4 ms·

>The median disposable household income in the US is $60,000, versus $44,000 in France. That’s an apples-to-oranges comparison, since the French household rece

>The median disposable household income in the US is $60,000, versus $44,000 in France. That’s an apples-to-oranges comparison, since the French household receives many essential services - such as comprehensive health care and low-cost higher education - that the US household does not. I wonder if anyone has done a study that attempts to quantify and compare benefits across countries, or whether such comparisons are even possible.

asark 7y ago
I'm actually surprised the difference is that small. I'd guess the increased retirement savings, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, college savings, daycare costs, and so on the US household would have to purchase to match the effective benefits to a French household would be way more expensive than $16,000/yr. Like, double that.
- rayiner 7y ago
  You know that child care isn’t free in France, the health system has significant co-insurance payments, and the social security system isn’t that generous? You have to dig into the actual details of these programs, not Americans idealized view of them: https://www.forbes.com/sites/pascalemmanuelgobry/2013/04/17/4-myths-and-one-truth-about-french-childcare https://www.forbes.com/sites/pascalemmanuelgobry/2013/04/17/....
  - coldtea 7y ago
    Still ways ahead of the US in all of those areas (European here, so not an American with an "idealized view of them").
    - rayiner 7y ago
      Those services are definitely better in France, but how much are they worth to the median person, in dollar terms? 1. The median person doesn't graduate college in either country. So how much is free college worth to them? Even if you do go to college, the average tuition at a public college in the U.S. is about $40,000 over four years. Would you trade 33% higher income over your entire career for a $40,000 one-time savings? 2. For households in the middle of the income band in the U.S., they spend on average 7.9% of their income on out-of-pocket healthcare expenditures. For the median U.S. household income of about $60,000, that's less than $5,000 annually. 3. Childcare in France isn't free, although it's subsidized. For a median household, it's about 15% of average income in France versus 30% in the U.S. A difference of about $11,000/year at the median, but something you might pay for only 6-8 years over a 35-year working life. 4. Transit is better in France. But average commutes are 50% longer than in the U.S. https://www.oecd.org/els/family/LMF2_6_Time_spent_travelling_to_and_from_work.pdf https://www.oecd.org/els/family/LMF2_6_Time_spent_travelling.... Is the cost-savings from better public transit worth the almost half-hour per day extra spent commuting? 5. The French have state-subsidized pensions, but Americans have Social Security and 401ks. Median income for retirement-aged people in France is about 21,600 euro ($24,600), much higher than in Germany, the U.K., Italy, or Spain: http://www.seniorobservatory.com/in-france-the-median-annual-income-barely-decreases-during-retirement http://www.seniorobservatory.com/in-france-the-median-annual.... The median income for those 65+ in the U.S. is $23,400: https://acl.gov/sites/default/files/Aging%20and%20Disability%20in%20America/2017OlderAmericansProfile.pdf https://acl.gov/sites/default/files/Aging%20and%20Disability.... People assume that Americans are just irrational that they won't vote for these things that Europe has. But the median U.S. voter makes somewhere north of $70,000 household income, spends less than $5,000 of that on out-of-pocket medical expenses, lives in a suburb with less than a 30-minute commute, has 3 TVs and 2-3 cars, lives in a 2,000+ square foot house, etc. For those people, the French way of life would yield perhaps more security, but a significant pay cut, not much lower out-of-pocket health expenses, one less TV, one less car, a 35% smaller house, etc.
      - EForEndeavour 7y ago
        > The median person doesn't graduate college in either country That sounds intentionally oversimplified. Sure, the median is often better than the arithmetic mean to summarize a population, but in this case, you're misapplying the median to falsely imply that graduation rate is irrelevant as long as it's less than 50% of the population. The reality is that tuition is a barrier to enrollment and completion, so eliminating it with public funding makes sense if you care about investing in your country's future. Besides, even if you yourself would never attend college and would never dream of encouraging anyone in your family to go, you still indirectly benefit when your studious compatriots have ample opportunity to study, graduate, and find work in the country. > 4. Transit is better in France. But average commutes are 50% longer than in the U.S. Did you misread the source you linked to? It shows a bar plot of "average" (probably mean) commute times. France's average commute looks like maybe 3-5% longer than the USA, and this difference disappears when you blur your eyes and compare men and women. For a more meaningful glimpse into the reality of these countries' commutes, check out this worldwide ranking of the 10 best and 10 worst cities by commute experience [1]. France takes 4 out of the 10 best spots (Nice, Toulouse, Lyon, Strasbourg). Only one US city landed in the worst 10 (Miami), but the reality is that on average, commuting in the US sucks compared to France. I'd rather read on a train than die a little inside a car. You're right: transit is better in France. [1] https://www.expertmarket.co.uk/focus/best-and-worst-cities-for-commuting https://www.expertmarket.co.uk/focus/best-and-worst-cities-f...
        rayiner 7y ago
        > Sure, the median is often better than the arithmetic mean to summarize a population, but in this case, you're misapplying the median to falsely imply that graduation rate is irrelevant as long as it's less than 50% of the population. We're doing a snap-shot comparison of the life of someone around the middle of the income demographic. The median person does not complete college in either the U.S. or France. (Even among those 25-34, college attainment rates are less than 40% in both countries.) In reality, most people don't really need to go to college, or aren't cut out for tertiary education. So it's really important to ask how much college is worth to someone in the middle when, statistically, that person won't be going to college, and may not be qualified to go to college. That is especially important when you're talking about asking people in the middle to pay for something that disproportionately benefits people in the top half. France's tax system is quite regressive: https://www.oecd.org/tax/revenue-statistics-france.pdf https://www.oecd.org/tax/revenue-statistics-france.pdf. While the U.S. collects almost half its tax revenue from income and corporate taxes (which are disproportionately paid by the upper classes), France collects just 23% of revenue from those sources. France relies much more heavily on payroll and sales taxes, which are disproportionately paid for by the middle class. So, statistically, someone right at the median is paying for this free college system, but is unlikely to actually take advantage of it. > The reality is that tuition is a barrier to enrollment and completion, so eliminating it with public funding makes sense if you care about investing in your country's future. Graduation rate is only relevant to the extent that it increases your country's average income. If you can, like Germany, maintain a high average income with a relatively low graduation rate, that's better than having to send more people to college (which imposes a large opportunity cost) to achieve the same average income. Regardless, college degree attainment rates in the U.S. have been much higher than in France for decades. France only catches up in the youngest demographic (29-34): https://www.in.gov/che/files/DMatthews.pdf https://www.in.gov/che/files/DMatthews.pdf. Your median voter is still in a demographic (35-44), where the college attainment rate in the U.S. is 39% versus just 23% in France. > For a more meaningful glimpse into the reality of these countries' commutes, check out this worldwide ranking of the 10 best and 10 worst cities by commute experience [1]. France takes 4 out of the 10 best spots (Nice, Toulouse, Lyon, Strasbourg). You're reading it wrong. The first chart is data from 1999 to 2010. I'm referencing the table after that, which focuses on 2008-2010. For all commuters, France has an average commute of 73 minutes, versus 48 minutes for the U.S. > For a more meaningful glimpse into the reality of these countries' commutes, check out this worldwide ranking of the 10 best and 10 worst cities by commute experience [1]. France takes 4 out of the 10 best spots (Nice, Toulouse, Lyon, Strasbourg). The OECD data set is a much better basis of comparison. Comparing commutes in big cities is not particularly relevant in the U.S., because most Americans do not live in a big city. Commute times in New York or Washington, D.C. are 70+ minutes round-trip, as similar to the average in France: https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizations/interactive/travel-time.pdf https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizat... (note the data is one-way, so double it to compare to the OECD chart above). Although, Paris is even worse at 90+ minutes round-trip: https://www.thelocal.fr/20160418/parisians-spend-23-days-a-year-on-public-transport https://www.thelocal.fr/20160418/parisians-spend-23-days-a-y.... But even by the time you get to Atlanta you're significantly better than the French average, and in Iowa or North Dakota you're looking at a commute that's half as long as the average in France. > I'd rather read on a train than die a little inside a car. Have you been in a French metro during commuting times? It's not like you can really sit down and read. You're standing up the whole time scrunched up against other people.
- pbourke 7y ago
  The figures don’t reflect that, however. “Disposable income” in the study is just after tax income. Who knows what the comparison is net of the costs that you mentioned.
  - asark 7y ago
    Right. I'm just thinking, if someone handed me $16,000/yr and was like "use only this money buy all your benefits, retirement, kids' college tuition, childcare, et c. up to the same level as a French person, for your household" I'd be like "LOLWUT? There ain't no way." Heh, not to mention, what, 7 weeks time off plus 10 holidays? Hahahaha, $16,000's only a start. That the figures are that close makes French people look way better off. And theirs is "automatic"—no time wasted shopping around trying not to get screwed (and probably failing).
    - pbourke 7y ago
      Yeah, seriously. “All of that for only $16k/yr - sign me up!”
rayiner 7y ago
A median US household receives employer-sponsored healthcare. Also, the median French person pays taxes to support low cost higher education, but the median French person does not receive a college degree. It’s actually a regressive transfer to the upper middle class. (Especially because the French tax system relies more on regressive taxes, like VAT.)
- antisthenes 7y ago
  A median US household receives employer subsidized health care. In many cases, those plans are high-deductible and thus inadequate, because it could still mean having personal expenses to the tune of $7000-8000 a year of post-tax dollars. This is also being done at the expense of those who are not eligible for subsidies on the Health Care marketplace, but do not receive employer subsidized health care.
- coldtea 7y ago
  I have several "median US household" friends who nearly got homeless after a health incident which would be irrelevant to treat in France (one got hit by a bullet by a gang while mowing his lawn in some BS initiation thing and had to spent a month or so in the hospital, the other got a mild treatable cancer), and that's with 2 people working relatively cushy jobs...
  - rayiner 7y ago
    The median person never runs into a life- or employment-threatening health issue during their working life. If you happen to get unlucky, the French system is no doubt better. But for everyone else, they have more money in their pocket. That's definitely a trade-off. How much do you value the security versus the increased consumption possible with more money. But it is a trade-off. It's not some irrational choice that Americans made that doesn't yield a tangible upside for them.
    - coldtea 7y ago
      >The median person never runs into a life- or employment-threatening health issue during their working life. The median person might not, but for "employment-threatening health issue" a quite big percentage of people get into them, and for life threatening ones a large enough percentage to matter (I'd say 10% or more easily, due to cancer and heart attacks alone). https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/newsletter-article/survey-79-million-americans-have-problems-medical-bills-or-debt https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/newsletter-art... And of course the key words here are "during their working life". If we imagine that until 60-65 or so, this has been extended by people unable to get pension in a reasonable age or with savings eaten by health and such issues and forced to come back into working life.

asark 7y ago

I'm actually surprised the difference is that small. I'd guess the increased retirement savings, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, college savings, daycare costs, and so on the US household would have to purchase to match the effective benefits to a French household would be way more expensive than $16,000/yr. Like, double that.

rayiner 7y ago
You know that child care isn’t free in France, the health system has significant co-insurance payments, and the social security system isn’t that generous? You have to dig into the actual details of these programs, not Americans idealized view of them: https://www.forbes.com/sites/pascalemmanuelgobry/2013/04/17/4-myths-and-one-truth-about-french-childcare https://www.forbes.com/sites/pascalemmanuelgobry/2013/04/17/....
- coldtea 7y ago
  Still ways ahead of the US in all of those areas (European here, so not an American with an "idealized view of them").
  - rayiner 7y ago
    Those services are definitely better in France, but how much are they worth to the median person, in dollar terms? 1. The median person doesn't graduate college in either country. So how much is free college worth to them? Even if you do go to college, the average tuition at a public college in the U.S. is about $40,000 over four years. Would you trade 33% higher income over your entire career for a $40,000 one-time savings? 2. For households in the middle of the income band in the U.S., they spend on average 7.9% of their income on out-of-pocket healthcare expenditures. For the median U.S. household income of about $60,000, that's less than $5,000 annually. 3. Childcare in France isn't free, although it's subsidized. For a median household, it's about 15% of average income in France versus 30% in the U.S. A difference of about $11,000/year at the median, but something you might pay for only 6-8 years over a 35-year working life. 4. Transit is better in France. But average commutes are 50% longer than in the U.S. https://www.oecd.org/els/family/LMF2_6_Time_spent_travelling_to_and_from_work.pdf https://www.oecd.org/els/family/LMF2_6_Time_spent_travelling.... Is the cost-savings from better public transit worth the almost half-hour per day extra spent commuting? 5. The French have state-subsidized pensions, but Americans have Social Security and 401ks. Median income for retirement-aged people in France is about 21,600 euro ($24,600), much higher than in Germany, the U.K., Italy, or Spain: http://www.seniorobservatory.com/in-france-the-median-annual-income-barely-decreases-during-retirement http://www.seniorobservatory.com/in-france-the-median-annual.... The median income for those 65+ in the U.S. is $23,400: https://acl.gov/sites/default/files/Aging%20and%20Disability%20in%20America/2017OlderAmericansProfile.pdf https://acl.gov/sites/default/files/Aging%20and%20Disability.... People assume that Americans are just irrational that they won't vote for these things that Europe has. But the median U.S. voter makes somewhere north of $70,000 household income, spends less than $5,000 of that on out-of-pocket medical expenses, lives in a suburb with less than a 30-minute commute, has 3 TVs and 2-3 cars, lives in a 2,000+ square foot house, etc. For those people, the French way of life would yield perhaps more security, but a significant pay cut, not much lower out-of-pocket health expenses, one less TV, one less car, a 35% smaller house, etc.
    - EForEndeavour 7y ago
      > The median person doesn't graduate college in either country That sounds intentionally oversimplified. Sure, the median is often better than the arithmetic mean to summarize a population, but in this case, you're misapplying the median to falsely imply that graduation rate is irrelevant as long as it's less than 50% of the population. The reality is that tuition is a barrier to enrollment and completion, so eliminating it with public funding makes sense if you care about investing in your country's future. Besides, even if you yourself would never attend college and would never dream of encouraging anyone in your family to go, you still indirectly benefit when your studious compatriots have ample opportunity to study, graduate, and find work in the country. > 4. Transit is better in France. But average commutes are 50% longer than in the U.S. Did you misread the source you linked to? It shows a bar plot of "average" (probably mean) commute times. France's average commute looks like maybe 3-5% longer than the USA, and this difference disappears when you blur your eyes and compare men and women. For a more meaningful glimpse into the reality of these countries' commutes, check out this worldwide ranking of the 10 best and 10 worst cities by commute experience [1]. France takes 4 out of the 10 best spots (Nice, Toulouse, Lyon, Strasbourg). Only one US city landed in the worst 10 (Miami), but the reality is that on average, commuting in the US sucks compared to France. I'd rather read on a train than die a little inside a car. You're right: transit is better in France. [1] https://www.expertmarket.co.uk/focus/best-and-worst-cities-for-commuting https://www.expertmarket.co.uk/focus/best-and-worst-cities-f...
      - rayiner 7y ago
        > Sure, the median is often better than the arithmetic mean to summarize a population, but in this case, you're misapplying the median to falsely imply that graduation rate is irrelevant as long as it's less than 50% of the population. We're doing a snap-shot comparison of the life of someone around the middle of the income demographic. The median person does not complete college in either the U.S. or France. (Even among those 25-34, college attainment rates are less than 40% in both countries.) In reality, most people don't really need to go to college, or aren't cut out for tertiary education. So it's really important to ask how much college is worth to someone in the middle when, statistically, that person won't be going to college, and may not be qualified to go to college. That is especially important when you're talking about asking people in the middle to pay for something that disproportionately benefits people in the top half. France's tax system is quite regressive: https://www.oecd.org/tax/revenue-statistics-france.pdf https://www.oecd.org/tax/revenue-statistics-france.pdf. While the U.S. collects almost half its tax revenue from income and corporate taxes (which are disproportionately paid by the upper classes), France collects just 23% of revenue from those sources. France relies much more heavily on payroll and sales taxes, which are disproportionately paid for by the middle class. So, statistically, someone right at the median is paying for this free college system, but is unlikely to actually take advantage of it. > The reality is that tuition is a barrier to enrollment and completion, so eliminating it with public funding makes sense if you care about investing in your country's future. Graduation rate is only relevant to the extent that it increases your country's average income. If you can, like Germany, maintain a high average income with a relatively low graduation rate, that's better than having to send more people to college (which imposes a large opportunity cost) to achieve the same average income. Regardless, college degree attainment rates in the U.S. have been much higher than in France for decades. France only catches up in the youngest demographic (29-34): https://www.in.gov/che/files/DMatthews.pdf https://www.in.gov/che/files/DMatthews.pdf. Your median voter is still in a demographic (35-44), where the college attainment rate in the U.S. is 39% versus just 23% in France. > For a more meaningful glimpse into the reality of these countries' commutes, check out this worldwide ranking of the 10 best and 10 worst cities by commute experience [1]. France takes 4 out of the 10 best spots (Nice, Toulouse, Lyon, Strasbourg). You're reading it wrong. The first chart is data from 1999 to 2010. I'm referencing the table after that, which focuses on 2008-2010. For all commuters, France has an average commute of 73 minutes, versus 48 minutes for the U.S. > For a more meaningful glimpse into the reality of these countries' commutes, check out this worldwide ranking of the 10 best and 10 worst cities by commute experience [1]. France takes 4 out of the 10 best spots (Nice, Toulouse, Lyon, Strasbourg). The OECD data set is a much better basis of comparison. Comparing commutes in big cities is not particularly relevant in the U.S., because most Americans do not live in a big city. Commute times in New York or Washington, D.C. are 70+ minutes round-trip, as similar to the average in France: https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizations/interactive/travel-time.pdf https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizat... (note the data is one-way, so double it to compare to the OECD chart above). Although, Paris is even worse at 90+ minutes round-trip: https://www.thelocal.fr/20160418/parisians-spend-23-days-a-year-on-public-transport https://www.thelocal.fr/20160418/parisians-spend-23-days-a-y.... But even by the time you get to Atlanta you're significantly better than the French average, and in Iowa or North Dakota you're looking at a commute that's half as long as the average in France. > I'd rather read on a train than die a little inside a car. Have you been in a French metro during commuting times? It's not like you can really sit down and read. You're standing up the whole time scrunched up against other people.
pbourke 7y ago
The figures don’t reflect that, however. “Disposable income” in the study is just after tax income. Who knows what the comparison is net of the costs that you mentioned.
- asark 7y ago
  Right. I'm just thinking, if someone handed me $16,000/yr and was like "use only this money buy all your benefits, retirement, kids' college tuition, childcare, et c. up to the same level as a French person, for your household" I'd be like "LOLWUT? There ain't no way." Heh, not to mention, what, 7 weeks time off plus 10 holidays? Hahahaha, $16,000's only a start. That the figures are that close makes French people look way better off. And theirs is "automatic"—no time wasted shopping around trying not to get screwed (and probably failing).
  - pbourke 7y ago
    Yeah, seriously. “All of that for only $16k/yr - sign me up!”

rayiner 7y ago

A median US household receives employer-sponsored healthcare. Also, the median French person pays taxes to support low cost higher education, but the median French person does not receive a college degree. It’s actually a regressive transfer to the upper middle class. (Especially because the French tax system relies more on regressive taxes, like VAT.)

antisthenes 7y ago
A median US household receives employer subsidized health care. In many cases, those plans are high-deductible and thus inadequate, because it could still mean having personal expenses to the tune of $7000-8000 a year of post-tax dollars. This is also being done at the expense of those who are not eligible for subsidies on the Health Care marketplace, but do not receive employer subsidized health care.
coldtea 7y ago
I have several "median US household" friends who nearly got homeless after a health incident which would be irrelevant to treat in France (one got hit by a bullet by a gang while mowing his lawn in some BS initiation thing and had to spent a month or so in the hospital, the other got a mild treatable cancer), and that's with 2 people working relatively cushy jobs...
- rayiner 7y ago
  The median person never runs into a life- or employment-threatening health issue during their working life. If you happen to get unlucky, the French system is no doubt better. But for everyone else, they have more money in their pocket. That's definitely a trade-off. How much do you value the security versus the increased consumption possible with more money. But it is a trade-off. It's not some irrational choice that Americans made that doesn't yield a tangible upside for them.
  - coldtea 7y ago
    >The median person never runs into a life- or employment-threatening health issue during their working life. The median person might not, but for "employment-threatening health issue" a quite big percentage of people get into them, and for life threatening ones a large enough percentage to matter (I'd say 10% or more easily, due to cancer and heart attacks alone). https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/newsletter-article/survey-79-million-americans-have-problems-medical-bills-or-debt https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/newsletter-art... And of course the key words here are "during their working life". If we imagine that until 60-65 or so, this has been extended by people unable to get pension in a reasonable age or with savings eaten by health and such issues and forced to come back into working life.