America vs. Sweden

[BHS]

TCS Daily Article

I came across this article today and my first thought on reading it was, "I wonder how the lefties at Maple Leaf would counter this argument".

The argument being put forward is that since the real income of the poorest 10% of Americans is equal to the income of the poorest 10% of Swedes and Finns that America doesn't need to make any changes to it's public policies vis-a-vis social spending. Being a lackey for big capitalism I of course by into everything this guy is saying and can't think of any negatives, so I'm throwing it out there for you guys and gals to chew away on. Enjoy. Here's a sample:

How we're supposed to read this is that the USA has a very uneven income distribution, that the poorest 10% only get 39% of the median income, that the richest 10% get 210%. Compare and contrast that with the most egalitarian society amongst those studied, Finland, where the rich get 111% and the poor get 38%. Shown this undoubted fact we are therefore to don sackcloth and ashes, promise to do better and tax the heck out of everybody to rectify this appalling situation.

But hang on a minute, that's not quite what is being shown. In the USA the poor get 39% of the US median income and in Finland (and Sweden) the poor get 38% of the US median income. It's not worth quibbling over 1% so let's take it as read that the poor in America have exactly the same standard of living as the poor in Finland (and Sweden). Which is really a rather revealing number don't you think? All those punitive tax rates, all that redistribution, that blessed egalitarianism, the flatter distribution of income, leads to a change in the living standards of the poor of precisely ... nothing.

[daddyhominum]

TCS Daily Article

I came across this article today and my first thought on reading it was, "I wonder how the lefties at Maple Leaf would counter this argument".

The argument being put forward is that since the real income of the poorest 10% of Americans is equal to the income of the poorest 10% of Swedes and Finns that America doesn't need to make any changes to it's public policies vis-a-vis social spending. Being a lackey for big capitalism I of course by into everything this guy is saying and can't think of any negatives, so I'm throwing it out there for you guys and gals to chew away on. Enjoy. Here's a sample:

How we're supposed to read this is that the USA has a very uneven income distribution, that the poorest 10% only get 39% of the median income, that the richest 10% get 210%. Compare and contrast that with the most egalitarian society amongst those studied, Finland, where the rich get 111% and the poor get 38%. Shown this undoubted fact we are therefore to don sackcloth and ashes, promise to do better and tax the heck out of everybody to rectify this appalling situation.

But hang on a minute, that's not quite what is being shown. In the USA the poor get 39% of the US median income and in Finland (and Sweden) the poor get 38% of the US median income. It's not worth quibbling over 1% so let's take it as read that the poor in America have exactly the same standard of living as the poor in Finland (and Sweden). Which is really a rather revealing number don't you think? All those punitive tax rates, all that redistribution, that blessed egalitarianism, the flatter distribution of income, leads to a change in the living standards of the poor of precisely ... nothing.

I assume that anyone who responds is proven to be a lefty?

Hard to imagine that anyone who trys to set silly traps like that is open-minded about anything.

But here is the key question you must answer: The poor in Sweden get 38% of the US median income so what percent of the Swedish income is 38% of the US income?

After all, the Swedish poor live in Sweden so determining how well off they would be in the USA with on their Swedish income is rather pointless, isn't it.

Yours in tested leftness, Mr McCarthy

[daddyhominum]

TCS Daily Article

I came across this article today and my first thought on reading it was, "I wonder how the lefties at Maple Leaf would counter this argument".

The argument being put forward is that since the real income of the poorest 10% of Americans is equal to the income of the poorest 10% of Swedes and Finns that America doesn't need to make any changes to it's public policies vis-a-vis social spending. Being a lackey for big capitalism I of course by into everything this guy is saying and can't think of any negatives, so I'm throwing it out there for you guys and gals to chew away on. Enjoy. Here's a sample:

How we're supposed to read this is that the USA has a very uneven income distribution, that the poorest 10% only get 39% of the median income, that the richest 10% get 210%. Compare and contrast that with the most egalitarian society amongst those studied, Finland, where the rich get 111% and the poor get 38%. Shown this undoubted fact we are therefore to don sackcloth and ashes, promise to do better and tax the heck out of everybody to rectify this appalling situation.

But hang on a minute, that's not quite what is being shown. In the USA the poor get 39% of the US median income and in Finland (and Sweden) the poor get 38% of the US median income. It's not worth quibbling over 1% so let's take it as read that the poor in America have exactly the same standard of living as the poor in Finland (and Sweden). Which is really a rather revealing number don't you think? All those punitive tax rates, all that redistribution, that blessed egalitarianism, the flatter distribution of income, leads to a change in the living standards of the poor of precisely ... nothing.

I assume that anyone who responds is proven to be a lefty?

Hard to imagine that anyone who trys to set silly traps like that is open-minded about anything.

But here is the key question you must answer: The poor in Sweden get 38% of the US median income so what percent of the Swedish income is 38% of the US income?

After all, the Swedish poor live in Sweden so determining how well off they would be in the USA with on their Swedish income is rather pointless, isn't it.

Yours in tested leftness, Mr McCarthy

[Riverwind]

All those punitive tax rates, all that redistribution, that blessed egalitarianism, the flatter distribution of income, leads to a change in the living standards of the poor of precisely ... nothing.

I would say isolated statistics about percentage of income also mean nothing. There are many services the poor receive in places like Sweden or Finland that poor in the US simply go without (access to quality healthcare and education come to mind). The net result is the standard of living for the poor in Sweden is likely much higher than the standard of living for the poor in the US even if the amount of income they receive the same amount of income relative to others.

[Black Dog]

Heh. I found this in the comments thread attached to the o.g. article:

On page 25 of the report, right under the graph:

"To the extent that these countries provide more social and economic support to their citizens than the United States, these numbers provide a somewhat incomplete comparison regarding the living standards of low-income people."

Indeed, if you read the report, you see some less peachy numbers:

(The U.S.) had the highest per capita health care spending, but its life expectancy was lower than that of any of the OECD countries analyzed in this chapter except Denmark. The United States and Denmark had the same life expectancy (77.2 years), but the United States spent twice as much as Denmark on health care.

...

As with life expectancy, the U.S. infant mortality rate—while it decreased nearly 50% from 1979 to 2003—was the highest amongst these OECD countries in 2003.

...

While it is true that the United States is one of the richest countries, as measured by per capita income, half of that advantage is due to more hours worked. Moreover, U.S. productivity levels no longer lead all OECD levels, even after adjusting for unemployment.

BHS:

The argument being put forward is that since the real income of the poorest 10% of Americans is equal to the income of the poorest 10% of Swedes and Finns that America doesn't need to make any changes to it's public policies vis-a-vis social spending.

Again: read the report.

Given these caveats, along with the lack of correlation between a given model and particular outcomes, countries should not assume that the highly deregulated, high-inequality U.S. model is the most successful economic model.

[August1991]

BHS, wonderful link.

"The society that puts equality before freedom will end up with neither. The society that puts freedom before equality will end up with a great measure of both."

Milton Friedman

This data (presented by a US liberal web site: the Economic Policy Institute) shows that the poorest 10% of Finns receive about the same amount of real stuff (food on the table, Asian consumer junk, national security protection) as the 10% of poorest Americans. (If I had a quibble, it would be that the comparison should have been based on 'disposable income' and not simply 'income'.)

Anyway.

Here's the great philosophical question involved: Would you prefer to earn $20,000 in a small town where everyone else earns $15,000 or would you prefer to earn $40,000 in a small town where everyone else earns $100,000?

For starters, think of this. It might depend on your age. If you're a young single guy, you might prefer the first scenario. If you're happily married woman, you might prefer the second scenario.

Where is RB when we need an opinion?

[JerrySeinfeld]

BHS, wonderful link.

"The society that puts equality before freedom will end up with neither. The society that puts freedom before equality will end up with a great measure of both."

Milton Friedman

This data (presented by a US liberal web site: the Economic Policy Institute) shows that the poorest 10% of Finns receive about the same amount of real stuff (food on the table, Asian consumer junk, national security protection) as the 10% of poorest Americans. (If I had a quibble, it would be that the comparison should have been based on 'disposable income' and not simply 'income'.)

Anyway.

Here's the great philosophical question involved: Would you prefer to earn $20,000 in a small town where everyone else earns $15,000 or would you prefer to earn $40,000 in a small town where everyone else earns $100,000?

For starters, think of this. It might depend on your age. If you're a young single guy, you might prefer the first scenario. If you're happily married woman, you might prefer the second scenario.

Where is RB when we need an opinion?

Great point and , as we all secretly know (but some are loathe to admit), "egalitarian" societies are more about bringing the successful down rather than bringing the poor "up". And the original swede/US stats actually prove that.

[Black Dog]

Great point and , as we all secretly know (but some are loathe to admit), "egalitarian" societies are more about bringing the successful down rather than bringing the poor "up". And the original swede/US stats actually prove that.

Which really explains why "egalitarian" societies consistently rank better for overall quality of life and in nearly all categories (life expectancy, infant mortality, literacy, % of population in poverty). But no, let's look at a single statistic, carefuly chosen and taken out of context.

[geoffrey]

Great point and , as we all secretly know (but some are loathe to admit), "egalitarian" societies are more about bringing the successful down rather than bringing the poor "up". And the original swede/US stats actually prove that.

Which really explains why "egalitarian" societies consistently rank better for overall quality of life and in nearly all categories (life expectancy, infant mortality, literacy, % of population in poverty). But no, let's look at a single statistic, carefuly chosen and taken out of context.

Ranked by the UN on qualitative means... normally by leftist minded 'human rights' people. I give no credance to someone's opinion on a country's well-being, too many unmeasurables.

[Black Dog]

Ranked by the UN on qualitative means... normally by leftist minded 'human rights' people. I give no credance to someone's opinion on a country's well-being, too many unmeasurables.

Especially when the conclusions don't suport your pre-existing beliefs, right?

[geoffrey]

Ranked by the UN on qualitative means... normally by leftist minded 'human rights' people. I give no credance to someone's opinion on a country's well-being, too many unmeasurables.

Especially when the conclusions don't suport your pre-existing beliefs, right?

Not neccessarily, I'd rather live in the States than some higher ranked ones. It's all personal preference. I know some people who's standard of living would be highest living with a tribe in remote South American jungles. Social services don't equal happiness. Most of these 'surveys' or whatever you call them focus on support for the 'poor'... what about the majority of people in those countries paying for that massive burden and don't get to use the social services.

In fact, I'd suggest it's the opposite. I wonder how happy someone on welfare mooching off the state can be, compared to someone that works for their money and has a sense of accomplishment in keeping more of their cheque at the end of the week.

The ultimate egalitarian society in the Soviet Union was hated by most of it's citizens. Same with the oppressed in Cuba... that's what socialism gives you.

[Charles Anthony]

In fact, I'd suggest it's the opposite. I wonder how happy someone on welfare mooching off the state can be, compared to someone that works for their money and has a sense of accomplishment in keeping more of their cheque at the end of the week.

I will take it one step further.

How about somebody who works like a dog, pays money to Shawinigan before being able to make ends meet and can not even afford to take the time off work to go get "social services" sounds poor to me.

It depends on how you look at things.

[Shady]

But no, let's look at a single statistic, carefuly chosen and taken out of context.

Yes, everything's out of context to you isn't it. Whether it's economics or liberal racism.

[Black Dog]

Not neccessarily, I'd rather live in the States than some higher ranked ones. It's all personal preference. I know some people who's standard of living would be highest living with a tribe in remote South American jungles. Social services don't equal happiness. Most of these 'surveys' or whatever you call them focus on support for the 'poor'... what about the majority of people in those countries paying for that massive burden and don't get to use the social services.

The report, again.

Many “interventionist” economies do as well or better than the United States on some key macroeconomic measures, from productivity to job growth, to poverty and health care.

We're not just talking about airy-fairy stuff.

In fact, I'd suggest it's the opposite. I wonder how happy someone on welfare mooching off the state can be, compared to someone that works for their money and has a sense of accomplishment in keeping more of their cheque at the end of the week.

You're not really saying anything that the original report the o.p cited didn't say already. As for the above, well, you're using an extreme example (welfare "mooch"). Me, I work for my money and I'll take an extra day off a week or an extra week's holidays a year over some bogus sense of accomplishment.

[Wilber]

Must be because those war mongering Swedes spend so much on their military. Sweden is 18th in percapita defence spending. Nice little Canada who some would so much like to be neutral like Sweden is 30th.

[BHS]

I assume that anyone who responds is proven to be a lefty?

Hard to imagine that anyone who trys to set silly traps like that is open-minded about anything.

But here is the key question you must answer: The poor in Sweden get 38% of the US median income so what percent of the Swedish income is 38% of the US income?

After all, the Swedish poor live in Sweden so determining how well off they would be in the USA with on their Swedish income is rather pointless, isn't it.

Yours in tested leftness, Mr McCarthy

I've been monitoring this thread for a couple of days but I haven't had time to respond. Sue me.

You haven't been on this forum for very long and I'm sure you haven't read many of my posts, so you won't know that I wasn't trying to set a trap for anyone. I'm genuinely interested in how some of my leftier friends here would react to this article. Nice to meet you too. I see from reading some of your posting history that you've already managed to piss Kimmy off. That's pretty impressive, given that you've only been here for what, a month (?) and she's probably the most imperturbable and centrist of those who defend Republican policy points. (I don't even know that it's fair to call her right wing). Good work.

As to your question about relative percentages of economies, I think one of the points made in the article is that one of the preliminary adjustments made by the authors of the study balances the economies so as to make the later comparisons more feasible. Maybe I misread that, and I was hoping that someone more critical of right-wing cynicism toward left-wing studies would point out how this adjustment was not what the author said it was. Hence the point of this thread and my non-trap intention in creating it. (Sorry for the grammar issues but it's like quarter after seven in the morning and I still can't see straight.)

[BHS]

All those punitive tax rates, all that redistribution, that blessed egalitarianism, the flatter distribution of income, leads to a change in the living standards of the poor of precisely ... nothing.

I would say isolated statistics about percentage of income also mean nothing. There are many services the poor receive in places like Sweden or Finland that poor in the US simply go without (access to quality healthcare and education come to mind). The net result is the standard of living for the poor in Sweden is likely much higher than the standard of living for the poor in the US even if the amount of income they receive the same amount of income relative to others.

Good points all. I would like to see another study comparing life expectancy (in particular) between the poorest ten percent of Finns and Americans, since it's a relatively easy statistics to calculate accurately and isn't prone to manipulation about "quality of life" variables that biased researchers might introduce into their studies.

[BHS]

Again: read the report.

Given these caveats, along with the lack of correlation between a given model and particular outcomes, countries should not assume that the highly deregulated, high-inequality U.S. model is the most successful economic model.

The author of the review article isn't saying the American model is the most successful, only that it isn't less successful than the model that the authors of the study seem to be most in favour of. The whole point of the review article was to point out that the results of the study can be read to make a case contrary to what the authors of the study had intended.

[Black Dog]

The author of the review article isn't saying the American model is the most successful, only that it isn't less successful than the model that the authors of the study seem to be most in favour of. The whole point of the review article was to point out that the results of the study can be read to make a case contrary to what the authors of the study had intended.

I don't think the original reports authours had any bias towards one system or another. IOW they weren't intending to make a case against the American model. As for the TCS article, he's trying to make a case based on a comparison of just one data set out of many. I find that manipulative and astonishingly biased.

[daddyhominum]

I've been monitoring this thread for a couple of days but I haven't had time to respond. Sue me.

My understanding is that it is de riguer to report you to the monitor first. I don't want to break with tradition when I am already circumscribed for poor posting style.

As to your question about relative percentages of economies, I think one of the points made in the article is that one of the preliminary adjustments made by the authors of the study balances the economies so as to make the later comparisons more feasible. Maybe I misread that, and I was hoping that someone more critical of right-wing cynicism toward left-wing studies would point out how this adjustment was not what the author said it was. Hence the point of this thread and my non-trap intention in creating it. (Sorry for the grammar issues but it's like quarter after seven in the morning and I still can't see straight.)

You are right. My bad and my apology. I read the article in detail after posting my reaction your ideological linking of issues.

My reading of the article is that the authors illustrate the relationship between the US economy and European or welfare economies is more a question of choice then advantage. Americans work longer hours but,overall, receive far less benefit for their efforts when averaged according to authors comments in the last two pages.

[The Swede]

Statistics like theese means nothing. You cant compare by simply look at the income. How do you calculate the value of free healthcare and education? How many poor people in USA has the same standard of healthcare as the wealthy?, and free education (college as well) untill your 50 years old. One also have to look at the costs of living differences. Most people have the possibility to own their own home in Sweden, even if they don't have a college education, and the cost of things like cable and cell phones are much more resonable. If you buy a car in Sweden and have to take a loan, even if its your first loan ever, and your monthly income is low, the interest on that loan will be under 8% When I bought my first car at the age of eighteen they did not even ask me about my income. The interest was set at 6,5 % and the car was seen as security for the loan.

As a poor person in the US it can be very difficult to live a decent life whit the same quality as someone whit an average income. In Sweden no matter of your situation you are guaranteed to have clothes to wear, food to eat, and a decent place to live. And that is something you cant count in percentage.

/Marcus, born and raised in Sweden, currently living in San Diego.