5 ms·

Thanks for the answer. In most of the EU your healthcare costs are mostly covered by the State and, if you become unable to work, you usually get some kind of d

Thanks for the answer. In most of the EU your healthcare costs are mostly covered by the State and, if you become unable to work, you usually get some kind of disability pensions. But I understand that, without this kind of "insurance", there is a lot more stress even in jobs where you don't have big responsibilities.

throwanem 9y ago
In most of the EU, the US subsidizes your defense budget, too.
- danmaz74 9y ago
  Do you really think that, if we spent more on our armies, you would spend less? Anyway, I'm not saying that our system is better - for example, here it's more difficult to find a job, and wages are usually lower enough (also because of the taxes necessary to finance the welfare state). What I was really thinking about is how much having to worry about medical expenses and retirement money changes the stress level in certain kinds of jobs.
  - throwanem 9y ago
    I think that if we spent less on our armies, we'd have more to spend on the sorts of social benefits Europeans regard as table stakes and pride themselves on having. In the abstract sense, it'd also be curious to see what effect on those social benefits would result from a termination of the security guarantees which the US has extended to an ever broader fraction of Europe since 1949. I'm not so cruel a man as to actually wish such an outcome on anyone, but I certainly would like to see the people charged with the responsibility of governing my nation take an interest in the wellbeing of my nation, rather than investing so much expense and effort in defending an entire continent which can barely be moved even to a token expression of gratitude, much less any actual quid pro quo, in exchange for it. As regards the remainder of your comment - yes, without social guarantees of medical care and a livable retirement, life is much more stressful than it would otherwise be, and this additional stress is inversely proportional to socioeconomic standing, with an exponential term in the function. Is this really such a novel thought as your comments here make it seem? I find it obvious beyond the point of triviality, but I suppose someone who's never actually lived with it might not previously have had cause to give it any consideration.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - _Tev 9y ago
      Please look up numbers before you claim such ludicrous things next time. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS So you spend 3,3% of your GDP opposed to what, EU's 1,5% of GDP? And how much of it is for failed wars such as Iraqi one? You might not look so misinformed next time if you find some sources for your claims...
      - throwanem 9y ago
        I see 14.5% vs. 4.1%, US and EU respectively, in the 2015 figures listed there. US and EU GDP being roughly equal, this works out to an absolute factor of ~3.5x as well as a relative one, which strikes me as fairly significant. To be sure, US military spending isn't purely motivated by our concern for our NATO commitments. But, considering that the US contribution constitutes by far the lion's share of resources available to the alliance in both absolute value and percentage of GDP, it seems to me that much more effort is required, than you exert here, to argue that the termination of such commitments, or even simply the reallocation of significant funds away from US military expenditure, would in no material way affect spending priorities among the EU nations.
        danmaz74 9y ago
        Please notice that the 14.5% refers to the "central government" (ie, federal) budget. It doesn't account for the fact that much of your public expenditures are done at the state level - here in the EU, "centra government" means Germany, UK, etc.) nor the fact that, with lower taxes, your budget as a % of GDP is of course lower.
        _Tev 9y ago
        Look at the share of the GDP being spent. You probably have smaller (% of GDP) budget than we do.

throwanem 9y ago

In most of the EU, the US subsidizes your defense budget, too.

danmaz74 9y ago
Do you really think that, if we spent more on our armies, you would spend less? Anyway, I'm not saying that our system is better - for example, here it's more difficult to find a job, and wages are usually lower enough (also because of the taxes necessary to finance the welfare state). What I was really thinking about is how much having to worry about medical expenses and retirement money changes the stress level in certain kinds of jobs.
- throwanem 9y ago
  I think that if we spent less on our armies, we'd have more to spend on the sorts of social benefits Europeans regard as table stakes and pride themselves on having. In the abstract sense, it'd also be curious to see what effect on those social benefits would result from a termination of the security guarantees which the US has extended to an ever broader fraction of Europe since 1949. I'm not so cruel a man as to actually wish such an outcome on anyone, but I certainly would like to see the people charged with the responsibility of governing my nation take an interest in the wellbeing of my nation, rather than investing so much expense and effort in defending an entire continent which can barely be moved even to a token expression of gratitude, much less any actual quid pro quo, in exchange for it. As regards the remainder of your comment - yes, without social guarantees of medical care and a livable retirement, life is much more stressful than it would otherwise be, and this additional stress is inversely proportional to socioeconomic standing, with an exponential term in the function. Is this really such a novel thought as your comments here make it seem? I find it obvious beyond the point of triviality, but I suppose someone who's never actually lived with it might not previously have had cause to give it any consideration.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - _Tev 9y ago
    Please look up numbers before you claim such ludicrous things next time. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS So you spend 3,3% of your GDP opposed to what, EU's 1,5% of GDP? And how much of it is for failed wars such as Iraqi one? You might not look so misinformed next time if you find some sources for your claims...
    - throwanem 9y ago
      I see 14.5% vs. 4.1%, US and EU respectively, in the 2015 figures listed there. US and EU GDP being roughly equal, this works out to an absolute factor of ~3.5x as well as a relative one, which strikes me as fairly significant. To be sure, US military spending isn't purely motivated by our concern for our NATO commitments. But, considering that the US contribution constitutes by far the lion's share of resources available to the alliance in both absolute value and percentage of GDP, it seems to me that much more effort is required, than you exert here, to argue that the termination of such commitments, or even simply the reallocation of significant funds away from US military expenditure, would in no material way affect spending priorities among the EU nations.
      - danmaz74 9y ago
        Please notice that the 14.5% refers to the "central government" (ie, federal) budget. It doesn't account for the fact that much of your public expenditures are done at the state level - here in the EU, "centra government" means Germany, UK, etc.) nor the fact that, with lower taxes, your budget as a % of GDP is of course lower.
      - _Tev 9y ago
        Look at the share of the GDP being spent. You probably have smaller (% of GDP) budget than we do.