ymarkov: (Face)
Yisroel Markov ([personal profile] ymarkov) wrote2016-03-15 09:38 am

If Sweden and Germany Became US States...

... They Would be Among the Poorest States

The battle over the assumed success of European socialism continues. Many European countries like Sweden have gained a reputation as being very wealthy in spite of their highly regulated and taxed economies. From there, many assume that the rest of Europe is more or less similar, even if slightly poorer. But if we look more closely at the data, a very different picture emerges, and we find that the median household in the US is better off (income-wise) than the median household in all but three European countries.

https://mises.org/blog/if-sweden-and-germany-became-us-states-they-would-be-among-poorest-states

[identity profile] geneus.livejournal.com 2016-03-15 01:45 pm (UTC)(link)
Income-wise is BEFORE all expenses that in those countries are covered by the state.
If you deduct from the income of US dweller the cost of medical and dental expenses, the cost of college education for children etc. I afraid they would be much poorer.

[identity profile] aphar.livejournal.com 2016-03-15 03:38 pm (UTC)(link)
How about reading the article first?

These national-level comparisons take into account taxes, and include social benefits (e.g., "welfare" and state-subsidized health care) as income.


They don't list college education explicitly but it is obviously counts as a social benefit, so, unless you have evidence to the contrary, we can assume that it is included.

[identity profile] geneus.livejournal.com 2016-03-15 04:07 pm (UTC)(link)
Зависит от посылки "исследователя" - что такие хотят найти, то и находят.

>but it is obviously counts as a social benefit

And, obviously, undercounted.
My point: for real comparison you should DEDUCT all this exorbitant prices that US citizens pay for "social benefits" and insurances from their income (all that Europeans got for free) - and you will see Americans are impoverished.
Edited 2016-03-15 16:09 (UTC)

[identity profile] aphar.livejournal.com 2016-03-15 04:11 pm (UTC)(link)
You are proposing double-counting those benefits: they have already been added to the incomes of the Swedes.

Your "obviously" is unfounded. The burden of proof is on you.

[identity profile] geneus.livejournal.com 2016-03-15 04:19 pm (UTC)(link)
Anybody who has been in Germany and in poor US states can see the difference with his or her own eyes.

Also I have many friends and relatives in Germany who sometimes wrote me on their budget topics.
It is enormous sum they are saving in comparison to what I am paying (especially for children from day care to college graduation).

Taking in account that in California with its high state and municipal taxes I am paying practically the same combine tax rate as people in Germany, I would say "American high income" is a phantom..
Edited 2016-03-15 16:57 (UTC)

all that Europeans got for free

[identity profile] ymarkov.livejournal.com 2016-03-15 08:41 pm (UTC)(link)
Nothing is free. The only variable is who pays, and through which channel. Using median GDP per capita neatly avoids this problem.

Re: all that Europeans got for free

[identity profile] geneus.livejournal.com 2016-03-16 02:39 am (UTC)(link)
Yes. That is why author is wrong.

Re: all that Europeans got for free

[identity profile] ymarkov.livejournal.com 2016-03-16 01:04 pm (UTC)(link)
С точностью до наоборот :-)

[identity profile] yyi.livejournal.com 2016-03-15 07:01 pm (UTC)(link)
some things in the report do seem a little strange - e.g., I would have expected Israel to have a slightly better ranking, also Germany looks a bit lower than I'd expect compared to some other countries. I think that comparing across such disparate cultures and systems is fairly hard. I would not go as far as some others in claiming that American high income is a phantom, but this is tricky stats that I would not try to take to the bank in either direction.