Europe’s productivity is nearly one-third lower than America’s, according to a new study in the McKinsey Quarterly, because Europeans have chosen to work less than Americans. This sluggish productivity stifles the emergence of strong new firms and makes Europe heavily dependent on its existing corporate champions, which operate far beyond Europe. Their global scope means they can adapt to labour conditions at home—such as France’s 35-hour working week, or restrictions on their ability to sack redundant or unproductive workers—by eking out higher productivity elsewhere. Since Europe particularly relies on its corporate giants for its vigour, signs of turmoil in their ranks are worrying.

How is it, that after years of anemic growth as a result of ridiculous red tape and idiotic labor laws, how is it that Europe still holds to this dieing trend?

~String

I better work less and get less income to have more free time that I can spend with my friends and take part in other activities.
A productive life does not equal productive material production.

I better work less and get less income to have more free time that I can spend with my friends and take part in other activities.
A productive life does not equal productive material production.

He who lives on faith, Avatar, will die fasting.

Yes, it would be grand if we could all live a relaxed and comfortable life. The European dream, in this, is right on the money. But, guess what... it's only that- a dream. Life is a struggle, and it's tough. THAT is what it's about. It's the work and the labor that define our character and who we are. And, Europeans (the western kind) have clearly demonstrated exactly the content of their character.

Oh, and Avatar-- the money has to come from somewhere. Is it any wonder that most "European" billionairs and multi-millionairs claim residency somewhere OUTSIDE Europe. When the richest and best educated people you have do their best to live somewhere outside your country (lower taxes, less red tape), that's a sign that you have a problem. If all that is left in your country, is the people who want a calm and labor-free life, and all the inventors and money makers move elsewhere--- who's gonna' pay for the party?

~String

America was founded on, and since has always has been about, not having to be anything like day-to-day Europe.

Who the f*ck gives a sh*t about what Europe likes, wants, is?

Ancient history.

Long since flushed out of our lives.

Life is a struggle, and it's tough.
Nah, depends on the subjective view.
It's the work and the labor that define our character and who we are.
I work to get money to spend it on non-profit creative and cultural activities. I don't keep anything for myself more than is needed for living.
My job is just something that I do, that's all.
If all that is left in your country, is the people who want a calm and labor-free life, and all the inventors and money makers move elsewhere--- who's gonna' pay for the party?
Personally I work for the government, and if things get too shitty here, I'll just move somewhere else.

That sounds like a very productive job for society. When France is starving**, let's see if all the paintings and fancy shrubbery will feed the masses.

~String
__________________________________________________ _
**I trust that the new French president, Sarkozy, will take the bull by the balls and put the French back on track... let's hope that I will be eating all my criticisms in the decades to come. I will forever have a warm spot in my heart for the French who I will adore 'till the day I die.

Avatar, you work for the government and don't want to work hard? Man, I bet you fit right in with your coworkers...

You have to feed the soul too. Humans don't live just on food.
And those who do are not pleasant to have as members of that society.

Oh, and I seriously doubt anyone will starve, Europe has much farmland and is able to produce enough food to feed itself. You may miss some exotic fruit, but that is all.

Avatar, you work for the government and don't want to work hard? Man, I bet you fit right in with your coworkers...
Yeah, we frequently organize parties. :)

"We are only free, when like artists, we can produce without the goad of necessity." Karl Marx.

I prefer my quote: "He who lives on faith will die fasting" Benjamin Franklin

I'm a quote-monger. I write them down in my little book. Keep them in an Excel spreadsheet all organized by name, but sub organized by topic and date. Yep... I'm a nerd.

~String

Life is a struggle, and it's tough. THAT is what it's about. It's the work and the labor that define our character and who we are.

Anyone who creates a culture in which industrial labor and menial service define their character and identity has created an anthill to live in and an ant's identity to live as. Your identity is now defined by your employer. Worse off in some ways than a slave: no achievable amount of money will buy your freedom.

Europe, despite anemic "productivity" (a consequence of simply working fewer hours - by the hour, as productivity used to be measured, Americans are no more productive than Europeans), has lower child mortality rates, taller people in better health, better food, lower rates of crime and mental illness, and less personal debt.

Somehow, they live measurably better lives (in several important respects) on less money.

Americans work much harder - as measured by hours on the job - than they used to. And instead of starting out in a landscape blasted by war they have inherited the fruits of an empire somehow built by their slacker forbears, many of whom created entire households in which only one adult worked at a paying job, and that for only forty hours a week. Are modern Americans' lives really so much better than the lives of Americans in the 60s and 70s ?

Here's a quote for the spreadsheet: "Hard Work Makes One Free" .

I prefer my quote: "He who lives on faith will die fasting" Benjamin Franklin

I'm a quote-monger. I write them down in my little book. Keep them in an Excel spreadsheet all organized by name, but sub organized by topic and date. Yep... I'm a nerd.

~String

I do this with research articles I read.

How is it, that after years of anemic growth as a result of ridiculous red tape and idiotic labor laws, how is it that Europe still holds to this dieing trend?

~String

Are Europeans on the whole, less happy than Americans?

it is very hard to say and see,and i know the different goverment has different privacy....so ,just belive them.besides,such are not something amazing

Many philosophers throughout the ages have said that the main goal of the humanity is happiness and that people should work together in a community to create that happiness. And, as I feel, it can't be measured in numbers.
Of course, you have to have food and a roof above your head, the basic bodily needs must be met, but beyond that there are a lot of other factors that make your life enjoyable and better.

What's wrong with working less? Do people really like to work monotonous jobs?

Well, depends on the job. Many are not monotonous.

Yes, it would be grand if we could all live a relaxed and comfortable life. The European dream, in this, is right on the money. But, guess what... it's only that- a dream. Life is a struggle, and it's tough. THAT is what it's about. It's the work and the labor that define our character and who we are.

So true....

I prefer my quote: "He who lives on faith will die fasting" Benjamin Franklin

I'm a quote-monger. I write them down in my little book. Keep them in an Excel spreadsheet all organized by name, but sub organized by topic and date. Yep... I'm a nerd.

~StringYou should use the program "Clipmarks"

How is it, that after years of anemic growth as a result of ridiculous red tape and idiotic labor laws, how is it that Europe still holds to this dieing trend?

~String

Just wait, right wing won at France, Sweden and here in Finland.
Myself I dont see no problem, rest of the world can work their asses off
if they want to, I prefer decent living standard with decent amount of free time.
example; I dont have a car or even license to drive, and probably will not
ever have. My bicycle keeps me in form and does cost near nothing.

Under capitalism, 80% of the people are neither needed or wanted, they are liabilities, mouths to feed, producing no useful work. This productivity shit is so misleading and way too overrated.

American higher productivity could be seen as a sign of poverty:

Economists often speak of this as revealing different American and European social preferences for work and leisure. In truth, both the employment rate and how long the average person works are explained mainly by political history. Until the late 1970s total hours worked were falling both in Europe and in the USA; since then, total hours worked have continued to fall in the EU-15 but have risen again in the US. Equally, if we look at employment data by age group, Americans join the work force earlier and leave it far later than Europeans. The key to understanding why this has happened is the change in US income distribution over the past 30 years. Since 1979, the bottom 40 per cent of income earners in the US has been treading water while the bottom 20 per cent has become poorer. US workers have needed to put in more years and longer hours simply to maintain their real income position.

And where is American productivity growing?
recent US productivity gains are concentrated in distribution rather than manufacturing, and US growth continues to pull in more imports than it produces exports, resulting in a growing external deficit - funded in part by the EU current account surplus.

Productivity of air.

Comparing the economic performance of the European Union and the USA does not lead one to conclude that America has the more dynamic economy, or that it has performed better in the past or will do so in future. The most crucial feature of the comparison’ is neither the growth nor the unemployment record of the US and the EU. It is, rather, that US growth, unlike that in the EU, is funded by a dangerously high mountain of foreign debt. US external indebtedness in turn is driven by the US house price bubble, enabling US consumers to spend more than they earn. Ironically, it is the EU which, together with China and Japan, continues to lend the money to the US which keeps their households spending and their economy growing.

http://www.federalunion.org.uk/europe/060610EuropevsAmerica.shtml

How is it, that after years of anemic growth as a result of ridiculous red tape and idiotic labor laws, how is it that Europe still holds to this dieing trend?

~String

Because we are not scared of revolt. European workers know damned well that the fruits of their labours are passed upwards, and those receiving them should be grateful. Landowners and Royalty have forgotten this from time to time and need reminding at the point of a pitchfork or block of a guillotine.

If US citizens won't band together, to force change, and improve pay, conditions, and employment rights, they must be happy with the long hours, and insecurity in the labour market. It must be a cultural thing.

And the following figure says a lot.

http://www.federalunion.org.uk/europe/060610irvin.gif

As you can see Americans are forced to work more at an early age. And more importantly at a later age compared to Europeans.

And the following figure says a lot.

http://www.federalunion.org.uk/europe/060610irvin.gif

As you can see Americans are forced to work more at an early age. And more importantly at a later age compared to Europeans.

No - you've made a serious mistake in interpreting the chart and in a basic assumption. Americans are NOT "forced" to work at earlier and later stages of life, they CHOOSE to.

No - you've made a serious mistake in interpreting the chart and in a basic assumption. Americans are NOT "forced" to work at earlier and later stages of life, they CHOOSE to.

I will then refer to the official text that went with this graph:

Once again, the crucial element in understanding these differences is income distribution. At the youth end of the scale, young workers in the US get less education and those who go to university are more likely to work part-time than their European counterparts. At the older end of the scale, pension provision in the US is neither as broad nor as generous as in the EU so people - particularly the poor who cannot afford to save for retirement - carry on working.

http://www.federalunion.org.uk/europe/060610EuropevsAmerica.shtml

That certainly sounds like they are forced.

No - you've made a serious mistake in interpreting the chart and in a basic assumption. Americans are NOT "forced" to work at earlier and later stages of life, they CHOOSE to.
Yup, older American are simply in love with opportunity to greet at Wal-Mart or hand out a receipt with shaky hands. Even though, you could be right, USA is very lonely society. Degradation of the American work place could be a lesser evil than de-facto isolation.

I will then refer to the official text that went with this graph:



http://www.federalunion.org.uk/europe/060610EuropevsAmerica.shtml

That certainly sounds like they are forced.

Once again, a distortion. The biggest number of those people are working because they want something to do, not because they are being forced. You should actually go and talk to some of them instead of accepting either my word ir that of some sour grapes jealous writer in the UK. Do your own research rather than relying on the opinion of those in other countries.

Yup, older American are simply in love with opportunity to greet at Wal-Mart or hand out a receipt with shaky hands. Even though, you could be right, USA is very lonely society. Degradation of the American work place could be a lesser evil than de-facto isolation.

As I just replied to spurious, that's yet another misunderstanding/distortion. The vast majority of the people you're talking about are doing that because they WANT something to do - not because they need it to survive.

And I've NO idea what you're basing your "lonely society" idea upon. I know hundreds of people and none of them seem "lonely" in the least. Care to explain that strange bit of rationale?

Once again, a distortion. The biggest number of those people are working because they want something to do, not because they are being forced. You should actually go and talk to some of them instead of accepting either my word ir that of some sour grapes jealous writer in the UK. Do your own research rather than relying on the opinion of those in other countries.

I am certainly not going to take your word for it, spawn of satan.

I have on occasion had to "work" in the U.S with various companies I have worked for that do business in U.S and Canada. The "culture" is soooo different(even within the same company). Canada is certainly more layed back, even in a big city like Toronto. In the U.S, even in midsize cities(schnectady, Dayton, Indy - some I have been to) it's "arrive before the boss gets there, go home after he leaves". This is universal in all american corporate culture. In the two cross-border companies I worked for, they would try to spread the culture to Canada and it would be universally rejected, sometimes very directly and VERY bluntly. One company was American and the other Canadian, both cases the Americans figured hey what's with these Canadians not willing to stay late? We are not cogs in the machine, it's that simple. GNP GDP are terms for the wealthy.

I used to think Canadians did this...subconciously, because even if all industry left Canada(it didn't and Canadians of a per capita basis are very productive), we could just slip back into a resource based economy only. Probably better for Canada if we did. However it is good to see Europeans can be layed back too. Look at it this way, with all the cheap labour in Asia, goods are also cheap, you really only need to work for food and roof.

I am certainly not going to take your word for it, spawn of satan.

I suggested that you not take my word for it - or anyone else's for that matter. Get off your lazy rear end and do your own research.

Right. When you've nothing intelligent to respond with, resort to childish name-calling. Absoultely brilliant!

I suggested that you not take my word for it - or anyone else's for that matter. Get off your lazy rear end and do your own research.

Right. When you've nothing intelligent to respond with, resort to childish name-calling. Absoultely brilliant!

wow...thought you actually had a link!!! It was just underlined.

I did my research. I posted the source. Now you have to do your research and prove me wrong. This is not america.

wow...thought you actually had a link!!! It was just underlined.

I did my research. I posted the source. Now you have to do your research and prove me wrong. This is not america.

Nope, not going to bother with it. I've no interest in proving anything to you nor anyone else.

I'll let you in on TWO big secrets here:

1) I honestly do not care what you think or believe.

2) I find the whole issue that you and others are pushing to be highly amusing. That's because the majority of people in the the world that are so down on Americans are actually showing their true colors without even being aware of it. It's jealously, pure and simple. They are jealous of what America has accomplished and continues to accomplish. It's really nothing more than that.

This is universal in all american corporate culture. In the two cross-border companies I worked for, they would try to spread the culture to Canada and it would be universally rejected, sometimes very directly and VERY bluntly.
In what way did they try and "spread" this culture across?

In what way did they try and "spread" this culture across?

Some examples (things they did differently things that would never be attempted except the most foolish employers in Canada):

1. Schedule a meeting at 7 am(no one in nearly any Canadian office works at that time).

2. Ask for private Cell number(this is such a big nono in Canada)

3. Ask that the private cell number be used for dispatch(this one really floored me).

4. Call at 5PM for a meeting(see #1).

5. Yes indeed actually ask where I was at 7 am when I visited the Greenville SC for corporate "training". Training started at 8am, expectation was you would at least try and resolve any over the phone issue you could by 8 am. When I told them I was asleep in my hotel room, they told my boss(in Canada) and he said "I really can't authorize that kind of thing for overtime. They did a LOL@"overtime", my boss LOL@them "This is Canada we have certain human rights laws to obey regarding overtime."

6. Generally talk to you as if you were easily replacable/replicated/redundant or were /beneath them/in kindergarden/providing no service.

7. Completely disregard any issue brought to them(I mean IGNORE), I do not know if this was just toward canadians and American employee concerns would be entertained.

8. This is how "corporate" atmosphere differs, perhaps not so drastic at med/small business level.

Thats interesting, I may get a chance to work a year at one of our sites in the US or Canada (Toronto in fact), I work for a French Company in the UK, and our work culture sounds similar to the Canadians. On the other hand it would be interesting to work for a while under those conditions you outlined above, though I don't know if I could put up with that forever.

At the end of the day I want a good balance between work and free time, theres a limit to how much free time I was willing to sacrifice just for a bit of extra money. And if overtime was unpaid, well screw that!

The thing you have to remember about Europe is we've already done the global empire thing mostly.
The roman empire of course, the british empire, the germans had their nazi party thing (woops). The french always claim they ruled the world at one point in some form or another, they never did of course but the point is they believe that they did.
The spanish as well of course were incredibly profficient at invading other nations and generally spoiling other peoples fun in the process.
So what im trying to get at is, we all know where expansionism leads, most of us have had our time in the spot-light and now we'd rather get on with riding round on our mopeds and drinking lots of rich coffee if you dont mind. :p

Im sure it all looks awfully lazy from an american perspective but the thing is youre still very much in the honey moon phase of being a global superpower. Everythings still exciting and new to you lot, and so it should be it is exiciting being at the healm.

But as i said, we've already had our collective fling with power, now if you dont mind these books on french philosophy wont read themselves *goes to sit outside local cafe*

The french always claim they ruled the world at one point in some form or another, they never did of course but the point is they believe that they did.

They had Napoleon. That was only in Europe though.

Napoleon = flash in the pan like Hitler.

Thats interesting, I may get a chance to work a year at one of our sites in the US or Canada (Toronto in fact), I work for a French Company in the UK, and our work culture sounds similar to the Canadians. On the other hand it would be interesting to work for a while under those conditions you outlined above, though I don't know if I could put up with that forever.

At the end of the day I want a good balance between work and free time, theres a limit to how much free time I was willing to sacrifice just for a bit of extra money. And if overtime was unpaid, well screw that!

oh boy:bravo:

golly gee.

I've noticed americans are not really anymore hardworking, they gossip, waste time and shoot the breeze a lot. What you could get accomplished in four hours is just stretched out to eight. America has sound protocol on paper but I don't see it manifested in real life and this is where it gets people and confuses them because america will always defend with this or that seemingly progressive or moral bit they insist they're aware of yet the people in when you see it in the trenches don't live necessarily what they preach.

I think iceaura pretty much nailed being enslaved to a system which exploits a heirarchy not so much that everyone is hardworking and benefits from it. Most people are high-stress or apathetic and struggling from paycheck to paycheck and have no savings. I think most people work to make others rich basically.

oh boy:bravo:

golly gee.

How about you go away and grow a penis John.

I've noticed americans are not really anymore hardworking, they gossip, waste time and shoot the breeze a lot. What you could get accomplished in four hours is just stretched out to eight. America has sound protocol on paper but I don't see it manifested in real life and this is where it gets people and confuses them because america will always defend with this or that seemingly progressive or moral bit they insist they're aware of yet the people in when you see it in the trenches don't live necessarily what they preach.

I think iceaura pretty much nailed being enslaved to a system which exploits a heirarchy not so much that everyone is hardworking and benefits from it. Most people are high-stress or apathetic and struggling from paycheck to paycheck and have no savings. I think most people work to make others rich basically.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion and I'll make no effort to change it. But I do feel a bit of an obligation to report that that's not at all what I see.

Just about everyone I know makes an honest effort to put in a full day's work, keeps their bills paid and slowly but steadily improves their standard of living. They do realize that their efforts make money for the people they work for BUT they also realize that it it didn't, they wouldn't have a job at all. So no one really cares much about that (except for a very small minority of stupid people who would rather complain than work anyway).

And there's still one thing that is NOT a matter of opinion because the records are there for everyone to see - Americans are more productive than their European counterparts.

Americans are more productive than their European counterparts.
Sure they are, but that's like parrot saying "I have better wings" to a fish.
Different mentality, different environment, different views and life expectations.
Generally speaking of course.

Sure they are, but that's like parrot saying "I have better wings" to a fish.
Different mentality, different environment, different views and life expectations.
Generally speaking of course.

And I agree perfectly - 100%.

As I just replied to spurious, that's yet another misunderstanding/distortion. The vast majority of the people you're talking about are doing that because they WANT something to do - not because they need it to survive.The wast majority of old people working at the low wage places (some barely managing the job) are there because they NEED money, whatever crumbles they may get. Sure, most of them could survive on social security (if they have it) in a trailer park or under a bridge, but circumstances (like expensive meds or deliquent children/grandchildren, sick spouse, property taxes, etc.) forces them to work whatever job they can get.


And I've NO idea what you're basing your "lonely society" idea upon. I know hundreds of people and none of them seem "lonely" in the least. Care to explain that strange bit of rationale?
Appearances are deceptive. All western industrial countries have paid with broken social/family ties and loneliness for "prosperity", but the USA has paid the steepest price, it must be all those "no sidewalks" neighborhoods. If you really want to go in the depth, here is an academic article for you: "understanding the American decline in social capital, 1952-1998", Kyklos, vol 56, 2003, p. 17-46.

And there's still one thing that is NOT a matter of opinion because the records are there for everyone to see - Americans are more productive than their European counterparts. Only because they work more hours, or sometimes for less money (at blue collar level).

Seriously, the word "productivity" is being misused in this - it's supposed to mean efficiency per labor unit ( a measure of how well or how hard one worked, useful in analysing wages), then it slid to efficiency per dollar spent on labor (so inflation's wage cuts improved "productivity" with nothing else changing), now it's simply how much work product is produced per year per worker.

Misleading.

Against the larger pile of work product produced by the long hours and mutliple jobs per household, negligence of the many and fundamental unpaid tasks of life should be balanced - such as, very visible here, the childish and uninformed politics of those who simply haven't the time to cover that basic adult responsibility. Or in another measure, the education of children, now turned over almost completely to (underpaid) professionals.

At some point the hamster wheel is simply spinning too fast - and in the crash, the debt load comes down heavily.

The wast majority of old people working at the low wage places (some barely managing the job) are there because they NEED money, whatever crumbles they may get. Sure, most of them could survive on social security (if they have it) in a trailer park or under a bridge, but circumstances (like expensive meds or deliquent children/grandchildren, sick spouse, property taxes, etc.) forces them to work whatever job they can get.

I don't find that to be true of all the ones I've spoken to and I've talked with dozens of them. (Unlike the way I might come across here to many, I actually enjoy taking the time to stop and chat with people I meet whenever they have the the time - and those WalMart greeters do). They all say pretty much the same thing - their kids are grown and moved out, they're drawing their social security and/or retirement checks and simply WANT something to do outside the house. They would rather be out in public working for minimum wage instead of just sitting at home doing nothing, Despite what others here seem to think, working is VERY much a part of American culture - and they miss it.

And most of them DO receive Social Security benefits as well as Medicade and Medicare. And although it will change in the future, a large number of them also receive a pension check AND medical insurance as part of their retirement plans. So most of what you've said I find to be pure bogus. None of them are homeless - the vast majority of homless people do NOT even want to work and don't have to.



Appearances are deceptive. All western industrial countries have paid with broken social/family ties and loneliness for "prosperity", but the USA has paid the steepest price, it must be all those "no sidewalks" neighborhoods. If you really want to go in the depth, here is an academic article for you: "understanding the American decline in social capital, 1952-1998", Kyklos, vol 56, 2003, p. 17-46.

I'll try and find that, thanks for the reference.

Only because they work more hours, or sometimes for less money (at blue collar level).

Seriously, the word "productivity" is being misused in this - it's supposed to mean efficiency per labor unit ( a measure of how well or how hard one worked, useful in analysing wages), then it slid to efficiency per dollar spent on labor (so inflation's wage cuts improved "productivity" with nothing else changing), now it's simply how much work product is produced per year per worker.

Misleading.

Against the larger pile of work product produced by the long hours and mutliple jobs per household, negligence of the many and fundamental unpaid tasks of life should be balanced - such as, very visible here, the childish and uninformed politics of those who simply haven't the time to cover that basic adult responsibility. Or in another measure, the education of children, now turned over almost completely to (underpaid) professionals.

At some point the hamster wheel is simply spinning too fast - and in the crash, the debt load comes down heavily.

No, it's not misleading in the least. It means exactly as you stated it - output per hour worked, not gross total output. It's you that's laboring under a misconception - sorry.

No, it's not misleading in the least. It means exactly as you stated it - output per hour worked, not gross total output. It's you that's laboring under a misconception - sorry. No, I'm not - according to the Mckinsey reports, as cited in the OP, anyway.

The measure of "productivity" in which the US leads the EU consistently is GDP per capita per year. In output per hour worked, France and Germany among others match or lead the US, and have for more than ten years now.

The Mckinsey reports use three different measures of "productivity". The one used by the "socialist Europe is falling apart" crowd is the GDP per capita - which is swamped by the extraordinary hours US people are willing to devote to wage labor as opposed to the rest of their lives and adult responsibilities.

Here are the data from the early reports, when the EU had first caught up to the US in output per hour productivity (it's gotten worse since).

http://www.tuc.org.uk/partnership/tuc-2357-f0.cfm
Economic prosperity - GDP per head

The McKinsey report starts with the broadest measure of economic performance, GDP per head of population, - -
- - -
Today, most of the EU states have levels of GDP per head within 5 to 10 per cent of each other. So although the UK has one of the lower levels of economic prosperity within the EU, the gap between the UK and France, Italy, and united Germany is relatively small and all the EU major economies have a significant gap in terms of GDP per head with the US.
- --

Productivity in the workplace - hourly productivity (GDP per hour worked)

The poor US record on workplace productivity has meant that the US has effectively surrendered the huge workplace productivity lead it had over the major EU economies in the 1960s. In 1960 hourly productivity was between 40 and 50 per cent higher than in the US than in Germany, France or the UK. Today, hourly productivity is virtually the same in US, (W) German, and French workplaces - and even the UK has significantly closed the gap.
This is hardly a new finding: the DTI had clearly identified the policy implication in a study published in January 1998.
- - - -
The table below shows estimates of GDP per hour worked between 1960 and 1995 produced by the US Employment Policy Institute (EPI). Latest figures from the OECD for 1996 are also shown in the chart, although these figures are on a slightly different basis and are not directly comparable with those in the table.

US LOSES THE WORKPLACE PRODUCTIVITY LEAD TO EUROPE
GDP per hour worked

US = 100
1960 1973 1995
US 100 100 100
France 54 73 102
W. Germany 52 69 101
Italy 40 64 90
UK 58 66 84
US Employment Policy Institute, Feb 1998.

Pursuit of happiness, if you recall, used to be one of the guiding principles around here. Times have changed.

I don't find that to be true of all the ones I've spoken to and I've talked with dozens of them. (Unlike the way I might come across here to many, I actually enjoy taking the time to stop and chat with people I meet whenever they have the the time - and those WalMart greeters do). They all say pretty much the same thing - their kids are grown and moved out, they're drawing their social security and/or retirement checks and simply WANT something to do outside the house. They would rather be out in public working for minimum wage instead of just sitting at home doing nothing, Despite what others here seem to think, .
As it is, Americans are extremely unsincere people; when the financial/job = status issues are discussed, don't expect much truth to be told; when those questions are being asked in the places where one can be overheard by a coworker, just forget about it, you better speak with a stone wall (unless meaningless banalities is all you want to hear). I had opportunity to speak with working old geezers as one of their own not a customer (since I'm foreign born, I have an accent, and I'm automatically considered a slightly challenged and absolutely not dangerous). The most "optimistic" reply on the question why in the hell you keep on doing this job was a shrug and a look, meaning "don't ask stupid questions".

working is VERY much a part of American culture - and they miss it Getting out of the work force is becoming a new American dream. I drive all over states, talking with many folks, they definitely are not excited about their jobs. Provided the outside means, most would leave.

And most of them DO receive Social Security benefits as well as Medicade and Medicare. And although it will change in the future, a large number of them also receive a pension check AND medical insurance as part of their retirement plans.

One must get into government to catch pensions and medical insurance upon retirement, government or upper management, there is going to be no other way. $400-800 social security check would buy one a lot, no need to work (unless one can't live without working for somebody else).


So most of what you've said I find to be pure bogus. None of them are homeless - the vast majority of homless people do NOT even want to work and don't have to.
I must have bogus eyes and ears. Vast majority of homeless (again, I see lots of them around states) are challenged in one way or the other. Their homeleseness is not a choice, it's the only option society&circumstances left them.

The Mckinsey reports use three different measures of "productivity". The one used by the "socialist Europe is falling apart" crowd is the GDP per capita - which is swamped by the extraordinary hours US people are willing to devote to wage labor as opposed to the rest of their lives and adult responsibilities.Yes, I wrote a paper on that a few years ago. There was abundant evidence that Americans, as a people, prefer being at work over being with their families. They were found to have closer, more intimate, less dysfunctional relationships with coworkers than with family members. They give their jobs more importance than their family responsibilities; when they go home they take their office problems with them, instead of vice versa.

I will never forget the most shocking finding: Many Americans deliberately stay late at the office to avoid the responsibility of raising their own children.

Comparable studies done in Europe found that Europeans, as a people, were happy to give up large houses, SUVs, big-screen TVs and a steady diet of junk food, in order to spend more time with their families in their smaller, lower-tech homes.

There are paople i know who love to work. They are like 80 years old and nothing can take them away from their jobs, vacations, siotting home etc.

My grandmother worked till she was like 90, after awhile the boss whouldnt even pay her and she'd still go there just to sit...what a pain in the ass.

i dont work too much.

what you've stated goes against most of what i've learned eurpean and also asian workers are more productive per an hour of work because they have better healthcare and their companies don't treat their workers like serfs squeezing everything they can out of them. I guessing you total productivity and per a man hour. the per and hour worked is a better indicater of worker productivty and europe beats us in that

I suggested that you not take my word for it - or anyone else's for that matter. Get off your lazy rear end and do your own research.

Right. When you've nothing intelligent to respond with, resort to childish name-calling. Absoultely brilliant!

that reminds of a what one of my teachers in high school told his classes never take anything you are taught just straight up do your own research find the info and come to your own reasoned opionin

Nope, not going to bother with it. I've no interest in proving anything to you nor anyone else.

I'll let you in on TWO big secrets here:

1) I honestly do not care what you think or believe.

2) I find the whole issue that you and others are pushing to be highly amusing. That's because the majority of people in the the world that are so down on Americans are actually showing their true colors without even being aware of it. It's jealously, pure and simple. They are jealous of what America has accomplished and continues to accomplish. It's really nothing more than that.

dude other countries aren't jealus of us nor do they envy us they pity us

They had Napoleon. That was only in Europe though.

he was italian

You are certainly entitled to your opinion and I'll make no effort to change it. But I do feel a bit of an obligation to report that that's not at all what I see.

Just about everyone I know makes an honest effort to put in a full day's work, keeps their bills paid and slowly but steadily improves their standard of living. They do realize that their efforts make money for the people they work for BUT they also realize that it it didn't, they wouldn't have a job at all. So no one really cares much about that (except for a very small minority of stupid people who would rather complain than work anyway).

And there's still one thing that is NOT a matter of opinion because the records are there for everyone to see - Americans are more productive than their European counterparts.

no there not

he was italian

That doesn't matter; he ruled in France(and he was king of Italy I suppose, but he started with France and changed his name to make it sound more French).

no there not

they're*

No, I'm not - according to the Mckinsey reports, as cited in the OP, anyway.

The measure of "productivity" in which the US leads the EU consistently is GDP per capita per year. In output per hour worked, France and Germany among others match or lead the US, and have for more than ten years now.

The Mckinsey reports use three different measures of "productivity". The one used by the "socialist Europe is falling apart" crowd is the GDP per capita - which is swamped by the extraordinary hours US people are willing to devote to wage labor as opposed to the rest of their lives and adult responsibilities.

Here are the data from the early reports, when the EU had first caught up to the US in output per hour productivity (it's gotten worse since).

http://www.tuc.org.uk/partnership/tuc-2357-f0.cfm


Pursuit of happiness, if you recall, used to be one of the guiding principles around here. Times have changed.

Yes, it actually is a complex measurement and there are several methods of computing it. Here's one source that goes into it pretty deeply and broadly: http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:z7ulwX3zPGwJ:www.thebuggyprofessor. org/archives/00000041.php+%22productivity+by+hours+worked%22+%2 Bcountry&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us

What I find to be highly interesting about the whole matter is that Europe has made it's productivity gains at the COST of higher unemployment. France and Spain are both strong examples of this and I'd bet you're aware of the all the riots in France not long ago that were sparked by the difficulty of young people, immigrants in particular, getting jobs.

In the U.S., employment is considered a major part of the economy. As a result, unemployment in the U.S. has been considerably less when compared to European overall averages. Has been and continues to be.

If it weren't for all the various social handout programs prevalent in Europe, there would be many, many people starving simply because they cannot find work. A lot of those programs result in young people becoming "career students" well into their late 20s, early 30s - something very, very rare in the U.S.

Europe’s productivity is nearly one-third lower than America’s, according to a new study in the McKinsey Quarterly, because Europeans have chosen to work less than Americans.

This shouldn't be a surprise. France has a 35 hour work week not counting cigarette breaks, and Paris was set on fire after Chirac tried to pass a law that allowed for the possibility of being fired before you were 25. Sounds pretty Utopian to me:)

This shouldn't be a surprise. France has a 35 hour work week not counting cigarette breaks, and Paris was set on fire after Chirac tried to pass a law that allowed for the possibility of being fired before you were 25. Sounds pretty Utopian to me:)

And the key phrase there was "...because Europeans have chosen to work less than Americans." Emphasis on the word chosen. As someone rightly said earlier - and that I agreed with - it's a difference of culture, for one thing. Americans actually LIKE to work more than many other cultures.

What I find to be highly interesting about the whole matter is that Europe has made it's productivity gains at the COST of higher unemployment. And the cost of universal health care, high-quality education, well-calculated infrastructure investment, etc.

That is a "first world", or modern industrial economy, strategy.

The US, on the other hand, maintains its high employment rates by suppressing wages and lowering relative productivity (in various ways, including refusing to invest in productivity-increasing services such as health care and education) -

a "third world" strategy.

So it's easier to supply a job, and therefore to get a job, in the US: the jobs require little, produce little, and pay little (exaggerating here, for brevity). The downside is, of course, that in such an economy long working hours become both necessary and required.

And the cost of universal health care, high-quality education, well-calculated infrastructure investment, etc.

That is a "first world", or modern industrial economy, strategy.

The US, on the other hand, maintains its high employment rates by suppressing wages and lowering relative productivity (in various ways, including refusing to invest in productivity-increasing services such as health care and education) -

a "third world" strategy.

So it's easier to supply a job, and therefore to get a job, in the US: the jobs require little, produce little, and pay little (exaggerating here, for brevity). The downside is, of course, that in such an economy long working hours become both necessary and required.

So then the standard of living must be considerably higher in Europe, right?

Americans actually LIKE to work more than many other cultures.

Perhaps, if they like the job they end up in.

I understand that it is easy for me to say "I like work" as I sit in a coffee shop uncovering the mysteries of the universe, or sit on a patio smoking my pipe deriving equations, for which I get a decent salary:)

The US, on the other hand, maintains its high employment rates by suppressing wages and lowering relative productivity (in various ways, including refusing to invest in productivity-increasing services such as health care and education) -

This seems to be inconsistent with the original post---namely that Europeans are less productive than Americans. I would be interested to see how these things figure in to total productivity (i.e. numbers as opposed to hand-wavy arguments).

I'd rather have people working that turning cars over and setting them on fire...

So then the standard of living must be considerably higher in Europe, right?

I think this is true. The gap between the poorest and richest is also much lower. It's better to be poor in Europe and rich in America, I guess.

So then the standard of living must be considerably higher in Europe, right? How are you measuring that? They are (measuring recent demographics) taller, healthier, living in communities with lower rates of crime, have fewer people in jail, have lower rates of VD and drug addiction, get longer vacations and better medical care on average, are better educated, work fewer hours, and so forth,

and this accomplished one generation after WWII, while living for fifty years on the border of Russia and various menaces, on the foundation of a landscape blasted by a thousand years of war and large-scale economic exploitation, and with their productivity - the real, per hour output - having just recently caught up to and passed the US.

So they would appear to be doing something right, no?

This seems to be inconsistent with the original post---namely that Europeans are less productive than Americans. I would be interested to see how these things figure in to total productivity (i.e. numbers as opposed to hand-wavy arguments). The link I quoted from, and Read's link, have numbers.

The original post, as I pointed out, has two very different kinds of "productivity" confused. Europeans produce less per citizen per year, total. But Europeans are more productive per hour worked by employed person.

Americans simply work more hours, lots and lots more hours, per citizen per year.

By "work" is meant: paid employment.

Perhaps, if they like the job they end up in.

I understand that it is easy for me to say "I like work" as I sit in a coffee shop uncovering the mysteries of the universe, or sit on a patio smoking my pipe deriving equations, for which I get a decent salary:)



This seems to be inconsistent with the original post---namely that Europeans are less productive than Americans. I would be interested to see how these things figure in to total productivity (i.e. numbers as opposed to hand-wavy arguments).

I'd rather have people working that turning cars over and setting them on fire...



I think this is true. The gap between the poorest and richest is also much lower. It's better to be poor in Europe and rich in America, I guess.

You would think the stsndard of living would be MUCH higher in Europe, especially given Iceaura's rosy picture of better education, universal healthcare, etc. But the real fact is that's LOWER! He won't mention that and I doubt he's honest enough to even address it - so I will. Here's one source: http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:iTOQUYW9LQIJ:www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/world-top-ten-quality-of-life-map.html+%22standard+of+living%22+%2Bcountry&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us

erm, how do you measure that?

You would think the stsndard of living would be MUCH higher in Europe, especially given Iceaura's rosy picture of better education, universal healthcare, etc. But the real fact is that's LOWER! He won't mention that and I doubt he's honest enough to even address it - So far you've been wrong about most everything else here, and my "honesty" has been impugned by you - likewise in a context of not admitting your own errors - before: my dishonesty is old news, in your posts.

But hey, if every single argument you make has to be accompanied by that kind of spew, I'll continue to let two out of three pass without comment. Have at 'er.

Europeans are a generation removed from cataclysm, building an industrial economy on a landscape degraded by a thousand years of exploitation. If their "standard of living" doesn't match up in this or that feature, to the unparalleled wonderfulness of the United States, there are other explanations available than inferiority of work ethic or recently chosen economic structure.

That said, I will add to the other statistical comparisons that I used to address "standard of living" in my usual dishonest fashion - again, how measured? - the fact that Europeans have lower rates of abortion and child mortality both. And nude beaches, standard.

Meanwhile, about the thread topic: Europeans continuing their "low productivity" ways is not all that mysterious, and has no need of explanation by character or virtue - or lack of same. The way they are doing things is, in several easily measured and obvious ways, working very well by anyone's standards.

I don't understand the problem of this topic...
If Americans are working more and thus producing more stuff, more power to them
If Europeans are working less, to have more free time, but less produce, more freedom to them.

Where's the problem?

Standard of living in america = sq footage of house + # of flatscreens + # of cars in driveway + number of mistresses

Where's the problem? The problem is in your ascription of "more freedom" to the European.

That is impossible.

Based on what I've read, I'd say Europeans are "happier" than Americans, but produce less, have a lower standard of living and less material goods...

they're*

thank you

Based on what I've read, I'd say Europeans are "happier" than Americans, but produce less, have a lower standard of living and less material goods...

A higher standard of living. One based on social values instead of material values, combined with a better level of education, social protection and healthcare for all.

The problem is in your ascription of "more freedom" to the European.

That is impossible.

The more you are off work, the more time you have to do other things, thus more freedom to pursue other interests.

So far you've been wrong about most everything else here, and my "honesty" has been impugned by you - likewise in a context of not admitting your own errors - before: my dishonesty is old news, in your posts.

I will readily, and have in the past, clearly admitted when I'm wrong once I realize it or become convinced of it. So let us continue...


Europeans are a generation removed from cataclysm, building an industrial economy on a landscape degraded by a thousand years of exploitation. If their "standard of living" doesn't match up in this or that feature, to the unparalleled wonderfulness of the United States, there are other explanations available than inferiority of work ethic or recently chosen economic structure.

Since this topic has come down to fine points of fact, I need to point out your glaring error here - it's been slightly over two generations since the end of the war, not one. 60 years to rebuild and WITH considerable aid from the U.S. doesn't strike me as being a huge accomplishment, it's actually more like foot-dragging.

That said, I will add to the other statistical comparisons that I used to address "standard of living" in my usual dishonest fashion - again, how measured? - the fact that Europeans have lower rates of abortion and child mortality both. And nude beaches, standard.

Meanwhile, about the thread topic: Europeans continuing their "low productivity" ways is not all that mysterious, and has no need of explanation by character or virtue - or lack of same. The way they are doing things is, in several easily measured and obvious ways, working very well by anyone's standards.[/QUOTE]

I honestly don't know how the standards of living are measured for the world's countries. But every resource I could find - including the one I provided in that link - all agree that with the exception of a couple of northwestern countires, Europe is behind the U.S. and Australia. And I repeat, given the glowing report you continue to adhere to (education, healthcare, etc.) one would expect it to be CONSIDERABLY higher, not lower. So just exactly how do you explain that?

The standard of living refers to the quality and quantity of goods and services available to people and the way these services and goods are distributed within a population. It is generally measured by standards such as income inequality, poverty rate, real (i.e. inflation adjusted) income per person. Other measures such as access and quality of health care, educational standards and social rights are often used too. Examples are access to certain goods (such as number of refrigerators per 1000 people), or measures of health such as life expectancy. It is the ease by which people living in a country are able to satisfy their wants.

The idea of a 'standard' may be contrasted with the quality of life, which takes into account not only the material standard of living, but also other more subjective factors that contribute to human life, such as leisure, safety, cultural resources, social life, mental health, environmental quality issues etc. More complex means of measuring well-being must be employed to make such judgements, and these are very often political, thus controversial. Even among two nations or societies that have similar material standards of living, quality of life factors may in fact make one of these places more attractive to a given individual or group.

However, there can be problems even with just using numerical averages to compare material standards of living, as opposed to, for instance, a Pareto index. Standards of living are perhaps inherently subjective. As an example, countries with a very small, very rich upper class and a very large, very poor lower class may have a high mean level of income, even though the majority of people have a low "standard of living". This mirrors the problem of poverty measurement, which also tends towards the relative. This illustrates how distribution of income can disguise the actual Standard of living.

There are many factors being considered before measuring standard of living. Some factors are gross domestic product, the per capita income, population, infrastructural development, stability (political and social), and many other indicators.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_of_living

The standard of living refers to the quality and quantity of goods and services available to people and the way these services and goods are distributed within a population. It is generally measured by standards such as income inequality, poverty rate, real (i.e. inflation adjusted) income per person. Other measures such as access and quality of health care, educational standards and social rights are often used too. Examples are access to certain goods (such as number of refrigerators per 1000 people), or measures of health such as life expectancy. It is the ease by which people living in a country are able to satisfy their wants.

The idea of a 'standard' may be contrasted with the quality of life, which takes into account not only the material standard of living, but also other more subjective factors that contribute to human life, such as leisure, safety, cultural resources, social life, mental health, environmental quality issues etc. More complex means of measuring well-being must be employed to make such judgements, and these are very often political, thus controversial. Even among two nations or societies that have similar material standards of living, quality of life factors may in fact make one of these places more attractive to a given individual or group.

However, there can be problems even with just using numerical averages to compare material standards of living, as opposed to, for instance, a Pareto index. Standards of living are perhaps inherently subjective. As an example, countries with a very small, very rich upper class and a very large, very poor lower class may have a high mean level of income, even though the majority of people have a low "standard of living". This mirrors the problem of poverty measurement, which also tends towards the relative. This illustrates how distribution of income can disguise the actual Standard of living.

There are many factors being considered before measuring standard of living. Some factors are gross domestic product, the per capita income, population, infrastructural development, stability (political and social), and many other indicators.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_of_living

Thank you, Avatar.

Yes, I'm aware of the definition AND of the problems in assigning numbers with real values. And that's exactly why I said that I don't know how different sources come up with their final results.

Seriously - I'm not being argumentative here, I'm asking a question. Given that so many European countries DO provide free education, free healthcare, the population works fewer hours, takes more holiday time, etc., why then does every source I could find place their standard of living below that of the U.S. and Australia? That really does seem like a puzzle to me.

Could it be because of the higher unemployment rates in most of Europe? That's the only thing I can see at the moment. Is there more to it? Higher taxes, fewer choices of things to do/enjoy or what? A greater portion of their income is spent on just staying alive? I would really like to see some concrete answers.

The standard of living refers to the quality and quantity of goods and services available to people and the way these services and goods are distributed within a population. It is generally measured by standards such as income inequality, poverty rate, real (i.e. inflation adjusted) income per person. Other measures such as access and quality of health care, educational standards and social rights are often used too. Examples are access to certain goods (such as number of refrigerators per 1000 people), or measures of health such as life expectancy. It is the ease by which people living in a country are able to satisfy their wants.

From the information above it seems that SOL is mainly a material quantity of the ability to buy and obtain stuff, but it disregards immaterial gains.

So maybe we should better have a look at Quality of Life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_of_life) instead of Standard of Living?


http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/4371/qolum7.jpg


http://www.mercerhr.com/qol

---
Or take me for example. I live in what until recently was considered a 3rd worldish country - Latvia.
I'm a working student studying for my master's degree, I don't have a flat, a car, a tv, or even a fridge.
But I live with my parents, because the flat is big and I like their company, and by living together we save greatly. So do many of my friends.

I don't have a car, because I can get everywhere using public transport. And when I need to get somewhere remote with my friends, we rent a car.

And I don't have a tv, because, frankly, it's a waste of perfectly good time that I can spend with my friends by doing fun stuff together (tonight we will have a party at my place).

I am insured by my employer and most of my income just sits there, because I have no need to spend it. And what I spend is for non-profits, cultural activities, hiking, etc. And to many of those events I'm invited and don't spend anything, because the organisers or participants are my friends, people I have good relations with or non-profits for which I do some pro bono work now and then.

So, by American standards my standard of living is really low, because I have very little stuff of my own, but I'm very satisfied with my life and would not imagine going to that same USA for example.

From the information above it seems that SOL is mainly a material quantity of the ability to buy and obtain stuff, but it disregards immaterial gains.

So maybe we should better have a look at Quality of Life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_of_life) instead of Standard of Living?


http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/4371/qolum7.jpg


http://www.mercerhr.com/qol

---
Or take me for example. I live in what until recently was considered a 3rd worldish country - Latvia.
I'm a working student studying for my master's degree, I don't have a flat, a car, a tv, or even a fridge.
But I live with my parents, because the flat is big and I like their company, and by living together we save greatly. So do many of my friends.

I don't have a car, because I can get everywhere using public transport. And when I need to get somewhere remote with my friends, we rent a car.

And I don't have a tv, because, frankly, it's a waste of perfectly good time that I can spend with my friends by doing fun stuff together (tonight we will have a party at my place).

I am insured by my employer and most of my income just sits there, because I have no need to spend it. And what I spend is for non-profits, cultural activities, hiking, etc.

So, by American standards my standard of living is really low, because I have very little stuff of my own, but I'm very satisfied with my life and would not imagine going to that same USA for example.

Now that IS interesting - and I believe you're on to something here!! :)

You're correct that much of your lifestyle would be unacceptable to many people your age in the U.S. I do know some that parallel you pretty closely but they are clearly in the minority here. Most are more than eager to "leave the nest" and start living on their own.

As I've mentioned more than once, it's very much a difference in cultures. Americans pride themselves on their independence and it would be tantamount to an admission of failure to still be living with their parents at your age. I personally see no problem at all with it but I'm a very practical sort of person anyway. ;)

So I believe we now have it nicely pegged - it's almost entirely a matter of culture and personal preference - nothing more than that. Good. It's nice to have the answer to my question - thank you!!

No problem.
I did a little edit in my post while you were replying:
And to many of those events I'm invited and don't spend anything, because the organisers or participants are my friends, people I have good relations with or non-profits for which I do some pro bono work now and then..
If you are a member of a particualar community or subculture in Europe (I don't know about the USA, haven't been there), you can rely that your friends or just people you know will help you out, invite to events, concerts, give free tickets, share an appartment, etc. Many expenses are avoided by asking help, and nobody is shy to do that, and most are eager to provide it.
For example, a friend of mine recently moved into a new flat (found with help of friends) with her husband.
She just made a post at a local internet community weblog, and her stuff from the old apartment was moved and loaded, the new place washed and cleaned, food and drinks offered and a night long celebration followed.

So, even though my friend didn't spend any money, she managed to get a new appartment, move into it and prepare it suited for living in two days.

That is why most value social relationships and spending time together over big, shiny stuff to fill the house with - you get a good quality life that way, even if you have far less money than your American counterparts, and much of that quality is immaterial.

. Americans pride themselves on their independence and it would be tantamount to an admission of failure to still be living with their parents at your age.
:D I see.
Well, it can be said, that instead of striving for independence we are embracing dependence. And it works for us.
Of course, I'm talking just about the communities/subcultures I'm in contact with,
so it's a subjective view.

:D I see.
Well, it can be said, that instead of striving for independence we are embracing dependence. And it works for us.
Of course, I'm talking just about the communities/subcultures I'm in contact with,
so it's a subjective view.

Yep, I can clearly see what you're talking about. :) And again, it fits perfectly within what I've come to recognize as simple differences in culture.

Americans can work together quite well while on the job (some don't, of course, but I suppose that's universal) where rules and procedures are predefined. But in their private lives there's much, much less cooperation. It tends to be limited to families and just a very select few other friends - nothing like what you describe there. While the vast majority of us are happy to help a friend or neighbor with something, most of us are quite busy taking care of our own affairs and assume everyone else is also.

And it's not so much as being like isolationism in action, it's more a matter of being personally responsible for taking care of our own personal situations, well, personally. We are MUCH quicker to offer help than we are to call for it, if you follow what I'm saying. It's all a part of that American culture thing of being independent. I cannot fully explain it except for one part - by doing things on our own we feel free to do it as WE want rather than being told how do do it by others. In a very real sense, it allows us more freedom of individual expression.

It's difficult to explain, I admit but here's a small example. If someone decided to repaint the rooms in his house and invited 10 friends to help, he'd quickly get eight or nine different suggestions as to which color(s) to use. Despite the fact that he already knows what HE wants. ;)

From the information above it seems that SOL is mainly a material quantity of the ability to buy and obtain stuff, but it disregards immaterial gains.

So maybe we should better have a look at Quality of Life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_of_life) instead of Standard of Living?


http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/4371/qolum7.jpg


http://www.mercerhr.com/qol



Wow the only major Canadian city missing is Edmonton, which I found to be quite a bit better place to "live" than Toronto. Oh ya, we won't ever mention Quebec city...

Standard of living in america = sq footage of house + # of flatscreens + # of cars in driveway + number of mistresses

Childlike idealism or too much Sopranos?

I don't know how far Mercer's list of cities is to be trusted, but I have three observations.
[1] The ratings are actually pretty close together, i.e. Zurich only 8.1% above New York. Not a staggering difference.
[2] I presume climate is not a factor. I would much prefer to live in, say, temperate Dublin than a few cities further up the list.
[3] London scores 101.2, but has become one of the least desirable places to live in Britain.

Maybe you need to actually visit N.Y.C to know what it is like.

Shit! Germany sure did well. Good for the krauts.

Maybe you need to actually visit N.Y.C to know what it is like.

Been there. Love it. Would move there in a second... if I could afford it.

~String

And I repeat, given the glowing report you continue to adhere to (education, healthcare, etc.) one would expect it to be CONSIDERABLY higher, not lower. So just exactly how do you explain that? Since I neither expect any such thing, nor put great stock in "standard of living" assessments whose particulars are not considered, I don't see anything to explain there.

Given the history of Europe, and the circumstances of the US, I would not be at all surprised to find some "standards" of life in Europe inferior to those of the US. Quite the contrary, I would expect almost all standards of life to be inferior in Europe.

That they are not, that in some easily measurable ways Europe's standards for certain aspects of life are superior - by anyone's estimation - is the interesting or informative fact. How did that happen ?
So I believe we now have it nicely pegged - it's almost entirely a matter of culture and personal preference So an American with other preferences would have the choice?

But instead they choose to not be able to afford dentists and doctors, be unable to travel without a personal car at large personal expense and hassle, have fewer friends, be shorter and fatter and eat worse food, and work hundreds more hours a year to afford their life of "independence" ?

Seems like a chicken and egg situation, as far as culture: Americans are locked in a loop, as Europeans are. We cannot rate one loop as better from inside either, but there is a question or two we can ask:

The question becomes: as the wheel speeds up yet more, everyone has got a job that can get one and two that can handle them, the credit is maxed and the house equity tapped, and still the standard of living stagnates in America for most Americans, what will happen culturally and politcally if Europe, Australia, Canada, etc, continue to catch up and even surpass in universally desireable standards of life?

All of America's GDP gain for twenty some years now has gone to the upper 20% of the economy. Europe has gained less, but the lower 80% have gained some, which is more. It will surpass, at current trends, not only in the categories it already has but in every category significant to anyone involved. Then what?

So an American with other preferences would have the choice?
No, we're not talking about an individual preference, but about the preferences of the culture as a whole.
But instead they choose to not be able to afford dentists and doctors, be unable to travel without a personal car at large personal expense and hassle, have fewer friends, be shorter and fatter and eat worse food, and work hundreds more hours a year to afford their life of "independence" ?
Seems to sound rather over the top, what's your agenda?
And what does height have to do wit this? :confused:

Seriously, there's no need to tell others how to live. If you like the European way, live in Europe, but if you belong to the American culture, live in the US and participate in their way of life.

If in the final analysis Americans will end up off worse, then that's their choice. You reap what you sow and all that.

Thought I'd post this gem from Nathaniel Philbrick's Mayflower:

"In April, Bradford had decided that each household should be assigned its own plot to cultivate, with the understanding that each family kept whatever it grew. The change in attitude was stunning. Families were now willing to work much harder than they had ever worked before. In previous years, the men had tended the fields while the women tended the children at home. "The women now went willingly into the field," Bradford wrote, "and took their little ones with them to set corn." The pilgrims had stumbled onto the power of capitalism. Although the fortunes of the colony still teetered precariously in the years ahead, the inhabitants never again starved..." (165).