On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 04:33:12PM -0500, Dylan Hardison wrote:
> [Blaa, I wrote this a while ago, and sent it, but apparently I wasn't
> subscribed
> with this address.]
>
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 22:45:45 -0500, Paul M Foster
> <paulf@quillandmouse.com> wrote:
> > I don't believe hard or long work ever hurt anyone, and I don't believe
> > Americans are overworked, even if they do work more hours. European
> > workers are trying to live in that socialist paradise their leaders have
> > been telling them about, and it's not working.
>
> What are you basing those statements on?
> How many europeans have you talked to?
> How many years have you been a european worker?
> Can you provide facts that European leaders tell their populaces to
> live in a socialist paradise?
>
> Myself, I've never been a European worker, but I know a lot of Europeans.
> So, I showed the email to an Englishman, a Norwegian,
> an Australian that has lived in London for a year or so, a Netherlander,
> and a Spaniard. I then got permision to quote them:
>
> ** From an Englishman:
> > Americans work longer hours. They get paid more, too. We don't live in
> a socialist
> > paradise, but we do have some advantages, for which we pay more taxes.
> > Obviously nobody likes taxes, but the general view here is that if they are
> > necessary to provide the level of services, then that's the cost.
>
> ** From a Norwegian:
> > I'm a socialist, Norways current leaders are asshats, and schooling
> pretty much
> > tells me the better ones survive.
> > it's more of a socialist paradise than a lot of other places,
> > but no, it needs lots of work before the socialist paradise thing
> will work.
> > and it never will, because not everyone wants it that way.
>
> ** From an Australian living in London for the past year:
> > I think balance is a good thing in life
> > and that there's not much point in hard work if you don't get to enjoy
> > what it buys you
> > I didn't think capitalism was about working people until they die.
> > people often use socialist to mean anything that means big
> > companies need to work ethically
> > I think you could definitely argue that people are hurt by longer
> hours anyway.
> > people complain that the fabric of society is being weakened and that
> > kids are growing up unruly.
> > how can people build family or community if they don't have any time
> > or energy left after working?
>
> ** From a Netherlander:
> > European leaders don't promise people a socialist paradise,
> > though, they just promise people that their whole lives don't have
> > to be centered around the concept of working as much as possible
> > just to meet their basic needs.
> > Most of the European countries seem to work better than the US, though..
> > Given the insane budget brokenness you have there.
> > The Netherlands has a system which means, if you're capable of work,
> > you work, but you don't have to spend insane amounts of your time
> > working just to meet basic needs.
> > People really do work here .. sometimes more money is spent on
> > supporting people who want to work then they actually get via salary,
> > but it's felt that that's worth it anyway
>
> ** From a Spaniard:
> > I'd ignore it, looks way too much like a troll
> > I mean, either it's a troll or it's an awesome moron who hasn't heard of
> > say, construction workers and miners
> > What do you mean by socialist paradise, anyway?
> > That sounds like an American concept.
> > I'd say that here the political situation is rather different,
> > so I really haven't heard of people debating if we live in a "socialist
> paradise",
> > or whatever.
> > Hm, also, I have my doubts about the "it's not working" part.
> > The Euro currently has more value than the US Dollar, and while in
> > Spain we have rather high unemployment and aren't exactly
> > swimming in money, I wouldn't say there are any big economical problems.
>
> Now, I am not saying my research shows yours to be incorrect.
I hope not, because it's pretty anecdotal.
> or that these people whom are my friends are a good sampling of the
> average European. Nevertheless, I find having first hand sources of
> information much better than inventing stuff to help my argument.
> Not that you did that; I just have no proof you did not.
>
Some of your commenters made the point that their system is better
because they don't have to work as hard and the government takes care of
them (presumably better than here in their opinions). You can put
anti-socialism (capitalism?) on one end of a line, and socialism on the
other end. These guys, from what they are saying, are trending in the
direction of socialism; one even admits it.
My original comment was meant to be somewhat sarcastic, but contained a
large degree of truth nonetheless. I'm unconcerned about residents of
these countries who may interpret my comments as insults, and thus
defend their systems. Their comments are interesting, but nothing more.
Is there full-on socialism in Europe? No. That would describe the Soviet
Union. However, if you look at the laws which have been enacted and are
being enacted there, it's clear they are trending toward socialism. Just
because they may have a popularly elected parliament in a country
doesn't mean they can't have socialism. The truth is that it's also
creeping in here in the United States.
Just so we understand what I mean when I say "socialism", it's a system
where the government has ultimate control over most aspects of one's
life and the economy, along with a social safety net designed to cushion
people one way or another. We can consider the Soviet Union as a good
example of this. The government owned nearly every aspect of production.
There was little in the way of private enterprise. Morality was framed
in the context of what was good for the state. Religion was outlawed.
Travel was severely curtailed, and emigration was nearly outlawed. I'm
sure purists will argue with the definition. Call it what you like;
that's the system I'm talking about.
The other end of this scale is something whose name I don't know. But it
would be a system where the government doesn't own the means of
production. People are free to travel, associate, and own the means of
production. There is no social safety net, and the government isn't
really interested in anyone's lives or what they do with them. Religion
is not a concern of the state either way.
I think a check of the laws passed by European countries and by the
European parliament will show there have been a great many regulations
enacted to curtail freedom and _regulate_ what people do there. (Yes,
that's also true here, but to a lesser degree.)
>
> > You used to be able to have a single bread-winner in a home and have a
> > comfortable life. Those days are long gone, because our government(s)
> > taxes us at a crushing rate.
> My father is the sole "bread-winner" for my atomic family unit.
> Taxes are the least of our concerns.
>
Really? Let's see. Your dad probably paid 6.2% of his salary in social
security taxes, and 1.45% of his salary in medicare taxes. His employer
paid (on your dad's behalf), those same amounts. He probably paid
somewhere between 10% and 30% of his salary in federal withholding
taxes. For every store purchase, he probably paid 4-6% sales tax. If he
lived in most of the states in this country, he also paid state income
tax. Every time he paid a utility bill of any kind, he paid a sizable
chunk of taxes. He probably also paid property taxes every year. If he
ever sold anything of significant value, he probably paid capital gains
taxes. The list goes on. Your dad may not have been concerned about
taxes, or he may not have been truly aware of how much he was really
paying in taxes.
My point here is that taxes are a burden levied on productive people,
usually in such a way as to discourage their productivity (income
taxes), which burden is excessive. I can't prove it, but I'm inclined to
believe the withering of the one-bread-winner family so pronounced in
the 1950s was due in large part to the extreme rise in all kinds of
taxes.
> Note that the above people I quoted on average pay much, much, much
> higher taxes than we in this country do, with a higher standard of living.
>
Higher standard of living? I doubt that. I'd bet that the average
European:
1) has less individual living space than the average American,
2) has fewer TVs per capita than the average American,
3) has fewer cars per capita than the average American,
4) has fewer or less of most things that Americans would consider vital
or important to a high standard of living.
5) has more free time than the average American.
Does the average European consider that he's better off than the average
American? Perhaps. He's welcome to his opinion. But I doubt I'd agree
with him on what constitutes "better off".
> In the Netherlands, 8mbps/1mbps ADSL with multiple static IPs, no
> caps, and no transparent proxies can be had for less than a dial-up
> connection here.
>
Have you asked why this is? Is this because it's so cheap to lay phone
cables in the Netherlands, or is it because the government there insists
on this through regulation? Is the phone company in the Netherlands
subsidized by the government? And again, this is just a data point; not
necessarily an indicator of a vastly superior standard of living. And
government enforced standards of living don't exactly hearten me. What
government gives, the government can take away. This week, the French
government dismantled the 35 hour work week. If you're a frenchy, I
guess you're just screwed now.
> Let's not play pretend that the US is the only place in the world that
> has a free market
The "free market" that exists in Europe is less free than here. They
have regulations on what you can call your cheese and wine, depending on
where it came from. European governments don't have the same
constitution and bill of rights we do, and they don't have a tradition
of allowing the kind of market (and other kinds of) freedoms we do. And
consequently they seem to have no compunctions about passing all manner
of laws to regulate commerce. Yes, we do that here too, much to my
dismay. But not so much as in Europe. Do you know that if you shoot a
burglar in your own house in England, you get thrown in jail and the
burglar goes free (actual case)? If I'm not mistaken, there are more CCD
cameras in London spying on its residents than anywhere else in the
world.
> , or that having strong social services prevents a
> strong free market economy.
In fact, they are a huge drag on any economy. That's the real point.
The elected representatives, in order to continue to get elected, and
because they control the nation's checkbook, decide that we must all
care for these people who can't or won't care for themselves. They are
essentially buying votes with social programs. FDR really started the
modern era of social programs, and kept getting re-elected. (We finally
passed an amendment to prevent that from happening again.) Being the
tolerant and compassionate people we are, and because we don't want to
be perceived as cold-hearted, we've gone along with this. In order to
fund those social programs, our representatives raise our taxes. That by
itself depresses productivity by penalizing it. This money then gets
transferred largely to people who don't produce (with regard to social
programs). This in turn rewards non-productive people for not producing.
And so, of course, you get more of them. And so you need more taxes, by
which you penalize productive people even more.
It doesn't even require extensive research into governmental figures and
tax rolls to see this. It's all nearly axiomatic. The more you tax
income, the less reason there is to actually produce anything, since a
larger proportion of your income will get eaten up by the government.
And when you give people money for doing nothing, what are they going to
do? More of nothing. So all of a sudden Joe Jones isn't just having to
earn enough to feed his family and buy that vacation in the Poconos.
He's now forced to support Billy, Sally, and Wakeesha as well, none of
whom he knows.
But back to the original point. Hard work is not the issue. People often
die shortly after they retire if they have nothing else significant to
do. Conversely, people who stay productive live longer. I own my own
business and work a lot of hours. I don't mind it. I've worked for other
people, and I'd rather work for myself, even if I do work more hours.
It's not the work, it's the stress that kills you. If you're working 60
hours a week at a job you hate, you wife's having an affair and your
kids are strung out on drugs, you have the kind of stress that will kill
you, even if you're working a 20 hour week. And if you're working in a
job where you're afraid any careless action or remark will get you
fired, it doesn't matter whether you're working 20 hours or 80 hours.
The stress of that job will get to you regardless.
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:01:18 EDT