5 ms·

It isn't about "caring". The US system is actually more caring because it guarantees access to social programs regardless of contributions. In the US, social pr

It isn't about "caring". The US system is actually more caring because it guarantees access to social programs regardless of contributions. In the US, social programs are something you have a right to if you are a citizen. In Europe, they are something that is earned through contributions. In continental Europe, you pay high taxes but you receive a lot of those benefits back in the form of benefits. Unemployment insurance is literally insurance that is just provided by the state. That term makes no sense in a redistributive system like the US. It is fine to suggest that this system is better but there is a reason it only exists in some countries and not others. If you have a high level of business creation/destruction, it is a huge risk (Denmark is an example of a country with this system but very low regulations on business/labour, 2008 nearly killed this system). If you have a very mobile population, it doesn't work either. If you have a heterogeneous population, it doesn't work. The simpler solution is to take the parts that will work i.e. investment in retraining.

skybrian 7y ago
I'm not sure there's a bright line between insurance and redistribution. What is insurance other than a way to redistribute money from people who don't need the money to people who do?
- hogFeast 7y ago
  That is 100% not the case. In addition to being factually wrong, it suggests a totally ahistorical view of social policy development. Social policy in the EU and US/UK are nothing alike, they have completely different aims because the history/context is just totally different. To be totally clear: I have studied this topic (I studied econ/policy at PG level) and no research I have ever read has suggested this. Google comparative social policy research. I understand that if you get your knowledge from misinformed politicians who haven't studied the issue but believe it will solve all their country's problems...yes, that distinction is not clear. If you actually read books though, it is quite wrong.
  - skybrian 7y ago
    I'm thinking more conceptually and financially. Fire insurance means people whose house never burns down lose money and people whose house did burn down get money. It is literally a redistribution of money as you don't get out what you put in. They do this willingly, of course, because financial security is valuable. But it is in essence a collective scheme. There are big differences between the US and EU though, not disputing that. But maybe there's a way of describing this difference that makes the distinction clearer?
    - hogFeast 7y ago
      Yes, the principle of European social policy is that you get out what you put in. The principle of UK/US social policy is that you have an entitlement to a small amount of money because you are a citizen (univeralism). Because you seem to not understand some part of this: in Europe, if you make $100k/year and you lose your job the state will pay you a percentage of your previous income for a fixed period of time (and you then get nothing or put onto a long-term unemployed program). For example, 75% so you will get pro rata $75k/year. In the UK/US, if you lose your job you will get $x/year, regardless of your previous job and what you contributed to the system (i.e. it is redistributive...some people pay a lot into the system and get nothing, people who pay nothing in get the most...insurance doesn't work this way). The history isn't worth going into but the European welfare state was invented by Conservatives. The US/UK welfare state was invented by Socialists. Practically, what most people think about the European system is almost 100% wrong: the US/UK welfare system is intended to intervene in the market, the European welfare system is not (and the Nordic countries are usually most strident about not interfering in the market, particularly Denmark which has very high rates of job creation/destruction). Just to be totally clear: what most Americans are being sold by Democrats is a total fiction. There is no alternative to the market. Every country that has had politicians that tried to outsmart the market has failed (the Nordic countries did this in the 80s, they were bankrupt by the early 90s). The US already has the most heavily redistributive social policy anywhere. If it isn't working, that doesn't mean you need to go further. And yes, that is why I suggested you read about it yourself. This is seminal - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three_Worlds_of_Welfare_Capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three_Worlds_of_Welfare_Ca... - but social policy is perhaps one of the biggest areas in comparative politics (because the importance of context/history is so evident).
stevekemp 7y ago
Even if you don't claim actual benefits you receive value from your high-taxes in things like cheap childcare, good transport, local parks, etc. Though it is true the higher taxes are also the source of benefits they provide other benefits even if you're employed.

skybrian 7y ago

I'm not sure there's a bright line between insurance and redistribution. What is insurance other than a way to redistribute money from people who don't need the money to people who do?

hogFeast 7y ago
That is 100% not the case. In addition to being factually wrong, it suggests a totally ahistorical view of social policy development. Social policy in the EU and US/UK are nothing alike, they have completely different aims because the history/context is just totally different. To be totally clear: I have studied this topic (I studied econ/policy at PG level) and no research I have ever read has suggested this. Google comparative social policy research. I understand that if you get your knowledge from misinformed politicians who haven't studied the issue but believe it will solve all their country's problems...yes, that distinction is not clear. If you actually read books though, it is quite wrong.
- skybrian 7y ago
  I'm thinking more conceptually and financially. Fire insurance means people whose house never burns down lose money and people whose house did burn down get money. It is literally a redistribution of money as you don't get out what you put in. They do this willingly, of course, because financial security is valuable. But it is in essence a collective scheme. There are big differences between the US and EU though, not disputing that. But maybe there's a way of describing this difference that makes the distinction clearer?
  - hogFeast 7y ago
    Yes, the principle of European social policy is that you get out what you put in. The principle of UK/US social policy is that you have an entitlement to a small amount of money because you are a citizen (univeralism). Because you seem to not understand some part of this: in Europe, if you make $100k/year and you lose your job the state will pay you a percentage of your previous income for a fixed period of time (and you then get nothing or put onto a long-term unemployed program). For example, 75% so you will get pro rata $75k/year. In the UK/US, if you lose your job you will get $x/year, regardless of your previous job and what you contributed to the system (i.e. it is redistributive...some people pay a lot into the system and get nothing, people who pay nothing in get the most...insurance doesn't work this way). The history isn't worth going into but the European welfare state was invented by Conservatives. The US/UK welfare state was invented by Socialists. Practically, what most people think about the European system is almost 100% wrong: the US/UK welfare system is intended to intervene in the market, the European welfare system is not (and the Nordic countries are usually most strident about not interfering in the market, particularly Denmark which has very high rates of job creation/destruction). Just to be totally clear: what most Americans are being sold by Democrats is a total fiction. There is no alternative to the market. Every country that has had politicians that tried to outsmart the market has failed (the Nordic countries did this in the 80s, they were bankrupt by the early 90s). The US already has the most heavily redistributive social policy anywhere. If it isn't working, that doesn't mean you need to go further. And yes, that is why I suggested you read about it yourself. This is seminal - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three_Worlds_of_Welfare_Capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three_Worlds_of_Welfare_Ca... - but social policy is perhaps one of the biggest areas in comparative politics (because the importance of context/history is so evident).

stevekemp 7y ago

Even if you don't claim actual benefits you receive value from your high-taxes in things like cheap childcare, good transport, local parks, etc. Though it is true the higher taxes are also the source of benefits they provide other benefits even if you're employed.