the U.S, if you compare via regional amazon.com sites.  Also, many European countries have very high consumption taxes ... paying 30% "sales tax" on a camera or 100% on a car would be considered ridiculous in the U.S.



> 7) Working conditions (vacation days; hours per day; Hire-and-fire vs. secure jobs?)


Europe wins over the U.S. in this category.  Paid vacations are minimal in the U.S. compared to in Europe (2 weeks is a "good" vacation here, and many either have none, or do have vacations but do not take it in fear of losing their job!), Americans work a great number more hours, and employers have the power to fire workers for almost any reason other than race, gender, age, etc.

[quote[8) Environmental conditions (extreme noise, dirt, refuse; possible spare-time activities)[/quote]

My guess is the U.S. does better than most European countries in this category, simply due to the fact that it is less densely populated.


----------



## tvdxer

Sepia said:


> Just a tiny detail: Further upthread somebody mentioned the EU 25 as opposed to the EU 15.
> As a matter of fact we are now 27 member states - after that Rumania and Bulgaria recently joined the EU.



The E.U. had 25 member states when I created this thread (I think), but "EU 15" is a valid category as it excludes poorer states with economies still in the process of development and not really comparable to the U.S.  It definitely would not be fair to compare the standard of life in Bulgaria or Romania to the U.S.


----------



## Kajjo

tvdxer said:


> Life expectancy: Almost all Western European countries beat the U.S. in this category, but only by a few years.


For our rough estimations _average life expectancy _might be almost equal. However, my guess it that life expectancy is much more depending on social status in the US than in Germany.



> The U.S. health insurance system is worse than almost any European country, but we seem to have better advanced medical care.


I believe that the German medicinal possibilties are not at all worse than the US -- while available for everyone and not only for some fortunate few. I agree that the level of advancement is not true for all European countries. 



> However, your average middle-class, non-crime involved American is probably not much less likely to die as a victim than a comparable European.


Really? I don't know, but my guess would be the opposite.



> As for crime in general, 21.1% of the U.S. population was listed as a "crime victim" in a U.N. study, compared to 21.4% in France, 24.6% in Italy, and 26.4% in the U.K. Stat here: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_vic-crime-total-victims


Interesting statistics. It proves very drastically how different the European countries are. Germany for example, is not even on the list, because crimes are much less frequent.

This is the most important message of this whole thread: _You simply cannot compare US and EU. You need to compare e.g. US with UK, or US with Germany -- the EU is extremely heterogeneous with regards to health systems, crime rates, education and so on!

_


> Paid vacations are minimal in the U.S. compared to in Europe (2 weeks is a "good" vacation here, and many either have none, or do have vacations but do not take it in fear of losing their job!),


Amazing. Would probably make a good new thread. 2 weeks vacation sounds ridicously little and some are even not using that? Really?

Kajjo


----------



## unprimesuspect

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index

Take it with a grain of salt though. I mean, would any sane person give up Hawaii (US; ranked 8th) for Norway (ranked 1st)?


----------



## Athaulf

unprimesuspect said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index
> 
> Take it with a grain of salt though.



A very large grain of salt. This index doesn't include many very important variables, and even those that it includes are based on highly questionable data in some cases.


----------



## The scientist

You certainly cannot compare the European Union with the US. They are different things. I would like to say that I enjoyed so much better to be in Italy (EUROPEAN UNION) than currently at the US. People are kinder, health services MUCH MORE BETTER and this all influence in the life quality. On the other hand, excuse my laguage, but americans do not eat other than things that make them fat. People are so unhealthy and fat. Europeans are not. In my highschool in europe there was a doctor available always. Now in the US, you have to make an appointment for the day after even if you feel really sick... and there is no doctor, it is a NURSE! UNBELIEVABLE..... I would choose Europe 100x to live rather than the US. And I don't even care about who is richer or has more gross domestic product, because oportunities are everywhere.


----------



## Outsider

The scientist said:


> In my highschool in europe there was a doctor available always.


Was that a private school?


----------



## The scientist

Outsider said:


> Was that a private school?


Yes, It was a private school, and currently here in the US I am at a private school too. There is no difference so the comparison is still valid.


----------



## Prometo

Wavering on and off topic, this thread has exposed wonderfully a panoply of views (and PLEASE don't take this _personal_) -- from sensible (cuchuflete) to myopic (tvdxer), from realistic (genjen54) to delusional (euroamerican), from thoughtful (jmartins) to clueless (brioche), from wise (outsider) to uninformed (sepia), from somewhat enlightened (athaulf) to totally ridiculous (unprimesuspect)...

I agree with this:_This is the most important message of this whole thread: You simply cannot compare US and EU. You need to compare e.g. US with UK, or US with Germany -- the EU is extremely heterogeneous with regards to health systems, crime rates, education and so on!
_​Notwithstanding, the WSJ article referred to "Europe's problem", which they see as LOWER GDP.  In the reported study, Bergstrom and Gidehag claim that higher taxation keeps the EU from "measuring up".

The editorial position of the flagship newspaper of capitalism is that "welfare-state" politics are a "road to decline".

Another illusion (let's call it that to be lenient) of this paper is that "a rising tide lifts all boats" when it comes to per capita GDP.

This is patently not true.  Growth of this economic measurement in the USA has paralleled increasing inequality.

In fact, the story of the USA since WWI can be called "The Fall and Rise of Inequality" and it involves socioeconomic disparity politics.

Between 1979 and 2005 the real income of the median household rose only 13 percent, but the income of the richest 0.1% of Yankis rose 296 percent.  The top 0.1% -- that's one-tenth of one percent -- had more combined pre-tax income than the poorest 120 million people.

How the study authors managed to conclude that your average Yanki has a higher PERSONAL standard of living than your typical European, *based on GDP *_*alone*_, is something that the Timbro think-tank should investigate.  Most Europeans have a standard of living which the majority of Yankis will never come anywhere near.

~

The USA is the richest country in history (save for a couple of obscure Gulf states) and is the planet's economic engine.  Each country has a role to play in a better world, and that should be ours.  If there was no USA we'd have to invent one, because of how the global economy is set up.  Without the world´s biggest economy, the whole world would be a Niger, Somalia or Mozambique.

The reason why the USA became so economically powerful is because it has the right conditions.  The most important one is that most Yankis are  more than willing to become the sacrificial lambs offered to the Almighty Buck.

They call it the "Protestant work ethic" (although Europe is just as Protestant but hardly as foolish).  People are willing to work as many hours as are demanded by their boss (and no boss sickness, please).  Salaries are pegged as low as possible (but not for elite executives).  Health insurance, or health care, for that matter, can be non-existent (_a small price to pay when being in "the only free country"_). A lot go hungry at times, or have to eat the wrong foods (_but, hey, that's life_).  For the majority, housing is non-standard (_what's a little roof leak, anyway_) and education too expensive (_nobody gets a "free ride"_).

_ It's the best country in the world._ _After all, we can walk with head high because even though unemployed, we turned down "the dole".  When we find work, we'll be 2 weeks ahead of homelessness, so we better not lose that job, or we'll be eating rat stew at the nasty shelter.  We have a window air conditioner, but "it don't work" just like most of the junk we carry around.  We have a book that we use to prop up our rickety empty table.  We have a car, but can't drive it on account of it didn't pass inspection, and the local cop will beat you up if he finds you driving it.
_ 
_ But life is beautiful in the USA.  I have a job cleaning asbestos starting tomorrow._


----------



## The scientist

Prometo said:


> Health insurance, or health care, for that matter, can be non-existent (_a small price to pay when being in "the only free country"_)_._


You seriouslt got to be kidding me if you think that Health care is a small price to pay... I would consider it as an essential thing  and a priority in every country.

And personally disagree with the term you are using for the United States "THE ONLY FREE COUNTRY" I would realy appreciate a REFERENCE from where you are taking that.

I will tell you why it is not free; because you are slaves of capitalism, silly TV shows, and yourselves thinking that the world without you would be like Mozambique or Niger.


----------



## Prometo

_You seriouslt got to be kidding me if you think that Health care is a small price to pay

_The scientist,

Please look back at my post (#59) and notice: ALL ITALICIZED TEXT IS EXTERNAL DIALOGUE, that is, I am quoting someone.  (Gray is from another post.) In other words, it isn't ME saying this, but in this context, "the voice on the Yanki street".

_"the only free country"

_Within the italics you will find expressions in quotation marks (" ")... I use these here to represent "sic"... {Las comillas hacen las veces de "sic".}  Yankis really do think the USA is the only nation with guaranteed freedoms.  For reference you can see the perhaps millions of blogs, forums, news comments, etc. on the Net.

_...yourselves thinking that the world without you would be like Mozambique...

_Here I hate to burst your bubble, but this is NOT yet another example of Yanki arrogance and exceptionalism: As the USA economy goes, so does the world's.  It's not national pride on my part, but unfortunate, stark reality.

PS Chispirito was not silly?


----------



## Kajjo

Prometo said:


> Wavering on and off topic, this thread has exposed wonderfully a panoply of views


Indeed it has.

Honestly, I was not able to extract your personal opinion from all these quotes. Is you comment supposed to be a joke summarising up all contrary statements?



> If there was no USA we'd have to invent one, because of how the global economy is set up.


You are not serious, I hope. I guess you have a very biased, very focused USA perspective, but even then you should see that the uprise of the powerful US has brought with it very many problems, probably more than solutions -- if measured on a world-wide scale.



> Without the world´s biggest economy, the whole world would be a Niger, Somalia or Mozambique.


How insightful. Never heard about Europe, I suppose.



> Health insurance, or health care, for that matter, can be non-existent


Is this positive from your point of view?

What a wonderful world!

Kajjo


----------



## Stiannu

C'moooooooon...
Prometo's post was sarcastic.


----------



## Kajjo

Stiannu said:


> C'moooooooon...
> Prometo's post was sarcastic.


Yes, I sincerely hope so. Italised or not.

Kajjo


----------



## asm

I'd add "retirement" (in general) to the formula. I came six years ago to the US and I am still shocked about the (almost) obsession associated to this topic.
I was always asking why the richest people in the world are so concerned about this issue. In other countries people live with less (money, toys, as cuchu suggests, and medicine), but the standards of living are not that bad, they have their systems to survive during the "old ages", and people can live their "middle ages" without the concern of paying tuition and saving like crazy (if they can ... pero esa es otra historia).




cirrus said:


> As someone on the left I am consistently shocked by the healthcare issue in the US. Obscene amounts of money are spent on a healthcare system which even then doesn't cover whole tranches of the population. Without a good job and insurance you are left without a paddle in US society if you are sick. Walmart is reported to be investigating ways of reducing employee access to insurance so it can keep on driving costs down. I don't see US style capitalism as a panacea.
> 
> At the same time what I see is that Europe, certainly W Europe is literally dying on its feet. The average age of the population is increasing. Fewer and fewer of us are having children. As we get older and greyer who will pay the pensions of the older people? Do we just import people from the south or do we cut the cloth according to our means?
> 
> I love it when I go to France. The health system is fantastic. Ditto in Holland. The entitlements of workers in both countries are enviable. However when the roads were blocked by a bunch of farmers protesting about fuel prices (back in August 2000) France ground to a halt and the police stood idly. This tempered my admiration somewhat. Equally in Holland a mate of mine has just started working in HR for a multi national. One of the people in his team has been signed off because he has "boss sickness": He's sick because of his boss. It wouldn't wash here and I very much doubt it would in the States.
> 
> Meanwhile unemployment for young people in much of Europe remains stubbornly high. Great if you have a job but what prospects have you without? For those of in work, housing costs in many countries have exploded in the last ten years. How many of us will have to work until we drop to pay off the ridiculous mortgages we have piled up around us?


----------



## Prometo

Kajjo,

_Honestly, I was not able to extract your personal opinion from all these quotes. Is you comment supposed to be a joke summarising up all contrary statements?

_Not so much personal opinion as objective reality with an ever-so-slight bias.  I'm glad you found humor; that was my intention.

My post was not a summary of the wildly divergent opinions, but more a cry in the wild for truth as I know it to be.  Basically, I wanted to point out the fallacy of using per capita GDP as a measure of individual wealth, which is akin to thinking of national land area to ascertain the quantity of food a country is able to produce.  For instance, South Africa, ranked only 24th in territorial extension, possesses well over 100 thousand Km2 more of arable land than 19th-ranked Peru.

Since the article that originated this thread and the study it reported made the harum-scarum assumption that per capita GDP is an indicator of personal standard of living, I invited as my guest your typically dumb Yanki-on-the-street to tell you first hand about life in the USA: a crime-ridden, drug-sotted, hate-driven hell on earth for the majority, financially strapped population.  His comments are in _italics_, which in English can be used to differentiate from plain text.

_You are not serious, I hope. I guess you have a very biased, very focused USA perspective, but even then you should see that the uprise of the powerful US has brought with it very many problems, probably more than solutions -- if measured on a world-wide scale.

_The consequences of Yanki economic supremacy outside the USA were outside the scope of my post.

_How insightful. Never heard about Europe, I suppose.
_
Europe can not survive economically as we know it without the dollar in command of the world.  For relative economic independence you need to go to North Korea, Cuba, Iran, etc. and even countries like them will get to feel the global convulsions from a collapsed Yanki economy.

_Is this positive from your point of view?  What a wonderful world!

_Were it only health care Yankis had to worry about in their daily lives!  Send your little blonde walking to school and expect her (or him) to get raped, or to disappear.  Have your wife go pick up some necessities at the store and know she might get car-jacked.  Be too dark-skinned in a certain neighborhood and face battery or incarceration.  Pick up a few bills at the automatic teller machine and watch yourself be robbed.  Finally be able to buy that product you wanted only to see it fall apart in a month.  Take your family to grandma's and drown in the drink from the cave-in of a crumbling bridge.  The list goes on.


----------



## Lingvisten

A good life also depends on how the population of a country views its own situation. Living standards and life expectancy is not all. In all international surveys and health studies, Norway and Sweden is ranked higher than Denmark. Our lower life expectancy is due to us smoking, eating and drinking more than the other scandinavian peoples. But in the survey concerning satisfaction with life, danes rank significantly higher than norwegians and swedes. From my point of view europeans in general seem to enjoy life more than americans. Socialising is an important part of human life, and is, in my oppinion, a key to a high standard of living.


----------



## JamesM

Prometo said:


> Were it only health care Yankis had to worry about in their daily lives! Send your little blonde walking to school and expect her (or him) to get raped, or to disappear. Have your wife go pick up some necessities at the store and know she might get car-jacked. Be too dark-skinned in a certain neighborhood and face battery or incarceration. Pick up a few bills at the automatic teller machine and watch yourself be robbed. Finally be able to buy that product you wanted only to see it fall apart in a month. Take your family to grandma's and drown in the drink from the cave-in of a crumbling bridge. The list goes on.


 
This is a gross exaggeration by any accepted statistical measurement. America is not without its problems, but by the same token I find this an irresponsible misrepresentation of the quality of life here.


----------



## Athaulf

JamesM said:


> Originally Posted by *Prometo*
> Were it only health care Yankis had to worry about in their daily lives! Send your little blonde walking to school and expect her (or him) to get raped, or to disappear. Have your wife go pick up some necessities at the store and know she might get car-jacked. Be too dark-skinned in a certain neighborhood and face battery or incarceration. Pick up a few bills at the automatic teller machine and watch yourself be robbed. Finally be able to buy that product you wanted only to see it fall apart in a month. Take your family to grandma's and drown in the drink from the cave-in of a crumbling bridge. The list goes on.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a gross exaggeration by any accepted statistical measurement. America is not without its problems, but by the same token I find this an irresponsible misrepresentation of the quality of life here.
Click to expand...


Based on the experiences from my travels to the U.S., I also wanted to post a comment similar to yours, but the sheer strength of Prometo's intransigent, and yet jovial assertiveness has made me suspect that I was perhaps deceived by a giant Potemkin village each time.


----------

