Material standard of living in various nations

[Savant]

Well.. at least here almost everybody HAS a roof over their heads. Unlike America. But of course: there are no tent cities, no poor in America ?

Yes, and you are going to keep importing the 3rd world to work and pay for those roofs. I never said there are no "tent cities". I said that the homelessness rate in America is not 25%, the moronic claim that you made. Regarless, on average Americans are far more materially well off than Dutch. I've spent time in both nations and know what average living consists of in each. USA wins that one hands down, and it's not even a fight really...

[Curtis24]

nvm.

[Eldritch]

Yes, and you are going to keep importing the 3rd world to work and pay for those roofs.

But the US pays for their own roofs?

I find the claim that been put forward on the forum recently by Joe McCarthy and his yes-men, that the "obese welfare state" requires 3rd world immigration (or something), extremely odd and apparently ideology-driven.

I've spent time in both nations and know what average material living consists of in each. USA wins that one hands down, and it's not even a fight really...

Fixed that for you, since as you keep reminding us, this is strictly about material standards. Btw, anecdotal evidence doesn't count.

[Savant]

Actually I made that point before Joe mentioned it here I do believe. I've been wrong before however.

It's not "ideology driven", it's logic driven. The 3rd world immigration was postponed for some time by printing money into oblivion, but eventually importing 3rd worlders inexorably became a necessity. It's simple math. The whole welfare state is a ponzi redistribution scheme. More people must be paying into it than can be withdrawing from it. Hence, when birth rates contract, people who work to be taxed MUST come from somewhere. It's not "ideology driven" at all. It's basic logic. For these elaborate welfare states to exist, they require funding. Funding can come from taxation or inflationary measures (selling bonds, printing money) OR it can come from taxing people earnings. The monetary means have been pretty much exhausted, which is why the debt/GDP rations of European nations are mostly several times that of the USA. So, since that option has been played, what now? 3rd world immigration... The only other options are 1) figure out a way to get Europeans to breed at a much higher rate INSTANTLY (which the welfare state hasn't accomplished, the white USA population has a higher birthrate than Europe w/o the elaborate welfare state) or 2) decrease the size of the obese welfare states. There's nothing "ideological" about that. It's economic reality.

But the US pays for their own roofs?

I find the claim that been put forward on the forum recently by Joe McCarthy and his yes-men, that the "obese welfare state" requires 3rd world immigration (or something), extremely odd and apparently ideology-driven.



Fixed that for you, since as you keep reminding us, this is strictly about material standards. Btw, anecdotal evidence doesn't count.

[Eldritch]

The ideological angle comes from (American, and some European) libertarians' hatred for the welfare state, and their consequent desire/need to limit the range of what they see as the viable options only to those in which it ceases to exist entirely.

First of all, 3rd World immigration is not an answer to any problem, least of all the problem of overburdened public services. In fact large-scale 3rd World immigration is entirely incompatible with a welfare state, given to the catastrophically high dependency ratio of the immigrants. So that's out of the question.

Not all welfare states are the same. They don't all cost the same and some are more efficient than others. I still do not see what it would not be possible to maintain something like it with a stable or slightly declining population, if the state is not squandering money on immigrants. What I am much more concerned about is the high, disastrously high, levels of unemployment in Europe.

As for the issue of debt, you're correct. Our government is currently sinking us to our eyeballs in foreign debt, and that must stop. Although I have to point out that while I am no economics expert such as yourself, the US is up to its teeth in debt too.

[The Lawspeaker]

And not just because of welfare but the game of empire building and internal corruption. Our welfare states worked very well in the 1950s and 1960s and continue to function until "market economy" became the watchword and already in the 1960s immigrants were brought in by the bus load to supplant Dutch workers

Of course this is inconvenient for the capi's amongst us who continue to claim that it is the welfare state that attracts them. But at the further expansion of the welfare state around 1973 actual immigration figures didn't fall but fell (as Surinamese had a Dutch passport they couldn't be kicked out eventhough the government of the day (yes lefties of all people !) tried to stem the flow but couldn't because of the Koninkrijksstatuut. The main flow again came after 1980and who was in power this time: exactly. The right was.

Inconvenient but true. Here's something that Wilders and his buddies always try to deny because it is inconvenient for them too.

If those in power (the right at the moment) would have considered it such a problem then the borders would have been closed but they don't because it is cheap labour. Even better: another massive wave came during the 1990s and who was the party that tried at it's hardest to keep the borders open ? The VVD. And they are not left-wing.

[Savant]

The ideological angle comes from American libertarians' hatred for the welfare state, and their consequent desire/need to limit the range of what they see as the viable options only to those in which it ceases to exist entirely.

It's economic reality. It's not at all philosophical. Even if you don't believe that having luxurious cars or belongings is "wrong", if you don't have the money for them, you have to get a new job, or take a second job. It's just the reality of the budget. The welfare states require more and more workers to tax. There has to be more people paying into it than people withdrawing from it. Hence immigration.

First of all, 3rd World immigration is not an answer to any problem, least of the problem of overburdened public services. In fact large-scale 3rd World immigration is entirely incompatible with a welfare state, given to the catastrophically high dependency ratio of the immigrants. So that's out of the question.

I agree with you. However SOME of them do work, and that's more money for welfare states than would be there than if there were none. I don't agree with it and think that they should be kept out at any cost, even at the cost of reducing the welfare states.

Not all welfare states are the same. They don't all cost the same and some are more efficient than others. I still do not see what it would not be possible to maintain something like it with a stable or slightly declining population, if the state is not squandering money on immigrants. What I am much more concerned about is the high, disastrously high, levels of unemployment in Europe.

Of course not all welfare states are the same. However, they are generally very costly and far less efficient than free enterprise. Stable and declining populations very much affect the viability of the welfare states. You can only tax people so much. You either have to raise taxes exponentially, or cut some services. The only other option is what's currently being done, create more income via immigration. Immigrant labor is taxed and it funds the welfare state.

As for the issue of debt, you're correct. Our government is currently sinking us to our eyeballs in foreign debt, and that must stop. Although I have to point out that while I am no economics expert such as yourself, the US is up to its teeth in debt too.

European nations are far more indebted than the USA. The usa's debt/gdp ratio is about 2x. Some European nations are 9-10x gdp. A "budget crisis" in America is far better shape than Euro governments have been in for decades... We have a very different standard.

http://blog.wallstreetgrand.com/tag/debt-to-gdp-ratio/

Cutting the 3rd world immigration is certainly feasible. It will just have to be accompanied by far smaller welfare states and efforts to increase fertility rates...

[The Lawspeaker]

Another nice detail that Savant (so far for his inside knowledge as a financial as he didn't mention it is this): my country is de-facto a tax haven. Yes not for people but for big companies, including multinationals only have to pay 2 to 3 percent in taxation here ( according to Tegenlicht (Dutch TV) per gentlemen's agreement). A lot of of countries including my own don't get the income they are supposed to get because of this policy.

This also goes (of course) for Dutch multinationals like Philips that barely pay any taxes and of course the treasury misses billions because of this. We are little better then Jersey (I guess) when we seem to have a single office building housing no less then 1600 different companies. Well you would think that it would be very busy out there ? Staff ? Around 10.

So it is the welfare state that is expensive or this free market ideology that allows business to evade rightful taxation ?

It's the second.. not the first. And it's not the only place in Europe: Dutch evade taxation by going to Belgium or Germany.. or like some members of the Royal Family (god alone knows why as these richest people in Europe don't even pay any taxes) to the Channel Islands.

Britain is also VERY attractive for rich non-Britons that can pretty much evade taxation there. So again.. is it the welfare state ? Or tax evasion ? Making sure that the super rich funnel their money to offshore accounts.

[Birka]

There are about the same amount of poor whites as there are poor blacks, even though only 12% of the nation is black... and about 70% are whites. Yet they produce the same number of poor people. If you got rid blacks, you'd get rid of 1/2 the poor. If you got rid of blacks + latinos? You'd get rid of the large majority of poor...

Also, I know very few people with more than one cell phone.... That's almost as good as your claim that 25% of Americans live in tents... LOL!!! That's an eternal TA classic...

As stated, blacks are 12% of the population in the US, they get 60% of welfare funding.

[Eldritch]

It's economic reality. It's not at all philosophical. Even if you don't believe that having luxurious cars or belongings is "wrong", if you don't have the money for them, you have to get a new job, or take a second job. It's just the reality of the budget. The welfare states require more and more workers to tax. There has to be more people paying into it than people withdrawing from it. Hence immigration.

The reality is that the more and more immigrants move in, the more resources will be diverted into maintaining them. As for there needing to be more people contributing to the system than taking from it, it's obvious. A balance has to struck, a balance that immigrants disturb.

Btw I didn't quite get the part about believing that owning luxury items is wrong. Surely you're not suggesting that applies to me?

I agree with you. However SOME of them do work, and that's more money for welfare states than would be there than if there were none. I don't agree with it and think that they should be kept out at any cost, even at the cost of reducing the welfare states.

Some of them do, sure -- but too few and even those who do, often work at public jobs that produce nothing. They should be kept out at any cost.

European nations are far more indebted than the USA. The usa's debt/gdp ratio is about 2x. Some European nations are 9-10x gdp. A "budget crisis" in America is far better shape than Euro governments have been in for decades... We have a very different standard.

http://blog.wallstreetgrand.com/tag/debt-to-gdp-ratio/

I didn't claim that that US is in as much trouble with its foreign debt, though, just that the US isn't entirely without problems either. And as far as private consumer debt goes, the US is afaIk in the same league as most European countries.