Slashdot Mirror

http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex...

The GP was probably referring to this analysis: If Sweden and Germany Became US States, They Would be Among the Poorest States.

This analysis was based on median income (not mean or per capita income or GDP) to address concerns about wealth inequality, and takes into account social services, taxation, and cost-of-living. A glance at the second chart, the one adjusted for regional price parity, shows that adjusted median income in Louisiana—the poorest of the U.S. states—is higher than that in France, Ireland, and the United Kingdom, half of the OECD member states of Western Europe (as defined by the CIA), and also higher than the median incomes in Spain and Portugal, the two OECD countries in Southwestern Europe. The exceptions are Belgium (5.1% by population), Luxembourg (0.2%), and the Netherlands (7.6%).

In other words, 87% of the population of the OECD countries of Western and Southwestern Europe live in a country with a lower median income (including tax-funded social services) than the poorest U.S. state, after adjusting for cost-of-living.

Based on the above statistics, I feel that the GP was actually quite generous in comparing the wealth of most Western European countries to Mississippi or Alabama.

I don't quite agree with his figures though. Some 33 US states are at or below the US annual income per household per capita and another 4 are no more than $1000 above the US median and that includes wealthy California. It sounds to me as if Germany, Sweden and California are about on the same level in terms of per capita income and all are competitive high tech modern economies with a highly educated population. Also, if you are comparing Germany with Alabama you are comparing a country of 82 million people that has a fairly high average standard of living with a state that has a population of 4.8 million, that is a net recipient of federal aid money and has some of the worst poverty levels in the US. Comparing Germany and Sweden to California would be a better comparison.

According to him:
EU Average - $35632
Which sounds about right if we are talking about median income per capita per annum.

However, according to this: https://www.ceicdata.com/en/in... I get the following average incomes per household per capita:
US: $29,865.60
Germany: $31,136.72

According to OECD per household per capita:
http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex...
http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex...
Sweden: $30,553
Germany: $33 652
OECD average: 30 563

US states (according to the 2010-2014 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates):https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income
The 2016 figures are from here: http://www.deptofnumbers.com/i...

Highs:
1) District of Columbia: $45,877 (2016: $45,545)
2) Connecticut: $39,373 (2016: $41,087)
3) New Jersey: $37,288 (2016: $38,911)

Around median:
15) California $30,441 (2016: $33,389)
16) Illinois $30,417(2016: $32,849)
17) Hawaiii: $29,736 (2016: $32,634)

Absolute lows:
49) West Virginia: $22,714 (2016: $24,769)
50) Mississippi: $21,036 (2016:$22,694 )
*) Puerto Rico: $11,241

The GP was probably referring to this analysis: If Sweden and Germany Became US States, They Would be Among the Poorest States.

This analysis was based on median income (not mean or per capita income or GDP) to address concerns about wealth inequality, and takes into account social services, taxation, and cost-of-living. A glance at the second chart, the one adjusted for regional price parity, shows that adjusted median income in Louisiana—the poorest of the U.S. states—is higher than that in France, Ireland, and the United Kingdom, half of the OECD member states of Western Europe (as defined by the CIA), and also higher than the median incomes in Spain and Portugal, the two OECD countries in Southwestern Europe. The exceptions are Belgium (5.1% by population), Luxembourg (0.2%), and the Netherlands (7.6%).

In other words, 87% of the population of the OECD countries of Western and Southwestern Europe live in a country with a lower median income (including tax-funded social services) than the poorest U.S. state, after adjusting for cost-of-living.

Based on the above statistics, I feel that the GP was actually quite generous in comparing the wealth of most Western European countries to Mississippi or Alabama.

I don't quite agree with his figures though. Some 33 US states are at or below the US annual income per household per capita and another 4 are no more than $1000 above the US median and that includes wealthy California. It sounds to me as if Germany, Sweden and California are about on the same level in terms of per capita income and all are competitive high tech modern economies with a highly educated population. Also, if you are comparing Germany with Alabama you are comparing a country of 82 million people that has a fairly high average standard of living with a state that has a population of 4.8 million, that is a net recipient of federal aid money and has some of the worst poverty levels in the US. Comparing Germany and Sweden to California would be a better comparison.

According to him:
EU Average - $35632
Which sounds about right if we are talking about median income per capita per annum.

However, according to this: https://www.ceicdata.com/en/in... I get the following average incomes per household per capita:
US: $29,865.60
Germany: $31,136.72

According to OECD per household per capita:
http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex...
http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex...
Sweden: $30,553
Germany: $33 652
OECD average: 30 563

US states (according to the 2010-2014 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates):https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income
The 2016 figures are from here: http://www.deptofnumbers.com/i...

Highs:
1) District of Columbia: $45,877 (2016: $45,545)
2) Connecticut: $39,373 (2016: $41,087)
3) New Jersey: $37,288 (2016: $38,911)

Around median:
15) California $30,441 (2016: $33,389)
16) Illinois $30,417(2016: $32,849)
17) Hawaiii: $29,736 (2016: $32,634)

Absolute lows:
49) West Virginia: $22,714 (2016: $24,769)
50) Mississippi: $21,036 (2016:$22,694 )
*) Puerto Rico: $11,241

I get what you are saying, but to think like that in absolute terms is to ignore the billions of positive selfless acts that also happen each day among humanity.

It doesn't matter how many selfless acts go on. It matters how people measure their overall quality of life. How do you measure it? Do you measure it like the OECD or some other means? We have Gallup polls and the OECD the demonstrate quite frankly that we need improvement in a variety of areas, not little improvement, BIG improvement. When you see record numbers of people on anti-depressant and anti-anxiety medication, you can conclude we don't live in anything remotely close to a utopia.

Let me put this in perspective for you, I'm going to pick a random example of something so negative that it's beyond belief. Fundamentalist Religion. Using psychology programming and fear tactics to make you terrified of something that isn't real. That's awful. And that's just ONE example.

How nice for you. Finnish incomes are also thousands of dollars less per year compared to Americans, and that already takes into account the money you "save" on medical care; sounds like you're getting a bad deal.

Depends on how you look at it. While the average household income in the US is significantly higher, it is top-biased. The average income for the bottom 20% is higher in Finland at $13253/year vs $11194/year in the US. Suffice it to say that it is not the top 20% who need universal health care.

Furthermore, you're living in a tiny, sparsely populated monoculture at the ass end of Europe (...) Scaling that up to the whole population wouldn't reduce medical spending, it would massively increase it.

There's plenty of countries larger than Finland with effective and efficient single-payer health care.

The US spends about the same percentage of GDP on social welfare as Switzerland and Australia, and significantly more than Canada.

At last some real objective data. This makes for so much more interesting debate than just citing you own conservative propaganda.
So based on your own data, Norway spends more on welfare, and has a higher standard of living than the US, and is socialist. Do you agree or disagree?

In absolute terms, the US spends more on social welfare per capita than any other major country. Canada, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, and the UK

It's a bit silly to use absolute terms when the US has 3 times more people than all those countries combined.
As above, percentage of GDP gives a better indicator, and if you toggle the down arrow to sort highest to lowest, the US is near the bottom.

all rank higher on economic liberty than the US.

Yes because economic liberty has little to do with socialism. As your own references show, you can be socialist AND have economic freedom.
So again the socialist countries like NZ, Australia, Canada, Iceland seem to be performing better than the US, agree or disagree?

And the US has the highest corporate tax rates among OECD countries.

Interesting. Although where is this money going?Maybe you're blowing it all on Defence and Prisons instead on health and education?
I'm also aware that the US spends a fair bit on health and education but just isn't getting the same results. I wonder why that is?
Also, just paying higher tax isn't a socialist concept, unless that money is going to benefit those at the bottom, which it clearly isn't in the US.

So, the idea that those other countries are "socialist", even in the sense of being a welfare state, while the US is supposedly not is untenable.

So you're seriously going to try and argue the the US is socialist too now? Or that all the other countries aren't?
Actually I might agree somewhat, the US is a little bit socialist, because it does have some social programs, but your original argument is that socialism is evil, and only small government can succeed is clearly flawed. You've clearly demonstrated that there is a strong correlation between socialist policy and quality of living.

In terms of economic factors (housing, jobs, income), the US outranks all other OECD members.

But this argument isn't about who is the richest, it's about quality of life. Would you rather be rich and unhappy, or mostly rich and happy?

If you ranked countries like Sweden and Germany among US states, they would be among the poorest US states.

As above, slightly less rich, but with better services and higher quality of life overall. I would gladly sacrifice a few extra percent of my income to not have some poor soul have to live on the streets - actually I already do. Would you?

Having lived in several of the countries you list, that agrees with my experience. In particular, I rejected emigrating both to Canada and Australia because I consider the economic opportunities and standard of living to be too low in those countries.

Even though the

Good one. So you conveniently pretend Norway, Australia, Denmark, Netherlands, Germany and Ireland aren't there? Or are you man enough to admit that yes, there are a few socialist countries with higher standard of living than the US?

The US spends about the same percentage of GDP on social welfare as Switzerland and Australia, and significantly more than Canada. In absolute terms, the US spends more on social welfare per capita than any other major country. Canada, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, and the UK all rank higher on economic liberty than the US. And the US has the highest corporate tax rates among OECD countries. So, the idea that those other countries are "socialist", even in the sense of being a welfare state, while the US is supposedly not is untenable.

In terms of economic factors (housing, jobs, income), the US outranks all other OECD members. If you ranked countries like Sweden and Germany among US states, they would be among the poorest US states. Having lived in several of the countries you list, that agrees with my experience. In particular, I rejected emigrating both to Canada and Australia because I consider the economic opportunities and standard of living to be too low in those countries.

And if we take the wealth inequality of the US into account, then for 99% of Americans, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore, Hong Kong, Liechtenstein, Sweden, UK, Iceland etc etc have higher standards of living too?

Most comparisons of living standards already look at median incomes or exclude the top 1%, so arguments about "if you take wealth inequality into account" are rooted in a misunderstanding of what that data shows. Furthermore, the levels of inequality in the US are not much higher than other countries; pretax, they are the same or lower than the UK, Spain, Poland, Germany, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, and Sweden. Post tax, they are similar to the UK, Canada, Spain, and Australia (0.42 vs. 0.41 and 0.38).

Overall, I agree: the US should be more like Canada, Australia, and Ireland: we should cut back our corporate tax rates to lower levels, and cut back our social welfare spending to the lower levels found in those other countries.

By which to say you mean an economist living and working for a British conservative think-tank in London, cherry picking quotes from the late nineties (news flash, economy is better than it was then, not worse),

Yes, as she points out: the economy has improved as Sweden has reduced its implementation of Third Way economics.

That's the problem with economics not being a science after all. There are too many people with an agenda that find their home there, and reality be damned.

Reality is that Sweden is not a socialist country and wasn't a socialist country in the 1990s. Reality is also that Swedes are doing financially significantly worse than Americans. http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex... Reality is also that Sweden is a small country that became wealthy for a few decades and now is facing massive social and economic problems, and whose future is quite uncertain. It is certainly not a country that the US can look to as something to emulate.

What they want and need is the Nordic Model.

You may like the government-imposed social conformity, the lack of choice, and the lily-white nature of the Nordic Countries, but when it comes down to cold, hard finances, the Nordic Countries aren't doing all that well for their citizens: http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex... Take it from someone who immigrated from there: you don't want the Nordic Model, and much of what you believe about the Nordic Model is about as mythical as Shangri-La.

Most of these guys spend 2 hours a day commuting to their shitty jobs listening to Rush. They spent their childhood being told that if you work hard and play by the rules and don't get ahead it's your fault.

And guys like you spend 2 hours a day commuting to your white collar jobs, working for bosses and corporations you secretly hate, listening to NPR and reading HuffPo, and lacking the skills to make it on your own. And then you project your own ignorance and insecurity onto people who you deem inferior. It's no wonder that socialism originated with, and has been most ardently pursued, not by workers, but by educated, underperforming scions of middle class families.

I've tried reasoning with them but it's no go.

Yeah, I have tried reasoning with ignorant people like you as well, but it's no go.

Like most Americans you seem to focus only on wealth as a measure of success

You're just repeating uninformed anti-American beliefs common in Europe. In actual fact, Americans rank fairly low in terms of materialism:

http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-p...

Whenever there's those OECD comparisons about things that I value: happiness, standard of living, access to health and education, low violent crime etc then North Western Europe along with Australia and New Zealand blitz those things every time.

You mean the OECD Better Life index?

http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex...

The US generally comes out near the top. But those numbers are dubious to begin with: high happiness numbers don't actually mean that people are happy, high voter turnout is not a good measure of civic engagement, staying longest in school is not necessarily a good thing, and high life expectancy and government-paid health care are not necessarily good measures of a good medical system. And comparing the US as a whole against individual EU member nations makes little sense either.

Going quite a bit off topic here, but I'll bite:

Build a border that can be enforced

I hope you're not talking about building a wall. A wall is one of those ideas that seems pleasant, simple, and realistic at a quick glance, but when you get into details it starts to break down. Even the Great Wall of China failed many times.

Rather than trying to go back to Isolationist policies, we should be looking at A) why they come here, and B) what steps we can take to diminish A. In the long run, removing their need/desire to come to America illegally will have far more benefit for everyone than simply trying to hide the problem behind a chain-link fence.

A isn't easy; a lot of people will claim "because America is the greatest country in the world!" Except we aren't turning back a tide of Canadians at our northern border, so far as I'm aware, meaning either America and Canada are roughly equivalent in greatness or there are other reasons that Mexicans are risking quite a bit to come to the U.S. While I'm no expert on Hispanic relations, it seems to me that what is happening is not so much Mexicans wanting to come to the US, but Mexicans wanting to leave Mexico and the US being the most natural choice. (I'm not aware of Guatemala offering a lot, and in fact Mexico is facing its own illegal immigrant problem with Guatemalans)

The main cause that I'm aware of is the Mexican Cartels, who mainly use drugs as their source of revenue. The surging movement in America to legalize weed is having a growing impact on that. They still have crack and heroine, of course, but these are far more destructive drugs that will result in fewer return users.

There are likely other other factors, such as poverty, especially in the border towns (driving along the highway by the border in El Paso, TX gives you an eerie comparison between Juarez and El Paso, especially when you consider that much of the El Paso side is still lower class.) Government corruption might be a factor.

For B, I already mentioned the legalizing of weed in America. If we can change the discussion of our "War on Drugs" from punishment to rehabilitation, we could lower the demand for drugs from Mexico (and other countries dealing with the same thing) even further.

For poverty, I don't have a good plan. But let's consider that fence again. It could cost $22.4 Billion to build (though the full cost is hard to figure out, apparently). A quick search tells me that the estimated population amongst the six Mexican border states was 12,246,99... in 1990. So that number's a bit old, we'll bump it up to 20M (another source says 24M by 2020, but that's for both sides of the border.) With about 27.9% being kids, that's about 14M adults, giving us $1600/Mexican adult (more, actually, as the "kids" only includes up to age 14). The average yearly income for Mexico is about $13K, so that's significant but not huge.

What if, instead of spending that money on the border, we use it to improve the cities on the Mexican side of the border? They would give at least a small economical boost, though short-term, and while improving those cities we could have US law enforcement work with Mexican law enforcement to further route the gang

Why the rage? You could do a little reading and find out for yourself.
Here are some ideas from me - some stats, some anecdotes.
1. Scientific output in the US is stagnant compared with China. For example, between 2010 and 2013 the US published approx, 560k articles each year. China rose from 335k to 426k. I often hear Americans say "Quality, not quantity." But again, no one had to say that 10 years ago... (see ref1)
2. The US standard of living has fallen below that of many other countries (see ref2). Again, many Americans deny this, or simply don't believe it. This is part of the problem. For example, this post (ref3) was rated 5:Insightful: "Government has a very limited range of things that they do as well or better than the public at large (war/defense, money, basic law enforcement, etc) - governmental action beyond that range invariably becomes incompetent, expensive, dangerous, or worse." Given that the poster is comparing Sweden with the US, this is laughable.
3. You can't put a person in space anymore.
4. You have people living on the street who aren't drug affected or mentally unstable. You know, like young, sane healthy families living out of their car. If you can't or won't fix that, you shouldn't have much confidence for larger problems.
5. Among the many Americans I've met (and they were all friendly decent people), there was a strong feeling that their country was the envy of the world. This is simply not the case. Here are two anecdotes that may have wider applicability. If you were to offer an academic the choice between a US or EU passport, what do you think they would choose? Among the people I know, about 3/4 would go with the EU passport. But then I mainly know academics. Which brings me to another point. Within academia, the US is still considered the default centre of the world - but only just. But that has definitely changed in the last 20 years. 20 years ago, the status location for an international conference was the states. That is no longer the case. Many universities now prefer to hold conferences in the EU, and I've spoken to many scientists who now skip some minor conferences when they are held in the US, simply because they are in the US. This would, you assume, be bad for their careers, but two of them are leaders in their field. I'd say this is bad for the states.

(some refs) ref1: http://www.scimagojr.com/count...
ref2: http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex...
ref3: http://games.slashdot.org/comm...

I'm going to have to say that's a result that's unique to Switzerland. There's a direct correlation between homicide rates and assault rates (a failed homicide being classified as an assault). For your hypothesis to be correct, the overall assault rate in Switzerland has to have remained the same or climbed, while the homicide rate decreased. Indeed Switzerland has one of the highest assault rates among OECD countries (4.0%), but one of the lowest homicide rates (0.7 per 100,000).

But since most of this criticism is directed at the U.S., how do the two rates compare in the U.S.? The U.S. has one of the highest homicide rates among OECD countries (4.8 per 100,000 - more than double the OECD average of 2.2), but one of the lowest assault rates (1.5%, only Canada and Japan are lower, less than half the OECD average of 4.0%). (The interface is terrible - you have to hover your mouse over the little bars in the graph to see the number for each country, and the bars are inverted so a tall bar is a low number.) So while Americans kill each other a lot more, Europeans attack each other a lot more. This would appear to bear out the adage that "an armed society is a polite society." If the U.S. were to ban gun ownership, the homicide rate could decline to Canadian levels as you posit, or the assault rate could rise by 2.7x to the OECD average, or some combination of both. It's impossible to say which would be the outcome given the data.

I've been following this debate a long time, and followed with much interest what happened in Australia when they disarmed in 1997 (homicides are down, but assaults and sexual assaults are up, and robberies fluctuated a lot and are currently unchanged). I don't like nor own a gun, but I also dislike making decision purely on gut feeling rather than sound statistical data. The only conclusion I've arrived at is that the cultural norms for a country matter a whole lot more than whether or not you ban guns. Guns are mostly illegal in both Canada and Mexico, but widely available due to proximity to the U.S. Yet Canada is one of the safest OECD countries while Mexico is one of the most dangerous.

As an aside, it's interesting that the data on that site ranks the U.S. as the 3rd safest country against assault. The data was from a Gallup poll asking residents of those countries if they'd been assaulted in the past year. Other measurements of assault rate I'd seen ranked the U.S. about average among OECD countries. But those were based on police reports of assaults per 100,000. So either Americans are lying about whether they've been assaulted, or people in other OECD countries are not bothering to report assaults to the police, or police in other OECD countries are lying about how many assaults are reported to them. And no the high homicide rate in the U.S. does not affect the assault rate significantly. If all 4.8 out of 100,000 homicides failed and were classified as assaults, it would increase the assault rate by just 0.005%.

Here's one set of income data, but you can check plenty of others if you like:

http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/topics/income/

Norway is doing quite well, of course, but Norway is a xenophobic oil- and resource-rich country of 5 million that stays out of the EU because it knows the EU would suck its wealth away in a heartbeat.

As for consumer rights, where do you think they came from? The Pope? Adorno (as if you'd know who that is)? The EU? Norwegian trolls like you? Find out some time.

Maybe you should go beyond your second rate public education and government sponsored nationalism and actually find out what's really going in the world. You'd be surprised.

http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/countries/chile/

"In Chile, the average net adjusted disposable income of the top 20% of the population is an estimated 31 040 USD a year, whereas the bottom 20% live on an estimated 2 392 USD a year."

  In Chile, households on average spend 18% of their gross adjusted disposable income on keeping a roof over their heads, less than the OECD average of 21%.

http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/countries/united-states/
"In the United States, the average net adjusted disposable income of the top 20% of the population is an estimated 82 666 USD a year, whereas the bottom 20% live on an estimated 10 434 USD a year."

  In the United States, households on average spend 19% of their gross adjusted disposable income on keeping a roof over their heads, below the OECD average of 21%

----

Similarly the cost of lodging and eating is 1/3 to 1/2 of the cost in the less expensive U.S. cities and 1/4 the cost of expensive U.S. cities.

---

By definition $11,000 is a the middle income, just like $46,000 is in the US. Half the people make less, half the people make more.

The Chilean figure includes your mass of subsistence farmers and slum dwellers (as long as they have a job and earn official taxable income.

The United States figure includes the mass of poor people, slum dwellers (as long as they have a job and earn official taxable income, underprivileged, single moms, high school dropouts, struggling actors, waiters, etc.

http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/countries/chile/

"In Chile, the average net adjusted disposable income of the top 20% of the population is an estimated 31 040 USD a year, whereas the bottom 20% live on an estimated 2 392 USD a year."

  In Chile, households on average spend 18% of their gross adjusted disposable income on keeping a roof over their heads, less than the OECD average of 21%.

http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/countries/united-states/
"In the United States, the average net adjusted disposable income of the top 20% of the population is an estimated 82 666 USD a year, whereas the bottom 20% live on an estimated 10 434 USD a year."

  In the United States, households on average spend 19% of their gross adjusted disposable income on keeping a roof over their heads, below the OECD average of 21%

----

Similarly the cost of lodging and eating is 1/3 to 1/2 of the cost in the less expensive U.S. cities and 1/4 the cost of expensive U.S. cities.

---

By definition $11,000 is a the middle income, just like $46,000 is in the US. Half the people make less, half the people make more.

The Chilean figure includes your mass of subsistence farmers and slum dwellers (as long as they have a job and earn official taxable income.

The United States figure includes the mass of poor people, slum dwellers (as long as they have a job and earn official taxable income, underprivileged, single moms, high school dropouts, struggling actors, waiters, etc.

Your income figures are wrong.

US Median household disposable income trails only Luxembourg. Norway is NOT higher and Norway's median income is NOT $75,000.

http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/countries/norway/

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

Note that is also MEDIAN income so the fat tail of US high income earners does not affect this number.

Australia is consistently near the top of all Quality of Life and other measurements, along with Canada and New Zealand.

Here is the latest:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-14/melbourne-remains-worlds-most-liveable-city/4198294

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-of-life_Index

http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/

Do a bit of research and make sure you find the best place to live, not just for yourself but your family, your kids futures and their kids.

Disclaimer: I was born in Australia and moved to New Zealand.