4 ms·

Curious to see the source showing European democracies are more successful, controlling for socioeconomic status.

karpierz 5y ago
What does it mean to be "successful, controlling for socioeconomic status"? Their success is defined by their peoples' socioeconomic status.
- endisneigh 5y ago
  If that's the case then the USA is superior to all but a few European democracies per capita and all of them nominally? Even Massachusetts would be superior than every European country per capita.
  - gumby 5y ago
    I don’t understand: are you talking about PPP GDP per capita? I agree that the US optimizes for that, but it doesn’t translate into higher quality of life by metrics like life expectancy, literacy, leisure time, malnutrition, proportion of “precariat” etc.
    - endisneigh 5y ago
      Yes, hence my original question.
      - karpierz 5y ago
        If you define socioeconomic status narrowly (gender, race, age, net wealth), then I was wrong to say that the success of European countries is rooted in their socioeconomic status. I'm happy to take that point back, and focus on why I don't think controlling for socioeconomic status is the right analysis. However, even if the US shows better outcomes when controlling for socioeconomic status, the distribution of people within socioeconomic status is relevant. If the US has 1000 impoverished people and 10 middle class people, and Germany has 10 impoverished people and 1000 middle class people, the relevant comparison is the German middle class to the US impoverished class. In other words, you'd want to compare outcomes based on percentiles regardless of socioeconomic status.
- jandrese 5y ago
  Maybe it would be better to say "controlling for immigration policies"? But even then the US is going to come out behind because those countries don't have the legacies of slavery still weighing them down.
  - gumby 5y ago
    Germany, US, France have about the same percentage of immigrants if you want to compare things like life expectancy on that basis.
dijit 5y ago
It all depends on what you’re aiming for, socio-economically. If you want billionaires then the US model is much more successful. If you want a wide middle class then the Swedish model is more successful. If you want happiness then the Danish model is more successful. If you want to eliminate poverty then the Finnish model is more successful.
- paconbork 5y ago
  Sweden and Norway have more billionaires per capita than the US does.
  - refurb 5y ago
    Heritable wealth is much bigger in Europe than the US.
  - _se 5y ago
    True, but I'm not sure that per capita matters so much. The USA has only about 5% of the world's people, but nearly 30% of the world's billionaires. That's a very large share (and nearly 1.5x as large as the next largest, China, with around 3x the population).
    - burntoutfire 5y ago
      > The USA has only about 5% of the world's people, but nearly 30% of the world's billionaires Seeing that the US is nearly a quarter of the global economy, nearly 30% of world's billionaires does not sound unreasonable.
- Aunche 5y ago
  It's disingenuous to compare a country with another country with 1/30th the size. Otherwise, you'd come to the conclusion that Sweden would be better off as a tax haven like Luxembourg. Massachusetts matches the Nordic nations by most metrics, and blows them out of the water in terms of median income.
  - 5y ago

What does it mean to be "successful, controlling for socioeconomic status"? Their success is defined by their peoples' socioeconomic status.

endisneigh 5y ago
If that's the case then the USA is superior to all but a few European democracies per capita and all of them nominally? Even Massachusetts would be superior than every European country per capita.
- gumby 5y ago
  I don’t understand: are you talking about PPP GDP per capita? I agree that the US optimizes for that, but it doesn’t translate into higher quality of life by metrics like life expectancy, literacy, leisure time, malnutrition, proportion of “precariat” etc.
  - endisneigh 5y ago
    Yes, hence my original question.
    - karpierz 5y ago
      If you define socioeconomic status narrowly (gender, race, age, net wealth), then I was wrong to say that the success of European countries is rooted in their socioeconomic status. I'm happy to take that point back, and focus on why I don't think controlling for socioeconomic status is the right analysis. However, even if the US shows better outcomes when controlling for socioeconomic status, the distribution of people within socioeconomic status is relevant. If the US has 1000 impoverished people and 10 middle class people, and Germany has 10 impoverished people and 1000 middle class people, the relevant comparison is the German middle class to the US impoverished class. In other words, you'd want to compare outcomes based on percentiles regardless of socioeconomic status.
jandrese 5y ago
Maybe it would be better to say "controlling for immigration policies"? But even then the US is going to come out behind because those countries don't have the legacies of slavery still weighing them down.
- gumby 5y ago
  Germany, US, France have about the same percentage of immigrants if you want to compare things like life expectancy on that basis.

dijit 5y ago

It all depends on what you’re aiming for, socio-economically. If you want billionaires then the US model is much more successful. If you want a wide middle class then the Swedish model is more successful. If you want happiness then the Danish model is more successful. If you want to eliminate poverty then the Finnish model is more successful.

paconbork 5y ago
Sweden and Norway have more billionaires per capita than the US does.
- refurb 5y ago
  Heritable wealth is much bigger in Europe than the US.
- _se 5y ago
  True, but I'm not sure that per capita matters so much. The USA has only about 5% of the world's people, but nearly 30% of the world's billionaires. That's a very large share (and nearly 1.5x as large as the next largest, China, with around 3x the population).
  - burntoutfire 5y ago
    > The USA has only about 5% of the world's people, but nearly 30% of the world's billionaires Seeing that the US is nearly a quarter of the global economy, nearly 30% of world's billionaires does not sound unreasonable.
Aunche 5y ago
It's disingenuous to compare a country with another country with 1/30th the size. Otherwise, you'd come to the conclusion that Sweden would be better off as a tax haven like Luxembourg. Massachusetts matches the Nordic nations by most metrics, and blows them out of the water in terms of median income.
- 5y ago