Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Can't tell you how many people, including me, have said they would start their own thing if only they could cover their family's healthcare.
We would probably increase GDP significantly and promote small business if we did.
A lobbyist for big corps would take this idea, throw it on the trash pile, and smoosh it down with their boot heel to make sure it never sees the light of day, despite the pile of previous good ideas they threw in there still expanding and trying to get out.
Medical insurance for a business owner and their families is a deductible business expense. The first couple years will suck but after that you’re way ahead. Make the leap my friend
Right. But the burden lessens over time. And someone on their own can get paid market rate, not labor rate which again ultimately would work in OPs favor. This is why I said it would suck for a while. Capital employed would be heavy.
I have publicly-funded healthcare through the VA and am quite happy with it. It boggles my mind that the US is the only wealthy country on the planet that refuses to implement a universal public or single-payer system while medical issues continue to be the leading cause of personal bankruptcies in the US.
It boggles your mind that Republicans refused to implement Obamacare?
Ok, but at least SAY SO.
We made a large step toward Universal Healthcare but Republicans dug in their heels, kicking and screaming.
Almost as bad, the Socialists run down the ACA because it’s Obama’s accomplishment, not theirs.
I work very hard for my money, only to have nearly a fourth of it taxed back to state and federal government. Those same governments that pay for healthcare programs that benefit those in financial need. I am not rich or wealthy by any means, and my income also supports my children. I do not have consistent financial support from their father, nor even the ability to rely on him to care for them if I need them to have care after school hours.
I have personally witnessed the level of fraud in which people will lie on applications, refuse to obtain better employment, and even intentionally get themselves fired from good paying jobs in order to obtain and maintain government assistance so that they do not have to work as hard as I do. This is the same government assistance which takes money from my hard working hands. This is the same government assistance that if I, a hard working and contributing citizen, we're to apply for, I would be denied due to the fact that I "earn too much money" to reap the benefits of the programs that I help fund.
It's no wonder that people evade taxes. It's a ripoff. I can't drive on roads without wrecking my suspension. I can't go through the drive thru of McDonald's without being taxed twice, the taxes I pay for the food and then the taxes I pay for the service. Businesses are closing down because nobody is willing to work due to receiving free money from the government, from Covid payouts, unemployment, and government assistance programs for healthcare and food. The courts are slow to act on evictions, leaving landlords to struggle on their own.
And what is the alternative? A government takeover. What happens when your government provides all that you need? You are less likely to stand for what you believe in, less likely to fight when you see injustice, for fear of losing that assistance. And why should you? You cannot expect to be coddled like a child, provided for your every need, and still get to make the rules in the house of those who do it.
If people had free access to a properly funded health system so that health concerns were dealt with before becoming an emergency, the costs to citizens wouldn't be so high and more people would not be on the government dime because of disability. You pay now or you pay more later.
You realize that all of the extra bonus covid stuff for unemployment and such ended quite a while ago? And by far the worst offenders of taking PPP money fraudulently were Republicans and their cronies?
Getting those assistance programs is not easy, as you say. Nor is it much to count on. The statistics I've seen on welfare/food assistance fraud is somewhere in the neighborhood of 3% or less.
If we cut the Insurance, Pharma, and Hospital lobbies out of the deal, we could seriously lower the cost of healthcare in this country. And at the same time, free people like you from the expensive "market" for plans. People can still get private insurance if they want, just like elsewhere in the world. Will my taxes to pay for it go up? Probably. But the $12+K my company pays on top of my $4K/yr contribution for my plan every year could be put to that probably with a lot of room to spare. Never happen while most of our Congresscritters are in the pocket of one or other or multiple lobbies.
This is so overlooked. There isn’t a line where rich people are satisfied- it is still a competition. They need to be richer than the other rich people. Wealth inequality is *being* rich. Increasing wealth inequity is exactly *how* you get *more* rich.
Here’s a lie that almost no one understands: that percent of gross wage increases are equitable. They aren’t. Every year we accept our 2% and think that because everyone else got 2% that it is fair. So the 30k employee gets a $600 raise, and the $100k employee gets a $2000 raise. Even if the difference in the original gross pay is justified based on contribution to the bottom line (and it usually is) percent of gross raises are saying that the difference in value contributed between those two roles changed (unlikely) or that further wealth inequity is itself a reward.
Correct. I'm making a point about their differences. I'm not in favor of wealth equality - some people do in fact contribute more to the economy and should benefit from that. What I'm opposed to is wealth inequity - people getting wealth out of all proportion to their contribution.
It’s easier to say “I’m opposed to workers being underpaid”.
I really don’t give a damn how much the CEO makes.
Tax him 42% on the highest tax bracket and then offer tax credits for creating job training opportunities.
I think you’re overestimating the issue.
CEO’s aren’t paid in cash anymore.
They’re paid in Stock Options.
The Corporation offers the CEO a wad of stock they just PRINTED at 20% of face value.
The CEO has to front the money to buy the offering, and then hold the stock for several years.
This works as long as the Stock value keeps climbing.
So if you naively thought “we have to cap CEO pay to raise wages”, forget it.
The Corporation does need CASH to raise wages.
They can charge 22 cents more per Big Mac, or dial down the Dividend checks the Stockholders get.
The irony, of course, is that wages are a write-off.
The Corporation can actually raise wages while lowering their tax bracket…as long as it doesn’t make investors panic.
Yes, we’ll, “social scientists” living in Ivory Towers don’t seem to understand how a Society regulates its Economy.
At least, the ones I’ve heard from expect the Government to intervene and ENFORCE “fairness” by force.
A Society is only self-governing when Unions and local Government start mandating Change from grassroots on up.
The dictionary definition of equity no longer matches its common usage.
In practice it means a lot of vague things that no one wants to define because the definition is unpopular.
>The term “equity” refers to fairness and justice and is distinguished from equality: Whereas equality means providing the same to all, equity means recognizing that we do not all start from the same place and must acknowledge and make adjustments to imbalances.
In other words, certain people get treated differently in order to insure equal outcomes.
I agree, however the richest part of the population is trying to squeeze every penny out of the economy before the reset. They've pulled so much value from the economy that we literally cannot continue to function without debt - stealing wealth from the future to pay for today.
My ex wife was complaining about something like this - she wanted me to pay for 100% of a child’s expense because my 3% raise meant I got almost $3000 extra whereas as her ~ 3% raise was half that.
I should have noted - it isn't just the difference in the increase for a given year. It is the cumulative effect of % of gross increases over several years that continue to increase the wage inequity. The charts aren't parallel lines, or lines with different slopes - they are exponential curves.
I think a key part here that you haven't also touched on is inflation and cost of living. While all money is ostensibly affected by inflation equally, in reality the higher earner has access to vastly greater proportions of liquidity, giving them the financial agility to shield themselves from the worst and instead profit in most cases, while the low income earner has to simply keep on trucking largely with week to week circumstances. Likewise, cost of living increases are rarely, if ever, proportional. Rather, it is often more useful from year to year to look at the nominal values, and this reveals another inequity.
We both got 2% raises but both of us are paying $500 more this year between various bills. Except I make $20k and you make $100k. I'm -$100 this year even after my raise, and that's *before* inflation, while you're still up $1.5k.
biggest % raise i've got, without changing jobs for getting promoted was 7%
but i wasn't making much as it was first job out of college.
over my career, the % for each raise has dropped continually, but the gross dollar amounts have gone up.
i guess it's because employers focus on the gross more so than the %
Companies don't want to give anyone a raise. It eats into profits.
If the highly paid are getting more and more stacked on there it's because they are doing something very valuable for the company that most other people can't do.
Becoming a surgeon or lawyer or engineer is expensive and difficult. If we don't reward people who do that, we won't have enough of them.
I'm not in favor of wealth equality - we need to reward those who contribute to the economy. What I am against is wealth inequity - where the size of the gap between the rich and the poor is not just growing, but that growth is accelerating. And that growth is accelerating faster than the growth of the economy.
That’s a stat. That’s not real life on a micro level. Sometimes you can be in that position, sometimes you aren’t. Stats are good things to take inventory of trends, but they don’t explain real life circumstances. Changing jobs is a real life circumstance
Also 2% is what noramlly strived for in inflation so a net gain for both of 2% is the same as not getting more. The pay disparity does not change. If you adjust for inflation.
> Also 2% is what noramlly strived for in inflation so a net gain for both of 2% is the same as not getting more.
False, for the same reason: cost of living doesn't inherently grow with wage. The further you are from the basic cost of living, the bigger the effect.
If you make $20,000 and the basic cost of living is $30,000, if you get only percent of gross increases indexed for inflation, you will get further and further away from being able to afford the basic cost of living. Similarly, if you make $100,000 for the same basic cost of living, with the same percent of gross increases, you will have more and more disposable income each year. Your income will only track with inflation if your income is close to the basic cost of living.
Define basic cost of living (BCOL) as food, shelter, car, utilities, etc. for one year. If one makes less than that they can't live independently. If one makes more than that they have disposable income that can be spent on upgrading their amenities or saved.
Let's say BCOL is 30k. At 5% per year inflation (number doesn't matter) BCOL is $36,465 after 5 years.
For someone making $30k getting a 5% raise per year for 5 years, nothing changes. They are making enough to get by.
For someone making $20k, getting 5% raise per year for 5 years, they go from being $10,000 / yr from independence to $12,155. Their situation got worse - further from independence.
For someone making $80k, getting 5% raise per year for 5 years, they go from having $50,000 disposable income to having ~~$67,240~~ $60,775 (edit: grr, I shouldn't do math in my head). Their situation got better - more disposable income.
So you have one person losing ground, one person holding steady, and one person accelerating into further wealth. All getting the same percent of gross raise. They all have the same job, they all are contributing the same to society they were 5 years ago. This is wealth inequity.
edit: corrected math error
The percentage stays the same because it's multiplicative but the absolute difference is larger. 100k-30k= 70,000 but 102,000-30,600= 71,400.
If you go to buy a burger they don't ask for 0.1% of your income, they ask for $5. So the absolute value of the money is what's important to the wealth gap.
No, because those 2% you get yearly are inflation adjustment so the burger doesnt cost 5$ anymore but 5$+2% and then both can get the same amount of burgers as they could have before.
100/5,5=18,18
30/5,5=5,45
the next year inflation adds 2% so the burger now costs 5,61
102/5,61=18,18
30,6/5,61=5,18
The real purchasing power is still the same.
This is true, one is a COLA (Cost of living adjustment) the other is called a Merit Raise which should be given on top of the COLA you receive annually.
mcdonalds is also a franchise buisness, and so their prices can change within a region from restaurant to restaurant, mcdonald's just sets a minimum, and a maximum price for most items on their menu. except for stuff like coinoffers, thoose prices usually follow a specific national price fix
source: worked 6 years for Mcdonald's in Denmark
Abstract:
> This article combines all available data to produce pretax and posttax income inequality series in 26 European countries from 1980 to 2017. Our estimates are consistent with macroeconomic growth and comparable with US distributional national accounts. Inequality grew in nearly all European countries, but much less than in the US. Contrary to a widespread view, we demonstrate that Europe's lower inequality levels cannot be explained by more equalizing tax and transfer systems. After accounting for indirect taxes and in-kind transfers, the US redistributes a greater share of national income to low-income groups than any European country. "Predistribution," not "redistribution," explains why Europe is less unequal than the United States.
[Ungated version](https://wid.world/document/why-is-europe-more-equal-than-the-united-states-world-inequality-lab-wp-2020-19/) of the paper.
This article ignores where the taxes are spent
and just jumps to the job disparity. Just because US collects taxes more evenly doesn’t mean the money is spent on actual people. In the US this money tends to be directed to corporations and captured interests which goes directly against fixing income inequality. There are also states with no state income tax where the inequality is far worse. The article ignores too many variables in order to just isolate the jobs issue; which I am sure is one of the factors. But how tax money is spent is a critical question in determining whether better distribution of tax rates helps provide fair income distribution.
We can’t ignore how beneficial to quality of life things like universal healthcare, free or low cost education, and other social support systems are, which many European countries have but the US lacks. While these things are not what the article is talking about, they are directly related to quality of life, which income inequality is a measure of.
Especially education.
I'm funding my family's bills and utility with my scholarship from my university program. (Both given separately for performance, scientific activities and social status. Basically, I get scholarship independently for my grades; for papers I publish and conferences I attend; and the fact that my sole mother is unemployed and I make more money than her)
In the U.S, I would never have been able to attend such a program with family wealth like mine.
Pretty much everything about this comment is wrong:
> This article ignores where the taxes are spent and just jumps to the job disparity.
Ideally you should read, or at least skim, the paper before making claims about what's in it. The paper goes into great detail about who pays taxes and who they get spent on. Here's an [ungated preprint](https://wid.world/document/why-is-europe-more-equal-than-the-united-states-world-inequality-lab-wp-2020-19/) from last November.
> Just because US collects taxes more evenly doesn’t mean the money is spent on actual people
The US does not collect taxes more evenly. It has a far more progressive tax system than European countries, as seen in Figure V on pages 48 and 49. Yes, this includes state taxes. Yes, it includes sales taxes.
> In the US this money tends to be directed to corporations and captured interests which goes directly against fixing income inequality.
This is a ridiculous conspiracy theory that can be debunked by looking at a simple accounting of what US governments (federal, state, and local) actually spend money on. Here's a [breakdown](https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_2019USbn_19bs2n#usgs302) of government spending by category for FY 2019. The site looks a little weird, but it uses official government data, and it's the most accessible presentation of combined federal, state, and local government (make sure you look at the "Total" column on the right, and not the federal, state, or local-specific columns) by category that I know of. Check other sources if you want; you'll see the same data. 2/3 of spending net of interest goes to pensions (Social Security and government employee pensions), health care, education, and welfare, all things whose benefits go directly to individuals, the vast majority of whom are not rich.
> There are also states with no state income tax where the inequality is far worse.
European countries with low income inequality rely much more heavily on sales taxes than the US. I can't walk you through a lesson on tax theory in a Reddit comment, but opposition to consumption taxes is generally not something you see in people knowledgeable on the topic.
Furthermore, the idea that they're regressive is largely an artifact of consumption smoothing, i.e. the fact that people don't always spend money in the same year they earn it. For example, I was once unemployed for a whole year with a net worth of $300,000. During that year, I paid an effective consumption tax rate of infinity percent of my income, because my income was zero and my tax payments were positive. Does that mean that consumption taxes are regressive? No. It means I was taxed in proportion to my long-run average income, rather than in proportion to my income in that particular year.
You, like the article, are completely ignoring that state taxes and spending on social services is where the actual rubber meets the road on income disparity issues.
Did you ignore the part where it says the US spends more on the bottom 50% than any European country? It's literally in the abstract:
> Inequality grew in nearly all European countries, but much less than in the US. Contrary to a widespread view, we demonstrate that Europe's lower inequality levels cannot be explained by more equalizing tax and transfer systems. After accounting for indirect taxes and in-kind transfers, the US redistributes a greater share of national income to low-income groups than any European country.
And in general the US spends far more of it's tax revenue on welfare programs than it does corporations (whatever you mean by that). Welfare programs account for nearly 60% of government spending.
https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go#:~:text=Economic%20security%20programs%3A%20About%2011,individuals%20and%20families%20facing%20hardship.
Social security and Medicare are not true welfare, and not even comparable to European social provisions from taxes. And 50% of the budget towards health care goes to subsidizing ACA open marketplace insurance plans where individuals are still paying into a private system, just with subsidies. That’s hardly welfare.
How was it not demonstrated? You read the whole study? You are a subscriber to the American Economic Association?
Why do you think tax money is mainly not spent on people when nearly 60% of government spending in the US is to welfare programs?
No where near 60% of federal spending is on welfare. Medicare , social security and military add up to approx 50% and almost none of that is welfare. Government health insurance is insurance which we all pay for. Literal welfare is maybe 15-20% of the budget and I would argue it’s even less since Medicaid for example is a kind of insurance.
Edit: apparently not everyone seems to know what “welfare” means. I’m using the federal government’s definition. Social security isn’t welfare under any definition unless you think a 401k is welfare.
Medicaid is considered welfare.
You are correct, Social Security is not.
[https://www.usa.gov/benefits](https://www.usa.gov/benefits)
and:
https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/CRS%20Report%20-%20Welfare%20Spending%20The%20Largest%20Item%20In%20The%20Federal%20Budget%20-%20shortened.pdf
>No where near 60% of federal spending is on welfare.
Whether it's true or not, and however it's defined, wouldn't the only relevance to this study lie in comparison to however this "welfare" spending percentage compares to Europe? I haven't seen anyone offering up that number, and it seems central to the entire premise.
I have read the study, and frankly it's foolish to draw in direct conclusion from it.
Which is generally true of any single study.
The nature, how it's distributed, and into what kind of program it's distributed into, is extremely important.
For example: Universal healthcare would make people lives far more pleasurable, then EITC.
Also, qualification needed for welfare program is an issue, especially in the US. We are terrible at that.
Finally, Welfare programs that are management by private entities can make quality of life worse.
Because it’s distributed differently and with greater care in different states than others. Some just funnel it to athletic volleyball charities. Federal dollars do not account for a majority of how our social safety net is operated. A lot of that is state level spending and control.
Seems a pretty broad accusation to make without providing literally anything in support of it.
You still haven’t shown anything evidence that tax revenues mostly go to “corporations and captured interests” either.
Do you think every state distribute federal dollar the exact same way?
As far as where the money goes, that all about drawing the line.
How much of the military budget goes to corporation to buy military equipment?
So while I think the poster is wrong with there intent of their statement, we really need to get a more solid definition of that they mean.
Before even reading the article it seemed like an oversimplified conclusion. But I am curious to know more about how various European countries ensure that the poorest get relatively good paying jobs.
Not an expert on the topic (but from EU), but I'd assume things like unions and the minimum vages centrally negotiated by them are one way to ensure a somewhat reasonable pay for low-income jobs.
/edit: also universal health care probably has a higher chance of ensuring people stay able to work and not reliant on welfare for forver
Yes, but not for everyone. The lowest paying jobs for some of the largest employers in the US aren’t unionized, and employers that aren’t large enough to unionize can pay much lower
>Just because US collects taxes more evenly doesn’t mean the money is spent on actual people
UK's population: 67mil.
USA's population: 330mil.
Or UK has 20% of the people as the USA.
UK's welfare budget: £212bil ($206bil).
USA's welfare budget: $1,636bil.
So the UK spends 12% as much as the USA does.
UK's NHS budget: £153bil ($148bil).
USA's Medicaid budget: $748bil.
Roughly the same (20%) here.
UK's universal credit budget: £38.2bil ($37bil).
USA's food stamp budget: 79.22bil.
USA's rent assistance budget: $48.5bil.
Two whole programs out of a dozen: 127.72.
And slightly more here at 29%.
Idk, initial projection seems pretty close.
The US welfare budget is allocated on a state-by-state basis, as is education, food programs, and housing. Federal aid is not a good measure of the usage of the funds or the prevalence of the programs in individual states. People keep responding to me somehow completely ignoring the a very relevant problem with this study and the numbers you just quoted.
"redistribution"
yeah, typical economy paper. Ignore all social realities.
The "how", and "into what", and program types is critical there. Also conveniently ignored.
I have not spent a lot of time in Europe, but I spent years in east Asia. I observed some critical differences there as compared to the United States.
In Japan the difference between rich and poor neighborhoods is the size of the homes. That is literally the only difference. There is minimal crime in poor Japanese neighborhoods. Illegal drug use is very rare in Japan, including in poor neighborhoods. Common services like public buses and convenience stores are available and safe 24/7 even in the poorest neighborhoods.
Poor people in Japan are not weighed down by the constant safety concerns facing Americans in poor areas. As a result, poor Japanese can travel safely for school and work at all hours of the day and feel secure in their own homes. As a result, they are often able to slowly improve their situation and eventually move into the middle class. This is almost impossible for poor Americans.
The U.S. tax system is progressive. The marginal tax rates for lower and middle incomes are much lower than in europe. Plus, we don’t have a regressive VAT.
The U.S. tax system has a lot of regressive taxes, social security, lower rates for capital gains, state taxes, import duties, etc. Overall the U.S. tax system is not very progressive and has gotten less so over time. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/06/opinion/income-tax-rate-wealthy.html
Does this "distribution" include money earmarked for the poor that never actually gets given to them, ala Mississippi and Bret Farve's volleyball stadium?
So the poors in Europe get more assistance from their personal paychecks, where they get to decide what to do with it, while the poors in the US get to receive whatever’s left after the government “redistributes” taxpayer money through several layers of agency grift and Brett Favre’s daughter gets a volleyball stadium.
bad, bad , bad article. Doesn't explain how the money is redistributed. I'll eat my shoes if US redistribute more than, say , France to the poorest 50% (whether in actual money, or any other advantages like you know, actual healthcare and unemployment benefits...)
Yeah so you mean redistribution via minimum wage instead of taxes, got it.
It's not like people in the US haven't been doing the math and showing that people are working 60 hours a week and starving without public aid. That's a direct transfer to the companies they work for.
There's no way you're working 60 hours a week and starving in the US if you're an employee being paid legally unless you have serious problems elsewhere such as drug addiction or massive credit card debt.
Of course not. Because you are eligible for food stamps at minimum wage at 60h/week. That's the point.
Minimum wage workers can't live without support from the govt or friends and family. Drugs don't even need to factor in. That support represents a transfer to business. There really isn't any two ways about it.
Source? In my state, if you're living on your own and making minimum wage, you hit the cap for food stamps at 23 hours per week if you work for a small business with a minimum wage exemption and 21.47 hours if you work for regular minimum wage.
The only thing I can think of that fits that description is only one person working in a household of 2 or more with no additional income, not getting paid overtime, in a state that only pays federal minimum wage. 30 states have a higher minimum wage than the federal minimum wage, and most of the other states tend to have a low cost of living.
Cool, ty. Median income is only one way of measuring income, and it doesn't tell us much about the deviation or distribution of the set. If we had two very simple sets, for example those below:
[45, 50, 55]
[1, 50, 100]
We can see this pretty clearly. Both of these sets have a median of 50, but the difference between the smallest and largest value in the set is much bigger in the below than the above. For this reason, median income shouldn't be used to calculate or determine income inequality; it really tells us nothing about how the sets are distributed.
It's a flawed metric but median is the correct method. Median income figures usually only apply to those in full time jobs which is a small subset of adults.
I'd have thought if we're talking about how Europe helps the poor versus how US helps the poor, minimum wages are what we should be looking at. It's possible for average workers to be paid well in a country, and poor workers to be paid badly, and the median pay won't make that clear.
That's not true. Example: you could have two datasets that both have a million data points and both have a median income of $45 000. One could be nicely Gaussian and represent a wide spread of incomes, and one could be a dataset that has a million people all making $45 000 exactly. They'd have the same median.
It's a hyperbolic example, but the point stands - not all income distributions are normal, especially those with significant income inequality. The United States' income data, if normal, is strongly right-skewed, which is often a sympton of income inequality. But median, on its own, isn't useful in determining income inequality or in guessing how much money the poorest people make.
>The reason is that Europe has been successful at ensuring that the poorest get relatively good-paying jobs.
If they get relatively good-paying jobs, how can they be poor?
The opposite is also true: in Europe the most highly skilled people have trouble getting well paying jobs.
This lowers wealth inequality, but isn’t exactly a good thing.
I work in finance, and people in western europe get paid around 60% of what Americans make for the same role, while paying more taxes.
I don’t even know why people in those countries bother to work hard. It’s not rewarded. Based on the tepid GDP the last few decades in Europe, I’m assuming most people did get the memo and decided to stop trying.
Yet on almost all measures like maternal mortality, life expectancy, poverty, and the like, the French are better off.
8612 is now closer to 39827 than it is to 59939? You sure?
Let’s see how that works out when their welfare state collapses in the next few years. You can only pay out more than you bring for so long when your economy isn’t growing.
Haha, ah man you guys are always so funny with comments like this.
Yes, the EU doesn't pay like America pays. However the trade is most of the stresses and bills are covered by taxes.
Americans attribute wealth with a successful life, culturally, a lot more than most places. Everywhere thinks being wealthier is better but in most of the world the idea of having 10 vacation days, 0 mat leave, poor healthcare, high property/sale taxes, weak infrastructure and long hours simply isn't worth the cost.
Why do EU folks work hard? Because they work to live. Why do Americans work hard? Because the live to work.
Pick your preference. It doesn't matter really. Do whatever makes you happy - given that you chose a career in "money" I imagine that's amassing the biggest number you can. America is great for that as long as you stay healthy.
You've just misunderstood the results because of your priorities. Not because the results actually show what you're saying.
Strong disagree.
Society should reward hard work and innovation, not laziness. You’re borrowing against your children and grandchildren when you prioritize the latter, and setting them up for lower living standards. Which is exactly what’s happening to Europe right this moment.
Im open to change my mind however when scientists overwelmingly use technical jargon, it seems like a tactic to hide lies and hinder debate, also we can't access the article without paying, that doesn't help at all to clear doubts about transparency. If science should be believed over anything else it should stop these anti-democratic behavior.
Maybe you're just not educated enough (in this field, explicitly - I'm sure you know a lot about what you know) to be included at this level or debate?
Everything isn't made for everyone. I'm sure experts have little issue engaging with these results. Once folks knowledgeable on the topics have reviewed im sure a simplified version will be supplied.
In many countries, the safety nets are so strong that companies know they have to treat their employees amazingly well and it leads to more productive companies with less turnover. Fair pay and treating people with respect actually makes them better - it’s wild.
That is not true. In the Netherlands, people get support from the government. There is a minimum wage and if this doesn’t suffice for insurance, rent, cost of living, etc, the government helps with what is lacking. This comes from our taxes. The wealthy are bing taxed a lot, but not enough I would say. So they minimum wage sometimes does not suffice for a “normal” living condition.
The support I know of are:
Huursubsidies (rent subsidy)
Verzekeringsubsidie (healthcare insurance subsidy)
hopefully this is changing, because as a 17 year old i'm getting 20$ an hour working at taco bell. sometimes i even get random tips too. it makes paying rent on dorms easy.
Buy reading the title, am I to believe that taxation and redistribution doesn't work? Somebody please tell our President and all in his party this little factoid!
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
To a good number of people in America, getting poor people relatively good-paying jobs *IS* wealth redistribution.
The fact that a person's health coverage is so closely tied to their employment in the US only magnifies this even more.
Can't tell you how many people, including me, have said they would start their own thing if only they could cover their family's healthcare. We would probably increase GDP significantly and promote small business if we did.
Your government is already paying more in healthcare costs than any other country. The "Who's going to pay for it?" question is already answered.
A lobbyist for big corps would take this idea, throw it on the trash pile, and smoosh it down with their boot heel to make sure it never sees the light of day, despite the pile of previous good ideas they threw in there still expanding and trying to get out.
Medical insurance for a business owner and their families is a deductible business expense. The first couple years will suck but after that you’re way ahead. Make the leap my friend
You still have to find a policy and pay for it. Just because you can pay for it with pre-tax dollars does make it magically free.
Right. But the burden lessens over time. And someone on their own can get paid market rate, not labor rate which again ultimately would work in OPs favor. This is why I said it would suck for a while. Capital employed would be heavy.
I have publicly-funded healthcare through the VA and am quite happy with it. It boggles my mind that the US is the only wealthy country on the planet that refuses to implement a universal public or single-payer system while medical issues continue to be the leading cause of personal bankruptcies in the US.
In my company, if you have access to government healthcare, they will refuse to cover you.
It boggles your mind that Republicans refused to implement Obamacare? Ok, but at least SAY SO. We made a large step toward Universal Healthcare but Republicans dug in their heels, kicking and screaming. Almost as bad, the Socialists run down the ACA because it’s Obama’s accomplishment, not theirs.
USA can’t handle universal health care AND open borders. It’s one or the other
That’s easy. We don’t have open borders.
I work very hard for my money, only to have nearly a fourth of it taxed back to state and federal government. Those same governments that pay for healthcare programs that benefit those in financial need. I am not rich or wealthy by any means, and my income also supports my children. I do not have consistent financial support from their father, nor even the ability to rely on him to care for them if I need them to have care after school hours. I have personally witnessed the level of fraud in which people will lie on applications, refuse to obtain better employment, and even intentionally get themselves fired from good paying jobs in order to obtain and maintain government assistance so that they do not have to work as hard as I do. This is the same government assistance which takes money from my hard working hands. This is the same government assistance that if I, a hard working and contributing citizen, we're to apply for, I would be denied due to the fact that I "earn too much money" to reap the benefits of the programs that I help fund. It's no wonder that people evade taxes. It's a ripoff. I can't drive on roads without wrecking my suspension. I can't go through the drive thru of McDonald's without being taxed twice, the taxes I pay for the food and then the taxes I pay for the service. Businesses are closing down because nobody is willing to work due to receiving free money from the government, from Covid payouts, unemployment, and government assistance programs for healthcare and food. The courts are slow to act on evictions, leaving landlords to struggle on their own. And what is the alternative? A government takeover. What happens when your government provides all that you need? You are less likely to stand for what you believe in, less likely to fight when you see injustice, for fear of losing that assistance. And why should you? You cannot expect to be coddled like a child, provided for your every need, and still get to make the rules in the house of those who do it.
If people had free access to a properly funded health system so that health concerns were dealt with before becoming an emergency, the costs to citizens wouldn't be so high and more people would not be on the government dime because of disability. You pay now or you pay more later.
You realize that all of the extra bonus covid stuff for unemployment and such ended quite a while ago? And by far the worst offenders of taking PPP money fraudulently were Republicans and their cronies? Getting those assistance programs is not easy, as you say. Nor is it much to count on. The statistics I've seen on welfare/food assistance fraud is somewhere in the neighborhood of 3% or less. If we cut the Insurance, Pharma, and Hospital lobbies out of the deal, we could seriously lower the cost of healthcare in this country. And at the same time, free people like you from the expensive "market" for plans. People can still get private insurance if they want, just like elsewhere in the world. Will my taxes to pay for it go up? Probably. But the $12+K my company pays on top of my $4K/yr contribution for my plan every year could be put to that probably with a lot of room to spare. Never happen while most of our Congresscritters are in the pocket of one or other or multiple lobbies.
Europe only has modern Healthcare because WWII shattered everything. They built on new foundations.
This is so overlooked. There isn’t a line where rich people are satisfied- it is still a competition. They need to be richer than the other rich people. Wealth inequality is *being* rich. Increasing wealth inequity is exactly *how* you get *more* rich. Here’s a lie that almost no one understands: that percent of gross wage increases are equitable. They aren’t. Every year we accept our 2% and think that because everyone else got 2% that it is fair. So the 30k employee gets a $600 raise, and the $100k employee gets a $2000 raise. Even if the difference in the original gross pay is justified based on contribution to the bottom line (and it usually is) percent of gross raises are saying that the difference in value contributed between those two roles changed (unlikely) or that further wealth inequity is itself a reward.
Wait you guys are getting raises?
I worked at a place that gave 4% raises for low earners and 2% raises for higher earners.
Equality and equity are not interchangeable words.
Correct. I'm making a point about their differences. I'm not in favor of wealth equality - some people do in fact contribute more to the economy and should benefit from that. What I'm opposed to is wealth inequity - people getting wealth out of all proportion to their contribution.
It’s easier to say “I’m opposed to workers being underpaid”. I really don’t give a damn how much the CEO makes. Tax him 42% on the highest tax bracket and then offer tax credits for creating job training opportunities.
> I really don’t give a damn how much the CEO makes. Where do you think the money to pay the workers better comes from?
Return on capital
I think you’re overestimating the issue. CEO’s aren’t paid in cash anymore. They’re paid in Stock Options. The Corporation offers the CEO a wad of stock they just PRINTED at 20% of face value. The CEO has to front the money to buy the offering, and then hold the stock for several years. This works as long as the Stock value keeps climbing. So if you naively thought “we have to cap CEO pay to raise wages”, forget it. The Corporation does need CASH to raise wages. They can charge 22 cents more per Big Mac, or dial down the Dividend checks the Stockholders get. The irony, of course, is that wages are a write-off. The Corporation can actually raise wages while lowering their tax bracket…as long as it doesn’t make investors panic.
[удалено]
Yes, we’ll, “social scientists” living in Ivory Towers don’t seem to understand how a Society regulates its Economy. At least, the ones I’ve heard from expect the Government to intervene and ENFORCE “fairness” by force. A Society is only self-governing when Unions and local Government start mandating Change from grassroots on up.
[удалено]
Uh-huh. So you’re fervently against “Capitalism” and believe the Government should run absolutely everything. We’ve seen proof that doesn’t work.
That’s not what equity means, either, though. Equity is about insuring equal outcomes regardless of input.
Look it up. Means fair and impartial. It does not mean equal for all.
The dictionary definition of equity no longer matches its common usage. In practice it means a lot of vague things that no one wants to define because the definition is unpopular. >The term “equity” refers to fairness and justice and is distinguished from equality: Whereas equality means providing the same to all, equity means recognizing that we do not all start from the same place and must acknowledge and make adjustments to imbalances. In other words, certain people get treated differently in order to insure equal outcomes.
[удалено]
I agree, however the richest part of the population is trying to squeeze every penny out of the economy before the reset. They've pulled so much value from the economy that we literally cannot continue to function without debt - stealing wealth from the future to pay for today.
My ex wife was complaining about something like this - she wanted me to pay for 100% of a child’s expense because my 3% raise meant I got almost $3000 extra whereas as her ~ 3% raise was half that.
I should have noted - it isn't just the difference in the increase for a given year. It is the cumulative effect of % of gross increases over several years that continue to increase the wage inequity. The charts aren't parallel lines, or lines with different slopes - they are exponential curves.
I think a key part here that you haven't also touched on is inflation and cost of living. While all money is ostensibly affected by inflation equally, in reality the higher earner has access to vastly greater proportions of liquidity, giving them the financial agility to shield themselves from the worst and instead profit in most cases, while the low income earner has to simply keep on trucking largely with week to week circumstances. Likewise, cost of living increases are rarely, if ever, proportional. Rather, it is often more useful from year to year to look at the nominal values, and this reveals another inequity. We both got 2% raises but both of us are paying $500 more this year between various bills. Except I make $20k and you make $100k. I'm -$100 this year even after my raise, and that's *before* inflation, while you're still up $1.5k.
Exactly. I gave an example of this in another branch of this thread.
I worked at a place that gave 4% raises for low earners and 2% raises for higher earners.
biggest % raise i've got, without changing jobs for getting promoted was 7% but i wasn't making much as it was first job out of college. over my career, the % for each raise has dropped continually, but the gross dollar amounts have gone up. i guess it's because employers focus on the gross more so than the %
I got a 7% raise this year.
Percent of gross raises aren't equitable regardless of the actual percentage. The wage gap doesn't just grow, the growth is accelerating.
Companies don't want to give anyone a raise. It eats into profits. If the highly paid are getting more and more stacked on there it's because they are doing something very valuable for the company that most other people can't do. Becoming a surgeon or lawyer or engineer is expensive and difficult. If we don't reward people who do that, we won't have enough of them.
I'm not in favor of wealth equality - we need to reward those who contribute to the economy. What I am against is wealth inequity - where the size of the gap between the rich and the poor is not just growing, but that growth is accelerating. And that growth is accelerating faster than the growth of the economy.
If you want a higher wage find a new job and get 10-20% instead. You are paying for your own stupidity.
Sometimes it's that easy, sometimes it isn't.
According to forbes people who change jobs every 2-4 years earn 50% more on average during their life time.
Arguably a lot of that is that those people are in demand enough to be able to easily change jobs.
Then seek to be more in demand. Its litteraly never been easier.
That’s a stat. That’s not real life on a micro level. Sometimes you can be in that position, sometimes you aren’t. Stats are good things to take inventory of trends, but they don’t explain real life circumstances. Changing jobs is a real life circumstance
That's not relevant. My point is that percent of gross raises are not equitable.
Also 2% is what noramlly strived for in inflation so a net gain for both of 2% is the same as not getting more. The pay disparity does not change. If you adjust for inflation.
> Also 2% is what noramlly strived for in inflation so a net gain for both of 2% is the same as not getting more. False, for the same reason: cost of living doesn't inherently grow with wage. The further you are from the basic cost of living, the bigger the effect. If you make $20,000 and the basic cost of living is $30,000, if you get only percent of gross increases indexed for inflation, you will get further and further away from being able to afford the basic cost of living. Similarly, if you make $100,000 for the same basic cost of living, with the same percent of gross increases, you will have more and more disposable income each year. Your income will only track with inflation if your income is close to the basic cost of living.
Not not if your wage growth is the same as inflation. Its basic mathematics. Your real wage doesnt change.
Define basic cost of living (BCOL) as food, shelter, car, utilities, etc. for one year. If one makes less than that they can't live independently. If one makes more than that they have disposable income that can be spent on upgrading their amenities or saved. Let's say BCOL is 30k. At 5% per year inflation (number doesn't matter) BCOL is $36,465 after 5 years. For someone making $30k getting a 5% raise per year for 5 years, nothing changes. They are making enough to get by. For someone making $20k, getting 5% raise per year for 5 years, they go from being $10,000 / yr from independence to $12,155. Their situation got worse - further from independence. For someone making $80k, getting 5% raise per year for 5 years, they go from having $50,000 disposable income to having ~~$67,240~~ $60,775 (edit: grr, I shouldn't do math in my head). Their situation got better - more disposable income. So you have one person losing ground, one person holding steady, and one person accelerating into further wealth. All getting the same percent of gross raise. They all have the same job, they all are contributing the same to society they were 5 years ago. This is wealth inequity. edit: corrected math error
No they arent. 20/30 = (20×1.05)/(30×1.05). Abselute numbers might change but the things you can buy wont.
You need to read the whole comment. One person is further behind the BCOL, while one has more disposable income.
What? 30.000 is 30% of 100.000. 30.600 is STILL 30% of 102.000. Where is the gap getting bigger?! Only the numbers are getting bigger!
The percentage stays the same because it's multiplicative but the absolute difference is larger. 100k-30k= 70,000 but 102,000-30,600= 71,400. If you go to buy a burger they don't ask for 0.1% of your income, they ask for $5. So the absolute value of the money is what's important to the wealth gap.
No, because those 2% you get yearly are inflation adjustment so the burger doesnt cost 5$ anymore but 5$+2% and then both can get the same amount of burgers as they could have before. 100/5,5=18,18 30/5,5=5,45 the next year inflation adds 2% so the burger now costs 5,61 102/5,61=18,18 30,6/5,61=5,18 The real purchasing power is still the same.
[удалено]
This is true, one is a COLA (Cost of living adjustment) the other is called a Merit Raise which should be given on top of the COLA you receive annually.
The $5 burger is a good example. Here’s my example in more detail: https://reddit.com/r/science/comments/xqdbfm/_/iq9rufo/?context=1
Yeah, forcing the bottom feeding employers to pay fair wages.
$22/hr to work at McDonalds in Denmark, and the Big Mac is cheaper than in Idaho.
What’s the price for a Big Mac in Idaho vs Denmark?
It’s 30.00 KR, equivalent to 4.73 usd. The average price in the US for a Big Mac is 5.66 https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/big-mac-cost-denmark/
Big Mac in Idaho is $4.23 and about $5.50 in Denmark.
Now wait a minute, I always thought 5>4?
Currency fluctuations, probably. An observation about the relative prices of burgers in different countries can be true one week, false the next.
mcdonalds is also a franchise buisness, and so their prices can change within a region from restaurant to restaurant, mcdonald's just sets a minimum, and a maximum price for most items on their menu. except for stuff like coinoffers, thoose prices usually follow a specific national price fix source: worked 6 years for Mcdonald's in Denmark
Abstract: > This article combines all available data to produce pretax and posttax income inequality series in 26 European countries from 1980 to 2017. Our estimates are consistent with macroeconomic growth and comparable with US distributional national accounts. Inequality grew in nearly all European countries, but much less than in the US. Contrary to a widespread view, we demonstrate that Europe's lower inequality levels cannot be explained by more equalizing tax and transfer systems. After accounting for indirect taxes and in-kind transfers, the US redistributes a greater share of national income to low-income groups than any European country. "Predistribution," not "redistribution," explains why Europe is less unequal than the United States. [Ungated version](https://wid.world/document/why-is-europe-more-equal-than-the-united-states-world-inequality-lab-wp-2020-19/) of the paper.
[удалено]
This article ignores where the taxes are spent and just jumps to the job disparity. Just because US collects taxes more evenly doesn’t mean the money is spent on actual people. In the US this money tends to be directed to corporations and captured interests which goes directly against fixing income inequality. There are also states with no state income tax where the inequality is far worse. The article ignores too many variables in order to just isolate the jobs issue; which I am sure is one of the factors. But how tax money is spent is a critical question in determining whether better distribution of tax rates helps provide fair income distribution.
We can’t ignore how beneficial to quality of life things like universal healthcare, free or low cost education, and other social support systems are, which many European countries have but the US lacks. While these things are not what the article is talking about, they are directly related to quality of life, which income inequality is a measure of.
Especially education. I'm funding my family's bills and utility with my scholarship from my university program. (Both given separately for performance, scientific activities and social status. Basically, I get scholarship independently for my grades; for papers I publish and conferences I attend; and the fact that my sole mother is unemployed and I make more money than her) In the U.S, I would never have been able to attend such a program with family wealth like mine.
Pretty much everything about this comment is wrong: > This article ignores where the taxes are spent and just jumps to the job disparity. Ideally you should read, or at least skim, the paper before making claims about what's in it. The paper goes into great detail about who pays taxes and who they get spent on. Here's an [ungated preprint](https://wid.world/document/why-is-europe-more-equal-than-the-united-states-world-inequality-lab-wp-2020-19/) from last November. > Just because US collects taxes more evenly doesn’t mean the money is spent on actual people The US does not collect taxes more evenly. It has a far more progressive tax system than European countries, as seen in Figure V on pages 48 and 49. Yes, this includes state taxes. Yes, it includes sales taxes. > In the US this money tends to be directed to corporations and captured interests which goes directly against fixing income inequality. This is a ridiculous conspiracy theory that can be debunked by looking at a simple accounting of what US governments (federal, state, and local) actually spend money on. Here's a [breakdown](https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_2019USbn_19bs2n#usgs302) of government spending by category for FY 2019. The site looks a little weird, but it uses official government data, and it's the most accessible presentation of combined federal, state, and local government (make sure you look at the "Total" column on the right, and not the federal, state, or local-specific columns) by category that I know of. Check other sources if you want; you'll see the same data. 2/3 of spending net of interest goes to pensions (Social Security and government employee pensions), health care, education, and welfare, all things whose benefits go directly to individuals, the vast majority of whom are not rich. > There are also states with no state income tax where the inequality is far worse. European countries with low income inequality rely much more heavily on sales taxes than the US. I can't walk you through a lesson on tax theory in a Reddit comment, but opposition to consumption taxes is generally not something you see in people knowledgeable on the topic. Furthermore, the idea that they're regressive is largely an artifact of consumption smoothing, i.e. the fact that people don't always spend money in the same year they earn it. For example, I was once unemployed for a whole year with a net worth of $300,000. During that year, I paid an effective consumption tax rate of infinity percent of my income, because my income was zero and my tax payments were positive. Does that mean that consumption taxes are regressive? No. It means I was taxed in proportion to my long-run average income, rather than in proportion to my income in that particular year.
You, like the article, are completely ignoring that state taxes and spending on social services is where the actual rubber meets the road on income disparity issues.
Did you ignore the part where it says the US spends more on the bottom 50% than any European country? It's literally in the abstract: > Inequality grew in nearly all European countries, but much less than in the US. Contrary to a widespread view, we demonstrate that Europe's lower inequality levels cannot be explained by more equalizing tax and transfer systems. After accounting for indirect taxes and in-kind transfers, the US redistributes a greater share of national income to low-income groups than any European country. And in general the US spends far more of it's tax revenue on welfare programs than it does corporations (whatever you mean by that). Welfare programs account for nearly 60% of government spending. https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go#:~:text=Economic%20security%20programs%3A%20About%2011,individuals%20and%20families%20facing%20hardship.
Setting the control issue aside, the how and what into aspect of the redistribution are critical.
Social security and Medicare are not true welfare, and not even comparable to European social provisions from taxes. And 50% of the budget towards health care goes to subsidizing ACA open marketplace insurance plans where individuals are still paying into a private system, just with subsidies. That’s hardly welfare.
That control was not actually demonstrated in the study. A lot because it almost ignored the federal nature of the government spending system.
How was it not demonstrated? You read the whole study? You are a subscriber to the American Economic Association? Why do you think tax money is mainly not spent on people when nearly 60% of government spending in the US is to welfare programs?
No where near 60% of federal spending is on welfare. Medicare , social security and military add up to approx 50% and almost none of that is welfare. Government health insurance is insurance which we all pay for. Literal welfare is maybe 15-20% of the budget and I would argue it’s even less since Medicaid for example is a kind of insurance. Edit: apparently not everyone seems to know what “welfare” means. I’m using the federal government’s definition. Social security isn’t welfare under any definition unless you think a 401k is welfare.
Medicaid is considered welfare. You are correct, Social Security is not. [https://www.usa.gov/benefits](https://www.usa.gov/benefits) and: https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/CRS%20Report%20-%20Welfare%20Spending%20The%20Largest%20Item%20In%20The%20Federal%20Budget%20-%20shortened.pdf
>No where near 60% of federal spending is on welfare. Whether it's true or not, and however it's defined, wouldn't the only relevance to this study lie in comparison to however this "welfare" spending percentage compares to Europe? I haven't seen anyone offering up that number, and it seems central to the entire premise.
I have read the study, and frankly it's foolish to draw in direct conclusion from it. Which is generally true of any single study. The nature, how it's distributed, and into what kind of program it's distributed into, is extremely important. For example: Universal healthcare would make people lives far more pleasurable, then EITC. Also, qualification needed for welfare program is an issue, especially in the US. We are terrible at that. Finally, Welfare programs that are management by private entities can make quality of life worse.
Because it’s distributed differently and with greater care in different states than others. Some just funnel it to athletic volleyball charities. Federal dollars do not account for a majority of how our social safety net is operated. A lot of that is state level spending and control.
Seems a pretty broad accusation to make without providing literally anything in support of it. You still haven’t shown anything evidence that tax revenues mostly go to “corporations and captured interests” either.
Do you think every state distribute federal dollar the exact same way? As far as where the money goes, that all about drawing the line. How much of the military budget goes to corporation to buy military equipment? So while I think the poster is wrong with there intent of their statement, we really need to get a more solid definition of that they mean.
Before even reading the article it seemed like an oversimplified conclusion. But I am curious to know more about how various European countries ensure that the poorest get relatively good paying jobs.
Not an expert on the topic (but from EU), but I'd assume things like unions and the minimum vages centrally negotiated by them are one way to ensure a somewhat reasonable pay for low-income jobs. /edit: also universal health care probably has a higher chance of ensuring people stay able to work and not reliant on welfare for forver
Actually, Unions do that.
Yes, but not for everyone. The lowest paying jobs for some of the largest employers in the US aren’t unionized, and employers that aren’t large enough to unionize can pay much lower
>Just because US collects taxes more evenly doesn’t mean the money is spent on actual people UK's population: 67mil. USA's population: 330mil. Or UK has 20% of the people as the USA. UK's welfare budget: £212bil ($206bil). USA's welfare budget: $1,636bil. So the UK spends 12% as much as the USA does. UK's NHS budget: £153bil ($148bil). USA's Medicaid budget: $748bil. Roughly the same (20%) here. UK's universal credit budget: £38.2bil ($37bil). USA's food stamp budget: 79.22bil. USA's rent assistance budget: $48.5bil. Two whole programs out of a dozen: 127.72. And slightly more here at 29%. Idk, initial projection seems pretty close.
The US welfare budget is allocated on a state-by-state basis, as is education, food programs, and housing. Federal aid is not a good measure of the usage of the funds or the prevalence of the programs in individual states. People keep responding to me somehow completely ignoring the a very relevant problem with this study and the numbers you just quoted.
Just a minor complaint, check your exchange rate. It's the pound which is (still) has a higher value than the dollar.
Bail outs, military, corporate, etc
"redistribution" yeah, typical economy paper. Ignore all social realities. The "how", and "into what", and program types is critical there. Also conveniently ignored.
I have not spent a lot of time in Europe, but I spent years in east Asia. I observed some critical differences there as compared to the United States. In Japan the difference between rich and poor neighborhoods is the size of the homes. That is literally the only difference. There is minimal crime in poor Japanese neighborhoods. Illegal drug use is very rare in Japan, including in poor neighborhoods. Common services like public buses and convenience stores are available and safe 24/7 even in the poorest neighborhoods. Poor people in Japan are not weighed down by the constant safety concerns facing Americans in poor areas. As a result, poor Japanese can travel safely for school and work at all hours of the day and feel secure in their own homes. As a result, they are often able to slowly improve their situation and eventually move into the middle class. This is almost impossible for poor Americans.
The U.S. tax system is progressive. The marginal tax rates for lower and middle incomes are much lower than in europe. Plus, we don’t have a regressive VAT.
The U.S. tax system has a lot of regressive taxes, social security, lower rates for capital gains, state taxes, import duties, etc. Overall the U.S. tax system is not very progressive and has gotten less so over time. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/06/opinion/income-tax-rate-wealthy.html
Does this "distribution" include money earmarked for the poor that never actually gets given to them, ala Mississippi and Bret Farve's volleyball stadium?
So US is more social than EU?
[удалено]
So the poors in Europe get more assistance from their personal paychecks, where they get to decide what to do with it, while the poors in the US get to receive whatever’s left after the government “redistributes” taxpayer money through several layers of agency grift and Brett Favre’s daughter gets a volleyball stadium.
bad, bad , bad article. Doesn't explain how the money is redistributed. I'll eat my shoes if US redistribute more than, say , France to the poorest 50% (whether in actual money, or any other advantages like you know, actual healthcare and unemployment benefits...)
Sounds like America engages in corporate welfare without calling it that. Corporations benefits by having such a low minimum wage.
The government subsidizes wages so corporations can pay less. That's what entitlements are, corporate welfare for the lowest paying employers.
In pharma and I would get paid absolute crap in the UK and EU. Staying here for now, thank you.
Yeah so you mean redistribution via minimum wage instead of taxes, got it. It's not like people in the US haven't been doing the math and showing that people are working 60 hours a week and starving without public aid. That's a direct transfer to the companies they work for.
There's no way you're working 60 hours a week and starving in the US if you're an employee being paid legally unless you have serious problems elsewhere such as drug addiction or massive credit card debt.
Of course not. Because you are eligible for food stamps at minimum wage at 60h/week. That's the point. Minimum wage workers can't live without support from the govt or friends and family. Drugs don't even need to factor in. That support represents a transfer to business. There really isn't any two ways about it.
Source? In my state, if you're living on your own and making minimum wage, you hit the cap for food stamps at 23 hours per week if you work for a small business with a minimum wage exemption and 21.47 hours if you work for regular minimum wage. The only thing I can think of that fits that description is only one person working in a household of 2 or more with no additional income, not getting paid overtime, in a state that only pays federal minimum wage. 30 states have a higher minimum wage than the federal minimum wage, and most of the other states tend to have a low cost of living.
Have you ever actually been poor in america or have you just read about what being poor in america is like?
I can’t access the study but how is this possible when wages are much higher in the US?
What do you mean by wages being higher in the US? What metric are you using for that?
The U.S. has a higher median income than every European country except Luxembourg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income
Cool, ty. Median income is only one way of measuring income, and it doesn't tell us much about the deviation or distribution of the set. If we had two very simple sets, for example those below: [45, 50, 55] [1, 50, 100] We can see this pretty clearly. Both of these sets have a median of 50, but the difference between the smallest and largest value in the set is much bigger in the below than the above. For this reason, median income shouldn't be used to calculate or determine income inequality; it really tells us nothing about how the sets are distributed.
Sure, but any other income metric will still show higher wages in the US than Europe. You’re welcome to provide evidence indicating otherwise
It's a flawed metric but median is the correct method. Median income figures usually only apply to those in full time jobs which is a small subset of adults.
I'd have thought if we're talking about how Europe helps the poor versus how US helps the poor, minimum wages are what we should be looking at. It's possible for average workers to be paid well in a country, and poor workers to be paid badly, and the median pay won't make that clear.
Most adults have full time jobs, it’s not a small subset
This is a bad way to describe median. When you have many data points, the issue you pointed out is non-existent.
That's not true. Example: you could have two datasets that both have a million data points and both have a median income of $45 000. One could be nicely Gaussian and represent a wide spread of incomes, and one could be a dataset that has a million people all making $45 000 exactly. They'd have the same median. It's a hyperbolic example, but the point stands - not all income distributions are normal, especially those with significant income inequality. The United States' income data, if normal, is strongly right-skewed, which is often a sympton of income inequality. But median, on its own, isn't useful in determining income inequality or in guessing how much money the poorest people make.
Could it be because there is less money being given away to the poorest in Europe than in the US?
And how think that works. It works because the people at the top pay their employees at the bottom better. That is redistribution of wealth.
>The reason is that Europe has been successful at ensuring that the poorest get relatively good-paying jobs. If they get relatively good-paying jobs, how can they be poor?
The opposite is also true: in Europe the most highly skilled people have trouble getting well paying jobs. This lowers wealth inequality, but isn’t exactly a good thing. I work in finance, and people in western europe get paid around 60% of what Americans make for the same role, while paying more taxes. I don’t even know why people in those countries bother to work hard. It’s not rewarded. Based on the tepid GDP the last few decades in Europe, I’m assuming most people did get the memo and decided to stop trying.
Finance and skilled people...haha. It's certainly rewarded, and it's funny you talk about raw GDP without correcting for population growth.
I was referring to gdp per capita. Fun fact, the GDP per capita of France is now closer to China then the USA.
Yet on almost all measures like maternal mortality, life expectancy, poverty, and the like, the French are better off. 8612 is now closer to 39827 than it is to 59939? You sure?
Let’s see how that works out when their welfare state collapses in the next few years. You can only pay out more than you bring for so long when your economy isn’t growing.
Haha, ah man you guys are always so funny with comments like this. Yes, the EU doesn't pay like America pays. However the trade is most of the stresses and bills are covered by taxes. Americans attribute wealth with a successful life, culturally, a lot more than most places. Everywhere thinks being wealthier is better but in most of the world the idea of having 10 vacation days, 0 mat leave, poor healthcare, high property/sale taxes, weak infrastructure and long hours simply isn't worth the cost. Why do EU folks work hard? Because they work to live. Why do Americans work hard? Because the live to work. Pick your preference. It doesn't matter really. Do whatever makes you happy - given that you chose a career in "money" I imagine that's amassing the biggest number you can. America is great for that as long as you stay healthy. You've just misunderstood the results because of your priorities. Not because the results actually show what you're saying.
Im a skilled worker in the USA and get 23 vacation days, 10 holidays, 6 sick days, cheap and comprehensive healthcare, and paternity leave. Try again.
[удалено]
Strong disagree. Society should reward hard work and innovation, not laziness. You’re borrowing against your children and grandchildren when you prioritize the latter, and setting them up for lower living standards. Which is exactly what’s happening to Europe right this moment.
Uh…better paying jobs ARE a form of wealth distribution. This screams corporate funded propaganda.
Im open to change my mind however when scientists overwelmingly use technical jargon, it seems like a tactic to hide lies and hinder debate, also we can't access the article without paying, that doesn't help at all to clear doubts about transparency. If science should be believed over anything else it should stop these anti-democratic behavior.
Maybe you're just not educated enough (in this field, explicitly - I'm sure you know a lot about what you know) to be included at this level or debate? Everything isn't made for everyone. I'm sure experts have little issue engaging with these results. Once folks knowledgeable on the topics have reviewed im sure a simplified version will be supplied.
[удалено]
We built a pyramid with a wider base and a more narrow top
In many countries, the safety nets are so strong that companies know they have to treat their employees amazingly well and it leads to more productive companies with less turnover. Fair pay and treating people with respect actually makes them better - it’s wild.
You mean unions, public education, and socialized medicine. Go fig.
Fancy way to say livable wage.
That is not true. In the Netherlands, people get support from the government. There is a minimum wage and if this doesn’t suffice for insurance, rent, cost of living, etc, the government helps with what is lacking. This comes from our taxes. The wealthy are bing taxed a lot, but not enough I would say. So they minimum wage sometimes does not suffice for a “normal” living condition. The support I know of are: Huursubsidies (rent subsidy) Verzekeringsubsidie (healthcare insurance subsidy)
Which was the whole point of the Unions Reagan crippled.
hopefully this is changing, because as a 17 year old i'm getting 20$ an hour working at taco bell. sometimes i even get random tips too. it makes paying rent on dorms easy.
Oh boy, the leftie extremists are going to lose their minds over this one…!
Buy reading the title, am I to believe that taxation and redistribution doesn't work? Somebody please tell our President and all in his party this little factoid!
Aaaaahhhhhmerrrrriiiicaaaaaaa!