3 ms·

> The US is a pretty terrible place to live if you're poor however. That's simply not true. The poor in the US have one of the world's most expensive welfare s

> The US is a pretty terrible place to live if you're poor however. That's simply not true. The poor in the US have one of the world's most expensive welfare states. It's the next ~20%-25% or so above the bottom 25%, that have it worst. Those people don't get free access to healthcare because they earn too much. The US has a very advanced welfare state and safety net for the poor. The US spends more of its economy on its welfare state than either Canada or Australia, and is in the upper half of the OECD in that regard. The US welfare state is also rapidly growing, whereas most other developed nations are seeing their welfare states shrinking. The US poverty and homelessness rates are both superior to Canada and France. The US provides free healthcare for the bottom 25%, along with countless other massive programs involving food and shelter for the poor.

riku_iki 7y ago
It would be interesting to see how nominal numbers will change if you recalculate them to take prices and per capita factors in consideration. What poor in Canada can afford in terms of food, shelter and healthcare, and what poor in US can afford.
dijit 7y ago
You talk about absolute costs as if that means much. Surely a conclusion can be reached where you’re spending more than any other country, yet so inefficient at distributing the wealth that you’re spending, or funnelling it into broken feedback loops that keep people in the welfare system. surely if that were the case then it doesn’t matter how much you’re spending in absolute terms, you’d still not be enriching the lives of the poor or helping social mobility.
- rayiner 7y ago
  US social spending as a percentage of GDP (not absolute amounts) is about 18%, about the same as Canada and Australia, a bit higher than the Netherlands or Switzerland, and a smidge below the OECD average of 20%. https://data.oecd.org/socialexp/social-spending.htm https://data.oecd.org/socialexp/social-spending.htm
  - dijit 7y ago
    I’m saying total spending doesn’t equate to effectiveness of spending. I too can “spend” a lot of money on a boat by throwing suitcases of money into the ocean, but it does nothing to improve the boat.
DanBC 7y ago
> The US poverty and homelessness rates are both superior to Canada and France. Which figures for homelessness in the US and in France are you using please?
- rayiner 7y ago
  E.g. OECD: https://www.oecd.org/els/family/HC3-1-Homeless-population.pdf https://www.oecd.org/els/family/HC3-1-Homeless-population.pd... 0.18% in US, 0.22% in France, 0.44% in Canada. 0.36% in Sweden.
  - DanBC 7y ago
    So you're comparing different things, because these countries count homelessness differently. > There is no internationally agreed definition of homelessness. Therefore, this indicator presents a collection of available statistics on homelessness in OECD and EU countries in line with definitions used in national surveys (comparability issues on the data are discussed below). Some countries have different official definitions of homeless: they may use a definition for the purpose of data collection but use another one or several definitions for policy purposes, i.e. in the framework of policy measures aimed at tackling homelessness. In this indicator we refer only to the statistical definition used for data collection purposes. [...] > Definitional differences drive variations in the reported incidence of homelessness across countries and hamper international comparisons and the understanding real differences in homelessness rates and risks. Besides definitional differences, there are a number of flaws in the scope and methods of data collection which might affect measuring the real extent of homelessness. For instance, administrative data can provide good data on the users of homeless services but they leave out people who are not in contact with services providers or local authorities. Furthermore, geographical coverage of data collection often does not include the whole national territory but only municipalities with a certain number of inhabitants. A full description of methodological issues in homelessness data collection is beyond the scope of this indicator but more in-depth information can be found in Busch-Geertsema et al.,2014, and OECD, 2015.

riku_iki 7y ago

It would be interesting to see how nominal numbers will change if you recalculate them to take prices and per capita factors in consideration. What poor in Canada can afford in terms of food, shelter and healthcare, and what poor in US can afford.

dijit 7y ago

You talk about absolute costs as if that means much. Surely a conclusion can be reached where you’re spending more than any other country, yet so inefficient at distributing the wealth that you’re spending, or funnelling it into broken feedback loops that keep people in the welfare system. surely if that were the case then it doesn’t matter how much you’re spending in absolute terms, you’d still not be enriching the lives of the poor or helping social mobility.

rayiner 7y ago
US social spending as a percentage of GDP (not absolute amounts) is about 18%, about the same as Canada and Australia, a bit higher than the Netherlands or Switzerland, and a smidge below the OECD average of 20%. https://data.oecd.org/socialexp/social-spending.htm https://data.oecd.org/socialexp/social-spending.htm
- dijit 7y ago
  I’m saying total spending doesn’t equate to effectiveness of spending. I too can “spend” a lot of money on a boat by throwing suitcases of money into the ocean, but it does nothing to improve the boat.

DanBC 7y ago

> The US poverty and homelessness rates are both superior to Canada and France. Which figures for homelessness in the US and in France are you using please?

rayiner 7y ago
E.g. OECD: https://www.oecd.org/els/family/HC3-1-Homeless-population.pdf https://www.oecd.org/els/family/HC3-1-Homeless-population.pd... 0.18% in US, 0.22% in France, 0.44% in Canada. 0.36% in Sweden.
- DanBC 7y ago
  So you're comparing different things, because these countries count homelessness differently. > There is no internationally agreed definition of homelessness. Therefore, this indicator presents a collection of available statistics on homelessness in OECD and EU countries in line with definitions used in national surveys (comparability issues on the data are discussed below). Some countries have different official definitions of homeless: they may use a definition for the purpose of data collection but use another one or several definitions for policy purposes, i.e. in the framework of policy measures aimed at tackling homelessness. In this indicator we refer only to the statistical definition used for data collection purposes. [...] > Definitional differences drive variations in the reported incidence of homelessness across countries and hamper international comparisons and the understanding real differences in homelessness rates and risks. Besides definitional differences, there are a number of flaws in the scope and methods of data collection which might affect measuring the real extent of homelessness. For instance, administrative data can provide good data on the users of homeless services but they leave out people who are not in contact with services providers or local authorities. Furthermore, geographical coverage of data collection often does not include the whole national territory but only municipalities with a certain number of inhabitants. A full description of methodological issues in homelessness data collection is beyond the scope of this indicator but more in-depth information can be found in Busch-Geertsema et al.,2014, and OECD, 2015.