Krugman has some interesting thoughts today about life in France vs life in America:
Americans tend to believe that we do everything better than anyone else. That belief makes it hard for us to learn from others. For example, I've found that many people refuse to believe that Europe has anything to teach us about health care policy. After all, they say, how can Europeans be good at health care when their economies are such failures?
Now, there's no reason a country can't have both an excellent health care system and a troubled economy (or vice versa). But are European economies really doing that badly?
The answer is no. Americans are doing a lot of strutting these days, but a head-to-head comparison between the economies of the United States and Europe - France, in particular - shows that the big difference is in priorities, not performance. We're talking about two highly productive societies that have made a different tradeoff between work and family time. And there's a lot to be said for the French choice.
First things first: given all the bad-mouthing the French receive, you may be surprised that I describe their society as "productive." Yet according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, productivity in France - G.D.P. per hour worked - is actually a bit higher than in the United States.
It's true that France's G.D.P. per person is well below that of the United States. But that's because French workers spend more time with their families.
O.K., I'm oversimplifying a bit. There are several reasons why the French put in fewer hours of work per capita than we do. One is that some of the French would like to work, but can't: France's unemployment rate, which tends to run about four percentage points higher than the U.S. rate, is a real problem. Another is that many French citizens retire early. But the main story is that full-time French workers work shorter weeks and take more vacations than full-time American workers.
The point is that to the extent that the French have less income than we do, it's mainly a matter of choice. And to see the consequences of that choice, let's ask how the situation of a typical middle-class family in France compares with that of its American counterpart.
The French family, without question, has lower disposable income. This translates into lower personal consumption: a smaller car, a smaller house, less eating out.
But there are compensations for this lower level of consumption. Because French schools are good across the country, the French family doesn't have to worry as much about getting its children into a good school district. Nor does the French family, with guaranteed access to excellent health care, have to worry about losing health insurance or being driven into bankruptcy by medical bills.
Perhaps even more important, however, the members of that French family are compensated for their lower income with much more time together. Fully employed French workers average about seven weeks of paid vacation a year. In America, that figure is less than four.
So which society has made the better choice?
I've been looking at a new study of international differences in working hours by Alberto Alesina and Edward Glaeser, at Harvard, and Bruce Sacerdote, at Dartmouth. The study's main point is that differences in government regulations, rather than culture (or taxes), explain why Europeans work less than Americans.
But the study also suggests that in this case, government regulations actually allow people to make a desirable tradeoff - to modestly lower income in return for more time with friends and family - the kind of deal an individual would find hard to negotiate. The authors write: "It is hard to obtain more vacation for yourself from your employer and even harder, if you do, to coordinate with all your friends to get the same deal and go on vacation together."
And they even offer some statistical evidence that working fewer hours makes Europeans happier, despite the loss of potential income.
It's not a definitive result, and as they note, the whole subject is "politically charged." But let me make an observation: some of that political charge seems to have the wrong sign.
American conservatives despise European welfare states like France. Yet many of them stress the importance of "family values." And whatever else you may say about French economic policies, they seem extremely supportive of the family as an institution. Senator Rick Santorum, are you reading this?
A common response to liberal complaints these days is the equivalent of "love it or leave it." Wingnuts would tell someone like Krugman that if he likes France so much, he should move there. America is a conservative country, they say (which polls show on issues from health care to labor to abortion that it isn't), so if you don't like the government or the war in the Iraq or who got elected, then leave.
That's such a cheap, stupid argument. Look, if you love your country, you are obligated to stay here and help fix things, in my opinion. And of course, that "love it or leave it" response deflects from the main point, which is: if conservatives are so concerned about healthy families, why does their party endorse so many things that are harmful to families? You can talk about the corrupting influence of Hollywood culture all you want, but if you can't get health care, that's a more immediate threat to your well-being, isn't it?
You think Bush cares about family values? All that man seems to care about is getting in his daily workout and getting a healthy dose of vacation time. Come to think of it, he might be happier in France.
Posted by Observer at July 31, 2005 09:23 AMComments on entries can only be made in pop-up windows while those entries are still on the main index page. Sorry for the inconvenience this causes, but this blocks about 99.99% of the spam the blog receives.
Life is full of choices. You can choose not to study hard in school, you can choose what you do for a living, you can choose whether or not to spend money on health insurance or get cable TV and a cell phone instead.
If you want an assload of vacation, become a teacher.
Posted by: Humbaba on July 31, 2005 12:46 PMA grand idea, given a level playing field (which we don't have). But then there are complications.
For example, someone screws up and becomes a crack addict. What happens to her kids? Are they going to get to choose whether or not to have health insurance? Are they going to get to choose which school to attend?
Posted by: Observer on July 31, 2005 02:04 PMI'm not implying choices are easy, but even at the worst schools you can choose to get educated or choose to become a gang-banger. Obviously if your parents make bad choices your choices are going to be even more difficult. Difficult does not mean impossible.
Posted by: Humbaba on July 31, 2005 02:14 PMThere is truth in what each of you say. People should take responsibility for their lives as Humbaba argues, but it is also true that the playing field in this country is not level as Observer points out.
Observer asked, "For example, someone screws up and becomes a crack addict. What happens to her kids?" Obeserver, I'm going to say something pretty mean here. I don't think a crack addict should be allowed to have kids. I think they should be hauled into the nearest clinic and sterilized forthwith. I think people in general should be required to get a license before having kids -- and that license should be fairly hard to get. Have a kid without a license? Then it's off to the clinic with you. Of course, I know that's not going to happen, but these women who have six kids by four different fathers...well, I don't think making their children wards of the state gets to the root of the problem. That's the trouble I have with the democrats generally. They spend money on a lot of feel-good social programs that don't really solve the underlying problem and in fact make the problem worse.
Regarding the Krugman article, it so happens that the guy who works in the office next to mine emigrated from France several years ago -- and, boy, is he sorry! According to him France is a paradise compared to the US. He wants to go back so bad, but his kids don't know french, he wouldn't be able to get a job, etc. I don't give a crap about France one way or the other, but if he tells me one more time about their superior health care system, I swear I'm going to punch him in the mouth!
Posted by: HiggsBoson on July 31, 2005 07:21 PMIt's all well and good to say that we're going to sterilize people, but we all know that's not going to happen. And even if it DOES happen, you can't sterilize people retroactively, so you are still going to have the problem of what to do with kids whose parents have made it practically (if not theoretically) impossible for them to make the same kinds of choices my kids are going to get to make.
Liberals like me get super mad at conservatives who want a "culture of life", but their policies basically fuck over poor kids once they are out of the womb. And yes, this does cost a lot of them their lives. As long as you have government handouts, you are going to have people who abuse the system. You have to accept that and still try to help people.
What Republicans do is hold up such abuses, whether real or not (i.e. welfare queens with cadillacs), as representative of the system so everyone gets disgusted. Loud failures instead of millions of quiet successes. And it works for people who don't have the time or inclination to learn about everything. Talk radio has only amplified this problem and is one reason why conservatives dominate the airwaves. They keep their messages simply and punchy and entertaining, and fuck it if the world isn't really like that because they're rich and powerful now.
Posted by: Observer on July 31, 2005 09:38 PMObserver: "Loud failures instead of millions of quiet successes."
I'm sorry, Observer. Isn't it really the other way around? Imagine a typical headline by the liberal media like, "Welfare Mother Enters Government Funded Rehab, Overcomes Crack Addiction, Graduates From College." Isn't she the loud success, and her classmates in rehab, the majority still on drugs, the quiet failures? How about this one, "Illegal Immigrants Brave Border Crossing In Search Of Better Life." Yet the media fails to mention the vast underclass being created, the crime, the burden on social services. I was a little kid growing up in St.Louis (go Cards!) when the government built the massive Pruitt Igo housing project that was going to be a model for the rest of the country. I was there when they tore it down. It seems like everything the government does they do so badly that I just wish they would confine themselves to fixing potholes or something.
It's remarkable that I can read your blog every day, appreciate so much of what you write -- yet draw exactly the opposite conclusions.
Posted by: HiggsBoson on August 1, 2005 12:14 AMThat's not what I see in the media. Instead of news stories about successful government programs, I see a nightly segment called "The Fleecing of America" or some such about the newest outrageous waste of 0.00000001% of the federal budget. Instead of uplifting stories about immigrants creating jobs in this country, I see stories about how non-English-speaking Mexicans are filling up our classrooms, crowding out American kids and sucking our taxpayer dollars dry with health care needs, etc. (when in fact immigrants are a net gain to the economy).
At least, that's when the media cares to report on such stories. Most of the time, it's all Hollywood celebrities and/or "Where's the White Woman At?" (WWWA), about the latest disappearance, kidnapping or murder of some attractive white woman (the younger, the better).
Hence the blog title: Carpe Datum. Seize the data. Educate yourself. When you say government should just fix potholes, you sound like you've been listening to too much Republican talk radio. Are you really that unaware of some of the most amazingly successful government programs of the past 100 years or so?
Oliver Willis has some good "Brand Democrat" t-shirts. My favorite goes like this:
"Equal Pay. Equal Rights. 40 Hour Work Week. Social Security. Medicare. Clean Water. Clean Air. Safe Food. Freedom of Speech. Voting Rights."
"We're Just Getting Warmed Up."
And that's just the Democratic successes. Republicans, prior to the current brand of bloodsuckers that took control in 1980 (but much more so in 2000), have a decent list, too. And that's just the big stuff.
Posted by: Observer on August 1, 2005 07:07 AMObserver: "Educate yourself. When you say government should just fix potholes, you sound like you've been listening to too much Republican talk radio."
Thanks for the condescending advice, but I was trying to educate you actually.
Posted by: Higgs Boson on August 6, 2005 04:33 PMYou've been reading my blog long enough to know that giving me an anecdote and then generalizing from that to say that government is incompetent, etc. isn't going to get a serious response nor go even a tiny bit of the way toward educating me on the issues.
You want to claim that immigrants are a net drain on society? Back it up (and I'll show you some references that conclude otherwise, along with their reasoning so we can discuss it). You want to claim typical housing projects are bad? Well, hell, I agree with you (when have I claimed otherwise). But to get from there to "government should only fix potholes" is a logical leap worthy of Bill O'Reilly.
If you want to educate me, mix in something substantive. You know I'll take it seriously if you do.
Posted by: Observer on August 6, 2005 05:28 PMI knew you were going to say that. Yes, I have read your blog long enough to know that you refer to people and studies that agree with you; ridicule and attack those who don't. On the matter of immigration, the good people at http://www.vdare.com/ say it far better than I could. Also, http://www.numbersusa.com/ is a good resource. I am not guided by studies. You can prove anything with a study. Mostly I am guided by personal experience and common sense. We have enough people in this country. We import far too much oil and recently became a net importer of food. We don't need more people. We need to take care of the people we have. You say immigrants are a net gain to the economy? Of course if you add more workers, the economy is going to grow. What difference does that make? Per capita income is what matters. There are so many aspects to illegal immigration that disturb me, I don't know where to begin. For instance, Mexicans are taking jobs that have traditionally gone to blacks. Where does that leave black people? I've been through neighborhoods in Chicago and St.Louis where you can drive for hours without seeing a white person. These people don't have jobs. They have no hope. They are forgotten.
We could debate this for hours and hours. In fact I have debated it for hours. I don't think I ever changed anyone's mind. In the end we bring our own biases to these issues.
I know we can agree on one thing, Observer. We both want the world to be a better place. We don't want people to suffer or feel sad or hopeless. The question is how do we get there.
Posted by: on August 6, 2005 06:36 PMI refer to people and studies in my blog when they make sense objectively. I approach politics as a scientist. If someone has a theory, I want proof. I want to be able to test that theory. I want to know why they believe it, and I want to know under what conditions they would change their minds. If I have a theory, I explain why, and I comment on the potential problems. I talk about what would change my mind.
Not always. I'm not perfect. But in general, that's my approach, and it permeates what I write here, viewed as a whole. Sometimes I just get pissed and go off on a rant. I don't expect anything constructive to happen as a result. It just makes me feel better. My blog, my therapy.
I ridicule and attack bullshit, lies and ignorance (masquerading as informed, often arrogantly confident commentary). If you happen to agree with some of the stuff I ridicule, well, that's where you comment and/or start your own blog. But at least I give reasons, if not in a particular post, then historically throughout the blog.
I hope you understand that there is a difference between legal and illegal immigration. I'll look up what you're talking about and provide some of my own sources and comments in a future post when I get around to it. Immigration is not one of my favorite things to talk about, but it is a significant issue.
I'm a strong proponent of legal immigration, but where to draw various quota lines is complicated. We'd be better off without illegal immigration, but how much should we spend to combat it, and what should we do to illegals and businesses that hire them? Again, complicated.
It's really hard to prove causally any problem that is due to immigration. There are just too many other variables. You may have your anecdotal, personal evidence, and you may not want to pay attention to studies, but the difficult truth is that properly conducted scientific studies are how we learn things as a society. Do a Google search on Pine and "Philosophy and the Scientific Method" for a very good read that summarizes this sort of worldview.
What's difficult these days is that interest groups of all stripes are really good at hiring the equivalent of "tobacco scientists" to muddy the waters on any issue, so it makes people throw up their hands and go with "gut feelings" whenever there is a little bit of uncertainty thrown into the mix on any issue. Global warming is a classic case of this.
Oh well, back to painting.
Posted by: Observer on August 6, 2005 08:03 PM