Consider the source The National Review is so hilariously right-wing they probably think the Cato Institute are communists. Their website pimps books by G. Gordon "Shoot For The Head" Liddy, for Pete's sake! The Heritage Foundation is equally goofy, trying to call for cutting government spending while at the same time pimping favorite right-wing money wasters like the "Star Wars" missile defense plans that waste millions of tax dollars on unecessary and impractical boondoggles. And, of course, you won't hear a peep out of them about corporate wealthfare. My personal favorite bit of spin in this particular article was the deliberate mischaracterization of unemployment in Europe and the USA. Real unemployment in the US, Europe and Japan has usually been about equal; only the methods of counting the unemployed lead to "differences". Japan has kept its long-term unemployed "working" in "window gazing" jobs with employers. Therefore they can claim to have low unemployment. The USA jails its long term unemployed and therefore can claim to have low unemployment. Only the European nations call a spade a spade and actually count their unemployed as unemployed. When you factor in Japan's "window gazers" and the US prison population the unemployment figures of the three "developed" areas turn out about even.
Another hilarious link from the National review website: http://www.generationgop.com/ "Making conservatism hip". Indeed.
Re: Consider the source This is true, Japanese unemployment is understated. Don't have a job? Off to jail! A flat-out lie. Europeans love to undercount their unemployed, and place many of them in job-training or government make-work programs. It's also interesting to note the qualitative difference in job growth between the US and Europe as the Bureau of Labor Stats notes: http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2002/06/art2full.pdf Most U.S. employment growth since 1983 has been in fulltime jobs. (See table 8.) The United States was the only G7 country with a declining proportion of part-time employment during 1983–2000. In Europe, employment growth has been weak in general, but, in addition, the increases that did occur were mainly in part-time employment. This appears also to be the case in Japan. In 2000, part-time employment constituted 12 percent to 13 percent of total employment in the United States and Italy, but almost twice that proportion in the United Kingdom. Japan’s proportion of part-time work appears to have been very high, but the Japanese data are not closely comparable to those for the other countries, being overstated to an unknown degree. Chart 7 tracks the ratio of full-time to part-time employment from 1983 to 2000. (Note that the jump in the trend line for Europe (G4) in 1991 was due to the absorption of workers from the former East Germany, who were predominantly full-time workers in the Soviet system.) Europe began the period with the highest ratio of full-time to part-time workers, but the trend was sharply downward thereafter. The United States began the period with a ratio considerably below Europe’s, but ended with the highest ratio: full-time employment was 7 times as high as part-time employment, while in Europe it was 5 times as high. In Canada, the ratio was somewhat lower. Japan’s trend (not shown in the chart) also was sharply downward.
Re: Re: Consider the source If you want to consider job-tranining and "make-work" to be 'heating'hen the US does it too through 'workfare' and other government programs. Also, we only count people who have actively filed for unemployment, thus losing many unemployed in the process. So the picture is even worse for the US than it seems. How can we trust this data when, according to you, everybody cheats on their numbers? And this report does not touch on what kind of jobs are created. Full time maybe, but at McDonalds for close to minimum wage that you can't live off of? Do the jobs have benefits that Europeans take for granted? For a humorous take on these questions: http://www.theonion.com/onion3808/bush_calls_on_business.html It makes the point in a humorous fashion.
Per the article: Response to Myth #1 - tax cuts have not boosted growth because the best and birghtest cuts not yet in effect. Response to Myth #2 - tax cuts have actually led to declining, not rising, interest rates. Well - are these cuts in effect or not? Does anyone see an author trying to have it both ways? Just like Reagan saying we can cut taxes, increase defense spending and have a balanced budget all at the same time. When republicans say deficits don't matter, they really mean: "If only we could get rid of that darn social security system, then we could tax the poor and middle classes to fund our military-industrial complex instead. Besides, who needs public transit when I have a chaffeur?" Voo-doo economics ... anyone, anyone??
Re: Re: Re: Consider the source In Europe this is more pervasive however, as US welfare rolls have been declining while Europe's are stagnant or even rising. The Europeans also use other means, in the Netherlands for example they use a broad definition of disability and it is estimated that there are 800,000 people classified as unfit who are capable of working. Also your prison argument doesn't hold water. According to some left-wing website I found there are 1.7 million people incarcerated in the US, and adding them to the ranks of the unemployed would push the US rate up 2%. That would put the US rate at 7.4% I believe. That is still significantly less than Germany or France. Because it makes no sense for Europe to exagerrate about the number of part-time jobs created. The only incentive is to understate them. I don't know what type of jobs are created. Regardless I would submit that full-time jobs are preferable to part-time employment.
Delve into unemployment and hear the din.... I don't think it changes the spirit of this thread to note that workfare is yet another corporate shill: "In 1968 one person working full time at the minimum wage would come pretty close to the federal poverty level for a family of four....Today, that same full-time minimum wage job takes a worker up to just 56 percent of the poverty line. Who makes up the difference? We do, through food stamps, the Earned Income Tax Credit and other programs designed to help the poor. In effect, we are subsidizing employers so that they can pay less than a living wage." more... The above reminds of yet another compelling point in Moore's latest documentary.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Consider the source And this was a political decision on the part of US elites to shove people into "work fare" or simply cut them off entirely, hence the declining welfare rolls. European voters, in contrast, simply aren't as willing to eliminate their social safety net as our elites our and support for the traditional European welfare state remains high. Because western Europe is more democratic than America and (for better or worse) allows for a wider range of political opinion to be expressed of worse, Europeans haven't been forced to swallow the dismantling of their safety net the way Americans have. That darn democracy! Always standing in the way of elite interests! The EU seasonally adjusted unemployment rate as of June 2002, was 7.7%. The same reported figure for the USA was 5.9%. Adding 2% would give 7.9%. Essentially, they are the same using these numbers. I suspect that when you account for all the factors that warp the numbers in both the USA and Europe, this will not change significantly. It also makes sense for the USA to understate its unemployment figures and to give only "job creation data" while ignoring whether the jobs enable people to actually make a decent living or not. Not necessarily. A no-benefits full time job that does not pay a living wage just means you work more hours or get a second job to make ends meet. Anyway, the question can't be ducked in a serious discussion of job creation as it relates to the well-being of working people.
> Fact 5: The economy drives the budget, not the other way around. I believe this. But if this is true, why is Bush the Younger going ahead with very expensive reorganizations and expansions in government services? And if you are one of the people who do not think war on Iraq is designed to be a money-making endeavor, why is he pursuing that too? We have to live within our means.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Consider the source Not if the full-time job doesn't pay you enough to keep you out of poverty, yet disqualifies you for public assistance because you now have a job.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Consider the source Depends on the state. many have restricitions on declared income, not whether you go to work.For example , you can work 40 hours and make X amount and qualify for assistance (Food Stamps etc).Usually its only families who qualify.As I think 40 Hrs a week even at Min Wage is over the line for a single person.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Consider the source Now you're changing the subject. The point was, Europe hides more of its unemployed on welfare rolls than the US does. I maintain that and you don't seem able to dispute it. And then when you account for the unemployed that are hidden by Europe, on welfare rolls, in training programs, or as the Dutch like to do, delcared unfit to work, Europe's unemployment is higher. And again, you can only add the 2% to the US unemployment rate if you freed every single person from US prison. Clearly the US comes out ahead. I haven't seen any evidence that the US understates its unemployment. If you have evidence to the contrary I'd like you to share it. As for whether the jobs created pay a "decent living" -- whatever that is -- isn't the point of the discussion either. I don't know what benefits come along with part-time employment in Europe so this is difficult to say. Also I have to point out that the European model is showing itself to be increasingly unsustainable. The darling of the left, Sweden, has seen a big increase in its unemployment rate over the past 12 years while benefits have been cut because the country was going broke. Germany and France meanwhile this year look set to announce that they will break the EU's required maximum deficits of 3% GDP as tax revenues fall due to the sluggish economy and unemployment remains high. Indeed, outside of the UK and Ireland much of Europe has experienced only anemic growth over the past decade. Something has got to give eventually, and I suspect that we are going to see more and more pruning of the welfare state.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Consider the source No, the immediate subject is your assertion that real unemployment is way higher in Europe than in the USA and this is a sub-subject of the larger topic that European societies do a worse job of providing their people with decent lives than the USA. I showed that you are probably wrong about the unemployment subtopic because there are various ways to warp the unemployment numbers and the USA uses several of them. You countered that Europeans do it too. I then showed that even using your own example of prison data, the numbers are still about even, certainly not what you asserted they'd be and also countered that lowered US welfare rolls are not the result of some supernatural economic "law" but a conscious political choice made here by our elites. By the way, putting someone on welfare is not "hiding unemployment" unless you count welfare as employment in which case and leave that perosn off the list. If that's the case then the USA is doing the exact same thing with its "workfare" programs. And you can claim that "all Europeans" are cheating only if you assume that every single person in the Dutch job program is there solely for the purposes of "hiding unemployment". First, this is likely not the case and second the Netherlands does not equal all of Europe. If you want to cherry-pick individual countries and claim they they are the whole of Europe, I get to cherry-pick individual states and claim that they are the whole of the USA. Not surprising since you haven't looked for it. I already did. "If you want to consider job-tranining and "make-work" to be 'cheating' then the US does it too through 'workfare' and other government programs. Also, we only count people who have actively filed for unemployment, thus losing many unemployed in the process." This second method of undercounting the unemployed in particular has been well-known and commented on among mainstream US economists for years. It's not exactly controversial. Yes it is. You are asserting that western Europe is inferior to America in its social policies. I'd say the providing to its citizens the ability to live decent material and social conditions is a pretty important aspect of social policy, wouldn't you? Actually, western Europeans have chosen to enjoy many social benefits that Americans don't just by being citizens of their countries, part time employed or otherwise. To list one of the more important examples, millions of Amercians have no health insurance and therefore no access to certain aspects of health care. Most western Europeans citizens don't have to worry about this problem. True, western Euro health care systems aren't perfect (then again, neither is anyone else's, including ours if the furor over HMOs -if you're even lucky enough to be offered an HMO by your employer - is anything to go by) but then, I'd rather have slightly imperfect health care than NO health care. I was hoping you'd bring up Sweden! The seasonally adjusted unemployment rates for Sweden and the USA for June, 2002, were: USA 5.9% Sweden 4.9% But then those darn lying Swedes are undoubtedly cheating, aren't they, Colin? Yep, I bet they're hiding all their unemployed in a basement somewhere in Stockholm. I tried to find recent world growth rates online. I did find a World Bank study of "GNP growth per capita" for the years 1989 through 1995. The USA, France, Britain, Italy, Australia, Norway and the Netherlands were all in the "1% - 1.9%" category. Countries in the "2% - 2.9%" range included Belgium, Japan, Spain and Nepal. Countries in the "3% or more" category included Ireland, Portugal, the PRC and India. Of course, I think that these data are fundamentally flawed and that we need totally methods to measure the economic and social "performance" of societies with regards to quality of life for the majority of their members and the quality of the natural environment that our children will inheret, but that's another side topic and would demand it's own thread. All the "developed" societies are changing rapidly for many reasons: migration of third world peoples into the first world and the dislocations that migration is causing, aging populations, the decision of political and economic elites in the USA and Britain to touch off a "race to the bottom" by simply dumping as many social safety nets as possible and promoting neoliberal "globalization from above" policies that force other countries to follow the US model of Dickensian laissez-faire, overproduction due to advanced technology, overpopulation, and a host of others. All these societies are facing tough choices, no doubt. Based on past trends, my best guess is that the USA will continue to respond by placing more and more power and material rewards into fewer and fewer hands while those who are forced out of the market are simply cast aside while Europe and Japan will attempt to keep social well-being for as broad a range of their citizens as possible while resisting as far as possible the USA's attempts to force them into the American Dickensian mold.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Consider the source 40 hours a week at minimum wage (gross, not net, working 52 weeks a year with no time off, no sick days etc.) would yield $10,920. The 2001 poverty level for a single person was $9,039. Hope this person never gets sick, 'cause they can't afford to go to a doctor.
Transparency adn Disclosure defeat crony capitalism every time... What's the comprehensive, combined unemployed / underemployed number? Isn't that the relevant stat? Do we even know? If not, why not, and what would it take to know?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Consider the source Whether European societies do a better job of providing decent lives is a whole different discussion. My argument is with your contention that the US, Japan and Europe have pretty equal unemployment stats. That Japan undercounts is no doubt accurate, that Europeans are perfectly honest with their stats is a flat-out lie, and that the US locks up criminals is irrelevant -- as though other countries don't? No more so than anyone else, so they cancel each other out. No, I countered that the Europeans are among the worst at this, that your portrayal of them as totally honest is bogus. Yes, the only way you can make the numbers comparable is if you were to free every single person currently in US prison. The relevance of which I'm still unsure of. You "countered" something I never argued against. Of course it was a conscious political choice. As for the elites, last I checked it was vastly popular and enjoyed overwhelming support -- indeed the biggest elite in the country, President Clinton, largely did so under pressure to help secure his re-election. Welfare reform was a great example of politicans listening to the will of the people, as much as that might bother you. But I'm sure the people were just brainwashed by the corporate elites, which seems to be the inevitable explanation when the people's wishes seem contrary to left-wing thought. No kidding, but as I previously pointed out, since the US's welfare rolls are declining while Europe's rise or stagnate that means that this is less of a problem for US unemployment stats. I cited the Netherlands as an example, which I found on this left-wing site: http://mondediplo.com/1998/04/12robert in the Netherlands, the official figures cover only 6% of real unemployment thanks to a very broad interpretation of the concept of disability: it disguises the existence of some 800,000 unemployed workers by describing them as "unfit", although many if not most of them are quite able to work. But anyway, to put an end to this silliness, here is a paper by the Bureau of Labor Stats. entitled "International unemployment rates: how comparable are they?" http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2000/06/art1full.pdf The study found that when standardized means of examining unemployment rates are used, the US still comes out ahead of Europe by about 5%. See above. Apparently the US still wins when using standardized stats, as the OECD also notes: http://www.oecd.org/pdf/M00030000/M00030784.pdf 5.9% vs. 8.4% for Europe. Also, as I have noted, to the extent that the US cheats, it is the same cheating Europe uses with the welfare example, and is likely to be more egregious on the European side due to their larger social safety net. Where did I say that? I remember saying something about the US creating more full-time jobs, but as for social policies, I don't believe I have commented on that at all. Well, yes. Why you are off on this tangent however I'm not sure. Never said that Europeans don't have many social benefits, you appear to be on a crusade yet again against things I have never argued about. Thanks for that brief snapshot. Now look over a longer term and take the past decade. Swedish unemployment trended upwards during the 1990s, peaking at 10.6% in 1997 at the same time US unemployment was declining. Meanwhile Sweden, noticing how unsustainable its welfare state was slashed government spending from 70% to 54% of GDP. I think if you used a longer term, 1989-1999 your stats would be somewhat different. Japan would be in the toilet while US, UK and Dutch growth would be improved. As for the 3%+ countries, India and China's growth is impressive, but such growth is easier to achieve when you start from such a low rung. Don't know much about Portugal but Ireland has had some of the most impressive growth rates in all of Europe, coincidentally they have also been engaged in aggressive tax-cutting. Migration to the US is something that we have been dealing with for decades. Yep. The corporate elites strike again! The reason neoliberal economics has been so widely adopted is because it works. People see it's success in the US and want to imitate it. Conversely this is why no one seems interested in Marxism due to its failure wherever people attempt to implement it. Overpopulation? Most indicators point towards a slowdown in world population growth, especially in developed countries. We're forcing Europe and Japan to change? We have that ability? Amazing. I was talking to a Dutch friend of mine today and asked him about some of these topics and he said that there is indeed a move to reduce benefits and make it tougher to qualify for government assistance, but he said nothing about the US forcing these moves on Holland. No doubt he has been brainwashed by the corporate elites.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Consider the source I agree that unemployment is lower in the USA than Europe. Saying otherwise is misleading However, to suggest that quality of life is "a whole different discussion" is even more nonsensical. With so many working poor in the USA, it's reasonable to consider for what purpose we're counting these working poor as "employed."
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Consider the source Well, quality of life is harder to argue about since it is more difficult to measure. What constitutes quality of life? Income level? Longevity? Crime stats? Size of your house? But if you want to have that discussion, here is one place to consider starting from: http://www.instapundit.com/archives/000536.php As an added bonus the page also points out how Sweden hides some of their unemployment, with 1 in 6 working age Swedes listed as unfit to work (apparently this isn't something unique to the Dutch) or "pre-pensioned" -- essentially given early retirement.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Consider the source A person with a job that doesn't include health insurance and enough money to have a decent one bedroom apartment is de facto unemployed. Actually, they're worse than unemployed, they are slaves. Very funny stuff. Swedes are worse off than African Americans. I wish I would have come up with this. Sweden is #4 on the Human Development Index. The USA does well (#6) almostly exclusively due to the high GDP per capita. http://www.undp.org/hdr2001/back.pdf In any case, I wouldn't want to go as far as Sweden, though they are better off than we are as a whole.
Here's a thought: I'm not disagreeing with the above, but I'd like to point out that it's situational. I have a job, with health insurance. It pays me right around the national average. I cannot afford the one-bedroom apartment I live in on that salary. So I have a second job, and don't have the extras, like cable TV and so on. I didn't have an internet connection at home until I started my second job, which requires that I work from home nights. I am one of only three people in my three-building complex who lives alone. This is the cheapest housing in the area. I'm also one of only six native-english speakers in the complex. I point this out to let you guys know that I'm not exactly living on the Ritz. And that's at a national average salary. What's wrong with this picture? I live near DC, in one of the more expensive places to live in the country. Am I at the poverty level? Hardly. But it does suggest that the measure is somewhat subjective. Just something to think about. Discuss amongst yourselves.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Consider the source That doesn't even make sense. Having a job without health insurance=slavery? I guess that makes me a former slave, I need to look into this reparations talk. You prove my point, this is why "quality of life" is difficult to compare, it's not objective. Using income as a measurement paints a picture of Black Americans better off than Swedes. Other measurements tell a different story. Your definition of "better off" however may differ substantially from someone else's definition.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Consider the source You're right, I'm sure that is has nothing to do with the number of murders in this country or widespread obesity. I think employment is pretty straightforward. Either you have a job or you don't. The term "poor" however is not. Poor is relative. Do you really think that a lot of Black people die because of poverty? That they simply can't afford food, housing or other basic necessities and succumb in the streets? That this accounts for a substantial number of deaths? I find that incredible. And yes, I maintain that quality of life is pretty subjective. It's rather apparent for example that you scoff at measuring median income for example, but to me that is an excellent measure since increased wealth tends to correspond with improved human condition. Meanwhile you could point to average life expectancy or some other measurement, which I think doesn't necessarily indicate a great quality of life. Take Japan for instance. Most Japanese have a good income, have access to free health care and also tend to live pretty long. To a lot of people this indicates a high quality of life. But the stereotypical Japanese person also lives in a cramped little apartment that Americans would consider more than walk-in closet, commutes to work on an overcrowded train and works a 14 hour day. Not really a great quality of life. Now do you see how subjective it is? Take the UN study, it ranks freakin' Belgium ahead of the US. There's no way I would rather live in Belgium than the US. Also ranks Belgium ahead of Holland, but I would rather live in Holland anytime.