Welfare State Key To Canada's Successful Future

[maplesyrup]

Canada's Hot Northern Sisters

On the other hand, given the consistency of such top ratings in recent years, and given our top or upper ranking in similar surveys estimating such quantities as lack of corruption, freedom of the press, state of the environment, educational standards, equality of income distribution, and human security, there may actually be something to learn from Finland.

We face tough competition from such low-tax business paradises as the United States, Singapore, and Hong Kong. But the fact that not only Finland but all of our Nordic neighbours - Denmark, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden - are usually to be found in the top ten raises an obvious question: why have these welfare states defied the judgments pronounced over twenty years ago that they had outlived their purpose and were ripe for dismantling?

Can it be that these generous, high-tax welfare states, with their strong labour unions and old fashioned social-democratic values, have achieved their relative success not in spite of being welfare states but because of it?

We really are subjected to a massive amount of capitalistic propaganda in North America, aren't we?

And actually if one analyses the stats, it is the welfare states that are the most successful societies on the planet.

[maplesyrup]

Some interestin' stats that someone posted in the comments section followin' the main article:

Child Poverty

1. Mexico 26.2% 2. United States 22.4% 3. Italy 20.5% 4. United Kingdom 19.8% 5. Turkey 19.7% 6. Ireland 16.8% 7. Canada 15.5% 8. Poland 15.4% 9. Australia 12.6% 10. Greece 12.3% 11. Spain 12.3% 12. Japan 12.2% 13. Germany 10.7% 14. Hungary 10.3% 15. France 7.9% 16. Netherlands 7.7% 17. Czech Republic 5.9% 18. Denmark 5.1% 19. Luxembourg 4.5% 20. Belgium 4.4% 21. Finland 4.3% 22. Norway 3.9% 23. Sweden 2.6%

Look at us way up at the top near Mexico, aren't we civilized!

Economic Aid as a percentage of GDP, again look at this great nation way down by little Saudi Arabia

1. Denmark $1.04 per $100 2. Norway $0.93 per $100 3. Netherlands $0.79 per $100 4. Sweden $0.73 per $100 5. Luxembourg $0.72 per $100 6. Switzerland $0.47 per $100 7. France $0.40 per $100 8. United Kingdom $0.29 per $100 9. Finland $0.28 per $100 10. Germany $0.25 per $100 11. Belgium $0.25 per $100 12. Japan $0.24 per $100 13. Ireland $0.24 per $100 14. Austria $0.18 per $100 15. Australia $0.17 per $100 16. Spain $0.15 per $100 17. Canada $0.13 per $100 18. Portugal $0.13 per $100 19. New Zealand $0.12 per $100 20. Italy $0.06 per $100 21. United States $0.06 per $100 22. Lesotho $0 per $100 23. Saudi Arabia $0 per $100 24. Korea, South $0 per $100

Expected duration of education for all students 1. Australia 20.7 years 2. Sweden 20.2 years 3. United Kingdom 18.9 years 4. Belgium 18.7 years 5. Finland 18.7 years 6. Iceland 18.0 years 7. Norway 17.9 years 8. Denmark 17.8 years 9. Spain 17.5 years 10. New Zealand 17.3 years 11. Netherlands 17.2 years 12. Germany 17.2 years 13. Portugal 17.0 years 14. United States 16.7 years 15. Canada 16.5 years

[maplesyrup]

Keys to Nordic success

This success can be attributed to four factors: knowledge and education, entrepreneurship, cooperation and solidarity, and the Nordic model of the welfare state.

This is the direction that Canada needs to head in. By keeping our taxes high, we could eliminate poverty and be a shining example on how to have a just society in the Americas, perhaps helping the countries in Central and South America to pull themselves out of their exploited situations..

[maplesyrup]

Democracy vs. 'well financed lobbies'

How sustainable is all this in our globalising world? The success of the Nordic countries, which are all small economies highly dependent on global trade, indicates that it is very sustainable. But there is no room for complacency. Constant adjustments are necessary.

At the end of the day what will decide the future of our welfare states is still our own political will. If this is decided through democratic procedures, there should be no problem. But we are very much aware that well-financed lobbies are hard at work trying to introduce neoliberal policies to the Nordic countries as well.

Canadians will have to be vigilant to ensure that these lobby groups don't try and reduce our taxes and destroy our Canadian way of life.

[Pateris]

maplesyrup,

So explain this - how is it that the United States has been the biggest wealth producing country in the world for nigh on 200 years? And CONTINUES to be the largest wealth producing country....

And that in all the "high-tax" places you mention there are very few people getting rich...

[maplesyrup]

There are other goals in life besides getting rich.

It is the distribution of the wealth in the US that is wrong.

This is the one of the problems in the US:

Bill Gates makes millions billions, whatever, because of low taxes, which have decimated the puiblic school system.

Bill Gates then turns around and with his tax deductible receipts, and donates (read controls the direction) to the school system.

Educators, not some rich guy, need to be making decisions about the school system.

Inproper distribution of wealth has lead to the mess of US inner-city life.

[Pateris]

maplesyrup,

Have you been in the inner cities of the US?

Most of them are in much better shape today than they were in the 1980s... There are exceptions of course, like Detroit and Washington. But Philadelphia is better, as is St Louis and Kansas City.

Also - getting rich is important. Because rich people can invest in the economy and create more wealth.

Capitalism has created more wealth for the average person than every other economic system that has ever been.

Yes, the gap between rich and poor gets larger - unless you are making everyone the same (equality of outcome), it MUST. Because the poor can't really get much poorer, but the rich can always get richer - and will.

[Guest eureka]

Actually it has not been anywhere near two hundred years. Even then, it had difficulty in passing much smaller competitors.

It finally overtook Britain by seizing the opportunity of war to muscle Britain out of many areas of wealth production.

[maplesyrup]

There is a lot of mythology about the US. Mostly capitalist propaganda.

Remember how the US was going to welcomed with open arms in Iraq?

[shackwacky]

Bill Gates makes millions billions, whatever, because of low taxes, which have decimated the puiblic school system.

Bill Gates then turns around and with his tax deductible receipts, and donates (read controls the direction) to the school system.

Educators, not some rich guy, need to be making decisions about the school system.

Actually, given the choice between some underpaid public educator and Bill G. making the decisions regarding the public school system....it would make sense to choose Bill.

If someone is going to be giving my kids pointers on how to be a success, I would prefer that person had a track record.

[Guest eureka]

Yes, the gap between rich and poor gets larger - unless you are making everyone the same (equality of outcome), it MUST. Because the poor can't really get much poorer, but the rich can always get richer - and will

Actually, given the choice between some underpaid public educator and Bill G. making the decisions regarding the public school system....it would make sense to choose Bill.

I have to think they are the two most ill considered statements I have ever seen in these discussions.

The first would reconstitute the conditions for bloody revolution. The second countenances the destruction of education.

[Guest eureka]

http://www.ccsd.ca/home.htm

Take a look at this. There are many useful pieces of information. Look at the link; "Canada beats the USA but loses the Gold to Sweden" for some interesting comparisons.

[shackwacky]

The destruction of education? Oh for crying in the sink.

All I am saying is that perhaps the "future of education" does not necessarily lie with some under-acheiving teacher who got their degree back in the 1960's and is now comfortably working somewhat less than a standard 8 per day and waiting for retirement. Where, in the curriculum for educating our educators, have we taught them to identify progressive trends and economic indicators in relation to the current job market. We haven't. And because they are ensconced in life-jobs, they may not be the best persons to ask in this case.

I want my kids to succeed. If I had a choice between Mrs. Applebee teaching them english literature and Mr. Gates teaching them computer literacy...

have to think they are the two most ill considered statements I have ever seen in these discussions.

Really? I happen to think that statement is rude and borders on a personal attack.

[maplesyrup]

Labour's major role to play

Strong labour-market organisations was a central factor in establishing negotiating procedures between the social partners and a wide network of collective agreements -- which may cover all wage-earners, including non-union members, but still leave considerable flexibility at the branch, company, and even work-place levels.

The social partners were also fathers of our national pension system, which covers all wage-earners as well as entrepreneurs. They have, moreover, been able to agree on the small continuous adjustments to the system which are needed to ensure its sustainability as our population ages. As a result Finland is about the only European country not threatened with a so-called "pension bomb" in the foreseeable future.

All of the above are central features of the Nordic welfare model, with the result that our countries have a significantly more equal distribution of income and a smaller proportion of people falling below the poverty line than any other country in the world.

Vacations are another area that would be best controlled by the governments. Employers and employees can pay into a fund, with your minimum amount of vacation depending strictly upon your age. The older one gets the more vacation time is required.

Age 20: 4 weeks vacation

Age 30: 6 weeks vacation

Age 40: 8 weeks vacation

Age 50: 10 weeks vacation

Put this option to the Canadian people on a referendum and I can guarantee you it will pass 80% of the vote.

Canada needs a major shake up in our social policies, including making pensions portable.

[Guest eureka]

Then perhaps you should give some thought to what you are saying.

You are advocating the end of education though you obviously don't know it. You toss out the usual reflexive contempt for teachers and for learning. You imply that what is important is something that should be an adjunct to learning.

[shackwacky]

You are advocating the end of education though you obviously don't know it.

I think I would notice if I was advocating the end of education. You must be a teacher, in that case sorry for poking you with a stick.

Although we get high marks in this country for education, (and that apparently depends on who's posting), I feel that there is a lot that can be done to improve on the way the public school system educates our children.

Our kids need to learn about real jobs and competition in the marketplace and what to do when Mommy and Daddy stop giving them an allowance. Our schools do not, by any stretch of the imagination, prepare our kids for the real world.

This is not, by the way "reflexive contempt". I have children in the public school system and is there is any contempt for teachers apparent in my post then they have ultimately earned it.

[Hugo]

If I may weigh in on this discussion:

Firstly, let's not compare the US to Scandinavia and argue that we are comparing capitalism to socialism. The US is not capitalist and arguably has not been since the last third of the 19th Century. In comparing the US to a Scandinavian country, we are simply comparing different modes of socialism and state interventionism.

The US is in fact distinctly socialist. It has a massive and hugely expensive welfare and social security system, socialised medicine, and socialised education, paid for with taxes that, at the federal level alone, eat 30% of the average American household income. The line between business and government is very blurred and success in the business world is often dependent upon political connections rather than economic acumen. The federal government employs almost as many people as all Fortune 500 companies combined, I believe. The government is also dedicated to economic interventionism, and even runs many businesses itself as monopolies (the postal service, for instance).

Secondly, when studying figures it is important to ask who gathers them, and why. Any elected government has a vested interest in exonerating itself and vindicating its policies. For example, many lauded the Soviet record of infant mortality, pointing out how Western economics had failed in this regard when compared to glowingly low Soviet rates. It later came to light, however, that Soviet practice was not to register the death of an infant for several years, thus falsifying the records and making it appear that the infant mortality rate was far lower than it actually was.

Norway and Finland today do not release figures on population below the poverty line. Because of their extensive welfare systems they do not consider anybody to be in this position. However, independent studies show that one in four Norwegians does not earn enough to maintain a minimal lifestyle and is dependent upon government largesse for their very existence. This figure is far higher than that of Canada and over double that of the USA. Japan, for another example, also falsifies its unemployment figures by paying companies the salaries of workers it would otherwise have to fire.

This massive tax burden is too large to be shouldered by the rich and rests mostly upon the middle class and the working poor, which explains the economic stagnation of these mixed economies. Japan, which runs its economy along very similar lines, has posted negative economic growth for six years in a row. Sweden is in a very similar situation. Finnish economic growth this year was 1.9%, up from 0.7% in 2000 but a far cry from figures several times higher being posted in recent decades. The rich in these countries now have no more to give, the middle classes are heavily taxed and socialist programmes are now borne increasingly by the poor, the very people they are supposed to help.

These problems cast the sustainability of these economies in serious doubt. Increased taxes slow the economy, producing smaller revenues from higher rates (as in now-Liberal governed Ontario). The expensive government services therefore can be bought only with government debt, which continues to pile up. Finnish public debt is over 48% of GDP. The slowing of the economy is also noticeable in Finnish unemployment figures, persistently into double-digits, and after a long struggle since the mid-90s now only down to 9% (and we must doubt the legitimacy of that figure).

Basically, these good demographic figures are bought with debt and cannot be kept up. In twenty years we will be discussing either the Finnish free-market and privatization revolution, or we will be discussing the Finnish economic crash.

[Guest eureka]

I would suggest, Hugo, that you look at the links I gave. Some comparisons might interest you even though they give the lie to most of your claims and oredictions.

[Guest eureka]

Why must I be a teacher? Is that your response to any who have a better understanding of education than you apparently have.

I am not a teacher. I have for many years run my own business. Before that, I managed the Canadian operations of an American company, and, was a director of the company. Before that, I did many things, none of which was in the educational field or involved unions.

I do have close family members who teach at all levels from elementary to University and I see how hard and stressful is their work. It is such that I will not let your ignorance and contempt for those who are, seemingly, better educated and more socially responsible than you, go unchallenged.

I could recommend some reading for you though I doubt that you want to have your cocoon burst. Try "The End of Education" by Neil Postman. It would be a start in your discovery of what education is and where career counselling does not fit in.

[Hugo]

I took a look at the "Canada Beats USA - But Loses Gold to Sweden" article.

There's a lot of ambiguity here. For example, in the "low paid" figures the numbers are not tied to purchasing power parity or to cost of living, but merely being paid 1/3 less than the national average. To see how this can skew the picture, consider that if every Swede earnt $10 a year, but 9/10 of Americans earnt $100 a year and 1/10 of them earnt $800, the Swedish figures would be far better than the American (0% as compared to 90%), despite the fact that every Swede is far poorer than every American!

They boast of how much Sweden pays for social programmes, but don't answer my question: how is this paid for when there is little to no economic growth? The size of the public debts in these countries answer that: the costs are borne by massive borrowing.

Moreover, how do they answer my allegation that Nordic government spending from taxation is borne primarily by the working poor? For example, Swedish sales taxes are at 25%, and sales tax is a regressive tax in that it takes from the poor far more than it does from the rich.

In Denmark, a person pays about 68% income tax. After one adds sales taxes, government takes 76% of the income of an average Dane. A Danish car purchaser must pay 205% tax on his new vehicle! For comparison, a base-model Kia Rio (a very cheap car) in Canada would cost almost $40,000! Right now, that can buy a very nicely-equipped BMW.

[Guest eureka]

That is pretty superficial stuff, Hugo. Those earnings are not the case or even nearly the case so why consider them.

The chief answer to your disagreement with the comparisons is that income disparity is not nearly so wide and, in that case, you various claims fail.

There is not massive debt building to pay for social programs. They are paid out of taxes. Poverty rates are calculated on after-tax income so your "explanation" of the tax system is not valid as far as social conditions go.

The one major country of the world that actually is borrowing massively to pay for ots social programs, such as they are and such as are left, is the United States.

[Hugo]

Those earnings are not the case or even nearly the case so why consider them.

It illustrates how the method used to gather the data in question is derelict. It is easily possible for this method to paint a completely false picture of the situation, so it is not trustworthy.

There is not massive debt building to pay for social programs. They are paid out of taxes.

Where is your evidence? What figures do you have on Nordic public debt that contradict mine?

Poverty rates are calculated on after-tax income so your "explanation" of the tax system is not valid as far as social conditions go.

What poverty rates? The countries you are talking about don't even publish official poverty figures, so where are you getting them from and what methodology are they using to get them?

[Guest eureka]

Hugo, do we really need to get into this again? Of course the figures are published and compared and the methodology is consistent.

You know that and you look at the figures.

[Hugo]

I asked you for proof, not bluster. Where are these figures and what is the method behind them?

[maplesyrup]

Maybe the point is is that there is little or no poverty in progressive social democratic countries such as Sweden, Norway, etc.