6 ms·

Enlighten me. Which G20 nation has better economic conditions than the United States? According to this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_a

by rank0 3y ago

Enlighten me. Which G20 nation has better economic conditions than the United States? According to this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_wage https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average... The PPP adjusted median income is highest in the US (not counting Iceland/Luxembourg for obvious reasons). And as a follow up, how stable is the government in your example countries? The US has the worlds oldest document-based government. The rest of the “western countries” have constantly collapsing systems/borders with the exception of France who has historically done exceptionally well in this regard. TL;DR - Why should we take notes on wealth redistribution from other societies which are less successful?

alex_young 3y ago
I think it's worth pointing out that income inequality is much worse in the US; the Wikipedia page you referenced reflects this somewhat: "2020 average wage in the United States was $53,383, while the 2020 median wage was $34,612." If you define 'better economic conditions' as meaning more wealth in total, sure, the US is at or near the top. But however, if you're interested in knowing how most people are doing, the reality is that many of our European friends are better off than we are. The one example I'm personally aware of is Switzerland, which has a wealth tax and relatively low overall taxation. People they tend to live longer lives than we do, they have more disposable income, great infrastructure, a pristine natural environment, local manufacturing, and they have hundreds of years of political stability.
- rank0 3y ago
  Median (not average) PPP income is highest in the US. See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income While it’s true our income inequality is larger, the fact still remains that the median American makes more money than the median European (or any other comparable region). Ask yourself: Is it better for everyone to be richer and have high inequality? Or is it better for everyone to be poorer but more equal? EDIT: Switzerland is a good point. They are a prosperous and highly educated society! It’s just tough to compare in my mind because the US or EU is hundreds of times larger.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
    Comparing absolute numbers for income is a bit of a fool's errands, even when you use PPP. The philosopher John Rawls has a famous thought experiment of choosing a form of social and economic organization without knowing where you personally might end up on whatever heirarchy it generates or contains. Rawls' point was that in such circumstances, most even semi-rational people will choose the one that makes it the most likely that they will not end up in a non-disadvantaged position, which is the fundamental concept behind an egalitarian to oppurtunity and inequality. Given that, faced with a choice between: 1) a society that carries out substantive income/wealth redistribution so that few people (if anyone) has issues with a broad set of "basic" needs 2) a society that offers limited substantive income/wealth redistribution in the name of "high rewards for high achievement" or something similar most people in Rawls thought experiment will choose the former. You only choose (2) when you have reason to believe you will be a high achiever, which in a truly meritocratic society, you cannot know in advance. So, the US is a society in which median (PPP) income is highest, but low income redistribution ensures that large numbers of people struggle to enjoy the things that US society considers "normal". By contrast, social democratic societies in Europe have lower median (PPP) income, but higher income redistribution means that far fewer people face such struggles. Rawls would maintain that a rational person with a belief in justice would always pick (1), and that only irrationality or some (unfounded) conviction of one's own certainty of outsize success would lead someone to pick (2).
    - rank0 3y ago
      I appreciate the response! > By contrast, social democratic societies in Europe have lower median (PPP) income, but higher income redistribution means that far fewer people face such struggles. The idea that EU citizens do not face poverty is simply false. The EU sheltered homelessness rate is very close to the US, both under 0.2% which is phenomenal honestly… Poverty rate statistics are quite tricky to decipher. But all the data I can find says that there isn’t an outsized difference between the regions. Rates in US states vary as much as EU member countries with plenty of states from both regions exceeding or below US/EU averages. I’m not trying to be a blind patriot stereotype or even claim that the US is “better” than other portions of the world. My only point is that objectively speaking, living standards in America are PHENOMENAL. We should not “redistribute wealth like other western nations” because I can’t think of any G20 nations that have a clearly preferable economic system. Also to your point about Rawls, if you go too far with redistribution you remove the incentive for people to do difficult or unpleasant work. We’ve witnessed this countless times over the past century in all the failed socialist/communist societies. In a less extreme example we just witnessed France default on its pension obligations! Nobody is going to work for free. The US spends more money than any other nation on social welfare programs. It’s inefficient and unsustainable. How can we honestly consider expanding wealth distribution programs when we can’t even afford what we have now? If you can think of a particular nation’s system we should emulate I’d love to hear the argument with an open mind. I honest to god cannot think of any.
- tomjakubowski 3y ago
  I'm not disagreeing with your wider point, and in particular I do agree there's a lot to admire about Swiss society—but want to mention they have had a few bouts of instability in the past several hundred years. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland_in_the_Napoleonic_era https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland_in_the_Napoleonic_... - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoration_and_Regeneration_in_Switzerland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoration_and_Regeneration_i... - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonderbund_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonderbund_War
lmm 3y ago
> counting Iceland/Luxembourg for obvious reasons Obviously you wouldn't want to count any cases that contradict your claims.
- rank0 3y ago
  Lol. The US is hundreds of times larger than those countries. It does t even have to be about the US… Do you really think it’s reasonable to compare Luxembourg with its 600k population to a country like Germany which has 84M citizens?
  - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
    This sort of rationale would seem to suggest that you also cannot take examples of bits and pieces of the USA and compare them with the country as a whole.
    - rank0 3y ago
      Yes I agree with that! It makes no sense to compare Beverly Hills to the state of Oklahoma.

by rank0 3y ago

alex_young 3y ago

I think it's worth pointing out that income inequality is much worse in the US; the Wikipedia page you referenced reflects this somewhat: "2020 average wage in the United States was $53,383, while the 2020 median wage was $34,612." If you define 'better economic conditions' as meaning more wealth in total, sure, the US is at or near the top. But however, if you're interested in knowing how most people are doing, the reality is that many of our European friends are better off than we are. The one example I'm personally aware of is Switzerland, which has a wealth tax and relatively low overall taxation. People they tend to live longer lives than we do, they have more disposable income, great infrastructure, a pristine natural environment, local manufacturing, and they have hundreds of years of political stability.

rank0 3y ago
Median (not average) PPP income is highest in the US. See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income While it’s true our income inequality is larger, the fact still remains that the median American makes more money than the median European (or any other comparable region). Ask yourself: Is it better for everyone to be richer and have high inequality? Or is it better for everyone to be poorer but more equal? EDIT: Switzerland is a good point. They are a prosperous and highly educated society! It’s just tough to compare in my mind because the US or EU is hundreds of times larger.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
  Comparing absolute numbers for income is a bit of a fool's errands, even when you use PPP. The philosopher John Rawls has a famous thought experiment of choosing a form of social and economic organization without knowing where you personally might end up on whatever heirarchy it generates or contains. Rawls' point was that in such circumstances, most even semi-rational people will choose the one that makes it the most likely that they will not end up in a non-disadvantaged position, which is the fundamental concept behind an egalitarian to oppurtunity and inequality. Given that, faced with a choice between: 1) a society that carries out substantive income/wealth redistribution so that few people (if anyone) has issues with a broad set of "basic" needs 2) a society that offers limited substantive income/wealth redistribution in the name of "high rewards for high achievement" or something similar most people in Rawls thought experiment will choose the former. You only choose (2) when you have reason to believe you will be a high achiever, which in a truly meritocratic society, you cannot know in advance. So, the US is a society in which median (PPP) income is highest, but low income redistribution ensures that large numbers of people struggle to enjoy the things that US society considers "normal". By contrast, social democratic societies in Europe have lower median (PPP) income, but higher income redistribution means that far fewer people face such struggles. Rawls would maintain that a rational person with a belief in justice would always pick (1), and that only irrationality or some (unfounded) conviction of one's own certainty of outsize success would lead someone to pick (2).
  - rank0 3y ago
    I appreciate the response! > By contrast, social democratic societies in Europe have lower median (PPP) income, but higher income redistribution means that far fewer people face such struggles. The idea that EU citizens do not face poverty is simply false. The EU sheltered homelessness rate is very close to the US, both under 0.2% which is phenomenal honestly… Poverty rate statistics are quite tricky to decipher. But all the data I can find says that there isn’t an outsized difference between the regions. Rates in US states vary as much as EU member countries with plenty of states from both regions exceeding or below US/EU averages. I’m not trying to be a blind patriot stereotype or even claim that the US is “better” than other portions of the world. My only point is that objectively speaking, living standards in America are PHENOMENAL. We should not “redistribute wealth like other western nations” because I can’t think of any G20 nations that have a clearly preferable economic system. Also to your point about Rawls, if you go too far with redistribution you remove the incentive for people to do difficult or unpleasant work. We’ve witnessed this countless times over the past century in all the failed socialist/communist societies. In a less extreme example we just witnessed France default on its pension obligations! Nobody is going to work for free. The US spends more money than any other nation on social welfare programs. It’s inefficient and unsustainable. How can we honestly consider expanding wealth distribution programs when we can’t even afford what we have now? If you can think of a particular nation’s system we should emulate I’d love to hear the argument with an open mind. I honest to god cannot think of any.
tomjakubowski 3y ago
I'm not disagreeing with your wider point, and in particular I do agree there's a lot to admire about Swiss society—but want to mention they have had a few bouts of instability in the past several hundred years. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland_in_the_Napoleonic_era https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland_in_the_Napoleonic_... - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoration_and_Regeneration_in_Switzerland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoration_and_Regeneration_i... - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonderbund_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonderbund_War

lmm 3y ago

> counting Iceland/Luxembourg for obvious reasons Obviously you wouldn't want to count any cases that contradict your claims.

rank0 3y ago
Lol. The US is hundreds of times larger than those countries. It does t even have to be about the US… Do you really think it’s reasonable to compare Luxembourg with its 600k population to a country like Germany which has 84M citizens?
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
  This sort of rationale would seem to suggest that you also cannot take examples of bits and pieces of the USA and compare them with the country as a whole.
  - rank0 3y ago
    Yes I agree with that! It makes no sense to compare Beverly Hills to the state of Oklahoma.