4 ms·

> The disposable income in Scandinavia doesn't need to cover any healthcare, education and other public services. If the study's honest, those should already b

by jjs 17y ago

> The disposable income in Scandinavia doesn't need to cover any healthcare, education and other public services. If the study's honest, those should already be factored into "cost of living", not "disposable income".

pedrocr 17y ago
The study that compares the US to Europe (linked in another commend) does these comparisons: - Compare GDP between US and Europe and show that US is higher per capita on average. No debate there. - Compare private consumption between the US and Europe, specifically stating that it does not control for healthcare and education. From page 14: Different countries’ choices of public commitment influence, through taxation policy, the scope available for private consumption, at the same time as high taxation countries, through their public sectors, offer some of the things recorded in low taxation countries as private consumption. There is no easy way of getting round this, but it is an important point to bear in mind when comparing private consumption. - It does then compare retail consumption which shouldn't include any of these things and thus be more objective. That one still shows the US as higher than Sweden. Another table shows that US households have more home appliances. So on that count Americans do appear to be richer, assuming of course they are getting equal average amounts of education and healthcare on their private purchases as the Europeans are getting on their tax dollars. Otherwise you'd just be displacing money from healthcare and education into buying retail goods. An argument can surely be bade that this is in fact the case and that although the higher end healthcare and education in the US is top notch the average over the whole population is not as good as the average in Sweden. Anyone know of any good data on this? I did notice however that the disposable income argument was made about countries within the EU based on another study. So it is possible that the public/private mix in the several EU nations actually doesn't favor Scandinavia in terms of efficiency. All these things are hard to argue because there is no comparable definition of the extent of public services in the economies and how those are replaced or not by private spending.
- anamax 17y ago
  > So on that count Americans do appear to be richer, assuming of course they are getting equal average amounts of education and healthcare on their private purchases as the Europeans are getting on their tax dollars. That assumption is rather dodgy on a couple of points. One is that a lot of healthcare and education in the US is tax-supported. Another is that a rational person may choose to spend money on things other than healthcare and education. Forcing them to spend it on healthcare and education can make them poorer, aka "less bang for same bucks". > the average over the whole population is not as good as the average in Sweden. How about we compare average cancer survival rates? Relevant fact: a huge fraction of the "uninsured" in the US are eligible for free govt healthcare but simply haven't signed up. (When they run into problems, they typically, but not always, sign up.)
  - pedrocr 17y ago
    >That assumption is rather dodgy on a couple of points. I thought so too, that is why I pointed it out. >One is that a lot of healthcare and education in the US is tax-supported. It may very well be but less of it is compared to Scandinavia so the point is the same. >Another is that a rational person may choose to spend money on things other than healthcare and education. Forcing them to spend it on healthcare and education can make them poorer, aka "less bang for same bucks". Very true of course, but then you can't really argue that the Scandinavians are worse off because they can buy less retail goods because they put more money into their government to get healthcare and education. Choice need not be only about how to allocate private spending, you can also influence the tax/welfare situation. >How about we compare average cancer survival rates? I could only find cancer deaths not survival rates once you do have cancer. In a lot of ways that is what matters and can mean better preventive care. On the other hand it adds a bunch of environmental factors. Anyway, according to this: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_dea_fro_can-health-death-from-cancer http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_dea_fro_can-health-dea... The US is middle of the board. Sweden, Finland and Norway all beat the US. The only surprising one on that board for me was the Netherlands, with such high rates.
    - yummyfajitas 17y ago
      Very true of course, but then you can't really argue that the Scandinavians are worse off because they can buy less retail goods because they put more money into their government to get healthcare and education. Actually you can. That's part of the deadweight loss of taxation: you are forced to spend money on stuff you don't want and are unable to spend on stuff you do want. If person X would choose to spend $100 on an ipod, but is instead forced to spend $100 on education which they only value at $80, they have lost $20 of value. Now, in a democracy, people in the situation of person X may only make up 50% - 1 of the population, but that doesn't change the fact that they lose.

by jjs 17y ago

pedrocr 17y ago

The study that compares the US to Europe (linked in another commend) does these comparisons: - Compare GDP between US and Europe and show that US is higher per capita on average. No debate there. - Compare private consumption between the US and Europe, specifically stating that it does not control for healthcare and education. From page 14: Different countries’ choices of public commitment influence, through taxation policy, the scope available for private consumption, at the same time as high taxation countries, through their public sectors, offer some of the things recorded in low taxation countries as private consumption. There is no easy way of getting round this, but it is an important point to bear in mind when comparing private consumption. - It does then compare retail consumption which shouldn't include any of these things and thus be more objective. That one still shows the US as higher than Sweden. Another table shows that US households have more home appliances. So on that count Americans do appear to be richer, assuming of course they are getting equal average amounts of education and healthcare on their private purchases as the Europeans are getting on their tax dollars. Otherwise you'd just be displacing money from healthcare and education into buying retail goods. An argument can surely be bade that this is in fact the case and that although the higher end healthcare and education in the US is top notch the average over the whole population is not as good as the average in Sweden. Anyone know of any good data on this? I did notice however that the disposable income argument was made about countries within the EU based on another study. So it is possible that the public/private mix in the several EU nations actually doesn't favor Scandinavia in terms of efficiency. All these things are hard to argue because there is no comparable definition of the extent of public services in the economies and how those are replaced or not by private spending.

anamax 17y ago
> So on that count Americans do appear to be richer, assuming of course they are getting equal average amounts of education and healthcare on their private purchases as the Europeans are getting on their tax dollars. That assumption is rather dodgy on a couple of points. One is that a lot of healthcare and education in the US is tax-supported. Another is that a rational person may choose to spend money on things other than healthcare and education. Forcing them to spend it on healthcare and education can make them poorer, aka "less bang for same bucks". > the average over the whole population is not as good as the average in Sweden. How about we compare average cancer survival rates? Relevant fact: a huge fraction of the "uninsured" in the US are eligible for free govt healthcare but simply haven't signed up. (When they run into problems, they typically, but not always, sign up.)
- pedrocr 17y ago
  >That assumption is rather dodgy on a couple of points. I thought so too, that is why I pointed it out. >One is that a lot of healthcare and education in the US is tax-supported. It may very well be but less of it is compared to Scandinavia so the point is the same. >Another is that a rational person may choose to spend money on things other than healthcare and education. Forcing them to spend it on healthcare and education can make them poorer, aka "less bang for same bucks". Very true of course, but then you can't really argue that the Scandinavians are worse off because they can buy less retail goods because they put more money into their government to get healthcare and education. Choice need not be only about how to allocate private spending, you can also influence the tax/welfare situation. >How about we compare average cancer survival rates? I could only find cancer deaths not survival rates once you do have cancer. In a lot of ways that is what matters and can mean better preventive care. On the other hand it adds a bunch of environmental factors. Anyway, according to this: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_dea_fro_can-health-death-from-cancer http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_dea_fro_can-health-dea... The US is middle of the board. Sweden, Finland and Norway all beat the US. The only surprising one on that board for me was the Netherlands, with such high rates.
  - yummyfajitas 17y ago
    Very true of course, but then you can't really argue that the Scandinavians are worse off because they can buy less retail goods because they put more money into their government to get healthcare and education. Actually you can. That's part of the deadweight loss of taxation: you are forced to spend money on stuff you don't want and are unable to spend on stuff you do want. If person X would choose to spend $100 on an ipod, but is instead forced to spend $100 on education which they only value at $80, they have lost $20 of value. Now, in a democracy, people in the situation of person X may only make up 50% - 1 of the population, but that doesn't change the fact that they lose.