UK, Italy, France quality decline, now poorer than all 50 states

[Anonymous]

“America innovates, China replicates, Europe regulates” — Georgia Meloni, Italian Prime Minister

Also the US capital markets are extremely vast & dynamic. There is no other like it in the world to support an entrepreneurial culture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d rather live in any of those places than here. The universal healthcare alone would be a relief.

Exactly.

a relief from what, available heatlhcare and quality? Yes it may be expensive but remember we make like twice the amount of europe and its doesn't cost as much comapred to the taxes on income.

? The amount we pay in premiums + deductible is about $20K for a family of 3 in the US.

I guess we need to make more to pay for the outrageous healthcare and college costs.

Our UMC friends in the UK don't have to worry about paying for health care costs or college that much. Sure, we may have more than them, but we worry more about paying for medical care. They are able to retire early and not worry about health insurance. We are forced to work longer just for the health insurance.

We're seriously thinking of living there for a few years before I qualify for medicare (spouse is a dual citizen). ACA premiums for a 60 yr old hdp is about $1000/month.

We did a cost comparison with our friends in the UK, and we pay a lot more than they do overall.

Our UK tax bracket would be 20%. There is no joint filing in the UK.

So, if each of us have an income of $65k (ish), we each get taxed 20% (13K). That tax amount (13k) ends up being lower than the expected healthcare costs of a 60 yr old person in the US.

So, yes, the UK is cheaper when you factor in how expensive healthcare is in the US.

I work for a f500 and do not pay anywhere close to 20k a year for healthcare. The numbers you're quoting is more for self employed people buying their own insurance. I did Google this and it seems like the average family of 4 pays between 6-7k and year with the employer covering the rest.

The average UK student graduates from university with a higher debt than the average American graduate. Google says it's 53,000 pounds, or $71k. The average college debt in the US is $43k. And starting salaries for college grads in the US is a lot higher.

So be careful when cherry picking your examples.

Americans have to work until 65 so they don't have to pay $20K/year on healthcare.

Also, not all employers in the US pay for health insurance. As a matter of fact, about 15% to 20% of the population had zero health insurance before ACA. These were not all self employed people. And now, of course, thanks to Rs, many have lost their ACA insurance.

Americans have less college debt in part because we the taxpayers bail them out, and some of the colleges here are rich. But, it's not about debt. It's about how much we are paying for college here compared to the UK.

I recall a French person on this forum saying that they like how they can make more money here, and their private insurance here is great, but if they lost their job due to illness they'd probably move back to France. The majority of bankruptcies in the US are due to medical reasons. That's unheard of in Europe.

America is a great place to make money, not have a quality of life. We have less leave, vacation, more pesticides in our food, more big corp money involved in our everyday of life - food, politics, etc.. It's insidious.

Glass is half full or half empty, eh?

Average age of retirement in UK is 65, same with Germany. So seems like a moot point.

I lived in the UK for years and in an UMC world. You're spinning a scenario that isn't typical. What I saw was people working long hours, with long commutes, with pleasant but not extravagant lives, and constant money worries especially affording good housing and school fees for children. Most also had some kind of private insurance access.

Contrary to what another poster idealized on here, administrators or national health care systems aren't focused on the best possible care but stretching out a reasonable standard of care among a bigger and bigger population (FYI health care expenditures are also soaring in UK, funding the NHS and where the money actually goes is a perennial political football topic, complaints about a bloated bureaucracy, controlling costs and unaccountability are widespread).

I am sure we can all agree Denmark and similar countries are winners, but they are also small, highly homogenous, wealthy, in other words, they have it easier.

Add tiny, badly insulated homes. Although I get many people on here dream of cramming a family of four into a small house in Europe and driving an overpriced hatchback.

The ability to own a large, comfortable home and drive large, comfortable cars is something many liberals detest, but unfortunately really does make a huge difference in your QOL.

The tiny house/flat and daily grocery runs are romanticized on the internet.

Instead I see my friends barely scraping by to pay for a very small and unimpressive home and going to BS jobs that pay 50% the salary they would here. They just shop frequently because they don’t have room in their tiny house and fridge. Then taking multiple kids on public transport in the rain. Yes living the dream. Thank god they aren’t living in a McMansion in Dallas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d rather live in any of those places than here. The universal healthcare alone would be a relief.

Exactly.

a relief from what, available heatlhcare and quality? Yes it may be expensive but remember we make like twice the amount of europe and its doesn't cost as much comapred to the taxes on income.

? The amount we pay in premiums + deductible is about $20K for a family of 3 in the US.

I guess we need to make more to pay for the outrageous healthcare and college costs.

Our UMC friends in the UK don't have to worry about paying for health care costs or college that much. Sure, we may have more than them, but we worry more about paying for medical care. They are able to retire early and not worry about health insurance. We are forced to work longer just for the health insurance.

We're seriously thinking of living there for a few years before I qualify for medicare (spouse is a dual citizen). ACA premiums for a 60 yr old hdp is about $1000/month.

We did a cost comparison with our friends in the UK, and we pay a lot more than they do overall.

Our UK tax bracket would be 20%. There is no joint filing in the UK.

So, if each of us have an income of $65k (ish), we each get taxed 20% (13K). That tax amount (13k) ends up being lower than the expected healthcare costs of a 60 yr old person in the US.

So, yes, the UK is cheaper when you factor in how expensive healthcare is in the US.

I work for a f500 and do not pay anywhere close to 20k a year for healthcare. The numbers you're quoting is more for self employed people buying their own insurance. I did Google this and it seems like the average family of 4 pays between 6-7k and year with the employer covering the rest.

The average UK student graduates from university with a higher debt than the average American graduate. Google says it's 53,000 pounds, or $71k. The average college debt in the US is $43k. And starting salaries for college grads in the US is a lot higher.

So be careful when cherry picking your examples.

Americans have to work until 65 so they don't have to pay $20K/year on healthcare.

Also, not all employers in the US pay for health insurance. As a matter of fact, about 15% to 20% of the population had zero health insurance before ACA. These were not all self employed people. And now, of course, thanks to Rs, many have lost their ACA insurance.

Americans have less college debt in part because we the taxpayers bail them out, and some of the colleges here are rich. But, it's not about debt. It's about how much we are paying for college here compared to the UK.

I recall a French person on this forum saying that they like how they can make more money here, and their private insurance here is great, but if they lost their job due to illness they'd probably move back to France. The majority of bankruptcies in the US are due to medical reasons. That's unheard of in Europe.

America is a great place to make money, not have a quality of life. We have less leave, vacation, more pesticides in our food, more big corp money involved in our everyday of life - food, politics, etc.. It's insidious.

Glass is half full or half empty, eh?

Average age of retirement in UK is 65, same with Germany. So seems like a moot point.

I lived in the UK for years and in an UMC world. You're spinning a scenario that isn't typical. What I saw was people working long hours, with long commutes, with pleasant but not extravagant lives, and constant money worries especially affording good housing and school fees for children. Most also had some kind of private insurance access.

Contrary to what another poster idealized on here, administrators or national health care systems aren't focused on the best possible care but stretching out a reasonable standard of care among a bigger and bigger population (FYI health care expenditures are also soaring in UK, funding the NHS and where the money actually goes is a perennial political football topic, complaints about a bloated bureaucracy, controlling costs and unaccountability are widespread).

I am sure we can all agree Denmark and similar countries are winners, but they are also small, highly homogenous, wealthy, in other words, they have it easier.

? You don't think in the US UMC people work long hours, have long commutes? LOL

Yes, in the UK and most other civilized worlds, they have two choices: private insurance and government funded care. Only we have one choice.

In other countries, one can retire early if they saved enough without having to worry about healthcare. That's not possible here. No one moves to the US to retire, but plenty of Americans retire overseas, including to Europe. They move because the US is unaffordable, especially the healthcare.

Like I said, the US is great for making money, and if you have a lot of money, but if you don't, then it sucks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d rather live in any of those places than here. The universal healthcare alone would be a relief.

Exactly.

a relief from what, available heatlhcare and quality? Yes it may be expensive but remember we make like twice the amount of europe and its doesn't cost as much comapred to the taxes on income.

? The amount we pay in premiums + deductible is about $20K for a family of 3 in the US.

I guess we need to make more to pay for the outrageous healthcare and college costs.

Our UMC friends in the UK don't have to worry about paying for health care costs or college that much. Sure, we may have more than them, but we worry more about paying for medical care. They are able to retire early and not worry about health insurance. We are forced to work longer just for the health insurance.

We're seriously thinking of living there for a few years before I qualify for medicare (spouse is a dual citizen). ACA premiums for a 60 yr old hdp is about $1000/month.

We did a cost comparison with our friends in the UK, and we pay a lot more than they do overall.

Our UK tax bracket would be 20%. There is no joint filing in the UK.

So, if each of us have an income of $65k (ish), we each get taxed 20% (13K). That tax amount (13k) ends up being lower than the expected healthcare costs of a 60 yr old person in the US.

So, yes, the UK is cheaper when you factor in how expensive healthcare is in the US.

I work for a f500 and do not pay anywhere close to 20k a year for healthcare. The numbers you're quoting is more for self employed people buying their own insurance. I did Google this and it seems like the average family of 4 pays between 6-7k and year with the employer covering the rest.

The average UK student graduates from university with a higher debt than the average American graduate. Google says it's 53,000 pounds, or $71k. The average college debt in the US is $43k. And starting salaries for college grads in the US is a lot higher.

So be careful when cherry picking your examples.

Americans have to work until 65 so they don't have to pay $20K/year on healthcare.

Also, not all employers in the US pay for health insurance. As a matter of fact, about 15% to 20% of the population had zero health insurance before ACA. These were not all self employed people. And now, of course, thanks to Rs, many have lost their ACA insurance.

Americans have less college debt in part because we the taxpayers bail them out, and some of the colleges here are rich. But, it's not about debt. It's about how much we are paying for college here compared to the UK.

I recall a French person on this forum saying that they like how they can make more money here, and their private insurance here is great, but if they lost their job due to illness they'd probably move back to France. The majority of bankruptcies in the US are due to medical reasons. That's unheard of in Europe.

America is a great place to make money, not have a quality of life. We have less leave, vacation, more pesticides in our food, more big corp money involved in our everyday of life - food, politics, etc.. It's insidious.

Glass is half full or half empty, eh?

Average age of retirement in UK is 65, same with Germany. So seems like a moot point.

I lived in the UK for years and in an UMC world. You're spinning a scenario that isn't typical. What I saw was people working long hours, with long commutes, with pleasant but not extravagant lives, and constant money worries especially affording good housing and school fees for children. Most also had some kind of private insurance access.

Contrary to what another poster idealized on here, administrators or national health care systems aren't focused on the best possible care but stretching out a reasonable standard of care among a bigger and bigger population (FYI health care expenditures are also soaring in UK, funding the NHS and where the money actually goes is a perennial political football topic, complaints about a bloated bureaucracy, controlling costs and unaccountability are widespread).

I am sure we can all agree Denmark and similar countries are winners, but they are also small, highly homogenous, wealthy, in other words, they have it easier.

Add tiny, badly insulated homes. Although I get many people on here dream of cramming a family of four into a small house in Europe and driving an overpriced hatchback.

The ability to own a large, comfortable home and drive large, comfortable cars is something many liberals detest, but unfortunately really does make a huge difference in your QOL.

The tiny house/flat and daily grocery runs are romanticized on the internet.

Instead I see my friends barely scraping by to pay for a very small and unimpressive home and going to BS jobs that pay 50% the salary they would here. They just shop frequently because they don’t have room in their tiny house and fridge. Then taking multiple kids on public transport in the rain. Yes living the dream. Thank god they aren’t living in a McMansion in Dallas.

Yes, Americans love their big cars and big homes. The bigger the better, as if that is actually what determines qol.

It's no wonder so many Europeans want to live in the US. /s

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/americans-leaving-the-us-migration-a5795bfa

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-migration-citizens-moving-abroad-b2928252.html

A record number of Americans are moving overseas

U.S. experienced negative net migration in 2025 for first time in 90 years as more citizens drawn to more affordable life overseas with less political turbulence

“The wages are higher in the U.S. but the quality of life is higher in Europe.”

Americans from a wider variety of states appear to be reaching the same conclusion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d rather live in any of those places than here. The universal healthcare alone would be a relief.

Exactly.

a relief from what, available heatlhcare and quality? Yes it may be expensive but remember we make like twice the amount of europe and its doesn't cost as much comapred to the taxes on income.

? The amount we pay in premiums + deductible is about $20K for a family of 3 in the US.

I guess we need to make more to pay for the outrageous healthcare and college costs.

Our UMC friends in the UK don't have to worry about paying for health care costs or college that much. Sure, we may have more than them, but we worry more about paying for medical care. They are able to retire early and not worry about health insurance. We are forced to work longer just for the health insurance.

We're seriously thinking of living there for a few years before I qualify for medicare (spouse is a dual citizen). ACA premiums for a 60 yr old hdp is about $1000/month.

We did a cost comparison with our friends in the UK, and we pay a lot more than they do overall.

Our UK tax bracket would be 20%. There is no joint filing in the UK.

So, if each of us have an income of $65k (ish), we each get taxed 20% (13K). That tax amount (13k) ends up being lower than the expected healthcare costs of a 60 yr old person in the US.

So, yes, the UK is cheaper when you factor in how expensive healthcare is in the US.

I work for a f500 and do not pay anywhere close to 20k a year for healthcare. The numbers you're quoting is more for self employed people buying their own insurance. I did Google this and it seems like the average family of 4 pays between 6-7k and year with the employer covering the rest.

The average UK student graduates from university with a higher debt than the average American graduate. Google says it's 53,000 pounds, or $71k. The average college debt in the US is $43k. And starting salaries for college grads in the US is a lot higher.

So be careful when cherry picking your examples.

Americans have to work until 65 so they don't have to pay $20K/year on healthcare.

Also, not all employers in the US pay for health insurance. As a matter of fact, about 15% to 20% of the population had zero health insurance before ACA. These were not all self employed people. And now, of course, thanks to Rs, many have lost their ACA insurance.

Americans have less college debt in part because we the taxpayers bail them out, and some of the colleges here are rich. But, it's not about debt. It's about how much we are paying for college here compared to the UK.

I recall a French person on this forum saying that they like how they can make more money here, and their private insurance here is great, but if they lost their job due to illness they'd probably move back to France. The majority of bankruptcies in the US are due to medical reasons. That's unheard of in Europe.

America is a great place to make money, not have a quality of life. We have less leave, vacation, more pesticides in our food, more big corp money involved in our everyday of life - food, politics, etc.. It's insidious.

Glass is half full or half empty, eh?

Average age of retirement in UK is 65, same with Germany. So seems like a moot point.

I lived in the UK for years and in an UMC world. You're spinning a scenario that isn't typical. What I saw was people working long hours, with long commutes, with pleasant but not extravagant lives, and constant money worries especially affording good housing and school fees for children. Most also had some kind of private insurance access.

Contrary to what another poster idealized on here, administrators or national health care systems aren't focused on the best possible care but stretching out a reasonable standard of care among a bigger and bigger population (FYI health care expenditures are also soaring in UK, funding the NHS and where the money actually goes is a perennial political football topic, complaints about a bloated bureaucracy, controlling costs and unaccountability are widespread).

I am sure we can all agree Denmark and similar countries are winners, but they are also small, highly homogenous, wealthy, in other words, they have it easier.

? You don't think in the US UMC people work long hours, have long commutes? LOL

Yes, in the UK and most other civilized worlds, they have two choices: private insurance and government funded care. Only we have one choice.

In other countries, one can retire early if they saved enough without having to worry about healthcare. That's not possible here. No one moves to the US to retire, but plenty of Americans retire overseas, including to Europe. They move because the US is unaffordable, especially the healthcare.

Like I said, the US is great for making money, and if you have a lot of money, but if you don't, then it sucks.

Nope. In other countries, well in most European ones, the tax system doesn’t allow for the average person to build wealth. It just doesn’t. Also wages are much lower.

It’s highly unusual for someone to retire early in most European countries.

This comment alone shows how ignorant and clueless you are about the realities or these economies and labor markets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d rather live in any of those places than here. The universal healthcare alone would be a relief.

Exactly.

a relief from what, available heatlhcare and quality? Yes it may be expensive but remember we make like twice the amount of europe and its doesn't cost as much comapred to the taxes on income.

? The amount we pay in premiums + deductible is about $20K for a family of 3 in the US.

I guess we need to make more to pay for the outrageous healthcare and college costs.

Our UMC friends in the UK don't have to worry about paying for health care costs or college that much. Sure, we may have more than them, but we worry more about paying for medical care. They are able to retire early and not worry about health insurance. We are forced to work longer just for the health insurance.

We're seriously thinking of living there for a few years before I qualify for medicare (spouse is a dual citizen). ACA premiums for a 60 yr old hdp is about $1000/month.

We did a cost comparison with our friends in the UK, and we pay a lot more than they do overall.

Our UK tax bracket would be 20%. There is no joint filing in the UK.

So, if each of us have an income of $65k (ish), we each get taxed 20% (13K). That tax amount (13k) ends up being lower than the expected healthcare costs of a 60 yr old person in the US.

So, yes, the UK is cheaper when you factor in how expensive healthcare is in the US.

I work for a f500 and do not pay anywhere close to 20k a year for healthcare. The numbers you're quoting is more for self employed people buying their own insurance. I did Google this and it seems like the average family of 4 pays between 6-7k and year with the employer covering the rest.

The average UK student graduates from university with a higher debt than the average American graduate. Google says it's 53,000 pounds, or $71k. The average college debt in the US is $43k. And starting salaries for college grads in the US is a lot higher.

So be careful when cherry picking your examples.

Americans have to work until 65 so they don't have to pay $20K/year on healthcare.

Also, not all employers in the US pay for health insurance. As a matter of fact, about 15% to 20% of the population had zero health insurance before ACA. These were not all self employed people. And now, of course, thanks to Rs, many have lost their ACA insurance.

Americans have less college debt in part because we the taxpayers bail them out, and some of the colleges here are rich. But, it's not about debt. It's about how much we are paying for college here compared to the UK.

I recall a French person on this forum saying that they like how they can make more money here, and their private insurance here is great, but if they lost their job due to illness they'd probably move back to France. The majority of bankruptcies in the US are due to medical reasons. That's unheard of in Europe.

America is a great place to make money, not have a quality of life. We have less leave, vacation, more pesticides in our food, more big corp money involved in our everyday of life - food, politics, etc.. It's insidious.

Glass is half full or half empty, eh?

Average age of retirement in UK is 65, same with Germany. So seems like a moot point.

I lived in the UK for years and in an UMC world. You're spinning a scenario that isn't typical. What I saw was people working long hours, with long commutes, with pleasant but not extravagant lives, and constant money worries especially affording good housing and school fees for children. Most also had some kind of private insurance access.

Contrary to what another poster idealized on here, administrators or national health care systems aren't focused on the best possible care but stretching out a reasonable standard of care among a bigger and bigger population (FYI health care expenditures are also soaring in UK, funding the NHS and where the money actually goes is a perennial political football topic, complaints about a bloated bureaucracy, controlling costs and unaccountability are widespread).

I am sure we can all agree Denmark and similar countries are winners, but they are also small, highly homogenous, wealthy, in other words, they have it easier.

Add tiny, badly insulated homes. Although I get many people on here dream of cramming a family of four into a small house in Europe and driving an overpriced hatchback.

The ability to own a large, comfortable home and drive large, comfortable cars is something many liberals detest, but unfortunately really does make a huge difference in your QOL.

The tiny house/flat and daily grocery runs are romanticized on the internet.

Instead I see my friends barely scraping by to pay for a very small and unimpressive home and going to BS jobs that pay 50% the salary they would here. They just shop frequently because they don’t have room in their tiny house and fridge. Then taking multiple kids on public transport in the rain. Yes living the dream. Thank god they aren’t living in a McMansion in Dallas.

Yes, Americans love their big cars and big homes. The bigger the better, as if that is actually what determines qol.

It's no wonder so many Europeans want to live in the US. /s

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/americans-leaving-the-us-migration-a5795bfa

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-migration-citizens-moving-abroad-b2928252.html

A record number of Americans are moving overseas

U.S. experienced negative net migration in 2025 for first time in 90 years as more citizens drawn to more affordable life overseas with less political turbulence

“The wages are higher in the U.S. but the quality of life is higher in Europe.”

Americans from a wider variety of states appear to be reaching the same conclusion.

Make fun of me all you want but guarantee you most Europeans are buying as large and nice of a home they can afford.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP--you're pretty quick to adopt sweeping conclusions without thinking too much. Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman had a long article about why this conclusion about Europe isn't accurate from his view.

#PaulKrugman
But how accurate is this perception of European underperformance? While there are valid reasons to be concerned about Europe’s future, the trash talk reflects ignorance of the real issues. And even economically sophisticated, Draghi-type discussions are, I would argue, misleading. Europe is simply not poor the way Mississippi is poor. Moreover, by many measures — arguably the most important measures — Europe is, in fact, keeping up with the United States.

Does Europe have a lower standard of living than the U.S?

When comparing the economic performance of various countries, economists often begin with measures of gross domestic product (GDP) per capita at purchasing power parity. GDP is the total value of goods and services produced in a country, and GDP per capita is a relevant measure of the country’s overall standard of living. “Purchasing power parity” (PPP) corrects for differences in national price levels, which is especially important because fluctuations in exchange rates between currencies, such as the relative values of the dollar and the euro, can cause temporary fluctuations in measured GDP that have nothing to do with underlying economic performance.

Here is PPP GDP per capita in the three big European Union economies as a percentage of the United States over the past 25 years:


Chart 1

European economies do produce less per person than the U.S. does. Indeed, as many observers have pointed out, France and Italy have GDP per capita comparable to poor U.S. states like Alabama:


Chart 2

But let’s step back for a moment and ask: how reasonable is it to compare the economic performance of France, and Europe in general, with the poorest states in America?

Let’s start with impressions: France definitely doesn’t look or feel as poor as Alabama or Mississippi. Granted, subjective impressions are no substitute for hard data. But the “walking around test” isn’t worthless, either. If the look and feel of an economy don’t match up with the story told by standard numbers, that’s at least a gut check, a reason to look for the sources of the dissonance.

More substantively, nonmonetary comparisons between Europe and the United States are unlike the usual comparisons when one stacks poor nations against a richer country. Consider the following items:

· Globally, rich nations normally have higher life expectancy than poor nations. But life expectancy in France is 4.7 years higher than in the United States — and 9 years higher than in Alabama

· The overall US literacy rate is well below rates in other wealthy nations, and far below levels in Europe

· While the US and China dominate most information technology industries, with Europe a distant third — more on that later — access to and use of IT are basically comparable in the US and Europe

Understand that I’m not saying that the GDP numbers are wrong. What I am saying, however, is that the story “Europe is poor” is misleading.

A clearly important issue that is not captured by GDP per capita comparisons is income inequality, which is much higher in the US than in Europe. It is arithmetically inescapable that the high share of US income going to the top 1 percent and the top 10 percent renders most Americans worse off than the overall high level of GDP per capita would indicate.

However, quantifying this effect is, to be frank, a statistical can of worms, especially because some important goods and services — notably health care — are mainly government-provided in Europe while a significant share is privately-provided in the United States. My colleagues at the Stone Center on Socio-Economic Inequality, who are experts on the topic of income inequality, are not convinced by some widely cited analyses of this issue. So for now, I will simply assert that the role of income inequality in underestimating the performance of Europe versus the US is an important component, but one to which I can’t put exact numbers.

Finally, if we look at the sources of low GDP per capita, they are very different in Europe than in poor U.S. states.

More than 30 years ago I wrote that “productivity isn’t everything, but in the long run it is almost everything.” Nations become rich by increasing labor productivity — real GDP per hour worked. So you might assume that relatively low GDP per capita in Europe compared with the US is mainly a result of Europeans’ relatively low productivity.

But that’s a mistaken inference. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development has estimated productivity for a number of countries, with estimates that are similar to those from other sources. Here’s how those numbers for Germany and France, plus my own calculation for Alabama, compare with GDP per capita:


Chart 3

At 85.7%, per capita GDP in Germany is nearly 14 percent lower than the US average, yet German productivity, at 96.7%, almost matches US productivity. Thus the productivity gap explains only a little more than a fifth of the GDP gapin the case of Germany. French per capita GDP is 27 percent lower than in the US, but French productivity is only slightly lower than German productivity. Therefore, the productivity gap explains less than a third of the GDP gap in the case of France.

What do these numbers mean? They mean that head-to-head comparisons of GDP per capita are misleading without also understanding comparisons of labor productivity. While Europe has lower GDP per capita than the U.S., its labor productivity is relatively close to that of the U.S. What explains this divergence?

The answer is that America is the “no-vacation nation.” Historically, Americans were more like Europeans, taking part of the gains from productivity growth in the form of shorter work hours. But that process stopped after around 1970. Europeans, however, do take vacations, and as a result work fewer hours per year. This means lower GDP, but with the offsetting benefit of more personal time.

In short, lower European GDP per capita can be viewed largely not as a problem but as a choice — a choice to spend less time working but more time on other things. Which side of the Atlantic is making the right choice? I’ll leave that up to readers.

By contrast, poor U.S. states are poor not because of lifestyle choices but because they have low productivity. The productivity gap between Alabamians and other Americans explains more than three-quarters of Alabama’s low GDP per capita compared with the U.S. national average.

As I said, then, while GDP comparisons aren’t wrong, they can be misleading: Europe isn’t poor the same way that Alabama or Mississippi are poor. On the whole we should think of Europeans as being as competent at producing goods and services as Americans, but with lower monetary income because they’ve made different choices about how to use their time. Thus it’s misleading to conclude that Europeans have a clearly lower standard of living than Americans when they have essentially just made different choices.

There's decent observations in the article, which is more than I'd expect from someone like Paul Krugman, who has a lifetime of spin and crap forever riding on his Nobel despite also being an advisor to Enron and has been mocked by serious economists for his partisanship. You can summarize it, and the posts on this thread, by saying the following:

1. The American and European economic consensus are not the same. Americans, by consensus, have always accepted that the bottom 20% of American society will be poor and will never receive the kind of wealth transfer or benefits that European countries established for their poor with the post WWII consensus. Americans, by consensus, have decided people must have greater ownership of their economic decisions across their life and rely less on the state.

2. The trade off is a far more dynamic American economic machine with far fewer regulations and lower taxes, which means the upper 20% of American society is significantly richer than their European counterparts. Americans also historically have had lower unemployment and dynamic labor market, with both layoffs and hiring more easily done.

3. The middle class tit for tat is a bit harder to measure, with clear winners and losers on both sides for different metrics. The American middle class wins in terms of material lifestyle measured by higher salaries, accumulatiuon of good and services and housing quality (especally size) and ownership, European (Western at least) can win with better (or free) national healthcare and inexpensive higher education (though the UK is a distinct outlier in the latter, being more costly for higher education re debt burdens of a typical grad). Europeans can be argued for a better quality social life, with more tightly planned communities compared to the sprawling American suburbs, but this is also subjective.

4. Europeans have historically done better on health metrics compared to Americans but this is probably distorted by American's historic diversity over European homogenity. This may change for Europe in the future as the continent rapidly diversifies and the elderly Europeans are the whitest demographics.

5. Most Europeans still get up in the morning, go to work/school, come home in the evening, have dinner, socialize with family and friends. Not terribly different from Americans. But Europeans generally had earlier retirement, and accepted a larger permanently unemployed on benefits class (UK infamous for this as well) that may distort the perception of European leisure.

Last, but not least, I suspect some of you are relying too much on stereotypes for European QoL from the past. The continent is rapidly changing, economically, culturally, even politically, making numbers and metrics based on studies from even a decade ago a bit unreliable. Right now, based on the last five years at least, the US is the clear winner in terms of economic and salary growth. We can see this, incidentially, in how travel costs have changed in the last generation. 30 years ago Europe was the expensive destination to travel around while the US was affordable. The tables have turned, it's often more expensive to travel around the US than it is to fly to Europe for a vacation. And that, I suspect, tells you what you need to know.

+1 Great spot on post

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We know socialism doesn’t work. We tried to force capitalism on the world and they don’t want it. Except maybe China now wants it.

Anyway, we keep bringing new waves of foreigners to this country and either we aren’t Americanizing them properly or we are oversubscribed but it seems like a lot of these new foreigners are pushing socialism on us again. They should've stayed in their own socialist countries.

Again...America does not belong to anyone but the native Americans. White people colonized the world. They looted, plundered, raped and exploited everyone. Now, the tide is turned. USA is already mortgaged to the Chinese.

And Trump is doing a great job in destroying America. The rest of the world is just watching our shitshow.

Are you poor yet?

LOL.

The entire history of humans has one empire conquering another. The Mongols conquered, murdered and looted more than anyone. And African tribes sold their brothers into slavery. Keep trying. You’ll eventually get there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You have to look at the wealth gap as well. The distribution of wealth matters.

This is correct. I am not going to look up the stats for EU member states, Canada has a similar issue compared to the U.S.

The top 20% of Americans has an higher average income than the top 20% of Canadians. But the bottom 80% of Canadians has a higher average income than the bottom 80% of Americans. Plus the govt services and work culture are far more generous to Canadian workers than American workers. I think you will find EU countries often have a similar situation.

On the whole it is much hard being in the bottom 80% of Americans than the bottom 80% of the countries shown in the video.

I'm familiar enough with these creative "stats." Whoever came up with this one is playing a game by jumping one demographic that is definitely poor in the US, the poor, with fewer benefits etc compared to most western countries, and excluding the rich to make it seem like the middle class is richer in Canada. It's not quite the truthful picture. Median salary (meaning 50% make more, 50% make less) in the US is $64,000. In Canada it is $46,000. This gives you a more accurate picture.

As for Euros, outside places like Switzerland, most people do have lower incomes compared to American peers. Material wealth is higher in the US. Quality of life is subjective. I love Europe, but most people do live modest lives in small apartments. It's not all historic urban centers but plenty of grimy suburbs and tower blocks.

As the middle class in America is stretched more and more Europe looks better and better. If education, housing, and healthcare are unaffordable to the median income person making $64k, that “extra” 18k in income matters less and less, doesn’t it? Would you rather make 46k with health insurance or 64k without it?

64k without. I'd rather live a shorter life spending my money the way I want to. Health insurance will let me live longer, but why would I want to?

This reminds of the lyrics of "All This Time" by Sting:

Blessed are the poor, for they shall inherit the earth
Better to be poor than be a fat man in the eye of the needle
As these words were spoken I swear I hear the old man laughing
What good is a used up world and how could it be worth having?

Um, well, if you want to have greater wealth but have a lower life expectancy than in Europe, you're in the right country.

That’s because American eat like crap

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d rather live in any of those places than here. The universal healthcare alone would be a relief.

Exactly.

a relief from what, available heatlhcare and quality? Yes it may be expensive but remember we make like twice the amount of europe and its doesn't cost as much comapred to the taxes on income.

? The amount we pay in premiums + deductible is about $20K for a family of 3 in the US.

I guess we need to make more to pay for the outrageous healthcare and college costs.

Our UMC friends in the UK don't have to worry about paying for health care costs or college that much. Sure, we may have more than them, but we worry more about paying for medical care. They are able to retire early and not worry about health insurance. We are forced to work longer just for the health insurance.

We're seriously thinking of living there for a few years before I qualify for medicare (spouse is a dual citizen). ACA premiums for a 60 yr old hdp is about $1000/month.

We did a cost comparison with our friends in the UK, and we pay a lot more than they do overall.

Our UK tax bracket would be 20%. There is no joint filing in the UK.

So, if each of us have an income of $65k (ish), we each get taxed 20% (13K). That tax amount (13k) ends up being lower than the expected healthcare costs of a 60 yr old person in the US.

So, yes, the UK is cheaper when you factor in how expensive healthcare is in the US.

I work for a f500 and do not pay anywhere close to 20k a year for healthcare. The numbers you're quoting is more for self employed people buying their own insurance. I did Google this and it seems like the average family of 4 pays between 6-7k and year with the employer covering the rest.

The average UK student graduates from university with a higher debt than the average American graduate. Google says it's 53,000 pounds, or $71k. The average college debt in the US is $43k. And starting salaries for college grads in the US is a lot higher.

So be careful when cherry picking your examples.

Americans have to work until 65 so they don't have to pay $20K/year on healthcare.

Also, not all employers in the US pay for health insurance. As a matter of fact, about 15% to 20% of the population had zero health insurance before ACA. These were not all self employed people. And now, of course, thanks to Rs, many have lost their ACA insurance.

Americans have less college debt in part because we the taxpayers bail them out, and some of the colleges here are rich. But, it's not about debt. It's about how much we are paying for college here compared to the UK.

I recall a French person on this forum saying that they like how they can make more money here, and their private insurance here is great, but if they lost their job due to illness they'd probably move back to France. The majority of bankruptcies in the US are due to medical reasons. That's unheard of in Europe.

America is a great place to make money, not have a quality of life. We have less leave, vacation, more pesticides in our food, more big corp money involved in our everyday of life - food, politics, etc.. It's insidious.

Glass is half full or half empty, eh?

Average age of retirement in UK is 65, same with Germany. So seems like a moot point.

I lived in the UK for years and in an UMC world. You're spinning a scenario that isn't typical. What I saw was people working long hours, with long commutes, with pleasant but not extravagant lives, and constant money worries especially affording good housing and school fees for children. Most also had some kind of private insurance access.

Contrary to what another poster idealized on here, administrators or national health care systems aren't focused on the best possible care but stretching out a reasonable standard of care among a bigger and bigger population (FYI health care expenditures are also soaring in UK, funding the NHS and where the money actually goes is a perennial political football topic, complaints about a bloated bureaucracy, controlling costs and unaccountability are widespread).

I am sure we can all agree Denmark and similar countries are winners, but they are also small, highly homogenous, wealthy, in other words, they have it easier.

Add tiny, badly insulated homes. Although I get many people on here dream of cramming a family of four into a small house in Europe and driving an overpriced hatchback.

The ability to own a large, comfortable home and drive large, comfortable cars is something many liberals detest, but unfortunately really does make a huge difference in your QOL.

The tiny house/flat and daily grocery runs are romanticized on the internet.

Instead I see my friends barely scraping by to pay for a very small and unimpressive home and going to BS jobs that pay 50% the salary they would here. They just shop frequently because they don’t have room in their tiny house and fridge. Then taking multiple kids on public transport in the rain. Yes living the dream. Thank god they aren’t living in a McMansion in Dallas.

Also Europeans are not as mobile as Americans. In many countries, one year leases do not exist. Apartments are very difficult to find. It is not uncommon to live in the same apartment for over 20 or 30 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is what socialist welfare states do to the economy. US take note. Don't take the same path. Vote Republican.

Ahh yes because the average American is so well off under the current capitalism system. Those tax cuts for the rich are going to trickle down any day now … and surely it will all get better with unfettered AI.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t want to watch that stupid YouTube video — can someone summarize?

A guy doing man in the street interviews in London. One American, the rest British. All expressing surprise as most thought the UK would be in the top ten if it were a state. One women guessed the bottom 25% and said Americans like working more than the British.

The average European is fed anti-American news stories nonstop. Even if it is better here, they will never come to that conclusion.

I had six month maternity leave but European friends don’t believe me. It simply isn’t possible. Same with me going on a long vacation.

I told them my salary (around $300k) when they weirdly asked me, and their response was that healthcare is surely making up the difference. As if a healthy 40 year old woman pays $150k per year in healthcare. They had never even known someone making that much money and these are people with advanced degrees.

What is your point? Of course America is great for top earners. But statistically speaking not everyone can be a top earner. I guess F those people in the bottom half right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:EU Kids end HS being fluent in at least three languages. Education counts.

That's completely due to geography and necessity. If you drive 5 hours from France, you have the possibility of driving through 4 different countries speaking 4 different languages. This is not the case in the USA where you can drive 2000 miles and everyone still speaks English (for the most part).

What four countries do you think you're driving through from France? Is that just your way of justifying being monolingual? You don't pick up another language at a gas station on your way, you know.

The part of Switzerland that borders France speaks...guess what, French. The part of Belgium that borders France, speaks....guess what, French. The French in fact are pretty well known for being just like Americans--monolingual.

The farther north you go, the better their language ability. The Dutch, Germans, Danes, Swedes, etc all speak more than one language well. The rest, not so much.

You proved the PP’s point. Because most Europeans countries are small compared to the big three in North America you have a necessity to learn multiple languages in bordering countries. With the exception of Quebec, Canadians speak English. And many Americans that live near the southern border get by on rudimentary Spanish if they didn’t come from a hispanic family to start. There’s no necessity to learn multiple languages in the US due to this reason unless you conduct a lot of international business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't want to get rid of healthcare middle men. I want to make it illegal for hospitals, imaging centers, labs, rehab centers, dialysis, etc. as well as insurance and pharma companies to be for profit. R&D should be federally funded and not used as an excuse for companies to charge exorbitant prices for pills that cost 50 cents to make.

They should be legally prohibited by law from making a profit and executive pay should be capped.

Boom. Problem solved right there.

That would stunt and reverse any new research and break through for treatment because there is no incentive. You would rely on the govt to do that and nothing the govt has created or released has happened in 100 years. Socialist and communist societies eventually collapse it may seem like a good idea at the start but once the lasting effects of capitalism and freedom wear off nothing is left

DP. I agree about needing to keep profit in healthcare centers it incentivize new treatments. But we can at least make insurance companies nonprofit. The reality is there is a direct conflict between maximizing shareholder value and approving claims for expensive treatment. As a result you have finance people making company policy about healthcare decisions, often over riding the recommended course of treatment from actual medical professionals. It’s so stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what socialist welfare states do to the economy. US take note. Don't take the same path. Vote Republican.

Ahh yes because the average American is so well off under the current capitalism system. Those tax cuts for the rich are going to trickle down any day now … and surely it will all get better with unfettered AI.

The current capitalist system certainly did well for me. You must be waiting for govt handouts instead of making it happen for yourself. Typical lib.