PadArch -

This is just for you. Yeah, another "anecdote of an anecdote". But at least read the bolded (and especially underlined) section below so you don't wallow the rest of your life in blissful ignorance. (I have deleted the section comparing Norway to the US as it's irrelevant to this discussion, but the full article is available in the "favorite cities for living" thread)


Please. Timbro is a hack right-wing think tank whose basic mission is to spread as much faulty propaganda against the Social Democratic economic system in Scandinavia as possible. They're about as believable on economic issues as The Heritage Foundation. The article you posted is a hatchet job with an obvious agenda.

Anyway, those claims weren't even though up by Timbro originally, but by an american pundit a couple of years earlier. Paul Krugman debunked the economics of the argument in 2002:

Many Americans assume that because we are the richest country in the world, with real G.D.P. per capita higher than that of other major advanced countries, Americans must be better off across the board -- that it's not just our rich who are richer than their counterparts abroad, but that the typical American family is much better off than the typical family elsewhere, and that even our poor are well off by foreign standards.

But it's not true. Let me use the example of Sweden, that great conservative bête noire.

A few months ago the conservative cyberpundit Glenn Reynolds made a splash when he pointed out that Sweden's G.D.P. per capita is roughly comparable with that of Mississippi -- see, those foolish believers in the welfare state have impoverished themselves! Presumably he assumed that this means that the typical Swede is as poor as the typical resident of Mississippi, and therefore much worse off than the typical American.

But life expectancy in Sweden is about three years higher than that of the U.S. Infant mortality is half the U.S. level, and less than a third the rate in Mississippi. Functional illiteracy is much less common than in the U.S.

How is this possible? One answer is that G.D.P. per capita is in some ways a misleading measure. Swedes take longer vacations than Americans, so they work fewer hours per year. That's a choice, not a failure of economic performance. Real G.D.P. per hour worked is 16 percent lower than in the United States, which makes Swedish productivity about the same as Canada's.

But the main point is that though Sweden may have lower average income than the United States, that's mainly because our rich are so much richer. The median Swedish family has a standard of living roughly comparable with that of the median U.S. family: wages are if anything higher in Sweden, and a higher tax burden is offset by public provision of health care and generally better public services. And as you move further down the income distribution, Swedish living standards are way ahead of those in the U.S. Swedish families with children that are at the 10th percentile -- poorer than 90 percent of the population -- have incomes 60 percent higher than their U.S. counterparts. And very few people in Sweden experience the deep poverty that is all too common in the United States. One measure: in 1994 only 6 percent of Swedes lived on less than $11 per day, compared with 14 percent in the U.S.
Paul Krugman; For Richer (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/20/magazine/for-richer.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm) (The New York Times, October 20, 2002)

More recently, according to the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Report (https://responsibility.credit-suisse.com/app/article/index.cfm?fuseaction=OpenArticle&aoid=291405&coid=284071&lang=EN) Norway is the country with the 3rd highest average wealth per adult, and Sweden was 6th (http://www.swedishwire.com/component/content/article/26-economy/12034-swedes-6th-riches-people-in-the-world).

Oh my god. Timbro is a hack right-wing think tank whose basic mission is to spread as much faulty propaganda against the Social Democratic economic system in Scandinavia as possible. They're about as believable on economic issues as The Heritage Foundation.

Anyway, those claims weren't even though up by Timbro originally, but by an american pundit a couple of years earlier. Paul Krugman debunked the economics of the argument in 2002:


Paul Krugman; For Richer (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/20/magazine/for-richer.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm)(The New York Times, October 20, 2002)


Adde, I thought you were an intelligent guy and a serious debater (unlike our friends Metro and PadArch over there). I was wrong. I guess you are just trying to win an argument, at whatever cost, instead of debating on the merits and maybe trying to learn something.

First, I specifically removed Timbro's survey from the article I had posted because I wanted to stay on point and not make it into a US vs. Scandinavia debate, which is a completely different issue. We were discussing Northern Europe vs. Southern Europe.

Second, the organizations quoted in my article, that concluded that Scandinavians (and Norwegians in particular) were among the poorest people in Western Europe after adjusting for cost of living were KPMG and Danish Ministry of Finance. Read the article!

Third, your attempt to (i) divert the conversation into a US vs. Sweden (which is not what was being discussed) and (ii) deflect it into non-economic factors (after telling me that Sweden had such a high "standard of living") is a poor effort to sidetrack the discussion into something completely separate.

So decide what it is you want to debate, and then get back to me. And read the article I posted so you can actually learn something.

Fitz, you can post anecdotes till the cows come home, but the figures are what I'm sticking to, and the figures tell a different story:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

From IMF:
4. Norway 51,959
7. United States 46,860
17. Spain 29,830
39. Portugal 23,262

From World Bank:
4. Norway 56,894
7. United States 47,184
25. Spain 32,070
35. Portugal 25,573

From CIA world factbook (100% good old american data for ya)
5 Norway 54,600
9 United States 47,200
35 Spain 29,400
44 Portugal 23,000

Those are the PPP figures, uncooked.

But if you think your stories about sandwiches are more relevant, then continue entertaining me.

Human Development Index:
1 Norway
4 USA
23 Spain
41 Portugal


To be honest I'm not a massive fan of Norway, I believe Norway has other problems of its own - I don't know if I'd want to live there above certain other countries in Europe (not that I would necessarily prefer to live in the US or Spain above norway) However, I'm not going to argue with the objective data, because I recognise the difference between subjectivity and objectivity. But...... Norway I'm pretty sure didn't even make top 10 on this list of cities.. and neither did Belgium... so i really don't know why you and Snowland are crying about norway and belgium.. I made a comment saying that Norway is basically the richest country in the world - there is nothing controversial about that comment. Its a fact. You can make anecdotes about norway, and yes the prices are higher than US... however RICH in this instance clearly means MORE CAPITAL. Norwegians make (per capita) more RAW CASH than any other country in the world... FACT.. that completely justifies my comment and is end of discussion wrt norway as far as I'm concerned - I've already posted the PPP data.

^^ Thanks for proving with your post that your understanding of the issue is... nil. As I suspected.

Funny enough, you are a living proof of the article's premise "We are rich... end of story", a blind brainwashed belief system immune to reason and facts.

Thanks for playing PadArch.

Cheers,

Adde, I thought you were an intelligent guy and a serious debater (unlike our friends Metro and PadArch over there). I was wrong. I guess you are just trying to win an argument, at whatever cost, instead of debating on the merits and maybe trying to learn something.

First, I specifically removed Timbro's survey from the article I had posted because I wanted to stay on point and not make it into a US vs. Scandinavia debate, which is a completely different issue. We were discussing Northern Europe vs. Southern Europe.

I know you removed a part of the article, but I've read that article before and it's deeply influenced by Timbro, which is something you can't get away from. The economic analysis made by Timbro (and the KPMG) is based on the same concept that the US think-tanker brought up a couple of years earlier, and that Krugman debunked. I didn't bring up Krugman in order to turn this into a Scandinavia vs. US debate, but because it adressed the methodological problem with the surveys. It just happened to do it in a US vs. Scandinavia context.


Second, the organizations quoted in my article, that concluded that Scandinavians (and Norwegians in particular) were among the poorest people in Western Europe after adjusting for cost of living were KPMG and Danish Ministry of Finance. Read the article!

I did read the article, but since there are no actual numbers from or links to those studies, it's really hard to comment on them (and the way they're presented by the author). Further more, there is obviously something problematic with their methodology, since in one (the KPMG one) the Portuguese are among the richest in Europe, while in the other one (the one from the Danish Ministry of Finance) the Portuguese seems to be among the poorest.


Third, your attempt to (i) divert the conversation into a US vs. Sweden (which is not what was being discussed) and (ii) deflect it into non-economic factors (after telling me that Sweden had such a high "standard of living") is a poor effort to sidetrack the discussion into something completely separate.

So decide what it is you want to debate, and then get back to me. And read the article I posted so you can actually learn something.

Again, I was not trying to divert the conversation. That just happened to be the context of the Krugman article. The point was that it debunked the economics behind those studies. I'm not sure what you're referring to with point (ii). How did I go into non-economic factors?

And you didn't respond to the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Report, so who's trying to divert the conversation? In fact, you didn't respond to the actual arguments Krugman makes either.

Jonesy, you disappoint me.

So the fact that the Swiss don't have any viable alternatives to train travel and therefore use nothing but trains all the time proves that Switzerland has a good quality of life

I just wanted to point out that your statement is completely false. You can fly from Geneva to Zurich, from Zurich to Basel, and from Lugano to Geneva and Zurich.

The fact that most people chooses to travel by rail is due to a comprehensive rail offer both in terms of pricing (the yearly SBB-CFF general subscription gives you access to all kinds of public transportation in the whole country except for a few mountain funiculars) and in timing, as well as comfort, not because there's no other possibility.

I just wanted to point out that your statement is completely false. You can fly from Geneva to Zurich, from Zurich to Basel, and from Lugano to Geneva and Zurich.

The fact that most people chooses to travel by rail is due to a comprehensive rail offer both in terms of pricing (the yearly SBB-CFF general subscription gives you access to all kinds of public transportation in the whole country except for a few mountain funiculars) and in timing, as well as comfort, not because there's no other possibility.


This does not surprise me one bit and I did not say there is no other "possibility". I said there is no "viable" alternative. Since most of your train routes are 3 hours or less, it makes little sense for anybody to take a plane. Hence it's not surprising that everyone is using rail. That does not convince me that your rail infrastracture is the best in Europe. Though I am aware that it is quite excellent, of course, let's not forget that you don't have a single high speed rail line. In less time than it takes you to go 290 km from Geneva to Zurich, a Spaniard will cover 640 km between Barcelona and Madrid.

^^ sorry to bother, but..... how old are you fitzrovian?

^^ sorry to bother, but..... how old are you fitzrovian?

Somewhere between 21 and 50. ;) What does that have to do with anything?

Ok, so I did some research, Fitzrovian.

The Danish Ministry of Finance study mentioned in your article is here (http://www.ft.dk/samling/20042/spoergsmaal/s332/svar/154153/156410.pdf) (in Danish).
The numbers mentioned in your article was the "Private consumption per capita" numbers ("Privatforbrug pr. indbygger"), but that only counts the actual cash (so to speak) spent by private individuals per capita. It does not include any of the services that are paid for by taxes (health care, education, child care etc.). Therefor there's also the "Individual consumption per capita" ("Individuelt forbrug pr. indbygger") where those services are factored into the numbers. This needs to be done since different countries finance what is basically fixed costs differently. When looking at these numbers for the OECD, the Scandinavian countries are indeed better off than southern European countries like Spain and Italy.

The study also comes to the conclusion that none of the methods of calculating wealth mentioned above are particularly good, and that GNP (corrected for purchasing power) per capita is better since it, in addition to these issues, also takes into account private and corporate savings.

But again, all of this is based on GDP. As Paul Krugman showed in the article I quoted earlier, the Scandinavian median family has got for instance pretty much the same income as other countries (in this case the US, but the country doesn't matter), but much higher income in poor families. What this means is that there are fewer poor people as well as fewer really rich families, and more "middle class people". This high level of economic equality means that the per capita numbers aren't as distorted by unequal wealth distribution as they are in many other countries.

This does not surprise me one bit and I did not say there is no other "possibility". I said there is no "viable" alternative. Since most of your train routes are 3 hours or less, it makes little sense for anybody to take a plane. Hence it's not surprising that everyone is using rail. That does not convince me that your rail infrastracture is the best in Europe. Though I am aware that it is quite excellent, of course, let's not forget that you don't have a single high speed rail line. In less time than it takes you to go 290 km from Geneva to Zurich, a Spaniard will cover 640 km between Barcelona and Madrid.

And no spaniard has a high-speed tunnel lenght of 57km under the alps, so what? It only proves that in Spain there is no mountain chain like the alps dividing the country and diving Europe. With the money spent on that tunnel the country could have easily built a high-speed railway line between Zurich and Geneva but it makes little sense given that with the exception of Basel all major cities are lined south-west to north-east, so cost-wise makes little sense as the train departing from Geneva has to stop in Lausanne (64km), Fribourg (70km), Bern (35km), Zurich (129km), Winthertour (26km) and Saint Gall (57km)... so the train wouldn't fully be able to reach its full speed or would only be able to do so a few minutes, in fact the longest distance is the one between Bern and Zurich, and you're wrong in saying that there are no high speed railway lines as precisly the only such line (apart from the future GBT) existing in the country covers precisly that segment.

And by the way, I can't understand that viable emphasis of yours. Let's remind that viable means being capable of working succesfully or being feasible, and as I've told you there are flights between corner points in the country, which proves that they're viable even with current rail network, which actually makes sense as a train going from Lugano to Geneva has to work out through many valleys and therefore the journey takes quite long.

In any case, I am not justifying that Switzerland has or has not the best railway infrastructure, that's pretty immature discussion, I will avoid that and just stick to say that the current railway infrastructure is what's best preferred by swiss people, and who cares whether that makes it the best in Europe or not.

And no spaniard has a high-speed tunnel lenght of 57km under the alps, so what? It only proves that in Spain there is no mountain chain like the alps dividing the country and diving Europe. With the money spent on that tunnel the country could have easily built a high-speed railway line between Zurich and Geneva but it makes little sense given that with the exception of Basel all major cities are lined south-west to north-east, so cost-wise makes little sense as the train departing from Geneva has to stop in Lausanne (64km), Fribourg (70km), Bern (35km), Zurich (129km), Winthertour (26km) and Saint Gall (57km)... so the train wouldn't fully be able to reach its full speed or would only be able to do so a few minutes, in fact the longest distance is the one between Bern and Zurich, and you're wrong in saying that there are no high speed railway lines as precisly the only such line (apart from the future GBT) existing in the country covers precisly that segment.

And by the way, I can't understand that viable emphasis of yours. Let's remind that viable means being capable of working succesfully or being feasible, and as I've told you there are flights between corner points in the country, which proves that they're viable even with current rail network, which actually makes sense as a train going from Lugano to Geneva has to work out through many valleys and therefore the journey takes quite long.

In any case, I am not justifying that Switzerland has or has not the best railway infrastructure, that's pretty immature discussion, I will avoid that and just stick to say that the current railway infrastructure is what's best preferred by swiss people, and who cares whether that makes it the best in Europe or not.

Dear Vaud,

It all makes sense. Or as I like to say "everything has a reason". However, the fact that there is a good reason not to spend money on high speed rail in Switzerland because of dense corridors and mountainous conditions (as they do in Italy as well, btw), still does not mean that it's fun to sit on a train that averages less than 100 km/hr. This is not a criticism necessarily, but a recognition of reality that was made when Swiss posters were claiming they had the best public transportation in the world (or something to that effect) that justified their high rankings.

As for viable, you are absolutely correct - it means capable of working successfully or effectively. Since virtually no airplane trip can take less than 3 hours (once you take into account the trip to the airport, check-in, security, etc. etc) it is not really "effective" in comparison to the train on most routes in Switzerland (i.e., it's not viable). That is what I meant.

Edit: PS: and to the extent that you do have rail journeys that are lengthy (eg Lugano to Geneva) I am pretty sure that the airline market share is quite healthy on those routes. But correct me if I am wrong, I am just guessing here.

Ok, more research.

I couldn't find the actual KMPG study, but I did find a Norwegian article (http://www.dn.no/privatokonomi/article470461.ece) about it from 2005.

Ok, so what they did was that they chose one salary (in this case 67,200 Euro) and calculated how much a person with that salary would have left after taxes adjusted for living costs in different European countries.

But, there's obviously a problem. They didn't adjust for the difference in salaries, so what they basically did was that they proved what everybody already know - Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Belgium have high taxes and are expensive. But this in itself doesn't say anything about how poor the general Norwegian, Swede, Dane or Belgian are, because those countries also have generally higher salaries. 67,200 Euro is just not the same salary in Scanidinavia as it is in Spain and Portugal.

So, flawed study used disingenuously by biased author.

There are several studies showing social mobility to be higher in Scandinavia or Germany (or Canada) than in the US, that's no great shock.

Yeah, but look at the content and context. Given that equivalised median US income is much higher than most other rich countries (especially when taking into account undercounting by their Census), it's literally much harders to go from point a to b. Because the distances are much lower is most other countries, i.e. lower income, it's easier to get from a to b.

It's easier to go from 100 to 120 than from 100 to 150, even though in the latter case, 150 may be the same income decile as the 120.

I don't know why you put Spain among Portugal. Two different realities.

Please. Timbro is a hack right-wing think tank whose basic mission is to spread as much faulty propaganda against the Social Democratic economic system in Scandinavia as possible. They're about as believable on economic issues as The Heritage Foundation. The article you posted is a hatchet job with an obvious agenda.



Anyway, those claims weren't even though up by Timbro originally, but by an american pundit a couple of years earlier. Paul Krugman debunked the economics of the argument in 2002:





Paul Krugman; For Richer (The New York Times, October 20, 2002)



More recently, according to the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Report Norway is the country with the 3rd highest average wealth per adult, and Sweden was 6th.


Yes, but national statistics do not lie. And Krugman is surprisingly misinformed on a few of his assertions.

Just to comment about the GDP per capita comparison; this is not entirely relevant, as people do not receive GDP all the time. One must look at household income. AND NO, you cannot look at surveys for this data because many datasets underestimate income while others report it fully. One must look at National Accounts data, specifically the aggregate "Net Disposable Household Income." (Code=B6N). This is a good choice because there is obviously no undercounting and survey error. In the National Accounts, specific adjustments are made to make sure that wages and self employment income are exhuatsive, because such measures form part of GDP on income side. By convention, GDP must be exhaustive and include all activity. This is especially true in Europe. Of course, B6N is not perfect because you have to exclude the non-cash components like imputed rent, and property income earned by pension funds (which households never receive). Once this is done you have an exhaustive cash measure for HH income, which can then be compared to the surveys.

If we look at surveys we get this result:

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

So US is actually well above Sweden, and this is before taking into account that the US figure is 75% accurate and Swe is 90% accurate. Sweden's figure is more accurate because it comes from a register and not a survey, like the US source. So instead of the gap being $21k vs $32k, its now $43k vs $24k. Massive difference. Even in median income, the gap is large (Krugman was wrong), and even larger when taking into account the undercounting. For instance, for the year, given the 20% undercounting in pensions and social security income plus a huge understatement in property income and self employment income, the US median is closer to $29k. The Swedish median, given that the source of their understatement stems from soley self employment income, a type of income that only represents 3% of median income, rises only marhinally. FYI, the coverage varied between other countries. For all the Nordic countries it's above 90%, UK 85%, Spain 71%, France 75%, Belgium 83%, etc. Thus, the quote "the Scandinavian median family has got for instance pretty much the same income as other countries (in this case the US, but the country doesn't matter" is also wrong. The article also never cited his source, but it doesn't matter as the National Accounts is the baseline.

Krugman is also wrong in that Wages are higher in the Sweden:

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

Obviously he was using an innacurate source, like potentially another survey subject to undercounting and differences in defintion. He is right about the bottom 10% being worse off, though given that the US source doesnt include food stamps and the earned income tax credit, and the general underreporting of income, this again understates the bottom 10%. Sweden is still higher though.

About Spain. It may surprise some, but actually Spain's average disposable income per household is not much below Sweden's and higher than Finland's.

About Spain. It may surprise some, but actually Spain's average disposable income per household is not much below Sweden's and higher than Finland's.


Is that before adjusting for cost of living or after?

Yeah, but look at the content and context. Given that equivalised median US income is much higher than most other rich countries (especially when taking into account undercounting by their Census), it's literally much harders to go from point a to b. Because the distances are much lower is most other countries, i.e. lower income, it's easier to get from a to b.

It's easier to go from 100 to 120 than from 100 to 150, even though in the latter case, 150 may be the same income decile as the 120.

Eh, actually, median families in for instance Sweden have about the same income of those in the US. Mean income on the other hand is higher in the US because so much wealth is concentrated among the richest 10%. But in general, what you're saying is that the US should get some slack in the social mobility department because there's such extreme inequality there?

And I don't know about other European countries, but Sweden doesn't do intermittent censuses. We have a personal ID-number that everybody gets at birth or when they get here, and that is used in all dealings with local and national agencies. Therefor, the Swedish government always knows how many people there are in the country permanently (and legally). Our population figures are therefor very accurate.

I don't know why you put Spain among Portugal. Two different realities.

Are you responding to me? Well, Fitzrovian has mentioned Portugal several times, and both of the articles I actually researched mentioned Spain and Portugal in particular.

Immigration to USA in 2010 was 1,042,625
Immigration to Swden in 2009 was 102,280

Very naive, almost laughable.

Nobody gives any credence to the official counts of immigrants admitted to the US, given the high rates of unathorized immigration.

The only methods that comes close to tallying the total numbers of immigrants coming to the US is by comparing foreign-born decade by decade.

Even that understated, given that many of the undocumented stay low during the census count.

We're still waiting for the offcial 2010 F-B data to come out.

If we look at surveys we get this result:

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

So US is actually well above Sweden...


This is after taxes. Obviously the american median income has to be larger than that in Sweden since health care and many other services are paid out of pocket instead of out of taxes.

Plus, this is not what Krugman looked at. He didn't look at median household income, but income of median family. It's not the same thing.


Krugman is also wrong in that Wages are higher in the Sweden:

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

Obviously he was using an innacurate source, like potentially another survey subject to undercounting and differences in defintion. He is right about the bottom 10% being worse off, though given that the US source doesnt include food stamps and the earned income tax credit, and the general underreporting of income, this again understates the bottom 10%. Sweden is still higher though.

This list is using average wages, not median like Krugman. The average is heavily affected by income inequality.

Ok, we're straying from the discussion here (at least the one we've been having in the last couple of pages). Yes, among higher earners the US is a higher wage country than pretty much any other. On the other hand it has got quite high economic inequality and services that doesn't come close to many in Europe. Can everyone agree with that?

We were talking about the difference between northern and southern Europe. Anyone wanna continue that instead of the US vs. Scandinavia thing?

^^ I don't have much to add to what Rocan has written, other than to say there is a reason I tried to stay away from the US/Scandinavian comparisons. Its apples and oranges. The countries are driven by completely different ideologies and each have their strengths and weaknesses. There is no right answer as to which is better, or which has better "quality of life" . It depends on your value system, which demographic you fall into and what's important to you in life.

The comparison between Northern and Southern Europe is a more interesting one for me because most of the supposed advantages of Scandinavian countries vis a vis the US - healthcare, education, public transportation, safety etc - essentially disappear when you put them up against fellow Europeans. Even when it comes to disposable income there is obviously a body of evidence suggesting that Southern European countries by some measures come out ahead, once you adjust for cost of living.

Adde, I will get back to you with more thoughts on your posts later (thank you for your research). I do think, however, that you may have hit the nail on the head with your very first contribution on this thread. The main difference that i can see helping move Swiss, Austrian and Northern European cities atop these rankings is that they have fewer poor people (and the ones who are poor are not as poor). That makes sense to me, and I think that's the crux of the matter. And it largely validates my views of these surveys, which is that they do not necessarily reflect the experience of the majority.

I can't find any American Cities in this table. Tell me what is the standard of the ranking?

Is that before adjusting for cost of living or after?

After

And no spaniard has a high-speed tunnel lenght of 57km under the alps, so what? It only proves that in Spain there is no mountain chain like the alps dividing the country and diving Europe. With the money spent on that tunnel the country could have easily built a high-speed railway line between Zurich and Geneva but it makes little sense given that with the exception of Basel all major cities are lined south-west to north-east, so cost-wise makes little sense as the train departing from Geneva has to stop in Lausanne (64km), Fribourg (70km), Bern (35km), Zurich (129km), Winthertour (26km) and Saint Gall (57km)... so the train wouldn't fully be able to reach its full speed or would only be able to do so a few minutes, in fact the longest distance is the one between Bern and Zurich, and you're wrong in saying that there are no high speed railway lines as precisly the only such line (apart from the future GBT) existing in the country covers precisly that segment.
...
You must be joking...
Spain is the 2nd most mountainous country in Europe and we have several chains of mountains crossing the country, 2 of these chains reach more than 3400 metres high.
And we also have got high-speed rail double tunnels 28 km. long under Sierra de Guadarrama for example, and it is not the only one!
Be better informed before writing, please.
;-)

Eh, actually, median families in for instance Sweden have about the same income of those in the US. Mean income on the other hand is higher in the US because so much wealth is concentrated among the richest 10%. But in general, what you're saying is that the US should get some slack in the social mobility department because there's such extreme inequality there?

Your first sentence is wrong, as you could see from the link I gave. Apparently it came from a 2002 Krugman article, but is unsubstantiated and therefore could have been subject to many comparison problems. The link I provided uses same definition.

And I don't know about other European countries, but Sweden doesn't do intermittent censuses. We have a personal ID-number that everybody gets at birth or when they get here, and that is used in all dealings with local and national agencies. Therefor, the Swedish government always knows how many people there are in the country permanently (and legally). Our population figures are therefor very accurate.

I wasn't talking about population Census, rather the US Census, which is the source of the income data for surveys. The Swedish source for the income data comes from register data, which is indeed very accurate as the income comes directly from tax register and not subject to errors that so define the survey process.

This is after taxes. Obviously the american median income has to be larger than that in Sweden since health care and many other services are paid out of pocket instead of out of taxes.

Plus, this is not what Krugman looked at. He didn't look at median household income, but income of median family. It's not the same thing.

This is a misconception. Out of pocket health expenditures per capita in US in 2009 was $900 according to OECD, and in most of Europe $400. Plus, PPP takes the higher US prices into account, so it would already be reflected in data. Even if you additonally subtracted health insurance per equivalised household (=$2800 per HH, $1500 per equivlized HH) the large gap is still there ($29-$1.5=$27.5). Realize that most of the taxes paid in Sweden are paid back to households in the form of social benefits, namely old age pensions.

Most households are families. What Krugman said is not substantiated so have no idea where it came from, what definition of income was used, etc. Stick with a harmonized defintion.

This list is using average wages, not median like Krugman. The average is heavily affected by income inequality.

Fair enough. Just multiply the Swedish figure by .91 and the US figure by .78, and tell me who's higher. These figures are median/mean ratios that I located in stats Sweden and BLS, respectively. Income inequality in the US does not affect wages as much as it does other incomes, btw.

The "income inequality" stick that Europeans love to use so much against the US ignores the fact that an average US citizen has a far higher material standard of living than an average citizen of almost any European country. Yes the Europeans get much more in social services, but everything has a price.

And yes, the poor in Europe have it better than the poor in the US. But that goes back to the ideology point I mentioned before. In this country, we like to encourage and reward hard work. If you dont like to work, you fall behind big time. America is a meritocracy. In Europe (and particularly in the Scandinavian countries) they have a different belief system.

The comparison between Northern and Southern Europe is a more interesting one for me because most of the supposed advantages of Scandinavian countries vis a vis the US - healthcare, education, public transportation, safety etc - essentially disappear when you put them up against fellow Europeans. Even when it comes to disposable income there is obviously a body of evidence suggesting that Southern European countries by some measures come out ahead, once you adjust for cost of living.


Norway is still far ahead. People do not realize that Norway is far richer than SE, DK,and FI. It's not like these countries are equal!!!

2004 equivalised disposable cash income (ppp):

Norway: $31,000
Sweden: $24,000
Denmark: $23,503
Finland: $19,394

For comparison purposes:

Spain: $24,000
Italy: $25,000
France: $26,500
UK: $29,000
Austria: $28,000
Germany: $28,500
Italy: $25,000
Belgium: $25,000


^This was after adjusting for underreporting, which is why it's higher than what it shows in Wiki link.

The "income inequality" stick that Europeans love to use so much against the US ignores the fact that an average US citizen has a far higher material standard of living than an average citizen of almost any European country. Yes the Europeans get much more in social services, but everything has a price.


It ignores perspective. That's why I like to use absolute figures and not inequality figures. If indeed median income is affected by inequality so much, then it will be shown in the absolute figures.

This is a misconception. Out of pocket health expenditures per capita in US in 2009 was $900 according to OECD, and in most of Europe $400. Plus, PPP takes the higher US prices into account, so it would already be reflected in data. Even if you additonally subtracted health insurance per equivalised household (=$2800 per HH, $1500 per equivlized HH) the large gap is still there ($29-$1.5=$27.5). Realize that most of the taxes paid in Sweden are paid back to households in the form of social benefits, namely old age pensions

The average household in the US spends $15,000 on health care per year.

@ Rocan -- where do you get these stats from? Still interesting that all Scandinavian countries, except for Norway, go into the bottom of the pile once you adjust for the cost of living.

The average household in the US spends $15,000 on health care per year.

Wrong. That figure includes from all sources: govt, private insurance, and households. Households DO NOT spend that amount every year!

Here is a specific link:

https://www.cms.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/tables.pdf

Table 3:

Out of pocket health exp by households=$299 billion. 299 billion/305 million people=$900 per capita

Total NATIONAL spending (from all sources) was $2.5 trillion, which is $8200 per capita.

@ Rocan -- where do you get these stats from? Still interesting that all Scandinavian countries, except for Norway, go into the bottom of the pile once you adjust for the cost of living.

http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx

National Accounts---Annual National Accounts---Detailed NF sector. After that you have to do some work. Locate disposable household income (B6N), use PPP rates, divide by number of households, and divide by the square root of the household size (to get equivalised income). Also, to get cash income, make sure to exclude some of the non-cash components like imputed rent and variable D.44. I also added in interest paid by households, as I only wanted net of taxes and not also net of interest paid. So what I did is I compared the aggregate of the household income from the survey sources that underlie the wiki link, and adjusted it to its "Real" figure which is the adjusted national accounts figure.

For example, US mean equivalised income in the wiki link is $32,000. The aggregate of diposable income was $5150 billion, but the true figure in the National Accounts was $6940 billion. Thus, 32000/ (5150/6900)= $42,800. The figure I gave before used the same exact process.

It ignores perspective. That's why I like to use absolute figures and not inequality figures. If indeed median income is affected by inequality so much, then it will be shown in the absolute figures.

Spot on.

There is an argument to be made, however, that even when median income is high, if it is so much lower than what the top make, it will still create class envy and general anxiety.

Norway is still far ahead. People do not realize that Norway is far richer than SE, DK,and FI. It's not like these countries are equal!!!

2004 equivalised disposable cash income (ppp):

Norway: $31,000
Sweden: $24,000
Denmark: $23,503
Finland: $19,394

For comparison purposes:

Spain: $24,000
Italy: $25,000
France: $26,500
UK: $29,000
Austria: $28,000
Germany: $28,500
Italy: $25,000
Belgium: $25,000

^This was after adjusting for underreporting, which is why it's higher than what it shows in Wiki link.

Even if your figures are correct for Norway, we need to remember that regional disparities are much greater in countries like Spain and Italy. So the richest cities there - Madrid, Barcelona, Milan, etc. - are probably on par with Norway, if not higher, in terms of disposable income.

Do you have the disposable income stats (PPP) for Switzerland ?

Norway is still far ahead. People do not realize that Norway is far richer than SE, DK,and FI. It's not like these countries are equal!!!

2004 equivalised disposable cash income (ppp):


Just out of interest do you have a link?

The "income inequality" stick that Europeans love to use so much against the US ignores the fact that an average US citizen has a far higher material standard of living than an average citizen of almost any European country. Yes the Europeans get much more in social services, but everything has a price.

And yes, the poor in Europe have it better than the poor in the US. But that goes back to the ideology point I mentioned before. In this country, we like to encourage and reward hard work. If you dont like to work, you fall behind big time. America is a meritocracy. In Europe (and particularly in the Scandinavian countries) they have a different belief system.

You think the poor in the US don't work hard? They are often those who work the hardest, with very little reward whatsoever (although the same happens in many European societies). The idea that the US is a meritocracy is a conservative nationalist myth, just like in France, aimed at legitimizing poverty.

For example, I read a while ago a study by a french sociologist on Temporary job agencies in the Chicago area, it's incredible the level of exploitation and alienation those who work there need to go through, mostly blacks and mexicans (go at 5am to the temp agencies to wait for hours for a ticket you're not sure to have where you'll be sent during the day to do a workshift as the cheapest of the cheapest workforce in a factory on the other side of the city). The idea that somehow these people are poor because they don't "work hard" is laughable, as is the concept that the owners of the places they work at rich just by their own merit.

But similar things happen in Europe actually, we are all capitalist nations after all, and neoliberal ones at that who put keynesianism aside a long time ago (yay...).

Very interesting stats, Rocan. Could you calculate Portugal and Greece, please? I'd also be interested to see the stats from Eastern Europe, Eastern Asia, OZ and Latin America (those if you can please send me by pm).

Cheers.

http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx

National Accounts---Annual National Accounts---Detailed NF sector. After that you have to do some work. Locate disposable household income (B6N), use PPP rates, divide by number of households, and divide by the square root of the household size (to get equivalised income). Also, to get cash income, make sure to exclude some of the non-cash components like imputed rent and variable D.44. I also added in interest paid by households, as I only wanted net of taxes and not also net of interest paid. So what I did is I compared the aggregate of the household income from the survey sources that underlie the wiki link, and adjusted it to its "Real" figure which is the adjusted national accounts figure.

For example, US mean equivalised income in the wiki link is $32,000. The aggregate of diposable income was $5150 billion, but the true figure in the National Accounts was $6940 billion. Thus, 32000/ (5150/6900)= $42,800. The figure I gave before used the same exact process.

If using net income where does the value of public services provided by government get included?

(...)So the richest cities there - Madrid, Barcelona, Milan, etc. - are probably on par with Norway, if not higher, in terms of disposable income.

Probably? And "if not higher" ? Is there any reason you affirm this? Do you have a source?

Madrid and Milan are pretty rich cities (i'm not sure about this but in my eyes BCN is not as rich as these 2), that's true. But i don't think they would reach the level of Oslo for example (talking about the power of purchase of an average citizen).

If you really want to discuss about the sense of this rankings and wanted to make detailed comparaisons beetween nord and south, trying to see equal or better economics in the south would just ends at your disadvantage (i'm afraid). So it's not the right approach.

A much more intersting factor for example would be the way people from the south are (what i've experienced) more open and seem to take their life easyer than some rich countries form the nord. As for me thats a PLUS of quality of live. So the question could be which importance does it have compared to the whole of all criterias?

But wanting to compare the power of purchasing or the power of economy of both "worlds" is just useless in my eyes...

The richest cities in Spain are Madrid, Bilbao, Donostia, Vitoria Gasteiz, Logrono, Pamplona, Barcelona, Girona, Santander, Zaragoza, Soria, Palencia, Burgos and Valladolid. All them are rich or very rich. :yes:

Funny to see how the fact that people actually have to sleep and work and stuff eventually made all the Europeans go away for a while.

I've got a lot to do today so I won't have time to post much or do any research unfortunately.

But the private health care expenditures in the US are interesting - the fact that a lot of people doesn't have any coverage at all because they can't afford it (or choose not to buy any) means that per capita numbers are particularly misleading in this case. You also have to subtract those on Medicade and medicare. Those 299 billion should not be divided by 305 million Americans.

And yeah, the average US citizen does not have "far higher material standard of living than an average citizen of almost any European country". I'm not going to speak for the rest of Europe, but when I've compare my family's living standard (very average middle class family) with those of our American friends (my sister lived in the states for a while) there's not much of a difference. It's all the same stuff (cars, houses, electronics, vacations, clothes). Yeah, I know, anecdotal. But really, how do you think we live?

Remember, we don't have to have a large "rainy day fund" in case we get sick and need surgery, we don't have to save a couple of 100,000 bucks per kid to pay for good private schools and college etc. Actually, I just read an interesting article (http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2011/12/ows_and_inequality_how_expenditure_cascades_are_squeezing_the_american_middle_class_.html) about this, how the natural urge to want to put your children in a good school basically forces middle class families to live in neighborhoods they can't afford, in houses that are too expensive, just because it's those wealthy areas that have good schools. (And yeah, I know it's Slate which is all lefty and contrarian).

You think the poor in the US don't work hard? They are often those who work the hardest, with very little reward whatsoever (although the same happens in many European societies). The idea that the US is a meritocracy is a conservative nationalist myth, just like in France, aimed at legitimizing poverty.

For example, I read a while ago a study by a french sociologist on Temporary job agencies in the Chicago area, it's incredible the level of exploitation and alienation those who work there need to go through, mostly blacks and mexicans (go at 5am to the temp agencies to wait for hours for a ticket you're not sure to have where you'll be sent during the day to do a workshift as the cheapest of the cheapest workforce in a factory on the other side of the city). The idea that somehow these people are poor because they don't "work hard" is laughable, as is the concept that the owners of the places they work at rich just by their own merit.

But similar things happen in Europe actually, we are all capitalist nations after all, and neoliberal ones at that who put keynesianism aside a long time ago (yay...).

You nailed it!

If using net income where does the value of public services provided by government get included?

It only adjusts for the prices of goods and services, which would include many social services. It also doesn't include the value of security that govt provides, or quality. It's very simply; cash income.

Obviously one may have a different consumption bundle and put more emphasis in other things like pollution and quality of hospitals, but one cannot put a monetary value to this and it's subjective.

Even if your figures are correct for Norway, we need to remember that regional disparities are much greater in countries like Spain and Italy. So the richest cities there - Madrid, Barcelona, Milan, etc. - are probably on par with Norway, if not higher, in terms of disposable income.

Do you have the disposable income stats (PPP) for Switzerland ?

Not too sure. Perhaps the poorest part of NO is on par with the richest part of Spain/Itlay. That seems more likely.

And Switz is around $30,000

Very interesting stats, Rocan. Could you calculate Portugal and Greece, please? I'd also be interested to see the stats from Eastern Europe, Eastern Asia, OZ and Latin America (those if you can please send me by pm).

Cheers.

Okay, but you will have to pay me: :)

Portugal: $16,000
Greece: $18,000
Australia: $28,000
Japan: $24,000
Chile: $13,000

OECD stats do not cover any other LatAm countries

Just out of interest do you have a link?

See my answer before. There's a wiki link, and an OECD link with explanations.

That's true, but it's also annoying when Scandinavian's assume that they got all those things by being better than everyone else... far from it, it has a lot to do with a somewhat fortunate role in 20th century history, as well as - one might add- a recent patch of good economic form

Inferiority complex? The Nordic countries chose to go this way, it's as simple as that.

But the private health care expenditures in the US are interesting - the fact that a lot of people doesn't have any coverage at all because they can't afford it (or choose not to buy any) means that per capita numbers are particularly misleading in this case. You also have to subtract those on Medicade and medicare. Those 299 billion should not be divided by 305 million Americans.

Actually, the OOP figures could be argued as being higher than they otherwise would be because the uninsured are forced to pay everything out of pocket. Just because you are uninsured does not mean that you will not go to the Dr or buy Tylenol. Also note that over 80% of all expenditures are for the elderly, who are all covered.

And yeah, the average US citizen does not have "far higher material standard of living than an average citizen of almost any European country". I'm not going to speak for the rest of Europe, but when I've compare my family's living standard (very average middle class family) with those of our American friends (my sister lived in the states for a while) there's not much of a difference. It's all the same stuff (cars, houses, electronics, vacations, clothes). Yeah, I know, anecdotal. But really, how do you think we live?

Perhaps after a certain threshold there's diminishing returns in terms of what each extra dollar can bring in terms of utility.

Remember, we don't have to have a large "rainy day fund" in case we get sick and need surgery, we don't have to save a couple of 100,000 bucks per kid to pay for good private schools and college etc. Actually, I just read an interesting article (http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2011/12/ows_and_inequality_how_expenditure_cascades_are_squeezing_the_american_middle_class_.html) about this, how the natural urge to want to put your children in a good school basically forces middle class families to live in neighborhoods they can't afford, in houses that are too expensive, just because it's those wealthy areas that have good schools. (And yeah, I know it's Slate which is all lefty and contrarian).

Another misconception. Given that out of pocket tuition for an instate public school is around $2300 a year, you really do not need to save so much money unless you are dumb and really need to send your kid out of state or to a private school. Again, to save such money is choice. One doesn't have to pay or save so much. IMO, you can be just as well educated in a cheap local public college or community college. This is equivalent to people who complain about their monthly car payments when they could have gotten a much cheaper car.

You must be joking...
Spain is the 2nd most mountainous country in Europe and we have several chains of mountains crossing the country, 2 of these chains reach more than 3400 metres high.

This is something often claimed by spaniards but it's utterly false. The country's altitude average is the second heighest in Europe, but central spain is a high altitude plateau with very few large mountains and it's relatively easy to build a railway in there, the only major obstacle being north of Madrid.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3c/Spain_topo.jpg/561px-Spain_topo.jpg

And read again what I said, I mentioned a mountain chain dividing the country and Europe, there is no such thing in Spain, the closest thing are the pyrenees but they are relatively easy to cross them via its two extremes, Switzerland wouldn't have built the GBT if it's sole function were to better link the Tessin, as there is already a 15km-long tunnel dating to 1881 doing that function.


And we also have got high-speed rail double tunnels 28 km
And? That's not even close to 40km, the total lenght of the GBT is 152km if you add up the two 57km-tubes and the other tunnels and shafts, of course.

But I didn't pretend to get into a dick-measurement contest, I was answering someone saying that spanish railway's are best in Europe just because there are hundreds of kilometers of high-speed lines, and all I am saying is that this is just a factor which is given by the situation... that is, Spain has hundreds of kilometers of HSR just because its topography and urban density allows for it and because normal railway lines were (or are, as there are still many operating railway lines of poor quality) on average pretty bad quality and iberian-gauge. Switzerland not having so many km of HSR is also a consequence of a higher urban density and city position, which renders HSR not useful for the country, but for other topographic and situation reasons it is useful to build two 57km long tunnels to link the country north-south, but that doesn't mean that the country has the best railway infrastructure in Europe because it has a long tunnel.

All in all, measuring the number of km of HSR or tunnels is not a practical way of measuring the quality of a service because it's not necessarily a good option.

IMHO the best way is to measure the number of passangers, at the end is people willing to pay for a service and to get in a train, is there anything better than that to measure the success of a railway company? But even that might be influenced by external factors, what happens for example if the country has no highway and roads in general are very bad quality? People might be willing to get in a train because there's no other alternative in that case. So let's just say that making such statements is hard and simply pointless.

Another misconception. Given that out of pocket tuition for an instate public school is around $2300 a year, you really do not need to save so much money unless you are dumb and really need to send your kid out of state or to a private school. Again, to save such money is choice. One doesn't have to pay or save so much. IMO, you can be just as well educated in a cheap local public college or community college. This is equivalent to people who complain about their monthly car payments when they could have gotten a much cheaper car.

But that's not how people work. If you've got money, you want to give your kids the best possible outcome. So much of that "extra" income compared to northern Europeans will be spent on private schools and out-of-state colleges (heck, today lots of middle-to-upper-middle-class people in the US pay large tuition's even to send their kids to private pre-schools and elementary schools). The vast majority of people with the means will sacrifice discretionary spending in favor of for instance schooling. This means that for most families, higher income means that your able to give your kids a comparatively good education, not that you can travel or buy more stuff than your northern European counterpart.

And yeah, the average US citizen does not have "far higher material standard of living than an average citizen of almost any European country". I'm not going to speak for the rest of Europe, but when I've compare my family's living standard (very average middle class family) with those of our American friends (my sister lived in the states for a while) there's not much of a difference. It's all the same stuff (cars, houses, electronics, vacations, clothes). Yeah, I know, anecdotal. But really, how do you think we live?

[Emphasis added]

Define "not much of a difference".

It is a well known fact that Americans, on average, have much bigger houses, more cars, better appliances, and generally enjoy higher levels of consumption. I hope you are not seriously trying to dispute it.

On the flip side, Europeans (and in particular Scandinavians) get better social services, less work, more vacation time, etc. etc.

Apples and oranges.

But to suggest, as you do, that you get to enjoy the benefits of a welfare state as well as the same material consumption level is wishful thinking.

Probably? And "if not higher" ? Is there any reason you affirm this? Do you have a source?

Madrid and Milan are pretty rich cities (i'm not sure about this but in my eyes BCN is not as rich as these 2), that's true. But i don't think they would reach the level of Oslo for example (talking about the power of purchase of an average citizen).

If you really want to discuss about the sense of this rankings and wanted to make detailed comparaisons beetween nord and south, trying to see equal or better economics in the south would just ends at your disadvantage (i'm afraid). So it's not the right approach.

A much more intersting factor for example would be the way people from the south are (what i've experienced) more open and seem to take their life easyer than some rich countries form the nord. As for me thats a PLUS of quality of live. So the question could be which importance does it have compared to the whole of all criterias?

But wanting to compare the power of purchasing or the power of economy of both "worlds" is just useless in my eyes...


Metro, let me recap it for you mate:

We have already spent about 25 pages discussing other "interesting factors". We looked at public transportation and healthcare and a variety of "subjective factors". And we have concluded that Northern European countries that score so highly on these surveys either do not have a distinct advantage or are in fact at a disadvantage.

The standard of living (translated into disposable income adjusted for cost of living) is the only game left in town. And it's not so clear who's winning that one either.

As to your other question on the regional disparities: I don't have the latest figures, but it is well known that the richest regions in Italy and Spain have a GDP per capita of between 1.3 and 1.5 their nations' average. It stands to reason, therefore, that their disposable incomes and consumption levels are proportionately higher as well and, I suspect, are at - or above - the Northern European countries and Switzerland.

Wrong. That figure includes from all sources: govt, private insurance, and households. Households DO NOT spend that amount every year!

Here is a specific link:

https://www.cms.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/tables.pdf

Table 3:

Out of pocket health exp by households=$299 billion. 299 billion/305 million people=$900 per capita

Total NATIONAL spending (from all sources) was $2.5 trillion, which is $8200 per capita.

Health care is still too expensive, but that's not the only problem with US health care system.

But I didn't pretend to get into a dick-measurement contest, I was answering someone saying that spanish railway's are best in Europe just because there are hundreds of kilometers of high-speed lines, and all I am saying is that this is just a factor which is given by the situation... that is, Spain has hundreds of kilometers of HSR just because its topography and urban density allows for it and because normal railway lines were (or are, as there are still many operating railway lines of poor quality) on average pretty bad quality and iberian-gauge.

You are mischaracterizing the arguments. Nobody said that spanish railways are the best in Europe. That is open to debate. What I did say is that the combination of public transportation and infrastructure in Spain is hands down the best in Europe, with the possible exception of Germany. This is true particularly if you look at the major cities in Spain. If you live in Madrid or Barcelona - two cities that typically score low on quality of life surveys -- you get to enjoy top notch urban transit (including dense subway and suburban rail networks), two of the best urban motorway networks in the world, beautiful new airports, and extensive high speed rail connections. Is there any city in Switzerland that can beat that package?



IMHO the best way is to measure the number of passangers, at the end is people willing to pay for a service and to get in a train, is there anything better than that to measure the success of a railway company?

Again, I am completely lost as to how you can compare km per capita in a small country -- where it makes no sense to use any other form of public transportation on the majority of routes -- against large countries with huge distances where a lot of travel is done by air. And I am even less clear as to how that translates to better quality of life, which is what we are discussing. Run that by me again.



But even that might be influenced by external factors, what happens for example if the country has no highway and roads in general are very bad quality? People might be willing to get in a train because there's no other alternative in that case. So let's just say that making such statements is hard and simply pointless.

Now you got it right.

But that's not how people work. If you've got money, you want to give your kids the best possible outcome. So much of that "extra" income compared to northern Europeans will be spent on private schools and out-of-state colleges (heck, today lots of middle-to-upper-middle-class people in the US pay large tuition's even to send their kids to private pre-schools and elementary schools). The vast majority of people with the means will sacrifice discretionary spending in favor of for instance schooling. This means that for most families, higher income means that your able to give your kids a comparatively good education, not that you can travel or buy more stuff than your northern European counterpart.

But again, that's an illusion. For undergraduate, the educational value of an instate public college is about the same as an expensive private university. In fact, many public colleges are better. It's all prestige, in the same way that having a Mercedes is prestigious. Save for a handful of private universities it is simply not worth it. As for pre-college, I know tons of people who went through public schools and became successful lawyers, doctors, etc. This is another prestige factor, and in many cases is due to religious reasons.

And if we look at actual spending, across all households, education spending is only $1000:

http://www.bls.gov/cex/2009/Standard/age.pdf

This proves that not everybody is spending huge sums and are doing the smart thing in sending their kids to public schools. It would be much lower than $1000 if nobody went to private schools.

Metro, let me recap it for you mate:

We have already spent about 25 pages discussing other "interesting factors". We looked at public transportation and healthcare and a variety of "subjective factors". And we have concluded that Northern European countries that score so highly on these surveys either do not have a distinct advantage or are in fact at a disadvantage.

The standard of living (translated into disposable income adjusted for cost of living) is the only game left in town. And it's not so clear who's winning that one either.

As to your other question on the regional disparities: I don't have the latest figures, but it is well known that the richest regions in Italy and Spain have a GDP per capita of between 1.3 and 1.5 their nations' average. It stands to reason, therefore, that their disposable incomes and consumption levels are proportionately higher as well and, I suspect, are at - or above - the Northern European countries and Switzerland.

I have no problem with this if you want to continue trying to prove that southern countries are "richer" :-)

"You suspect"? Thats a new word in this thread...what are the reasons you are suspecting this exactly? It would be very interesting. Just because it would confirm that southern countries are richer?

Spain does have the largest railroad network in Europe :yes:

High-speed network? Yes.

Overall rail network? Not at all. France, Italy, UK, Germany have more railways then Spain.

[Emphasis added]

Define "not much of a difference".

It is a well known fact that Americans, on average, have much bigger houses, more cars, better appliances

Although you do still use top-loading washing machines. ;)

I have no problem with this if you want to continue trying to prove that southern countries are "richer" :-)

I am not trying to prove they are "richer". I am only trying to show there isn't as much of a difference as you claim (when assessed in the proper context).

As there isn't on most other objective factors.

But on the subjective factors, they trounce you. (Do we need to go over that again?)


"You suspect"? Thats a new word in this thread...what are the reasons you are suspecting this exactly? It would be very interesting. Just because it would confirm that southern countries are richer?

I already explained it. Pay attention! :bash:

Although you do still use top-loading washing machines. ;)


Speaking of: having spent 6 months living in Central London I can attest that they have as good (in fact, probably better) bathrooms and kitchens, for comparable properties, than we do in Manhattan. But we are talking about Central London here. ;)

Speaking of: having spent 6 months living in Central London I can attest that they have as good (in fact, probably better) bathrooms and kitchens, for comparable properties, than we do in Manhattan. But that's a pretty narrow comparison. ;)

There probably isn't that much difference in the quality of kitchen cupboards, toilets, dishwashers, showers etc just the typical US home has more of them.

Overall, San Francisco does many things well, but there's room for improvement. San Francisco is saddled with a lot of the negatives that come with being in the US, but does remarkably well considering.
We have a horrible problem with homelessness and our crime rate is higher than it should be, but I do believe the positives outweigh the negatives by a pretty big margin.:)

[Emphasis added]

Define "not much of a difference".

It is a well known fact that Americans, on average, have much bigger houses, more cars, better appliances, and generally enjoy higher levels of consumption. I hope you are not seriously trying to dispute it.

Bigger houses yes, but there's also a lot more space. The average quality of those homes however doesn't compare to the European standard IMO.

Better appliances? Household appliances is one area where I always considered Europe to be ahead of the US. American washing machines and ovens are pretty archaic, for example.

If you live in Madrid or Barcelona - two cities that typically score low on quality of life surveys -- you get to enjoy top notch urban transit (including dense subway and suburban rail networks), two of the best urban motorway networks in the world, beautiful new airports, and extensive high speed rail connections. Is there any city in Switzerland that can beat that package?

Well, I don't mean to be too much insistent, but I am realizing you're writing without really knowing what you're talking about. Zurich's airport is repeteadly ranked third in Europe (http://www.worldairportawards.com/Awards_2011/bestairport_europe.htm), and no, not behind Barcelona and Madrid, but behind Munich and Amsterdam. Have you ever seen a public transport map of Zurich (http://www.zvv.ch/export/sites/default/common-images/content-image-gallery/linien-zonen-pdfs/Liniennetzplan_Stadt_Zuerich_2011.pdf)? There is nowhere in the city further than 200m from one public transport station, only 17% of commuters in the city use cars. That network was supposed to include subways, but zurich people organized a referendum and voted against it and keep the tram lines, so there you have it, this is the city people wants, is there any better indication than that? People organizing and voting to force the government to build what they prefer for their city? I guess not, and yes, Zurich is also linked by TGV and ICE, as are many other swiss cities. Just to give you a hint, this is just the rail suburban network: ZVV (http://www.zvv.ch/export/sites/default/common-images/content-image-gallery/linien-zonen-pdfs/Liniennetzplan_ganzer_Verbund_2011.pdf)

[Emphasis added]

Define "not much of a difference".

It is a well known fact that Americans, on average, have much bigger houses, more cars, better appliances, and generally enjoy higher levels of consumption. I hope you are not seriously trying to dispute it.

On the flip side, Europeans (and in particular Scandinavians) get better social services, less work, more vacation time, etc. etc.

Apples and oranges.

But to suggest, as you do, that you get to enjoy the benefits of a welfare state as well as the same material consumption level is wishful thinking.

Honestly, I should have written "no difference". I'm from, like I said, an average middle class family of five. I grew up in a 200 m2 house (remember, this was before mcmansions became all the rage in the US), with a sizable yard, two family cars and a motorboat, a summer cottage in the countryside, all three kids played sports and went on summer camps, vacations abroad about once a year, ski-trip every winter, I had my own tv, nintendo and cell phone (once those showed up) etc.

This was pretty standard among my peers. A few had it better (bi-yearly shopping trips to London for entirely new wardrobes) and a few had a bit less (living in an apartment and only one car). But our family was by no means out of the ordinary. And no, I did not grow up in an especially rich place.

And we have concluded that Northern European countries that score so highly on these surveys either do not have a distinct advantage or are in fact at a disadvantage.


We have? I have concluded no such thing, and I don't think anyone other than you and Rocan has done so. What is this disadvantage you're talking about (except for weather)?

But again, that's an illusion. For undergraduate, the educational value of an instate public college is about the same as an expensive private university. In fact, many public colleges are better. It's all prestige, in the same way that having a Mercedes is prestigious. Save for a handful of private universities it is simply not worth it. As for pre-college, I know tons of people who went through public schools and became successful lawyers, doctors, etc. This is another prestige factor, and in many cases is due to religious reasons.

And if we look at actual spending, across all households, education spending is only $1000:

http://www.bls.gov/cex/2009/Standard/age.pdf

This proves that not everybody is spending huge sums and are doing the smart thing in sending their kids to public schools. It would be much lower than $1000 if nobody went to private schools.

But what's the sensible thing to do doesn't matter. It doesn't matter whether a public college is a better investment than a private one, what matters is perception. Middle class people have less money for discretionary spending and more debt because they feel like they have to keep up with everybody else around them, and because the culture has drilled into everybody that only fancy, expensive schools will give your kids (who you'd do anything for) the best possible start in life, especially now since people feel uncertain about the future economically. It's not just prestige (though that plays a part), it's just as much the primeval urge to give your kids the best you can.

And the mean spending on education for all households is irrelevant, since a substantial part of the population is effectively shut out from higher education because of cost. Those who do spend money on education spend a lot more. Even with your 2,500/year tuition at a local public school, that's a total of 30,000 dollars for for a family with three kids.

Well, I don't mean to be too much insistent, but I am realizing you're writing without really knowing what you're talking about. Zurich's airport is repeteadly ranked third in Europe (http://www.worldairportawards.com/Awards_2011/bestairport_europe.htm), and no, not behind Barcelona and Madrid, but behind Munich and Amsterdam. Have you ever seen a public transport map of Zurich (http://www.zvv.ch/export/sites/default/common-images/content-image-gallery/linien-zonen-pdfs/Liniennetzplan_Stadt_Zuerich_2011.pdf)? There is nowhere in the city further than 200m from one public transport station, only 17% of commuters in the city use cars. That network was supposed to include subways, but zurich people organized a referendum and voted against it and keep the tram lines, so there you have it, this is the city people wants, is there any better indication than that? People organizing and voting to force the government to build what they prefer for their city? I guess not, and yes, Zurich is also linked by TGV and ICE, as are many other swiss cities. Just to give you a hint, this is just the rail suburban network: ZVV (http://www.zvv.ch/export/sites/default/common-images/content-image-gallery/linien-zonen-pdfs/Liniennetzplan_ganzer_Verbund_2011.pdf)

Well you are being too insistent, and you are assuming things that you shouldn't be assuming. I have been to Madrid and Barcelona 5 or 6 times (each), sometimes a week at a time. Admittedly I haven't spent nearly as much time in Zurich but I have flown through its airport, visited the town (albeit briefly) and am familiar with the density of its urban transit. Nowhere did I say it was bad.

The comparison is a bit silly. Zurich can not be compared to either Madrid or Barcelona because they are each 5 to 8 times larger (depending on how you count) and far more dense. Comparing their urban public transit, or even freeway networks, makes no sense -- they are on different scales. (Though one of the great things about both Madrid and Barcelona freeway networks is that they penetrate extremely close to the city center, in some cases via tunnels, without disrupting the urban fabric.)

The airports you could say are close to a push although both Madrid and Barcelona have striking new terminals that are far more impressive than Zurich's.

The main difference (IMO) comes in high speed rail, where it still takes you over 2 hours to get to Lausanne (220km), and close to 3 hours to Geneva (290km) or Lugano (200 km)... just examples.

From Madrid, in less time than that I am on the beach in Valencia, in sunny Cordoba or even on the Mediterranean shores of Malaga. Or I am 30 mins away from the delights of Toledo or Segovia.

So again, unless you like to sit on a train for an unnecessarily long time, I prefer the Spanish model. And it's "quality of life" we are talking about, remember?

But what's the sensible thing to do doesn't matter. It doesn't matter whether a public college is a better investment than a private one, what matters is perception. Middle class people have less money for discretionary spending and more debt because they feel like they have to keep up with everybody else around them, and because the culture has drilled into everybody that only fancy, expensive schools will give your kids (who you'd do anything for) the best possible start in life, especially now since people feel uncertain about the future economically. It's not just prestige (though that plays a part), it's just as much the primeval urge to give your kids the best you can.

And the mean spending on education for all households is irrelevant, since a substantial part of the population is effectively shut out from higher education because of cost. Those who do spend money on education spend a lot more. Even with your 2,500/year tuition at a local public school, that's a total of 30,000 dollars for for a family with three kids.

People in the end can do whatever they want with their money. I think you are stereotyping the perception in the US. Most kids in the end go to public schools, by a large margin. If people still choose to pay $50,000 a year just so Sam can "live life" in a far away state, then that's their fault for being stupid with their money. But lets not blame anyone else when there were cheaper alternatives. Even in Europe, there is a choice to send kids to much more expensive private schools. I knew this couple in Belgium paying 10,000 euros a year for an 8 year old girl just to go to a good bilengual school. In D.C., where they previously lived, the same school was free, because they lived near a very good suburban school in Maryland.

I do not see how many should feel shut out from public universities. I already gave you the figures, and it's not a big deal. If you are that poor, then you probably get some form of financial aid anyway. People feel shut out when they have to incur costs of moving to another town, and therefore have to pay for living expenses. This again is a choice and not something that must be done. Moving away from home always costs money.

So again, unless you like to sit on a train for an unnecessarily long time, I prefer the Spanish model. And it's "quality of life" we are talking about, remember?

You have a very weird sense of quality of life, unless you commute every day to a city 400km away. But honestly, do you think most part of the population also commutes for 800km every day? Do you really think that's an important factor for every day's quality of life?

As an american I want to correct a few things:

I have a hard time believing the person who thinks Europe has better kitchens. Having been in 100s of new houses/condos/apartments in recent years, I'd say about 70% are of high quality construction with top end appliances. Even some of the low income housing had some really nice kitchens with built in microwaves, dishwashers, 2 compartment sinks, and stainless steel appliances. Of course there are still those "starter" homes that are built cheaper and have standard white applaiances...oh the humanity...

We do have front loading washers, they have been all the rage for the last 5 or so years. Have had a few middle class family members buy them. I on the other hand use a top loader because it was given to me for free and I don't care about having a front loader, would rather spend my money on other things.

And public vs private colleges is much more than just prestige. Some want to go to Notre Dame/other religious based colleges for various reasons, some kids want to go to the big in state college(20-40K students) for the big time sports and party atmosphere. Americans are to diverse to be grouped all as one. I personally went to a midsize public university(~6,000 students) with terrible sports/terrible party atmosphere because it was the toughest academic school in my state with a major I wanted. I know people who went to a Juco for 2 years then transferred and finished at a 4 year school and got the exact same degree I got for way less money but they also missed out on the experiences of living in the dorms as a freshman where you make many friends.

You have a very weird sense of quality of life, unless you commute every day to a city 400km away. But honestly, do you think most part of the population also commutes for 800km every day? Do you really think that's an important factor for every day's quality of life?

Who was talking about commuting? We are assessing public transportation/infrastructure as a component of quality of life. And yes, the fact that I can jump on the AVE in Madrid on any given weekend and be on the beach less than 2 hours later (or reach most of the country within 2.5 hours - something that you can't do from Zurich, in a far smaller country) does enhance quality of life. Or does it not? I thought the Swiss loved their "weekend trips" ?

On the issue of standard of living:

@ Adde - I don't doubt that you had a fabulous upbringing. But it is an established fact that, on average, the American standard of living is higher. Substantially higher. All you have to do is compare an average American house to an average European house/apartment. It's night and day.

Now if you wanna talk about a broader concept of "quality of life", that's a different story and I would certainly agree that in many ways (e.g. vacation time) the Europeans have got it better. It's an unwinnable pissing match -- all depends on which balance you prefer.

As an american I want to correct a few things:

I have a hard time believing the person who thinks Europe has better kitchens. Having been in 100s of new houses/condos/apartments in recent years, I'd say about 70% are of high quality construction with top end appliances. Even some of the low income housing had some really nice kitchens with built in microwaves, dishwashers, 2 compartment sinks, and stainless steel appliances. Of course there are still those "starter" homes that are built cheaper and have standard white applaiances...oh the humanity...

We do have front loading washers, they have been all the rage for the last 5 or so years. Have had a few middle class family members buy them. I on the other hand use a top loader because it was given to me for free and I don't care about having a front loader, would rather spend my money on other things.

You don't care about washing machines and would rather spend money on other stuff, others might not care about microwaves or shiny fridges and prefer to spend money on vacations.

I seem to remember reading that microwave ownership in Italy is very low. Is that because they are too poor to afford a $50 microwave or just because they prefer to eat decent food? You can have all the gadgets you want but they could just be for show.

You don't care about washing machines and would rather spend money on other stuff, others might not care about microwaves or shiny fridges and prefer to spend money on vacations.

I seem to remember reading that microwave ownership in Italy is very low. Is that because they are too poor to afford a $50 microwave or just because they prefer to eat decent food? You can have all the gadgets you want but they could just be for show.


That's just such a thing that a European would say. Just like "we don't need AC"... and then thousands of people die in a heat wave.

Why would you not want a microwave?? That's just a matter of convenience. People in the states have had them since 1960s...

On the issue of standard of living:

@ Adde - I don't doubt that you had a fabulous upbringing. But it is an established fact that, on average, the American standard of living is higher. Substantially higher. All you have to do is compare an average American house to an average European house/apartment. It's night and day.

Now if you wanna talk about a broader concept of "quality of life", that's a different story and I would certainly agree that in many ways (e.g. vacation time) the Europeans have got it better. It's an unwinnable pissing match -- all depends on which balance you prefer.

I agree with the second paragraph, it is a pretty silly pissing match.

But "substantially higher?" Come on. First of all, all of Europe is not the same. Second of all, I don't see how standard of living physically could get much higher for the average person than it is in for instance Scandinavia. 20 m2 more space in your house? A third car? A fifth tv? Scandinavia is mostly suburban so our housing (if that's one of your issues) are generally larger than that of continental Europe. I just don't see how you can make such sweeping statements.

My upbringing was pretty average. In what way did I experience substantially lower living standards than your average american? I know, it must have been because we didn't have an ice machine or a garbage disposal. Man, those things blew me away when I was in the US in 1991...

You know, we're not blind and stupid over here. We know what stuff you've got, usually partly filtered through the rosy picture of tv and movies where people actually got more stuff than real people. And no, we don't envy you because we've got the same stuff and we do the same things over here.

You don't care about washing machines and would rather spend money on other stuff, others might not care about microwaves or shiny fridges and prefer to spend money on vacations.

I seem to remember reading that microwave ownership in Italy is very low. Is that because they are too poor to afford a $50 microwave or just because they prefer to eat decent food? You can have all the gadgets you want but they could just be for show.

What does decent food have to do with it? You can reheat actual food in them, make some popcorn for family movie night, heat up some water quickly for other cooking, etc.. They are a convienece even if you don't eat hot pockets...
If you can't afford a microwave you probably can't afford a vacation either. Now I would rather go on a vacation rather than own a $1,000 fringe or washer and that is reflected in my spending. (a free washer/dryer and a microwave is all I own, all other appliances are included at my apartment)

That's just such a thing that a European would say. Just like "we don't need AC"... and then thousands of people die in a heat wave.

Why would you not want a microwave?? That's just a matter of convenience. People in the states have had them since 1960s...

I don't think anybody has died through lack of microwave. I don't have one, I used to as a student but not now. It's not that I can't afford £25 at the supermarket, I just don't require one.

90% of the people I know don't have a microwave, and I'm somewhat inclined to think it's not because they can't afford it. :laugh:

90% of the people I know don't have a microwave, and I'm somewhat inclined to think it's not because they can't afford it. :laugh:


Is it possible then that is because they simply don't have any space left in the kitchen? ;)

:) microwaves are not exactly huge items compared to fridges, ovens etc

Is it possible then that is because they simply don't have any space left in the kitchen? ;)

Nope. People here would rather have space taken from bedroom/living than have uncomfortable kitchens or bathrooms. ;)

:) microwaves are not exactly huge items compared to fridges, ovens etc

Yes but they still require some space. Many Europeans have tiny kitchens, sometimes combined with living rooms, without any room to spare.

i had a microwave once. After not using it for a few years i tried to give it away and no one would take it so it ended up at the rubbish dump. If Europeans dont bother with them i suspects its more to do with liking good tasting fresh food over being able to make things hot and mushy and soggy in 60 seconds :)

Yes but they still require some space. Many Europeans have tiny kitchens, sometimes combined with living rooms, without any room to spare.

Yes, but not THAT small! I'm sure 98% of households that wanted a microwave could both afford one and find the space somewhere.

Well, everyone's got a microwave here so obviously we're filthy rich.

Kidding aside, when you get down to details like how common microwaves or AC or front- or top-loading washing machines are it gets rather silly. Those things are so tightly wound up with culture and tradition that it really doesn't say much.

When I lived in Rome my landlord didn't think he'd need to explain the water heater in the bathroom or the gas stove in the kitchen, because hey, I was European so I should be used to that, right? But the thing is, in Sweden no one's got a heater in the bathroom. If you're on the municipal water pipe you get both hot and cold water. Only houses in the countryside has got their own heaters, and usually huge 500 liter ones, in the basement. And gas virtually doesn't exist outside a few old city centers, and even then only in older houses.
Does this mean that Italy is less advanced than Sweden? Honestly, I don't know. Because it's really hard to separate out why one country or city switches over to hot municipal water and another doesn't, or why one town stops supplying gas to buildings and another doesn't. Some things that might seem more practical, still doesn't become popular when it becomes available. Why? Who knows. Habit? Every appliance store here carries freezers with ice-machines, yet people don't buy them. Not because they're too expensive, no, but because people have never had them so they don't see the need. Instead they see that the machine takes up some space inside the freezer and everybody wants as much space as possible. So they take the more expensive freezer with the extra space instead.

There's just so much culture and habit involved in those things that they're pretty useless for gaging "standard of living".

i had a microwave once. After not using it for a few years i tried to give it away and no one would take it so it ended up at the rubbish dump. If Europeans dont bother with them i suspects its more to do with liking good tasting fresh food over being able to make things hot and mushy and soggy in 60 seconds :)


Well I don't know. Certainly some of it is down to cultural habits, and not pure economics. However, I have spent 6 months in London, without a microwave, and it was a bit of a pain. Not a huge deal, certainly, but on many occasions I wished I had one.

Like I said, a basic matter of convenience -- surely better to have one (for most people) than not have one. Feel free to disagree.

Yes but they still require some space. Many Europeans have tiny kitchens, sometimes combined with living rooms, without any room to spare.

Here, only students live in those tiny apartments. Or just-out-of-college 20-somethings who want to live in central Stockholm/Gothenburg/Malmö while they're young and unattached. (And yeah, I live in one of those tiny apartments myself. With a microwave.)

@ Adde -

Agree with a lot of things you've said, mate. As to the standard of living, though, I will stick to my guns. We have a show here on the Home channel (HGTV) showcasing people house hunting in various countries. I've seen what kind of houses pass for "average" in Sweden and Denmark and I was not impressed. All one has to do is go onto Google Streetview (which is now available for most of Scandinavia) and look at the houses in most Scandinavian suburban areas. Sorry mate, no comparison.

I will end this US vs. Europe pissing match with peace and unity by saying this: if quality of life is to be measured by foreign language skills, you guys come out tops. Your English is superb. :)

When I lived in Rome my landlord didn't think he'd need to explain the water heater in the bathroom or the gas stove in the kitchen, because hey, I was European so I should be used to that, right? But the thing is, in Sweden no one's got a heater in the bathroom. If you're on the municipal water pipe you get both hot and cold water. Only houses in the countryside has got their own heaters, and usually huge 500 liter ones, in the basement. And gas virtually doesn't exist outside a few old city centers, and even then only in older houses.
Does this mean that Italy is less advanced than Sweden? Honestly, I don't know. Because it's really hard to separate out why one country or city switches over to hot municipal water and another doesn't, or why one town stops supplying gas to buildings and another doesn't. Some things that might seem more practical, still doesn't become popular when it becomes available. Why? Who knows. Habit?

As regards to the gas stove, it is definitely a cultural thing. People here want gas to cook their meals, perhaps the No. 1 complain Italians make when abroad is on the uselessness of electrical coils. Even induction stoves are absolutely unpopular.

Is it not a bit simplistic to say that the bigger the house the better the life? Sure a family of 4 will probably find a 100sqm home twice as good as a 50sqm home, but will a 200sqm house be twice as good again, and a 400sqm home twice as good as that, even assuming you can find those larger houses in just as convenient locations without having to hike out to the exurbs?

Doesn't diminishing marginal returns kick in? what do you do with all that extra space once you've got enough already? Isn't it after a while just more cleaning, maintenance and heating/cooling bills for little additional benefit?

As regards to the gas stove, it is definitely a cultural thing. People here want gas to cook their meals, perhaps the No. 1 complain Italians make when abroad is on the uselessness of electrical coils. Even induction stoves are absolutely unpopular.

Induction is fine imo, but yes, standard electric hobs are useless.

@ Adde -

Agree with a lot of things you've said, mate. As to the standard of living, though, I will stick to my guns. We have a show here on the Home channel (HGTV) showcasing people house hunting in various countries. I've seen what kind of houses pass for "average" in Sweden and Denmark and I was not impressed. All one has to do is go onto Google Streetview (which is now available for most of Scandinavia) and look at the houses in most Scandinavian suburban areas. Sorry mate, no comparison.

I will end this US vs. Europe pissing match with peace and unity by saying this: if quality of life is to be measured by foreign language skills, you guys come out tops. Your English is superb. :)

I don't think those shows are representative though. We get a ton of them from the UK (UK tv is huge here) and some of them, like "Escape to the Country" only show these amazing, huge buildings in the countryside, while another one that I don't remember the name of only seem to show dingy brownstones that haven't been refurnished since the 80's. Obviously neither shows a real picture of UK homes.

Actually, we talk a lot of smack about US homes here. We've all seen the 5,000 "reality shows" that you pump out each year and in general we tend to find US suburban houses big, tacky (wall-to-wall carpeting?!?) and badly furnished. That's probably not fair, but you know, also probably as bad a sample as the one you've seen.

I agree that we don't build as big as you do in the US (but that kind of did bite you in the ass though, didn't it?), but the standard inside the houses are pretty much the same. Many, many suburban areas were built in the 70's, and they all look the same (about 150 m2, four bedrooms, two bathrooms) but now most people build extensions and refurbish the interiors. Newer suburban development are much more diverse, with much larger houses (though often smaller yards). The really large houses are build in the countryside though. We have this love-hate relationship with the suburbs. We like them for when we're raising kids (friends to play with and schools nearby!) but as soon as the kids move out lots of people move out into the countryside.

Thanks for the compliment. We try our best, but I'm sure we miss dozens of mistakes in every post.

Is it not a bit simplistic to say that the bigger the house the better the life? Sure a family of 4 will probably find a 100sqm home twice as good as a 50sqm home, but will a 200sqm house be twice as good again, and a 400sqm home twice as good as that, even assuming you can find those larger houses in just as convenient locations without having to hike out to the exurbs?

Doesn't diminishing marginal returns kick in? what do you do with all that extra space once you've got enough already? Isn't it after a while just more cleaning, maintenance and heating/cooling bills for little additional benefit?

Not just bigger but better, in every way that I could observe.

Addressing your second point: if the average Scandinavian size house was all you need, and anything else was "marginal returns", then I would think that rich Scandinavians (say top 5%) would have the same size houses as the rest? I suspect that's not the case. When you get richer, you usually get a bigger house -- that's how it works everywhere mate. And by that measure, Americans are richer.

On the topic of houses, most Americans don't need big houses do to decreasing family sizes.

As regards to the gas stove, it is definitely a cultural thing. People here want gas to cook their meals, perhaps the No. 1 complain Italians make when abroad is on the uselessness of electrical coils. Even induction stoves are absolutely unpopular.

Yeah, definitely. Actually, my brother lived in an apartment in an old building in central Stockholm for a couple of years and he had a gas stove which he loved (once he got used to it). When he and his wife decided to build a house they looked into getting a gas stove for it, but they decided that it would be to cumbersome with the gas tubes and everything, so they went with induction. But it was close.

Actually, we talk a lot of smack about US homes here. We've all seen the 5,000 "reality shows" that you pump out each year and in general we tend to find US suburban houses big, tacky (wall-to-wall carpeting?!?) and badly furnished. That's probably not fair, but you know, also probably as bad a sample as the one you've seen.


[Emphasis added]

Nowhere did I say that Americans have any taste. :)

But at least you agree our houses are big, which goes to the point I made to Jonesy: no matter where you are in the world, when you get rich you want a bigger house. Americans do have bigger houses (and bigger cars, and bigger TVs, and more electronic gadgets etc.)

With a lot of it, of course, we get into this whole ability vs. choice debate, cultural conventions vs. economics, which is a never ending argument.

Not just bigger but better, in every way that I could observe.

Addressing your second point: if the average Scandinavian size house was all you need, and anything else was "marginal returns", then I would think that rich Scandinavians (say top 5%) would have the same size houses as the rest? I suspect that's not the case. When you get richer, you usually get a bigger house -- that's how it works everywhere mate. And by that measure, Americans are richer.

I don't think so, many very rich people in London, Paris, Monaco, Hong Kong, Manhattan etc live in apartments smaller than typical middle class suburban homes. More money may well just mean going to a more desireable location rather than a bigger property, or buying additional properties for weekends and vacations. Buying bigger just for the sake of it is just one option, which if you haven't got a big family may not be the best one.

Addressing your second point: if the average Scandinavian size house was all you need, and anything else was "marginal returns", then I would think that rich Scandinavians (say top 5%) would have the same size houses as the rest? I suspect that's not the case. When you get richer, you usually get a bigger house -- that's how it works everywhere mate. And by that measure, Americans are richer.

Many of Oslos (and Norway) richest don't live in any noticeable larger houses than what's average in the suburbs. What they usually spend their money on is view, closeness to the sea and location (the western side of the city is usually considered to be more desirable than the eastern).

I don't think so, many very rich people in London, Paris, Monaco, Hong Kong, Manhattan etc live in apartments smaller than typical middle class suburban homes. More money may well just mean going to a more desireable location rather than a bigger property, or buying additional properties for weekends and vacations. Buying bigger just for the sake of it is just one option, which if you haven't got a big family may not be the best one.

Apples and oranges mate. I was talking about people with comparable lifestyles. We have to compare suburban to suburban or city to city. In either case, Americans have it bigger and better IMO (notwithstanding Adde's accurate stylistic observations).

Many of Oslos (and Norway) richest don't live in any noticeable larger houses than what's average in the suburbs. What they usually spend their money on is view, closeness to the sea and location (the western side of the city is usually considered to be more desirable than the eastern).

Yes, same here, even in my small town there are many bigger properties in my town cheaper than the house where I live, and many smaller properties that are more expensive. Location usually being the key factor.

Not just bigger but better, in every way that I could observe.

Addressing your second point: if the average Scandinavian size house was all you need, and anything else was "marginal returns", then I would think that rich Scandinavians (say top 5%) would have the same size houses as the rest? I suspect that's not the case. When you get richer, you usually get a bigger house -- that's how it works everywhere mate. And by that measure, Americans are richer.

Obviously not since there's droves of McMansions in foreclosure. Just because you got a crappy loan you couldn't afford and built a huge house on a cheap peace of exurban land doesn't make you richer.

There isn't a universal rule that richer = larger house.

Remember, in a society that puts a lot of stock in social equality, one of the byproducts of that can be a certain social pressure to "conform" and not stand out, to not display wealth too ostentatiously. In Sweden it's called "jantelagen" and it's alive and well in Scandinavia. Really, truly rich people live in larger houses, yeah (though seldom mansions, unless they've bought an old castle or manor house). But the upper middle class and kinda rich live in pretty much the same houses as the rest of us. More expensive neighborhoods sometimes (lakeside view!), but the houses are pretty much the same. Not because they couldn't afford something bigger, but because it's not what one does. The difference is basically that between a 180 m2 suburban house from the 70's or a lovingly restored 1890's villa of 210 m2. One costs 600,000 dollars, the other 1,5 million.

Edit: Everyone basically said the same thing as me :)

I have no problem with this if you want to continue trying to prove that southern countries are "richer" :-)

"You suspect"? Thats a new word in this thread...what are the reasons you are suspecting this exactly? It would be very interesting. Just because it would confirm that southern countries are richer?


Nobody ever said Southern countries of Europe are richer than the Northern ones. Why the need of doing false exaggerations?

I think his point as he repeteadly says is that Southern countries are not that different regarding quality of life and wealthyness than the Northern ones. And that regarding infraestructures we have nothing to learn from the Northern ones.

Anyway I just say this for the record. I guess you guys are free to believe whatever you like...

Apples and oranges mate. I was talking about people with comparable lifestyles. We have to compare suburban to suburban or city to city. In either case, Americans have it bigger and better IMO (notwithstanding Adde's accurate stylistic observations).

But sometimes cultural differences are big enough that there really isn't a 1-to-1 comparison that you can do. We don't have the same kind of suburbs that you do, and we don't have the same kind of suburban culture. For instance, the relationship between suburb and city center is very different here than in the US.

But sometimes cultural differences are big enough that there really isn't a 1-to-1 comparison that you can do. We don't have the same kind of suburbs that you do, and we don't have the same kind of suburban culture. For instance, the relationship between suburb and city center is very different here than in the US.

I agree, it does all get intertwined at some point and it becomes difficult to make direct comparisons. On average, Americans do have bigger houses and arguably better living conditions, though you could of course argue that it does not necessarily mean they are richer in every case. Just like someone who has a big house in the suburbs is not necessarily richer than a person living in a city. Lifestyle choice.

Edt: which is another reason why I wanted to stay away from the US vs. Europe comparison. It is difficult and pointless.

Nobody ever said Southern countries of Europe are richer than the Northern ones. Why the need of doing false exaggerations?

I think his point as he repeteadly says is that Southern countries are not that different regarding quality of life and wealthyness than the Northern ones. And that regarding infraestructures we have nothing to learn from the Northern ones.

Anyway I just say this for the record. I guess you guys are free to believe whatever you like...

Don't worry Atomicus. I started ignoring Metro a long time ago. He is incapable of holding an intelligent debate without creating "straw men" and mischaracterizing the opposing argument. But we still have enough brainpower from Adde, SkyBridge and Federicoft to keep up a lively and intelligent debate.

Apples and oranges mate. I was talking about people with comparable lifestyles. We have to compare suburban to suburban or city to city. In either case, Americans have it bigger and better IMO (notwithstanding Adde's accurate stylistic observations).

The price of raw materials alone makes European homes more expensive. There really isn't much substance to the average American home built after WW2. The same goes for many household appliances. The vast majority of ovens in America have only lower heat, whereas with European models a choice of recirculating air, lower only, upper only, upper and lower heat and various combinations of these modes is standard. Same with washing machines where you can typically only choose between "hot", "cold" or a mix of both and you need to add bleach for the laundry to actually look clean (although this is not just the case in the US but also in Asia and Australia). Both ovens and washing machines tend to be much bigger in the US though.

I agree, it does all get intertwined at some point and it becomes difficult to make direct comparisons. On average, Americans do have bigger houses and arguably better living conditions, though you could of course argue that it does not necessarily mean they are richer in every case. Just like someone who has a big house in the suburbs is not necessarily richer than a person living in a city. Lifestyle choice.


I'm still not buying the "arguable better living conditions" part. Apart from size of the actual houses, you still haven't said what those actually are.

I'm still not buying the "arguable better living conditions" part. Apart from size of the actual houses, you still haven't said what those actually are.


Well size is sort of a biggie, isn't it? Kind of affects your quality of life...

I have already mentioned what else: better appliances (IMO), more and bigger cars, bigger TVs, more electronic gadgets, far more consumption at every socio-economic level.

Now you can tell me all you want that the Scandinavians lower consumption level and more modest house size is down to cultural norms, a lot of which is true - just like your entire economic and social model is ultimately a matter of national choice -- but the economic reality is what I see on the ground based on how people actually live.

Tell you what: go check out the thread called "Random Walks in Detroit Suburbia" (currently on page 5 of Urban Showcase). These are *average* middle class American suburban areas where most middle class families live. Look through the whole thread. Then please come back to me and show me something comparable in Sweden, for middle class.

I'm not sure size is particularly a big factor, in cars or homes, certainly once you get beyond a point. It's just a different lifestyle choice.

Likewise with tvs, it needs to be an appropriate size for your wall and viewing distance, but more than that just to beat the neighbours isn't indicative of higher standard of living, imo.

Bigger is better? In some ways yes. But we consume WAY more than we should. The US makes me sick sometimes, as an American.

Further, a large percentage of the population are flat out morons. They don't realize that the big house means big heating bills, lots of space to fill with crap, and big renovation bills later, particularly because it's probably poorly built. And they buy their crap on credit...fine if it's important stuff, but utter stupidity if it's a luxury item like a bigger TV. They also forget (until the price run-ups) that "driving til you qualify" might mean three gallons of gas every day.

Likewise with tvs, it needs to be an appropriate size for your wall and viewing distance, but more than that just to beat the neighbours isn't indicative of higher standard of living, imo.

Very true. And Americans, on average, have bigger rooms and bigger TVs. Which is better than having smaller rooms and smaller TVs. But you can disagree. ;)

I started ignoring Metro a long time ago. He is incapable of holding an intelligent debate without creating "straw men" and mischaracterizing the opposing argument. But we still have enough brainpower from Adde, SkyBridge and Federicoft to keep up a lively and intelligent debate.

Dear Fitzrovian

That's just marvelllous and i'm proud of you. Being able to ignore people is a big step forward. So i am sure you will be able to ignore this rankings as well, since it seems to make you very nervous as if your life were depending on it. But why?

You now have proven to everybody on an excellent way and with perfect arguments that Spain has the same quality of life as the Top 10. Isn't it great? So you are very happy in Spain as much as other are happy in Scandinavia, Switzerland or in the USA. We are all citizens of the same world and so everything is just fine. Isn't it? Knowing how great Spain is, you now shouldn't feel the need of convincing any other persons, since we now know the true. Thanks you so much.

I think sometimes the world just needs some great personnalities and i am thankfull you could open our eyes. Thousands thanks.

So you have reach your goal and i am sure you now feel much happier.

So just relax. Try to breathe deeply and to ignore this ranking list since everybody now knows how worthless it is. And i am happy that you feel so much better. Enjoy your life and remember: just keep....cooooool. There are some more important things in the life ;-)

Very true. And Americans, on average, have bigger rooms and bigger TVs. Which is better than having smaller rooms and smaller TVs. But you can disagree. ;)

I do disagree im afraid. Also in the Urban Showcase forum and also on page 5 is a thread about Bath in the UK (where I used to live). Now im sure the average property in Bath is much much smaller than those in Detroit but I hope after you look at the thread you might change your mind a little that bigger is not necessarily better!

Links for both btw
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1449430
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=946828

you probably wont though! :)

I'm sure those suburbs are beautiful.

But does a couple of extra m2 give you better living conditions?

Appliances are not better in the US than in Scandinavian. Sorry, they're just not. Big tv's are everywhere and most families have lots of them. We just as many electronic gadgets: we all have smartphones and "pads" of different kinds, our computer penetration has been higher than that of the US since the 90's, virtually every kid has got some kind of gaming console (if not several different kinds). Two cars is the norm (and that's in spite of our high gas prices). We don't starve so we probably eat as much food (though maybe a little bit healthier food, since our levels of obesity is lower, though that in itself usually means that we eat more expensive food).

I just can't come up with any consumer goods that you clearly lead us in that's not pretty much completely cultural. I'll give you average house size and size of cars (though there's nothing more ridiculous than seeing someone trying to park their SUV in the one available pocket along a street in central Stockholm). Other than that, I come up blank.

And since the people in our lower socio-economic levels are substantially better off than yours, I'm pretty sure they consumer more.

I do disagree im afraid. Also in the Urban Showcase forum and also on page 5 is a thread about Bath in the UK (where I used to live). Now im sure the average property in Bath is much much smaller than those in Detroit but I hope after you look at the thread you might change your mind a little that bigger is not necessarily better!

Links for both btw
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1449430
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=946828

you probably wont though! :)

I don't need to look at the thread. I have been to Bath, and it's gorgeous. But it also has nothing to do with what we are discussing.

I'm sure those suburbs are beautiful.

But does a couple of extra m2 give you better living conditions?

Appliances are not better in the US than in Scandinavian. Sorry, they're just not. Big tv's are everywhere and most families have lots of them. We just as many electronic gadgets: we all have smartphones and "pads" of different kinds, our computer penetration has been higher than that of the US since the 90's, virtually every kid has got some kind of gaming console (if not several different kinds). Two cars is the norm (and that's in spite of our high gas prices). We don't starve so we probably eat as much food (though maybe a little bit healthier food, since our levels of obesity is lower, though that in itself usually means that we eat more expensive food).

I just can't come up with any consumer goods that you clearly lead us in that's not pretty much completely cultural. I'll give you average house size and size of cars (though there's nothing more ridiculous than seeing someone trying to park their SUV in the one available pocket along a street in central Stockholm). Other than that, I come up blank.

And since the people in our lower socio-economic levels are substantially better off than yours, I'm pretty sure they consumer more.

Adde, you asked me why I think Americans have better "living conditions". I answered your question. I even provided visual evidence. I invited you to show me any middle class suburban area in Sweden that looks as prosperous as what is shown in the Detroit thread.

I don't think you can.

Now I have already conceded some of your points, and identified areas where there is no right answer, but you kept pressing this specific point and I provided what I think is a reasonable response. You can, and I am sure you will, disagree. That is fine. Pushing this particular discussion any further with anecdotal evidence of how you grew up, how your friends live, how you don't really want or need a bigger house, how Americans have bad carpeting and furniture is fine but it will not resolve this debate, I am afraid. So let's just end this one here.

I don't need to look at the thread. I have been to Bath, and it's gorgeous. But it also has nothing to do with what we are discussing.

hey you were the one that pointed to a thread in the Urban Showcase forum to illustrate your point. I merely did the same.

Very true. And Americans, on average, have bigger rooms and bigger TVs. Which is better than having smaller rooms and smaller TVs. But you can disagree. ;)

Up to a point is my point, if you have to sit on the lap of somebody else on the sofa to all watch tv, or there isn't enough space round the dining table to have a few friends over for dinner or your kitchen isn't big enough to cook a family meal in or you have to line up outside the bathroom each morning then some more space probably would make a difference.

But if not then doubling the size of each room just because bigger is considered better in some cultures won't make any real difference to living standards imo.

But hey, that's just my opinion.

hey you were the one that pointed to a thread in the Urban Showcase forum to illustrate your point. I merely did the same.


It's fine to point to other threads if they have relevance. Yours didn't.

We were comparing living conditions of an average American and an average Swede. I don't see what Bath has got to do with it.

I haven't seen any urban showcase threads with lots of Swedish suburbs here, so I don't know what to link to.

Would you accept street view links?

And don't pretend we're not both mostly giving anecdotal evidence here because we are. You saying that "We have better appliances and more electronics" is indeed anecdotal evidence.

Up to a point is my point, if you have to sit on the lap of somebody else on the sofa to all watch tv, or there isn't enough space round the dining table to have a few friends over for dinner or your kitchen isn't big enough to cook a family meal in or you have to line up outside the bathroom each morning then some more space probably would make a difference.

But if not then doubling the size of each room just because bigger is considered better in some cultures won't make any real difference to living standards imo.

A never ending argument, Jonesy. We can argue until we are blue in the face as to how big is big enough. I can assure you that most American middle class families that live in houses that are 2,500 to 3,000 sq. feet don't think their houses are "too big". You get used to good things very quickly. If those people had to move into some of the houses you guys have in Europe they would kill themselves. It's all relative mate.

I haven't seen any urban showcase threads with lots of Swedish suburbs here, so I don't know what to link to.

Would you accept street view links?

And don't pretend we're not both mostly giving anecdotal evidence here because we are. You saying that "We have better appliances and more electronics" is indeed anecdotal evidence.

I will happily accept street view links, as long as you play fair and show me *middle class* suburban areas.

PS. By pointing to an actual thread I was trying to move from anecdotes to reality.

This discussion has turned rather fatuous. Unfortunately it's now turned into a Scandinavia vs. US discussion with one arguing about substance over form and one form over substance. There are huge cultural forces at work here. For example, 3/4 of housing stock in Stockholm (based on population) are actually apartments, 2/3 of housing in the metropolitan area of Stockholm are apartments based upon municipal figures. This would be unheard of in the US or in fact the UK, Canada, Australia or NZ etc.

For the record, I actually live in one of these apartments in Stockholm. It's 95m2, on the fourth floor with two bedrooms and a large living room and kitchen/dining room (with two full height fridges by the way), which is more than enough for two people. It was highly affordable at less than 1.5 million SEK ($222,800USD), within 5 minutes walk of two supermarkets and a shopping centre as well as a metro station and bus station with very frequent services. It is in the suburbs and has parks, sports facilities (multiple basket courts, a football field and a 22 court tennis, badminton and squash hall for example), a theatre for plays and performances, a large library and everything like this within walking distance.

Now, given that I have all these facilities on my door step, life is convenient. Cars are marginalised to roads away from the apartments and so all areas are connected by safe, walkways making it safe for kids. Kids can catch the metro or buses to everywhere meaning they are more independent from their parents and have their freedom to a much greater degree than in more car dependent places.

Based on this I say that my quality of life is good despite, as a PhD student, not getting the worlds highest salary (but still more than comfortable for my needs). I've lived elsewhere around the world, and I feel my quality of life here is higher than elsewhere that I lived. Guess it depends on your personal experiences/preferences.

This discussion has turned rather fatuous. Unfortunately it's now turned into a Scandinavia vs. US discussion with one arguing about substance over form and one form over substance. There are huge cultural forces at work here. For example, 3/4 of housing stock in Stockholm (based on population) are actually apartments, 2/3 of housing in the metropolitan area of Stockholm are apartments based upon municipal figures. This would be unheard of in the US or in fact the UK, Canada, Australia or NZ etc.

For the record, I actually live in one of these apartments in Stockholm. It's 95m2, on the fourth floor with two bedrooms and a large living room and kitchen/dining room (with two full height fridges by the way), which is more than enough for two people. It was highly affordable at less than 1.5 million SEK ($222,800USD), within 5 minutes walk of two supermarkets and a shopping centre as well as a metro station and bus station with very frequent services. It is in the suburbs and has parks, sports facilities (multiple basket courts, a football field and a 22 court tennis, badminton and squash hall for example), a theatre for plays and performances, a large library and everything like this within walking distance.

Now, given that I have all these facilities on my door step, life is convenient. Cars are marginalised to roads away from the apartments and so all areas are connected by safe, walkways making it safe for kids. Kids can catch the metro or buses to everywhere meaning they are more independent from their parents and have their freedom to a much greater degree than in more car dependent places.

Based on this I say that my quality of life is good despite, as a PhD student, not getting the worlds highest salary (but still more than comfortable for my needs). I've lived elsewhere around the world, and I feel my quality of life here is higher than elsewhere that I lived. Guess it depends on your personal experiences/preferences.

Svartmetall, just for the record, if you would carefully read this thread you would see that I never said that the US has a higher "quality of life" than Scandinavia. I was very clear about that. As you correctly pointed out, that is a matter of personal preference. But the discussion has turned, at Adde's insistence, from "quality of life" to material "standard of living". And on that score, I think America wins hands down.

As I mentioned before, if you think that you can have the services of a welfare state and at the same time enjoy the same material standard of living as in the US, that's wishful thinking. But I agree of course that money, house size and other purely material factors are not everything in life and there are plenty of other things affecting "quality of life".

So let's stay on point.

I will happily accept street view links, as long as you play fair and show me *middle class* suburban areas.

PS. By pointing to an actual thread I was trying to move from anecdotes to reality.

This is the general standard of newly built suburban hood in Norway (I think this may be slightly below middle class though, mostly due to the location).
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Tusenfryd,+Norway&hl=en&ll=59.754762,10.773908&spn=0.015672,0.055747&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=50.02446,114.169922&vpsrc=6&hq=Tusenfryd,+Norway&t=h&z=15&layer=c&cbll=59.754762,10.773908&panoid=rqlprTCeBrMWR-sdUBj9_Q&cbp=12,263.56,,0,2.98

I suspect the standard is about the same as in Sweden. Most new build are probably smaller than what was built in the '60s and '70s - there is now less available open land to build on which turn have resulted in a call to density and generally build smaller.

I will happily accept street view links, as long as you play fair and show me *middle class* suburban areas.

PS. By pointing to an actual thread I was trying to move from anecdotes to reality.

But how do I know that you played fair and showed a *middle class* suburb? I mean, I know enough to have heard that Detroit actually has some of the richest and nicest suburbs in the US. And how much "editing" so to speak went into the thread? Unlike with a street view, when you'r walking around taking pictures you can choose what to show.

And as far as I can see, it's actually not really a residential suburb with only detatched houses in the thread, but more of a mixed use suburb.

But how do I know that you played fair and showed a *middle class* suburb? I mean, I know enough to have heard that Detroit actually has some of the richest and nicest suburbs in the US. And how much "editing" so to speak went into the thread? Unlike with a street view, when you'r walking around taking pictures you can choose what to show.

And as far as I can see, it's actually not really a residential suburb with only detatched houses in the thread, but more of a mixed use suburb.

I don't remember about the Detroit thread, though it should have plenty of residential as well. Look through the whole thing. Some of it might be somewhat upper middle class, but the point is that you see vast vast areas of suburbs that look just like that in every major US metropolitan area. If you are concerned about selective editing, feel free to go to Streetview yourself.

Show me a middle class (or even slightly upper middle class) suburb in Sweden and I can judge if it measures up. I am not into this to "win" but to "learn". If you have nicer looking houses, and more well kept suburban areas, in Sweden I will tip my hat.

Svartmetall, just for the record, if you would carefully read this thread you would see that I never said that the US has a higher "quality of life" than Scandinavia. I was very clear about that. As you correctly pointed out, that is a matter of personal preference. But the discussion has turned, at Adde's insistence, from "quality of life" to material "standard of living". And on that score, I think America wins hands down.

As I mentioned before, if you think that you can have the services of a welfare state and at the same time enjoy the same material standard of living as in the US, that's wishful thinking. But I agree of course that money, house size and other purely material factors are not everything in life and there are plenty of other things affecting "quality of life".

So let's stay on point.

Well, I have carefully read the thread, and your insistence that material goods lead to a greater standard of living is completely erroneous as my post illustrates. I don't have as much in terms of material goods as I did in New Zealand, and I live in a much smaller dwelling but I do have far more in other ways.

I think you do place too much emphasis on monetary goods to be perfectly honest. I've read all your posts and you've tried to show how "poor" here is, well, I can tell you it is far from it from my experience. Even in the least well off areas of the city such as Alby and Fittja, I can walk around at night (and have done so) quite safely and have had a bit of a browse through the apartment windows and they are largely well kitted out with decent furnishings and white wear from what I have seen. This of course is purely anecdotal, but then so are your experiences so one must take each of these with a pinch of salt.

One can also not compare a lot of suburban areas in Stockholm in particular using Google Street View as it mainly has only the areas with road access, and a lot of these suburbs are isolated from roads and rely upon pedestrian access. What doesn't look particularly inviting from the road looks very different when you access the suburb as a pedestrian.

OK, this is a nice Stockholm suburb. Not wealthy, but nice.

http://g.co/maps/nmtya

This is decidedly middle-to-lower middle class small town with a very suburban feel:

http://g.co/maps/fzndb

Ok, gonna try and find something newly built.

Edit: ok, doesn't work. How do you post street view links?
Edit 2: ok, figured it out.

And yeah, finding suburbs that are covered by street view is hard, it's mostly main streets from which you see a few roofs over a cops of trees...

Well, I have carefully read the thread, and your insistence that material goods lead to a greater standard of living is completely erroneous as my post illustrates. I don't have as much in terms of material goods as I did in New Zealand, and I live in a much smaller dwelling but I do have far more in other ways.

I think you do place too much emphasis on monetary goods to be perfectly honest. I've read all your posts and you've tried to show how "poor" here is, well, I can tell you it is far from it from my experience. Even in the least well off areas of the city such as Alby and Fittja, I can walk around at night (and have done so) quite safely and have had a bit of a browse through the apartment windows and they are largely well kitted out with decent furnishings and white wear from what I have seen. This of course is purely anecdotal, but then so are your experiences so one must take each of these with a pinch of salt.

One can also not compare a lot of suburban areas in Stockholm in particular using Google Street View as it mainly has only the areas with road access, and a lot of these suburbs are isolated from roads and rely upon pedestrian access. What doesn't look particularly inviting from the road looks very different when you access the suburb as a pedestrian.

So how do you define "standard of living" then? If we shouldn't place emphasis on house size, money, cars and consumption levels in the assessment of "standard of living" then what are we supposed to look at? It seems that you want to include "quality of life" factors in the discussion of standard of living which are separate (though interrelated) issues. Who's got better "quality of life" between the US and Sweden is an unwinnable argument - depends on your personal perspective. And I never intended to go into the material standard of living discussion, but Adde insisted. Of course I am happy to have it if you guys so chose.

What? I insisted? That's not what I remember (not that I do remember exactly how we ended up here though).

Edit: Looked back and it was Rocan who (while I was sleeping and stuff last night) started to discuss the US vs. Scandinavia thing (because of the Krugman article). Then when I came back I responded to something that he had written about it, to which you (in post 554) started listing all the things you have in the states that are better and bigger than in Scandinavia. Then it took off. No one really insisted on anything.

OK, this is a nice Stockholm suburb. Not wealthy, but nice.

http://g.co/maps/nmtya

This is decidedly middle-to-lower middle class small town with a very suburban feel:

http://g.co/maps/fzndb

Ok, gonna try and find something newly built.

Edit: ok, doesn't work. How do you post street view links?
Edit 2: ok, figured it out.

And yeah, finding suburbs that are covered by street view is hard, it's mostly main streets from which you see a few roofs over a cops of trees...

Some of the houses in the first link are nice. How big are they in sq feet typically?

The difference in an upscale US suburb would be (i) much more land - front, back and side (these houses are practically on top of each other), (ii) larger size houses (hard to say by how much - some of these houses look tiny (by US standards), others pretty large), (iii) more upscale looking and varied architecture, and (iv) some people would have swimming pools. Beyond that it's hard to tell without looking inside.

Also, one other factor, is I wonder what % of Swedish population lives in suburbs of this caliber?

What? I insisted? That's not what I remember (not that I do remember exactly how we ended up here though).

Edit: Looked back and it was Rocan who (while I was sleeping and stuff last night) started to discuss the US vs. Scandinavia thing (because of the Krugman article). Then when I came back I responded to something that he had written about it, to which you (in post 554) started listing all the things you have in the states that are better and bigger than in Scandinavia. Then it took off. No one really insisted on anything.

Yes, you pushed me on why I thought the living conditions in the US were better. So here we are comparing suburbs. :)

Wow Portugal is a lot poorer than I thought. Chile got near, so Argentina would also be there.

No stats for Mexico (OECD country)?

Cheers.

The houses in the first link are nice. How big are they in sq feet?

The difference in an upscale US suburb would be (i) much more land - front and back (these houses are practically on top of each other), (ii) larger size houses (hard to say by how much though without knowing sq footage), (iii) more upscale looking and varied architecture, and (iv) some people would have swimming pools. Beyond that it's hard to tell without looking inside.

Also, one other factor, is I wonder what % of Swedish population lives in suburbs of this caliber?

You're only seeing the front towards the street. The yard is in the back. Especially the houses on the right hand have relatively large yards looking out over lake Mälaren.

This area was built in, I'd guess, the 1920-30's. I'd put their sq footage (actually, sqm) at an average of 150 m2, though most probably have added extensions in the back. Small by today standards, but their location is top notch. Swedish architects have always tried to keep neighborhoods relatively uniform in style and architecture, so varied suburban streets are a relatively new phenomenon. Some of them probably have pools, but those would never face the streets.

How many live in these kinds of suburbs? Hard to tell. They're common around larger, older cities, especially Stockholm, and they're considered middle class. But Swedish cities are mostly made up of apartment buildings so a percentage is hard to say.

There are basically no suburbs where houses are not spaced relatively close together in Sweden. That's just how we build our residential suburbs. Swedes do not look for large yards for some reason, things like parks and nature in the vicinity is more important. We build the suburbs tightly and leave as much nature in between them as possible.

Yes, you pushed me on why I thought the living conditions in the US were better. So here we are comparing suburbs. :)

Yeah, because you kept rattling off the same list that sounded mostly like bull to me :)

The richest cities in Spain are Madrid, Bilbao, Donostia, Vitoria Gasteiz, Logrono, Pamplona, Barcelona, Girona, Santander, Zaragoza, Soria, Palencia, Burgos and Valladolid. All them are rich or very rich. :yes:
The richest city in Spain is Girona, 90 km. North of Barcelona.

This is something often claimed by spaniards but it's utterly false. The country's altitude average is the second heighest in Europe, but central spain is a high altitude plateau with very few large mountains and it's relatively easy to build a railway in there, the only major obstacle being north of Madrid.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3c/Spain_topo.jpg/561px-Spain_topo.jpg

Spain is the 2nd most mountainous country in Europe after Switzerland, as you can see on the map. It does not matter if there is a plateau in the centre of the country or not.
It can be easy to build railway lines inside the central plateau but not in the rest of the country because there are a lot of chains of mountains, many of them arriving to the coast.

And read again what I said, I mentioned a mountain chain dividing the country and Europe, there is no such thing in Spain, the closest thing are the pyrenees but they are relatively easy to cross them via its two extremes, Switzerland wouldn't have built the GBT if it's sole function were to better link the Tessin, as there is already a 15km-long tunnel dating to 1881 doing that function.

The Pyrinees, like the Alps, are inside Europe so, they are not dividing any country and Europe.
And, if you think the Pyrinees are so easy to cross... Why are there only 2 main railway lines crossing them in their coastal area?

And? That's not even close to 40km, the total lenght of the GBT is 152km if you add up the two 57km-tubes and the other tunnels and shafts, of course.

Just to let you know that we also have got long HSR tunnels under mountains and that Spanish engineering is very good too.

But I didn't pretend to get into a dick-measurement contest, I was answering someone saying that spanish railway's are best in Europe just because there are hundreds of kilometers of high-speed lines, and all I am saying is that this is just a factor which is given by the situation... that is, Spain has hundreds of kilometers of HSR just because its topography and urban density allows for it and because normal railway lines were (or are, as there are still many operating railway lines of poor quality) on average pretty bad quality and iberian-gauge. Switzerland not having so many km of HSR is also a consequence of a higher urban density and city position, which renders HSR not useful for the country, but for other topographic and situation reasons it is useful to build two 57km long tunnels to link the country north-south, but that doesn't mean that the country has the best railway infrastructure in Europe because it has a long tunnel.

All in all, measuring the number of km of HSR or tunnels is not a practical way of measuring the quality of a service because it's not necessarily a good option.

IMHO the best way is to measure the number of passangers, at the end is people willing to pay for a service and to get in a train, is there anything better than that to measure the success of a railway company? But even that might be influenced by external factors, what happens for example if the country has no highway and roads in general are very bad quality? People might be willing to get in a train because there's no other alternative in that case. So let's just say that making such statements is hard and simply pointless.
Here I agree with you in almost all except that Spain had got a good quality of trains and service in Iberian gauge but this is going down now because politicians dedicate all efforts and money to HSR lines. Many conventional trains are being eliminated to make people pay HS tickets and take HS trains, that are very good but also very expensive, many times flight tickets in Spain are a half or a 3rd of the price of HS trains tickets!
And, in my humble opinion, I also think that Switzerland has got the best rail system in Europe, even without HS trains.

Ok I didn't say nothing of this thus the first quote.

You're only seeing the front towards the street. The yard is in the back. Especially the houses on the right hand have relatively large yards looking out over lake Mälaren.

Not as large as in the US though. Not even close (at least front and side).



This area was built in, I'd guess, the 1920-30's. I'd put their sq footage (actually, sqm) at an average of 150 m2, though most probably have added extensions in the back.

That is absolutely tiny by US standards. In an upscale suburb in the US I reckon you'd be looking at an average of 2,500 to 3500 sq feet (about 280 - 380 sq meters). Think of the Chicago suburb in "Home Alone" (and those are also probably 1920s-1940s construction, they build them much bigger now).

So there is the answer to your question.


Yeah, because you kept rattling off the same list that sounded mostly like bull to me :)

Well obviously wasn't bull, was it? ;) If Americans live in houses that are close to double the size of what you've got, who's got better "living conditions"? Oh forget it, we'll never agree... :)

One interesting aspect is that as in the US, houses in Scandinavia are largely built of wood.

And btw Adde, if you think I've let you off the hook on the Southern Europe vs. Scandinavia thing, you are wrong. We'll come back to that ;)

Those houses in Scandinavia look very tiny like the ones for the argentine working class (if not larger). :yes:

One interesting aspect is that as in the US, houses in Scandinavia are largely built of wood.

For Norway and Sweden. Pretty much all houses in Denmark built of bricks.

No, I don't think anyone will agree that bigger is better. It all depends on your value in a home. Empty space to fill with stuff or a smaller place where one can enjoy superior facilities around you where one can engage in more social activities. Living conditions include your public surroundings not just your private domain. Sweden places greater value on public spaces and interaction whilst the US places greater value on privacy, am I right? If this is the case, one cannot say that one country or another has better "living conditions" in the same way as one cannot begin to quantify "standard of living" either. Both are just tautology and nothing more.

One interesting aspect is that as in the US, houses in Scandinavia are largely built of wood.

Not particularly, most dwellings are not wooden. But then, wooden houses aren't inferior if built properly. It's worth noting that the oldest settlement in Sweden consists of older, wooden dwellings. US houses are wooden framed aren't they with a brick facade largely rather than being solid brick. There have been arguments that this doesn't make them inferior to double brick construction houses in the UK, so you can't turn this round and then say that the wooden houses in Scandinavia are inferior. Given the standard of insulation and what not in these wooden houses I'd say they're of very high quality. They are made to survive our climate after all.

No, I don't think anyone will agree that bigger is better. It all depends on your value in a home. Empty space to fill with stuff or a smaller place where one can enjoy superior facilities around you where one can engage in more social activities. Living conditions include your public surroundings not just your private domain. Sweden places greater value on public spaces and interaction whilst the US places greater value on privacy, am I right? If this is the case, one cannot say that one country or another has better "living conditions" in the same way as one cannot begin to quantify "standard of living" either. Both are just tautology and nothing more.

Again, if you are going to expand the argument from "standard of living" to "quality of life" you will not get an argument from me.

But I also don't buy the "bigger is not better" argument. In and of itself bigger usually is better. Americans who see some of the Scandinavian houses (and I've seen them on House Hounters International) are horrified by how tiny (and sometimes outdated) they are. 150 sq meters?? I don't know anyone in the US who has a house that small; in fact they don't build them that small in this country. The people who say "bigger is not better" are typically those who can't afford bigger. You don't know what you are missing until you have it. And once you have it you can't live without it.

But how percent of Americans live in those 2,500 to 3,500 sq foot suburbs from the 40's that was featured in Home Alone? Not many.

Sweden was much, much poorer than the US in the 20's and 30's, and the very idea of a suburb was completely new. Up until the 1910's and 1920's they built dense extensions of the inner towns, think Vasastan (http://g.co/maps/b8mxq) in Stockholm.

The people comparable to those who built the "Home Alone"-suburbs either lived in large apartments or in large houses outside the city, basically in the countryside. Places like this (http://g.co/maps/8mfhj).

The houses in the first link you commented on are interesting because today they are quite small (yeah, even by Swedish standards) but I promise you that they are expensive by US standards. They're expensive because their relatively small size doesn't really matter here, people don't want 300 m2 houses. What they do want is a house with "character" (old), close to the inner city and with access to nature and water. Those houses tick off everything on that list.

Again, if you are going to expand the argument from "standard of living" to "quality of life" you will not get an argument from me.

But I also don't buy the "bigger is not better" argument. In and of itself bigger usually is better. Americans who see some of the Scandinavian houses (and I've seen them on House Hounters International) are horrified by how tiny (and sometimes outdated) they are. 150 sq meters?? I don't know anyone in the US who has a house that small; in fact they don't build them that small in this country. The people who say "bigger is not better" are typically those who can't afford bigger in the area where they want to live. You don't know what you are missing until you have it. And once you have it you can't live without it.

Nonsense, I had it in New Zealand - a large house in one of the wealthy areas of Auckland and now I live in Stockholm in a much smaller apartment. You just ignored ALL my points about the emphasis on public vs private between Scandinavia and the US. I think you're cherry picking what you respond to and ignore the fact that I am saying your perception is largely due to cultural bias rather than being rooted in fact just in the same way that the Scandinavian perspective on public vs private space is often skewed equally.

It's fine to point to other threads if they have relevance. Yours didn't.

We were comparing living conditions of an average American and an average Swede. I don't see what Bath has got to do with it.

You were comparing living conditions based on housing quality, your main indicator of housing quality was based on size of property. I used the Bath thread as it shows 100's of properties that are smaller than the ones in Detroit but also of a very high quality to point out that size is not a useful way to measure the quality of a house and therefore pointless to use in your discussion of Sweden V US or Moon V Mars or x country V y country etc. Same goes for cars, tv's, penis's, skyscrapers, boobs etc etc

Spain is the 2nd most mountainous country in Europe after Switzerland, as you can see on the map. It does not matter if there is a plateau in the centre of the country or not.

Sure about that? It seems like you have a lot more flat lowland than us here in Norway based on the map.

http://maps.grida.no/library/files/storage/batch1ronorway_large.jpg

Edit: I notice now that there are some minor color differences between the two maps. What is colored yellow on the map above would be light green on your for example. Our light green however is comparable with your dark green. :)

But how percent of Americans live in those 2,500 to 3,500 sq foot suburbs from the 40's that was featured in Home Alone? Not many.

Answer: a lot more than you think. Doing a quick google search shows that the average size of a US house is an astounding (by your standards) 2700 sq feet.

http://www.infoplease.com/askeds/us-home-size.html

My wife's parents (totally anecdotal, I know) who are doing well but are not rich by any stretch live in a 3000 sq foot house in the NY suburbs. That's typical, as the numbers above show. They are very happy. Grandma has her own space downstairs, dad's got an office, nice entertaining areas. Nothing extremely ostentatious as you might think, but merely something that Americans see as normal.



The houses in the first link you commented on are interesting because today they are quite small (yeah, even by Swedish standards) but I promise you that they are expensive by US standards. They're expensive because their relatively small size doesn't really matter here, people don't want 300 m2 houses. What they do want is a house with "character" (old), close to the inner city and with access to nature and water. Those houses tick off everything on that list.

I am sure they do. But are you trying to tell me that if these people (particularly the ones with families) were offered 200 sq meters or more in the same location, for the same money, they wouldn't take it? I don't buy this "we don't want bigger" BS. If it was as affordable to get something bigger as it is in the US, you would take it. People are people.

One interesting aspect is that as in the US, houses in Scandinavia are largely built of wood.

Not really. In the countryside, yes. It's the traditional way of building, and we do it very well.

In the suburbs it's not so simple. When they started building suburbs in the 20's and 30's, they mostly used brick. The street view I posted is mostly brick with stuco. This continued on into the 50's. In the 60's they started using a new kind of brick called "mexitegel", called so because I guess it was supposed to give the buildings a sort of Mexican feeling (though it doesn't). At the same time, wooden details, like a wooden upper floor, started appearing. Then in the 70's and 80's wood made a full return and houses again started to be completely made of wood, or at least look like it. Many houses are actually built at least partly of concrete and they're clad with wood.

Many smaller cities are also made up of wooden buildings, often dating to the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries.

A
But I also don't buy the "bigger is not better" argument. In and of itself bigger usually is better. Americans who see some of the Scandinavian houses (and I've seen them on House Hounters International) are horrified by how tiny (and sometimes outdated) they are. 150 sq meters?? I don't know anyone in the US who has a house that small; in fact they don't build them that small in this country. The people who say "bigger is not better" are typically those who can't afford bigger. You don't know what you are missing until you have it. And once you have it you can't live without it.

If you buy an ok house in a Stockholm suburb it's gonna cost you between 500,000 and 1,500,000 dollars. For that kind of cash, most people could build themselves a large freaking house in an exurb if they wanted to. But they don't. Not because they can't afford to, but because they choose not to.

How many Swedish houses have you seen on this "House Hunters International"? Out of the Swedish housing stock? And how many of those were newly built? If it's a house from the 30's that the same couple has lived in since then, yeah, it's gonna be outdated.

And I've seen plenty of houses smaller than 150 m2 in the thousands of american movies, tv-shows and reality shows I've watched. What about all of those charming one story ranch style houses from the 60's for instance? They're not 300 m2.

I am sure they do. But are you trying to tell me that if these people (particularly the ones with families) were offered 200 sq meters or more in the same location, for the same money, they wouldn't take it? I don't buy this "we don't want bigger" BS. If it was as affordable to get something bigger as it is in the US, you would take it. People are people.

All things being equal they probably would do. However all things are seldom equal here in the real world. A larger house would usually means to trade away from the old, charming one. And many people here in Europe will then value the old charm higher than the modern space.

Nonsense, I had it in New Zealand - a large house in one of the wealthy areas of Auckland and now I live in Stockholm in a much smaller apartment. You just ignored ALL my points about the emphasis on public vs private between Scandinavia and the US. I think you're cherry picking what you respond to and ignore the fact that I am saying your perception is largely due to cultural bias rather than being rooted in fact just in the same way that the Scandinavian perspective on public vs private space is often skewed equally.

I am not cherrypicking anything. You are completely missing my point. I am sure there is a ton of reasons, other than house size, why you'd prefer to live in one place over another. Heck, I live in a modest size apt in Manhattan for the same money as I could get a big house in the suburbs or a mansion in a different part of the country. But if we are comparing similarly situated individuals in two countries then saying that house size has nothing to do with their "material standard of living" is simply not credible. It may not have everything to do with the total mix that makes up your quality of life; but it has everything to do with your material standard of living.

If you buy an ok house in a Stockholm suburb it's gonna cost you between 500,000 and 1,500,000 dollars. For that kind of cash, most people could build themselves a large freaking house in an exurb if they wanted to. But they don't. Not because they can't afford to, but because they choose not to.


Adde, mate we are running around in circles now.

In post 605 you wrote:

But sometimes cultural differences are big enough that there really isn't a 1-to-1 comparison that you can do. We don't have the same kind of suburbs that you do, and we don't have the same kind of suburban culture. For instance, the relationship between suburb and city center is very different here than in the US.

To which I replied:

I agree, it does all get intertwined at some point and it becomes difficult to make direct comparisons. On average, Americans do have bigger houses and arguably better living conditions, though you could of course argue that it does not necessarily mean they are richer in every case. Just like someone who has a big house in the suburbs is not necessarily richer than a person living in a city. Lifestyle choice.

Then you pressed me as to why I think Americans have "arguably better living conditions". And I gave you an explanation. Now you can disagree with that explanation, or have a different take on things, but if Americans have houses that are, on average, 50% to 75% larger than in Sweden - for suburban areas of comparable caliber -- then in my mind that qualifies as "better living conditions" (even discounting the other material factors).

Again you can disagree, but I think we have exhausted this argument.

I am not cherrypicking anything. You are completely missing my point. I am sure there is a ton of reasons, other than house size, why you'd prefer to live in one place over another. Heck, I live in a modest size apt in Manhattan for the same money as I could get a big house in the suburbs or a mansion in a different part of the country. But if we are comparing similarly situated individuals in two countries then saying that house size has nothing to do with their "material standard of living" is simply not credible. It may not have everything to do with the total mix that makes up your quality of life; but it has everything to do with your material standard of living.

That makes no sense. First of all, what are two "similarly situated individuals"? Someone who lives in a 150-200 m2 suburban house 15 minutes from a European city center is not similarly situated to someone who lives in a 300 m2 house 40 minutes from an American city center. Their living environment will be completely different, with different pros and cons.

That makes no sense. First of all, what are two "similarly situated individuals"? Someone who lives in a 150-200 m2 suburban house 15 minutes from a European city center is not similarly situated to someone who lives in a 300 m2 house 40 minutes from an American city center. Their living environment will be completely different, with different pros and cons.

Then what's the point of making any comparisons at all? According to your logic, no comparison can ever be made between the living conditions of two people in different countries because their environment will always be totally different. So what's the point of this masturbation?

Edit: PS: "Similarly situated" means you compare suburb to suburb... or city to city. Both have to be comparable in terms of relative desirability of their location and relative standing within their own country.

Then you pressed me as to why I think Americans have "arguably better living conditions". And I gave you an explanation. Now you can disagree with that explanation, or have a different take on things, but if Americans have houses that are, on average, 50% to 75% larger than in Sweden - for suburban areas of comparable caliber -- then in my mind that qualifies as "better living conditions" (even discounting the other material factors).

Fair enough, we'll have to agree to disagree. To me lots of unnecessary space doesn't really qualify as "better living conditions".

But just out of curiosity, what happened to all the older houses that aren't ginormous? I mean, were they all torn down because of their "inferior living quality" or did you stuff your poor into them?

Fair enough, we'll have to agree to disagree. To me lots of unnecessary space doesn't really qualify as "better living conditions".

But just out of curiosity, what happened to all the older houses that aren't ginormous? I mean, were they all torn down because of their "inferior living quality" or did you stuff your poor into them?

Yes a lot of them get torn down because Americans like space. Lots of it. And we can afford it (unlike most Europeans) for various reasons, including government policy (which is now biting us in the ass).

Edit: And, to repeat, you only think it's "unnecessary" when you don't have it.

And see my response above on your prior post.

Happy to come back to Spain vs. Sweden later.

Then what's the point of making any comparisons at all? According to your logic, no comparison can ever be made between the living conditions of two people in different countries because their environment will always be totally different. So what's the point of this masturbation?

Of course you can compare, but what I'm saying (though poorly) is that if you hang up living standard so completely on one thing (size of living space), then what about all those who doesn't live in the suburbs? I mean, it becomes an awfully limited comparison if we're only talking about those who somehow "live in comparable situations". If that's the case, then maybe we should do one comparison for city center dwellers, one for suburban apartments, one for suburban villas, one for the countryside, one for student housing etc.

I don't know, it just struck me as strange. It sounded a bit like saying "lets not count the poor, only the middle class when we calculate quality of life".

Of course you can compare, but what I'm saying (though poorly) is that if you hang up living standard so completely on one thing (size of living space), then what about all those who doesn't live in the suburbs? I mean, it becomes an awfully limited comparison if we're only talking about those who somehow "live in comparable situations". If that's the case, then maybe we should do one comparison for city center dwellers, one for suburban apartments, one for suburban villas, one for the countryside, one for student housing etc.

I don't know, it just struck me as strange. It sounded a bit like saying "lets not count the poor, only the middle class when we calculate quality of life".

I think you are finally catching on. If you want to see who lives better, you need to compare similarly situated individuals with similar standing relative to their own society. Otherwise it doesn't make sense. Even then it doesn't make sense because you can't isolate material factors from the non-material factors... a point I had conceded long ago.

Comparisons within Europe are much easier therefore.

Size alone doesn't tell much on the living condition of an average individual imho. Size is just one of the many factors that affect the value of a property - an important one, but not the only one. Location is just as important.
Many Europeans prefer to live in urban rather than suburban or rural environments. Now, in urban areas housing is more expensive, thus for the same price houses are smaller. People who choose to live in urban areas obviously appraise the urban life more than the reduced size of their houses, they do not consider their living conditions inferior than those of people living in much larger houses 50km from the nearest city.

Yes a lot of them get torn down because Americans like space. Lots of it. And we can afford it (unlike most Europeans) for various reasons, including government policy (which is now biting us in the ass).

Edit: And, to repeat, you only think it's "unnecessary" when you don't have it.


It kind of did, didn't it? Maybe you shouldn't have built so many 2,700 sq feet houses.

Not really. My mom grew up in a 350 m2 house (3,770 sq feet) with a formal dinner room, a study, a drawing room, several walk in closets etc and she was glad to get rid of it when she inherited. Way too big for her. Too much to clean and too empty when the whole family wasn't there.

I think you are finally catching on.

Funny.

Well, I'm one of those hippy lefties who believe that the total quality of life in a society should take all citizens into account. But that's just me. :)

The house size doesn't tell much on the living condition of an average individual imho. Size is just one of the many factors that affect the value of a property - an important one, but not the only one. Location is just as important.
Many Europeans prefer to live in an urban rather than suburban or rural environment. Now, in urban areas housing is more expensive, thus for the same price houses are smaller. People who choose to live in urban areas obviously appraise the urban life more than the reduced size of their houses, they do not consider their living conditions inferior than those of people living in much larger houses 50km from the nearest city.


Federicoft - agreed, the three rules of real estate are "location location and location". That's why I've been saying all day that you gotta compare apples to apples. Even then you run into problems in transcontinental comparisons as there're just too many other factors making the comparison difficult.

Funny.

Well, I'm one of those hippy lefties who believe that the total quality of life in a society should take all citizens into account. But that's just me. :)

You are obviously wrong. We don't care about poor people. As I said, it's a meritocracy here. Swim or sink ;)

Federicoft - agreed, the three rules of real estate are "location location and location". That's why I've been saying all day that you gotta compare apples to apples. Even then you run into problems in transcontinental comparisons as there're just too many other factors making the comparison difficult.

True. There are too many cultural differences, differences in urbanization process and people valuing the same things in a different way to make meaningful comparisons.

^^Sounds character-building.

And Adde, btw, if you actually wanna see what upper middle class Americans live like in a single family home setting 15 to 20 mins from Manhattan, I am happy to send you references or links.

I'm sure they're beautiful. Sure, why not.

I don't know how to drop links from Google, but do a search for "Herrick Avenue, Queens". This is smack in the middle of Queens, 8 miles from Manhattan, so it's still pretty dense and lot sizes are small. Its an upscale area, but not rich by NY standards. Rich people live further afield in the suburbs where you have dozens, maybe hundreds of communities that have much bigger houses.

Is it the area where the show "Friends" was settled in?

This is the general standard of newly built suburban hood in Norway (I think this may be slightly below middle class though, mostly due to the location).
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Tusenfryd,+Norway&hl=en&ll=59.754762,10.773908&spn=0.015672,0.055747&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=50.02446,114.169922&vpsrc=6&hq=Tusenfryd,+Norway&t=h&z=15&layer=c&cbll=59.754762,10.773908&panoid=rqlprTCeBrMWR-sdUBj9_Q&cbp=12,263.56,,0,2.98

I suspect the standard is about the same as in Sweden. Most new build are probably smaller than what was built in the '60s and '70s - there is now less available open land to build on which turn have resulted in a call to density and generally build smaller.

Those streets are the skinnier than of any suburb in the US and have no room for passing or parking. The houses have gravel driveways and detached garages, signs of a poor neighborhood by US standards.

Those streets are the skinnier than of any suburb in the US and have no room for passing or parking. The houses have gravel driveways and detached garages, signs of a poor neighborhood by US standards.

You don't get it weava, in Scandinavia they call it "charm".

I have been all over the world and can state with certainty that the following US cities are among the best in the world to live in, besides the obvious choice of NY:

NY
SF
Boston
DC
Miami

Before I head out for the night, I want to turn the tables and pose a question for Adde and our Scandinavian friends.

Now that we have established that Americans live in much bigger houses, drive bigger and more powerful cars, earn more and generally consume more across almost all socio-economic classes, I'd like to ask what is it that you think makes your life in Scandinavia so much better.

For simplicity let's compare an average Joe living in the suburbs of NY or Boston or Seattle with someone living in a suburban community in Sweden or Norway.

I will grant you that you work less and get more vacation time. I'll even give you the free education (even though as Rocan has pointed out there are plenty of affordable education options in the US).

But is there anything else that you think makes your "quality of life" so much better compared to a regular, gainfully employed American, sufficient to overcome the material advantages of the American lifestyle?

Looking forward to a healthy debate.

Something about Milwaukee has always attracted me. Not sure why but it just seems like a cool place.

The Boston accent is very sexy though.

The scandanavian probably has a more walkable neighborhood, healthcare is simpler and not a matter of being employed....

US suburbia pretty much sucks. I grew up in it for several formative years and it's hard to defend. Everything is hard to get to. There's not much variety. Yardwork is an incessant burden. Teenagers were often potheads, probably due to boredom and lack of access to much that's interesting, similar to the common suburban trend of high drug use. Our non-sucky suburbia is usually either more urban, or more rural.

^^ That is one of the reasons that, when I have children, I want them to grow well outside any major urban neighborhood: it keeps me in a certain control of the places they go, up to a age, because they will have to rely on my or my wife driving them. I want my children to not use transit until they are older (like college age) as well, to avoid the perils of transit like pedophiles, drug dealers, muggers, panhandlers, people groping one another etc.

My dream, in that aspect, is to live and raise children in a ranch-style neighborhood. At least 400m² of built-up space in the house, at least 2000m² in the plot, no neighbor's window in my line of sight whatsoever, no overhearing of neighbors or their children talking in the backyard etc. It should be at least 3km away from the nearest transit stop as well.

A never ending argument, Jonesy. We can argue until we are blue in the face as to how big is big enough. I can assure you that most American middle class families that live in houses that are 2,500 to 3,000 sq. feet don't think their houses are "too big". You get used to good things very quickly. If those people had to move into some of the houses you guys have in Europe they would kill themselves. It's all relative mate.

And many people would kill themselves having to live in a US ex-urb miles from anywhere! ;)

Anyway, while US homes are undoubtedly bigger they are not quite that big it seems.

According to the US census bureau, the median size of new-build single family homes only in the US in 2010 was 2,169sqft (201sqm). Looking back over previous years figures in that table it's clear that the housing stock overall is much smaller than that, maybe something like 1,800sqft (167sqm) for single family homes and obviously somewhat less if other dwellings like apartments/condos, multi-family homes, trailers etc were included.

http://www.census.gov/const/C25Ann/sftotalmedavgsqft.pdf

,
Now that we have established that Americans live in much bigger houses, drive bigger and more powerful cars, earn more and generally consume more across almost all socio-economic classes, I'd like to ask what is it that you think makes your life in Scandinavia so much better.


A great difference between Scandinavia and America is that americans tend to be very overprotective about their ownership of real estate and land.

Let's say you stop by on a rural road in America to check out the countryside, you don't have to wait long until the owner of the nearby house
rushes out with his shotgun yelling "Get the hell out of my property !"

Also: you stop at a parking lot belonging to a shop on the US countryside. After a while the owner comes out shouting at you: You have to buy something from my shop otherwise you can't stay here !

The gated community phenomena is also much more common in the US than in scandinavia. The main reason for this is higher level of crime.

Before I head out for the night, I want to turn the tables and pose a question for Adde and our Scandinavian friends.

Now that we have established that Americans live in much bigger houses, drive bigger and more powerful cars, earn more and generally consume more across almost all socio-economic classes, I'd like to ask what is it that you think makes your life in Scandinavia so much better.

For simplicity let's compare an average Joe living in the suburbs of NY or Boston or Seattle with someone living in a suburban community in Sweden or Norway.

I will grant you that you work less and get more vacation time. I'll even give you the free education (even though as Rocan has pointed out there are plenty of affordable education options in the US).

But is there anything else that you think makes your "quality of life" so much better compared to a regular, gainfully employed American, sufficient to overcome the material advantages of the American lifestyle?

Looking forward to a healthy debate.

Personally the extra paid holiday would swing it for me as I much prefer extra vacation time and going on holiday to extra gadgets. As long as i had enough cash for a decent standard of consumption, which to me the Scandi countries do, then leisure would become more of a priority beyond that.

^^ That is one of the reasons that, when I have children, I want them to grow well outside any major urban neighborhood: it keeps me in a certain control of the places they go, up to a age, because they will have to rely on my or my wife driving them. I want my children to not use transit until they are older (like college age) as well, to avoid the perils of transit like pedophiles, drug dealers, muggers, panhandlers, people groping one another etc.

My dream, in that aspect, is to live and raise children in a ranch-style neighborhood. At least 400m² of built-up space in the house, at least 2000m² in the plot, no neighbor's window in my line of sight whatsoever, no overhearing of neighbors or their children talking in the backyard etc. It should be at least 3km away from the nearest transit stop as well.

omg that sounds like a bloody prison...
So you try to isolate your children from every social interaction, did you think about home schooling, as well?

I'm sure children that are well raised and prepared for the surrounding world are less likely to get into trouble with drugs.

It kind of did, didn't it? Maybe you shouldn't have built so many 2,700 sq feet houses.

Not really. My mom grew up in a 350 m2 house (3,770 sq feet) with a formal dinner room, a study, a drawing room, several walk in closets etc and she was glad to get rid of it when she inherited. Way too big for her. Too much to clean and too empty when the whole family wasn't there.

hi, if I could join you guyz, interesting discussions indeed.

True, and not only that, imagine the heating cost of a huge house in the winter, eh. It doesn't make any sense.

Same her in Vancouver, there are only few considered mansions. But Houses in the North shore of Vancouver, although considered to be the most expensive in Canada, they are not as huge as the houses in the suburban US. What makes houses expensive in the area is its unique location. Mountains, bluffs, water and the sweeping view of the city. Basically you can ski in the three mountains, catch a round of golf in the afternoon, and dine in one of the posh eatery in downtown, and enjoy a night of entertainment in some of the best night clubs too.:)

And no gated communities here in Vancouver. Quite safe.

^^ Josney55, what is more interesting are the area of new homes. Before the crisis, they were on the 350-400m² for the 50% units in the median. Now it seems new houses are coming around with 260-280m².

I could EASILY do with 170m² to live alone, 240m² with wife, 350m² (at least) if I had children.

Currently, I live alone in a place with "heated area" of 58m². It feels small, I'd like to have a library and an office separated from the living room, and also a music/video room. And a visitor's bedroom instead of having my cousin or parents, when they come, sleeping in the living room. It feels cramped, indeed. It helps I'm a huge fan of minimalist things, I don't mind open rooms with few decor (= less expensive to maintain, furnish and else).

So different people value space differently.

That's true, we are all different.

Btw, new construction in the US makes up what proportion of the overall housing stock in a normal year 2-3%?

A great difference between Scandinavia and America is that americans tend to be very overprotective about their ownership of real estate and land.

Let's say you stop by on a rural road in America to check out the countryside, you don't have to wait long until the owner of the nearby house
rushes out with his shotgun yelling "Get the hell out of my property !"

That is rooted in basic cultural but also legal rights.

US was settled in a very different and unique way compared to the history of occupation of European lands in Northern areas (Scandinavia, British Isles, parts of Germany and Baltic countries).

In Northern Europe, there had been a long, centuries-long history of communal property for forestry, pasture or other activities in which the monarch's land were used by the peasants in the area. From that, legal institutions like easements, "right to roam" and else were developed. In many cases, a small farm estate had an associated, undefined right - for instance - of grazing, logging or shepherding in a nearby king property or something akin.

In America, properties, once delimited, have always been private. This has to do, in part, with the religious traditions of the early settlers and a desire to avoid having the colony masters holding all land and thus exerting power.

So, today, you are trespassing if you enter a rural property belonging to someone else, except in cases of public roads. And that can be a civil infraction, a misdemeanor or a crime (if the place is properly signed, fenced and gated, and you enter, you are committing a crime).

The only lands escaping that are a very small number of easements and, also, the federal lands (BLM, NPS, BLR own like more than 1/3 of all US land mass). There, entrance is free, in principle.

I kinda like the American model. You own the land, you can exert control over it.

The gated community phenomena is also much more common in the US than in scandinavia. The main reason for this is higher level of crime.

90% of "gated communities" in US are not actually gated with guards and so, they are just HOA-like subdivisions that took over some city functions and don't want strangers transiting in streets that will not lead anywhere but to the same entrance point after all.

Btw, new construction in the US makes up what proportion of the overall housing stock in a normal year 2-3%?

Well, new housing starts are at a 4-decade low. At peak real estate bubble years, I think the proportion would be like 1 new single house completed per year for every 17 already existing. But new house starts dropped something like 70% from 2006 peak, and there is a backlog of houses that were started, but whose developers bankrupted or severely slowed construction.

In some areas, like Las Vegas, Fresno, Bay Area, Phoenix, Miami metro areas, new house starts dropped eye-balling 90% from their peak in 2005 or 2006.

Something about Milwaukee has always attracted me. Not sure why but it just seems like a cool place.

The Boston accent is very sexy though.

Haha I feel the same way! Milwaukee has an awesome name and it's not far from Chicago! But it has relatively high poverty and crime rates, if you want a cool city, from what I've heard Madison, WI is a great place! Not far from Milwaukee, low crime rates, extremely educated populace!

And I completely agree about the Boston accent! My favorite accent in the world! I live in the south so I always hear country accents, and I'm so tired of them! But I love NYC and Boston accents! They're just so cool sounding! And they're great places! Especially Boston! I also always thought Boston was a great sounding name.

Well, new housing starts are at a 4-decade low. At peak real estate bubble years, I think the proportion would be like 1 new single house completed per year for every 17 already existing. But new house starts dropped something like 70% from 2006 peak, and there is a backlog of houses that were started, but whose developers bankrupted or severely slowed construction.

In some areas, like Las Vegas, Fresno, Bay Area, Phoenix, Miami metro areas, new house starts dropped eye-balling 90% from their peak in 2005 or 2006.

Those are the worst of the worst! (except bay area, that surprises me) those are all retirement communities. So what that shows me is less people are moving away for retirement. To see good representative markets look at microcosmic places like Omaha, Seattle, Des moines, denver, etc.

Alpine countries Austria and Switzerland are the best!

Define "not much of a difference".

It is a well known fact that Americans, on average, have much bigger houses, more cars, better appliances, and generally enjoy higher levels of consumption. I hope you are not seriously trying to dispute it.

On the flip side, Europeans (and in particular Scandinavians) get better social services, less work, more vacation time, etc. etc.

Apples and oranges.

But to suggest, as you do, that you get to enjoy the benefits of a welfare state as well as the same material consumption level is wishful thinking.

The ignorance!!

Better appliances? Oh please everything in the US looks incredibly dated compared to Europe. An acquaintance of mine (a Finnish guy) who moved to Hollywood, i.e. not really the crappiest part of America, in the 80s was shocked by how old fashioned everything was. Already then America was lagging behind, locals were really impressed by what he had brought with him from Finland.

Furthermore a realative of mine is in the business and once explained how old and crappy appliances and electronics are in the US compared to Europe. Not to mention everything else that is more modern here. Ffs even information screens at bus stops, in trams and in buses etc here in Europe get Americans all excited over how high tech European cities are. I have loads of personal experience of this.

When it comes to houses and car sizes, you are correct. However that doesn't mean houses are tiny here. My parents' house is about 230m2 (excluding attic) and has a nice big garden. My parents are far from rich. Most people here don't really want that kinda house anyway, they would much rather live in a nice Jugend apartment building in the city centre.

Speaking of cars, no one I know would ever drive an American car :lol:

People consume as much as they like here, the difference is just that America is a much more materialist society.

A great difference between Scandinavia and America is that americans tend to be very overprotective about their ownership of real estate and land.

Let's say you stop by on a rural road in America to check out the countryside, you don't have to wait long until the owner of the nearby house
rushes out with his shotgun yelling "Get the hell out of my property !"

Also: you stop at a parking lot belonging to a shop on the US countryside. After a while the owner comes out shouting at you: You have to buy something from my shop otherwise you can't stay here !

The gated community phenomena is also much more common in the US than in scandinavia. The main reason for this is higher level of crime.

This is a bit dramatic and stereotypical, also subjective to the region of the us you are in. If you are anywhere but the "south" (actually the southeast) I can assure you this won't happen! People in New England would probably greet you and ask if you needed directions or something. Please don't base your impressions of America off movies and stereotypes.

Before I head out for the night, I want to turn the tables and pose a question for Adde and our Scandinavian friends.

Now that we have established that Americans live in much bigger houses, drive bigger and more powerful cars, earn more and generally consume more across almost all socio-economic classes, I'd like to ask what is it that you think makes your life in Scandinavia so much better.

For simplicity let's compare an average Joe living in the suburbs of NY or Boston or Seattle with someone living in a suburban community in Sweden or Norway.

I will grant you that you work less and get more vacation time. I'll even give you the free education (even though as Rocan has pointed out there are plenty of affordable education options in the US).

But is there anything else that you think makes your "quality of life" so much better compared to a regular, gainfully employed American, sufficient to overcome the material advantages of the American lifestyle?

Looking forward to a healthy debate.


Sorry I had to comment on the "more powerful car" comment! Are you off your nut? Do some research into European car companies, we can squeeze 150bhp out of a 1.4 litre diesel and still get 60 miles per gallon out of it and it would still rinse a 4 litre american v8 because american cars are utterly useless, there is a reason why every single high quality car manufacturer is located or originated in Europe!

And as a final point, the suburban nightmare that you have described is simply not desirable to Europeans, we value being able to walk into town or to the shop or hop on a train, I have never even bothered learning to drive I can be anywhere in this country within a few hours!

The ignorance!!

Better appliances? Oh please everything in the US looks incredibly dated compared to Europe. An acquaintance of mine (a Finnish guy) who moved to Hollywood, i.e. not really the crappiest part of America, in the 80s was shocked by how old fashioned everything was. Already then America was lagging behind, locals were really impressed by what he had brought with him from Finland.

I also made this experience. I was in California 1991 and this year again. Everything was looking exactly the same as 20 years ago. But NYC had changed much more than California in my eyes.

Now that we have established that Americans live in much bigger houses, drive bigger and more powerful cars, earn more and generally consume more across almost all socio-economic classes, I'd like to ask what is it that you think makes your life in Scandinavia so much better.


What? I'll give you larger housing and larger (though more powerful? not so sure) cars, but I certainly haven't conceded the actual consuming. We consume as much electronics and food as you, and our poor certainly consume more.

I think it's hard to say that our lives are "better". I think that for certain soci-economic groups it definitively is, but if we're talking just the middle class, I think we experience our quality of life pretty much the same in Sweden and the US.

But things that give us great quality of life here:

Health care - virtually free, fantastic quality, available to all.
Work - we tend to work-to-live, instead of live-to-work. So plenty of vacation time and fewer work-hours.
Child-care - universal access to heavily subsidized childcare so that all mothers who wants to can work.
Education - all schools (private and public, except for one or two exceptions) are free. Lots of choice in where you want to go. School lunch is provided (real food, not fast-food) except at University.
Maternity and paternity leave - when you have a child you get 390 days (13 months) of paid leave at 80% of your salary to divide between the parents. Employers are obliged to help out with this, and many encourage it.
Infrastructure - Public transportation, broadband, 3G/4G, water/electricity/waste management are all world class.
Social security - if something happens (for instance loss of job or illness), you're unlikely to lose your home, you won't have to pull your children out of school or daycare and you're going to be able to keep most your material standard of living until your situation improves.
Housing - Standard of housing is generally high (well isolated, modern appliances, broadband and digital tv access).
Electronics - Pretty much everyone has got all the electronics that they could ever need, from large-screen tv's to smartphones, kitchen appliances to computers and tablets.
Access to second country house - Around 60% of all swedes have access to a second summer house in the countryside. For people in the middle class and in the larger cities the number is even higher.
Allemansrätten - the right for all people to roam freely in nature, including camping anywhere that's not in sight of a residential house, as long as you don't leave any lasting damage.
Liberal social policies - gay marriage, gays in the military, commitment to help refugees, no religious influence on social policies etc.
Environmentally sound policies - Sweden is one of the most environmentally friendly countries in the world and such solutions features heavily in everything from construction to consumption.


Ok, this is getting way too long. This is just off the top of my head.

Again, not saying "better", but as good. There are pros and cons everywhere.

Annual average income (by wages, full time, 2010) - PPP

1 United States 52,607
2 Luxembourg 52,110

3 Switzerland 49,810
4 Ireland 48,757

5 Netherlands 45,671

6 Norway 44,164
7 United Kingdom 44,008

8 Denmark 43,190
9 Belgium 43,023

10 Australia 42,550
11 Austria 42,005

12 Canada 41,691

13 Germany 38,325
14 France 38,124

15 Sweden 36,826

16 Finland 35,707

17 Japan 33,900
18 Spain 33,656
19 South Korea 33,221

20 Italy 32,657
21 Slovenia 32,308

22 Greece 27,484

23 Portugal 23,173

24 Czech Republic 20,587

25 Slovakia 18,719
26 Hungary 18,667
27 Poland 18,380

28 Estonia 17,145

I also made this experience. I was in California 1991 and this year again. Everything was looking exactly the same as 20 years ago. But NYC had changed much more than California in my eyes.

Please don't use Los Angeles as a reference point! Los Angeles isn't representative of the US at all!

I promise, go to San Francisco or San Diego and you will notice a plethora of changes! Hell, San Diego has changed into virtually a whole new city in the 20 years I've been alive! The skyline has practically tripled! And just remember, all those apples you buy in europe, your populace that buys iPods and iPhones like you buy food relies on silicon valley where that technology is developed!

This is a bit dramatic and stereotypical, also subjective to the region of the us you are in. If you are anywhere but the "south" (actually the southeast) I can assure you this won't happen! People in New England would probably greet you and ask if you needed directions or something. Please don't base your impressions of America off movies and stereotypes.

I have read about it on travelforums, but maybe there are some regional variations, but still I think this youtube clip pretty much sum up the american idea of ownership:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdabP8D5G5A

Those streets are the skinnier than of any suburb in the US and have no room for passing or parking. The houses have gravel driveways and detached garages, signs of a poor neighborhood by US standards.
Most streets are narrower here as an results of two things: 1) Our topography making it harder and more expensive to build roads, and more importantly 2) There is a desire to reduce the speed and amount of driving in residential areas as children (at least in theory) will be playing in the street. Narrower roads is a great way to archive this.

Gravel and cobblestones is usually considered to be pretty materials to cover your driveway with. Concrete and asphalt is not.

Detached garages? That's for poor? :nuts: Most people prefer detached garages. It would be cheaper and use less land to not have them detached.

Beside I did say that this neighbourhood was probably on the poor side but the size of the houses (which is what I answered with my post) is about average for a Norwegian new build.

Yeah, residential neighborhoods here are all about lowering speeds - narrower streets, speed bumps, large pots with plants placed in such a way that you have to "weave" between them, that kind of thing.

And different kinds of garages doesn't really signify much here. Some areas have detached garages, some have garages in the "cellar" floor, some have semi-detached garages. Where you find which doesn't really reflect how expensive the neighborhood is.

Asphalt and concrete have totally gone out of style here. Everybody wants either gravel, natural stone or cobbles. Plus, gravel is better than asphalt in our winters. It doesn't crack from frost each year, it doesn't matter of the snow plow damages the surface, and it doesn't get as slippery when it's icy outside.

Crime.

The thing about crime in US cities is that what makes our rates much higher than other industrialized countries is the crime that's very highly segregated in certain areas of many large cities.

Strip out those areas that are a very small % of the land and population, and a vast majority of people live in areas with crime rates typical of Europe. Here in Chicago, you take away pieces of the west and south sides, and the rest of the metro with 92% of the total population has a murder rate of around 1.8/100,000 based on a bunch of calculations from 2007. That other 8% of the metro has a murder rate of around 43/100,000. That throws off the average for the metro, and hides the fact at how EXTREMELY skewed the actual numbers are.

It's also the main reason that people aren't more upset about crime in the USA. A vast majority are nowhere near it. It's certainly not a good thing or the right way to have a society, but it's the reality of the situation.

The thing about crime in US cities is that what makes our rates much higher than other industrialized countries is the crime that's very highly segregated in certain areas of many large cities.

Strip out those areas that are a very small % of the land and population, and a vast majority of people live in areas with crime rates typical of Europe. Here in Chicago, you take away pieces of the west and south sides, and the rest of the metro with 92% of the total population has a murder rate of around 1.8/100,000 based on a bunch of calculations from 2007. That other 8% of the metro has a murder rate of around 43/100,000. That throws off the average for the metro, and hides the fact at how EXTREMELY skewed the actual numbers are.

It's also the main reason that people aren't more upset about crime in the USA. A vast majority
are nowhere near it. It's certainly not a good thing or
the right way to have a society, but it's the reality of the situation.

Excellent and obvious point that gets lost in all the anti-American brainwashing that's so popular in Europe.

US suburbs - where most Americans live - are among the safest areas in the world.

Will come back with more later.

Furthermore a realative of mine is in the business and once explained how old and crappy appliances and electronics are in the US compared to Europe. Not to mention everything else that is more modern here. Ffs even information screens at bus stops, in trams and in buses etc here in Europe get Americans all excited over how high tech European cities are. I have loads of personal experience of this.

The appliances and electronics sold in Europe and US are the same. Since the 1970s, they have been manufactured mostly in Asia (Japan, Taiwan, China, South Korea...)

Now if you are talking of technology on public transport, and only in that scenario, then I agree with you, because in most US cities transit is more like an welfare program that should be as cheap as possible.

Most people here don't really want that kinda house anyway, they would much rather live in a nice Jugend apartment building in the city centre.

Wishful thinking, because market shows otherwise.

The ignorance!!

Better appliances? Oh please everything in the US looks incredibly dated compared to Europe. An acquaintance of mine (a Finnish guy) who moved to Hollywood, i.e. not really the crappiest part of America, in the 80s was shocked by how old fashioned everything was. Already then America was lagging behind, locals were really impressed by what he had brought with him from Finland.

Furthermore a realative of mine is in the business and once explained how old and crappy appliances and electronics are in the US compared to Europe. Not to mention everything else that is more modern here. Ffs even information screens at bus stops, in trams and in buses etc here in Europe get Americans all excited over how high tech European cities are. I have loads of personal experience of this.

When it comes to houses and car sizes, you are correct. However that doesn't mean houses are tiny here. My parents' house is about 230m2 (excluding attic) and has a nice big garden. My parents are far from rich. Most people here don't really want that kinda house anyway, they would much rather live in a nice Jugend apartment building in the city centre.

Speaking of cars, no one I know would ever drive an American car :lol:

People consume as much as they like here, the difference is just that America is a much more materialist society.

Yeah:lol: I would rather drive a European car or Japanese car than US made, which my wife and I each own.:)

The appliances and electronics sold in Europe and US are the same. Since the 1970s, they have been manufactured mostly in Asia (Japan, Taiwan, China, South Korea...)

Now if you are talking of technology on public transport, and only in that scenario, then I agree with you, because in most US cities transit is more like an welfare program that should be as cheap as possible.

Wishful thinking, because market shows otherwise.

Electronic appliances and computers yes, but white goods, ovens, and other kitchen appliances tend to be European-made here I think.

Excellent and obvious point that gets lost in all the anti-American brainwashing that's so popular in Europe.

US suburbs - where most Americans live - are among the safest areas in the world.

Will come back with more later.

It's also the case in Europe that crime tends to be concentrated in certain localities too though.

Reading some of the comments on here is like attending a free comedy show (or a socialist convention). Being greeted with a shotgun for trespassing, the horrors of American suburbia, the poor outdated appliances in the US... Lol. Speaking of brainwashing.

To respond:

- On consumption levels: as Rocan ably demonstrated, Americans have a much higher disposable income (PPP) than any European country (except Luxembourg perhaps). This remains true even after you adjust for healthcare and education costs. The difference is substantial both for mean and median.

To repeat what's been stated earlier: after adjusting for cost of living it appears that all Scandinavian countries (with the exception of Norway, it seems) are dumped to the bottom of the pile in terms of disposable income even as compared to their fellow Europeans. That's a fact.

- On suburbia: gross exaggerations and stereotyping. We have all kinds of suburbs in the US. Yes you can live in an ugly remote exurb where you'll have to drive everywhere. Or you can just as well live in a beautiful, old style, urbane suburb with a lively town center and good transit connections to the city. Believe it or not, you are even allowed to live in a CITY in this country (and we have some nice ones too; they are not all crime-infested ghettos... ;) ) It's all about choice. We'll come back to this point later.

- On cars: it is true that European (especially German) car companies are superior. However, has it occurred to anyone that the number 1 export market for the top car manufacturers is the US? So not every American drives a Chevy, just like not every European drives a BMW or Audi. An average American drives a car that is usually bigger, more powerful and more comfortable than an average European. You can argue until the cows come home that your tiny Fiat is as good as a Buick, but I know which one I'd rather have.

- On Appliances: Europeans do have fabulous appliance manufacturers (especially Germany and Italy). But again, from my experience, the rate of kitchen "refreshment" is much higher in the US. An average European is likely to have a smaller and more outdated kitchen, with less bells and whistles, than an average American. That's my impression, and if anyone has statistics to the contrary, I'd like to see them.

Now on to Adde's list. I am not going to go over every item blow by blow, but just say that an average, employed American gets to enjoy as good or better healthcare, good education and most of the other "quality of life" trappings that you get in Europe. We have some of the best universities in the world and, some would say, some of the best healthcare as well (even if regrettably its not always available to everyone). The difference is that here we pay for these things out of pocket after Uncle Sam takes a (relatively) small bite, whereas in Europe you pay for it through your taxes. In the first case, you get to chose what to do with your money. In the second, the government makes the decision for you, and then takes another big chunk to finance its huge bureaucracy. Different philosophies.

You do enjoy in Europe more secure employment, more vacation time, and less stress in general. You also have much better public transportation and better infrastructure. That is true. But, as with everything in life, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Europe is not a place one would normally go if he wants to reach for the stars. I've heard of "American Dream"; I've never heard of a "Scandinavian Dream". ;)

Okay gotta run to catch the El Clasico on my brand new HD plasma. Speaking of, Americans have had HDTV for over 10 years. Has it reached Scandinavia already? j/k ;)

Oh yawn. You're like the Suburbanist for consumption instead of cars! You're actually completely intransigent in terms of your views on consumption not equating to standard of living.

One thing I will comment on in your diatribe - as far as efficiency goes, I know that my current country trumps the US by far in terms of healthcare in both efficiency in terms of costs and in terms of healthcare outcomes. We pay around 9% of our GDP towards healthcare (compared to the US Govt spending of 16%) and receive very good quality in health care, have lower infant mortality rates (some of the lowest in the world), a higher expected age and very good elderly care. I don't know how you can call the US healthcare system the best in the world when all measures conducted tend to report that the US has worse healthcare outcomes despite greater government spending.

One cannot necessarily correlate public with inefficiency and bloated bureaucracy when one considers the situation with HMO's, lawsuits and other such nonsense that the US health system has to endure that make the bureaucracy of health provision even more arduous than one finds in a public systems in Europe.

Fitzrovian, You haven't exactly seemed opposed to using sterotypes, exaggeration and hyperbole yourself in this debate. ;)

Sorry I had to comment on the "more powerful car" comment! Are you off your nut? Do some research into European car companies, we can squeeze 150bhp out of a 1.4 litre diesel and still get 60 miles per gallon out of it and it would still rinse a 4 litre american v8 because american cars are utterly useless, there is a reason why every single high quality car manufacturer is located or originated in Europe!

And as a final point, the suburban nightmare that you have described is simply not desirable to Europeans, we value being able to walk into town or to the shop or hop on a train, I have never even bothered learning to drive I can be anywhere in this country within a few hours!

There is a lot of truth to some of your statement. I have to agree with you that you can go to other part of your country within an hour or two. Also just few hours and you are in different countries in Europe. Mind you Europe is just a fraction of US anyways. :)

Oh yawn. You're like the Suburbanist for consumption instead of cars! You're actually completely intransigent in terms of your views on consumption not equating to standard of living.

One thing I will comment on in your diatribe - as far as efficiency goes, I know that my current country trumps the US by far in terms of healthcare in both efficiency in terms of costs and in terms of healthcare outcomes. We pay around 9% of our GDP towards healthcare (compared to the US Govt spending of 16%) and receive very good quality in health care, have lower infant mortality rates (some of the lowest in the world), a higher expected age and very good elderly care. I don't know how you can call the US healthcare system the best in the world when all measures conducted tend to report that the US has worse healthcare outcomes despite greater government spending.

Svartmetall, you have not yet missed an opportunity to miss every point I've made. Speaking of intransigent! At least Adde has some flexibility in his thinking. You seem to have none! At no point did I equate consumption to standard of living. I was merely responding to some of the arguments made.

Now that we have established that Americans live in much bigger houses, drive bigger and more powerful cars, earn more and generally consume more across almost all socio-economic classes, I'd like to ask what is it that you think makes your life in Scandinavia so much better

But if we are comparing similarly situated individuals in two countries then saying that house size has nothing to do with their "material standard of living" is simply not credible. It may not have everything to do with the total mix that makes up your quality of life; but it has everything to do with your material standard of living.

Then you pressed me as to why I think Americans have "arguably better living conditions". And I gave you an explanation. Now you can disagree with that explanation, or have a different take on things, but if Americans have houses that are, on average, 50% to 75% larger than in Sweden - for suburban areas of comparable caliber -- then in my mind that qualifies as "better living conditions" (even discounting the other material factors).

Again you can disagree, but I think we have exhausted this argument.

So, there you see, you've frequently said that material goods lead to better living conditions, and these are only a few posts you've made.

You also missed the point I made too about healthcare (since you brought it up), yet you accuse me of being blind. Hm, funny that.

So, there you see, you've frequently said that material goods lead to better living conditions, and these are only a few posts you've made.

You also missed the point I made too about healthcare (since you brought it up), yet you accuse me of being blind. Hm, funny that.

Very poor reading, comprehension and analysis skills, Svartmetall. Saying that the size of a house has something to do with your living conditions is not the same as "equating" consumption with standard of living (particularly when you refer to the latter when you actually mean "quality of life", as you seem to).

US suburbs - where most Americans live - are among the safest areas in the world.


The safety conditions in the US no matter if cities or suburbs are the worst in the western world. Statistics and common knowledge speak a pretty clear language. There is a reason why the US has the most Gated communities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gated_communities#United_States) in the world. Its citizens want extra security, a living condition the state and the society can´t deliver.

There are many systemic reasons why US cities, large and small ones, are unlikely to achieve the high living condition standards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livable_cities) like the EUropeans or the Japanese.

Please don't use Los Angeles as a reference point! Los Angeles isn't representative of the US at all!

I promise, go to San Francisco or San Diego and you will notice a plethora of changes! Hell, San Diego has changed into virtually a whole new city in the 20 years I've been alive! The skyline has practically tripled! And just remember, all those apples you buy in europe, your populace that buys iPods and iPhones like you buy food relies on silicon valley where that technology is developed!
Yeah, i was in Palo Alto / Cupertino too, coming from Monterey. I can imagine having a holiday-residence in that area ;-)

The safety conditions in the US no matter if cities or suburbs are the worst in the western world. Statistics and common knowledge speak a pretty clear language. There is a reason why the US has the most Gated communities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gated_communities#United_States) in the world. Its citizens want extra security, a living condition the state and the society can´t deliver.

There are many systemic reasons why US cities, large and small ones, are unlikely to achieve the high living condition standards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livable_cities) like the EUropeans or the Japanese.

Yes there are some gated communities (more in some cities like Miami and almost non-existent in the Northeast) for those who want extra privacy and security.

And yet 99% of suburban properties in the US are not even fenced, unlike in many single family home areas in Europe. What are we to make of that?

Fitzrovian, You haven't exactly seemed opposed to using sterotypes, exaggeration and hyperbole yourself in this debate. ;)

Jonesy, there is a difference between using an obvious hyperbole to emphasize a point and believing gross stereotypes that have little basis in fact.

Its not a secret that the USA has the highest crimes rates in the world.....

Crime Statistics > Prisoners > Per capita (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_pri_per_cap-crime-prisoners-per-capita)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/67/Prisoner_population_rate_UN_HDR_2007_2008.PNG/500px-Prisoner_population_rate_UN_HDR_2007_2008.PNG

Reading some of the comments on here is like attending a free comedy show (or a socialist convention). Being greeted with a shotgun for trespassing, the horrors of American suburbia, the poor outdated appliances in the US... Lol. Speaking of brainwashing.


---> Maybe you have been brainwashed by your great American TV as you have so huge ones....


- On suburbia: gross exaggerations and stereotyping. We have all kinds of suburbs in the US. Yes you can live in an ugly remote exurb where you'll have to drive everywhere. Or you can just as well live in a beautiful, old style, urbane suburb with a lively town center and good transit connections to the city. Believe it or not, you are even allowed to live in a CITY in this country (and we have some nice ones too; they are not all crime-infested ghettos... ;) ) It's all about choice. We'll come back to this point later.

---> It was you that insisted in comparing the suburbs.

- On cars: it is true that European (especially German) car companies are superior. However, has it occurred to anyone that the number 1 export market for the top car manufacturers is the US? So not every American drives a Chevy, just like not every European drives a BMW or Audi. An average American drives a car that is usually bigger, more powerful and more comfortable than an average European. You can argue until the cows come home that your tiny Fiat is as good as a Buick, but I know which one I'd rather have.

---> The thing with e.g. GM is that many cars are just relabled Opels from Germany (see Buick Regal). And most Fords in Europe are built in Germany or Britain

- On Appliances: Europeans do have fabulous appliance manufacturers (especially Germany and Italy). But again, from my experience, the rate of kitchen "refreshment" is much higher in the US. An average European is likely to have a smaller and more outdated kitchen, with less bells and whistles, than an average American. That's my impression, and if anyone has statistics to the contrary, I'd like to see them.

--->that's bullsh... I can only speak for Germany (but I don't think other European countries are different) and almost everyone has modern kitchen facilities (ceran cooktop, dishwasher, range hood, etc.). And I don't know who spread the rumour that Europeans don't have microwaves, that's at least in Germany a standard. Just have a look at ikea.com to see what a average European kitchen looks like.

Now on to Adde's list. I am not going to go over every item blow by blow, but just say that an average, employed American gets to enjoy as good or better healthcare, good education and most of the other "quality of life" trappings that you get in Europe. We have some of the best universities in the world and, some would say, some of the best healthcare as well (even if regrettably its not always available to everyone). The difference is that here we pay for these things out of pocket after Uncle Sam takes a (relatively) small bite, whereas in Europe you pay for it through your taxes. In the first case, you get to chose what to do with your money. In the second, the government makes the decision for you, and then takes another big chunk to finance its huge bureaucracy. Different philosophies.

---> Healthcare in the US is expensive (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/16/us-healthcare-costs-double-report_n_862677.html), the best universities cost up 40000 $ a year and the cheaper ones can't compete with European ones.

Okay gotta run to catch the El Clasico on my brand new HD plasma. Speaking of, Americans have had HDTV for over 10 years. Has it reached Scandinavia already? j/k ;)

---> come on....

Sorry I had to comment on the "more powerful car" comment! Are you off your nut? Do some research into European car companies, we can squeeze 150bhp out of a 1.4 litre diesel and still get 60 miles per gallon out of it and it would still rinse a 4 litre american v8 because american cars are utterly useless, there is a reason why every single high quality car manufacturer is located or originated in Europe!

European car manufactures aren't using the same low octan as domestic American manufacturer though. Besides, there are no point in squeezing as many horsepowers out of few liters as possible if the local car taxes aren't set up to favoritism it like here in Europe. Which is also why European cars have generally much larger engines when sold abroad in the US.

As for your remark about quality: Asian cars (with some exception obviously) are generally considered to be of equal or higher quality than their European counterparts.

Here is for example a list from J. D. Power called the 2011 Initial Quality Study which count the amount of fault owners experienced in the 90 first days after they bought their car.
http://www.caradvice.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/brand-ranking-360x480.jpg

Link: http://www.caradvice.com.au/124595/new-car-quality-drops-interior-tech-and-engines-to-blame/

Its not a secret that the USA has the highest crimes rates in the world.....

Crime Statistics > Prisoners > Per capita (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_pri_per_cap-crime-prisoners-per-capita)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/67/Prisoner_population_rate_UN_HDR_2007_2008.PNG/500px-Prisoner_population_rate_UN_HDR_2007_2008.PNG

Thanks for that, captain obvious. It has already been pointed out to you that general statistics are not representative of the safety and security experienced by most Americans. Especially those living in the suburbs (I.e., the majority of the population).

I still await your reply as to why, if American suburban areas are so dangerous, we do not feel the need to fence our houses, as many do in Europe.

I await your theory, professor.

Jonesy, there is a difference between using an obvious hyperbole to emphasize a point and believing gross stereotypes that have little basis in fact.

So basically you are giving yourself permission to stereotype while criticising others for doing the same?

Thanks for that, captain obvious. It has already been pointed out to you that general statistics are not representative of the safety and security experienced by most Americans. Especially those living in the suburbs (I.e., the majority of the population).

I still await your reply as to why, if American suburban areas are so dangerous, we do not feel the need to fence our houses, as many do in Europe.

I await your theory, professor.

Where is security fencing around houses common in Europe?

Thanks for that, captain obvious. It has already been pointed out to you that general statistics are not representative of the safety and security experienced by most Americans. Especially those living in the suburbs (I.e., the majority of the population).

I still await your reply as to why, if American suburban areas are so dangerous, we do not feel the need to fence our houses, as many do in Europe.

I await your theory, professor.

I don't think people put up fences because of crime (how would a 1m high fence help?).

I still await your reply as to why, if American suburban areas are so dangerous, we do not feel the need to fence our houses, as many do in Europe.


Do you have any examples?

Do you have any examples?

I think he means something like this:
http://maps.google.de/?ll=50.165822,8.629476&spn=0.001914,0.005284&t=h&z=18&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=50.165822,8.629476&panoid=blDO3D3tfOHfNo1MXLaqFg&cbp=12,28.27,,0,5.94

Very poor reading, comprehension and analysis skills, Svartmetall. Saying that the size of a house has something to do with your living conditions is not the same as "equating" consumption with standard of living (particularly when you refer to the latter when you actually mean "quality of life", as you seem to).

Actually, "living conditions" and "quality of life" are tautology to a large degree. I don't think it's me lacking comprehension skills if you can't see that. If one has bad living conditions, how can one not have a bad quality of life?

I await your theory, professor.

I think this thread started to evaluate the measurable living condition in cities (not suburbs).
Some data from the Mercer people indicate that on average several medium sized Germanic cities come out with very good results.

These cities are home to some very-high-income populations (on average) and represent the economic elite in Europe. Thats why the living conditions are excetional but cannot be compared with either German cities in general or European cities in general.

Just an example: Zurich and Munich are the headquarters of some of largest companies in the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortune_Global_500#2011_breakdown_by_city_and_metropolitan_area) and generate a lot of tax for these communities.

To repeat what's been stated earlier: after adjusting for cost of living it appears that all Scandinavian countries (with the exception of Norway, it seems) are dumped to the bottom of the pile in terms of disposable income even as compared to their fellow Europeans. That's a fact.

Didn't I debunk that pages ago? The PPP figures that Rocan mentioned are heavily affected by inequality, and the study you talked about earlier by whatever it was called (PGMT? No, but something like that) didn't really say anything about disposable income since it simply calculated how much you'd have left if you earned the same amount of money in different countries. But whatever.


- On cars: it is true that European (especially German) car companies are superior. However, has it occurred to anyone that the number 1 export market for the top car manufacturers is the US? So not every American drives a Chevy, just like not every European drives a BMW or Audi. An average American drives a car that is usually bigger, more powerful and more comfortable than an average European. You can argue until the cows come home that your tiny Fiat is as good as a Buick, but I know which one I'd rather have.

Well, you can have whatever car you want. So can people here to. Smaller cars are much more practical if you're driving in a city built before the auto-revolution though. Gas prices certainly have a hand in the preference for smaller cars here as well. Though really, most families with children has got big cars, just not SUV's (we tend to laugh at people who try to wrangle their SUV's through the streets of Stockholm or Copenhagen...).


- On Appliances: Europeans do have fabulous appliance manufacturers (especially Germany and Italy). But again, from my experience, the rate of kitchen "refreshment" is much higher in the US. An average European is likely to have a smaller and more outdated kitchen, with less bells and whistles, than an average American. That's my impression, and if anyone has statistics to the contrary, I'd like to see them.

Wait, how can you possibly have any idea what the rate of kitchen "refreshment" is in Europe? Or whether it's the same everywhere? Honestly, I've lived in this country all my life and I can only give a vague guess. You've done what, lived a few months in London and Madrid, and from your "experience" you can draw that conclusion? Well, my experience is that Swedish kitchens are in general very up to date with pretty much all bells and whistles. A wild guess for "refreshment"-rate in self-owned kitchens would put it between 5 and 10 years for stove/sink/smaller appliances and around 10 years for bigger stuff like fridge/freezer, oven, and counter tops, depending on quality of course.


Now on to Adde's list. I am not going to go over every item blow by blow, but just say that an average, employed American gets to enjoy as good or better healthcare, good education and most of the other "quality of life" trappings that you get in Europe. We have some of the best universities in the world and, some would say, some of the best healthcare as well (even if regrettably its not always available to everyone). The difference is that here we pay for these things out of pocket after Uncle Sam takes a (relatively) small bite, whereas in Europe you pay for it through your taxes. In the first case, you get to chose what to do with your money. In the second, the government makes the decision for you, and then takes another big chunk to finance its huge bureaucracy. Different philosophies.

I'm sorry, when it comes to health care we're pretty solidly ahead, unfortunately, both in cost and results. I know this is a Swedish study, but the numbers are from the OECD as well as other sources, and for instance, Sweden comes 2nd (after Switzerland) in "Overall Results", the US comes 23rd (http://www.skl.se/MediaBinaryLoader.axd?MediaArchive_FileID=6b25ef48-5afa-43a4-9800-911324bc42f3). I'm sure you can receive fantastic care in the US if you can afford it, but the aggregate result is such that it impact the statistics considerably.

I completely agree that you've got some of the best Universities in the world. They are great. But their cost means that if parents want to make sure their kids can benefit from those Universities, they better devote substantial portions of their income to the kids college funds.

And you don't really get to choose what to do with your money just because it didn't go to taxes. If something happens, you can no longer "choose not to spend money on health care", but now you've got to spend it all at once which is financially crippling for anyone except the very richest. And so most people choose to buy insurance and it's all pretty much a wash, except it has made your actual health care costs several percentage points more expensive than it otherwise could have been.


Europe is not a place one would normally go if he wants to reach for the stars. I've heard of "American Dream"; I've never heard of a "Scandinavian Dream". ;)

Except you know, social mobility is actually higher in Scandinavia than in the US, as shown by this (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/2/7/45002641.pdf) and this (http://cep.lse.ac.uk/about/news/IntergenerationalMobility.pdf) study. But such pesky details doesn't really matter...


Speaking of, Americans have had HDTV for over 10 years. Has it reached Scandinavia already? j/k ;)

Haha, funny. Actually, Sweden was one of the first countries in the world to completely switch over to digital broadcast only. You have not yet done so, it seems? Well, 2016 will only be 9 years after Sweden made the switch... :D


Obviously we're not gonna agree on this stuff. We're really starting to round in circles here.

I don't think people put up fences because of crime (how would a 1m high fence help?).

Haha. Yeah, most people put up a little fence because they think it looks nice and because it stops smaller children from running into the street.

I don't think people put up fences because of crime (how would a 1m high fence help?).

France, Spain, Italy and many other European countries routinely have fences in single family home areas. They can range from 1m to 3m (just look around some suburban areas in Madrid and Milan).

The fences may be motivated largely by privacy considerations and to a lesser extent by security. Just like gated communities in the US.

I was responding to Cosmo's erroneous comment that US suburbs have bad safety conditions because of the presence of some gated communities (which in actuality are a drop in the bucket). Please consider my comments in that context.

France, Spain, Italy and many other European countries routinely have fences in single family home areas. They can range from 1m to 3m (just look around some suburban areas in Madrid and Milan).

The fences may be motivated largely by privacy considerations and to a lesser extent by security. Just like gated communities in the US.

I was responding to Cosmo's erroneous comment that US suburbs have bad safety conditions because of the presence of some gated communities (which in actuality are a drop in the bucket). Please consider my comments in that context.

Are you talking about stuff like this?
http://maps.google.de/maps?q=Milano,+Italia&hl=no&ll=45.500286,9.201694&spn=0.010904,0.027874&sll=50.129754,8.680165&sspn=0.010028,0.027874&vpsrc=6&hnear=Milano,+Lombardia,+Italia&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=45.500169,9.201671&panoid=CVrZ3Kh_y22hDXtSAfzyPg&cbp=12,52.93,,0,11.78

Then it does appears to be as a security measure to me. Perhaps they have problem with crimes in Milan? I don't think you fill find anything similar do this here in Scandinavia with exception of around a few embassies.

I can't speak for southern Europe, but here fences are unlikely to have to do with privacy. That's what we've got hedges for. :)

Looking at some residential neighborhoods yesterday through street view I kinda noticed how common high hedges are over here. Never thought about it before. Think it's partly a privacy thing, and partly down to a general appreciation of abundant foliage...

Obviously we're not gonna agree on this stuff. We're really starting to round in circles here.

haha... You are absolutely right. I was just trying to illustrate that just like you think there is a valid argument to be made that your material standard of living is equally as high while you have an edge on other quality of life factors, there is an equally valid argument that an average American enjoys a superior standard of living while getting roughly equivalent results on most other factors. It's all a matter of perspective.

:)

Yeah:lol: I would rather drive a European car or Japanese car than US made, which my wife and I each own.:)

The ignorance of so many Europeans in this thread is enough to make me
Throw up. remember volvos, opels, and saabs are or very recently were American owned! As daewoos still are!
Plus europeans drive fords about as much as any other car! My family drove a BMW for 3 years before that thing gave out! Let's be honest, Chrysler sucks, GM is mediocre, but ford is top tier! The ford I drive is 4 years old and it works and looks brand new! With 100,000 miles!

Are you talking about stuff like this?
http://maps.google.de/maps?q=Milano,+Italia&hl=no&ll=45.500286,9.201694&spn=0.010904,0.027874&sll=50.129754,8.680165&sspn=0.010028,0.027874&vpsrc=6&hnear=Milano,+Lombardia,+Italia&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=45.500169,9.201671&panoid=CVrZ3Kh_y22hDXtSAfzyPg&cbp=12,52.93,,0,11.78

Then it does appears to be as a security measure to me. Perhaps they have problem with crimes in Milan? I don't think you fill find anything similar do this here in Scandinavia with exception of around a few embassies.

Yes like that. Or look at pretty much any suburban area in Spain and Italy.

I didn't say anything about Scandinavia on that point, I was merely responding to Cosmo's ridiculous comment about crime in the US.

Then it does appears to be as a security measure to me. Perhaps they have problem with crimes in Milan? I don't think you fill find anything similar do this here in Scandinavia with exception of around a few embassies.

Not really, they're used to mark off private property. Italians have a different mentality as regards public vs. private space compared to Scandinavians, they are considered strictly separated and delimited accordingly. Many people are over-sensitive about that. :nuts:
As regards crime, violent crime rates are low even by European standards, but if I remember correctly crimes such as robbery or burglary are more common.

Actually, I think that the material standard for an average American and Swede is roughly the same (the pros and cons of each country pretty much cancels each other out if your middle class).

Politically speaking though, I think that our system is more beneficial for those belonging to the lower socio-economic levels, which to me (being the bleeding heart liberal that I am) edges us ahead a little bit in the "quality of life" thing. I mean, isn't it better if more people can enjoy all the positive things that western society can provide?

Then again, I'm sure that if you're filthy rich you'd want to be in the states. You get to keep even more money you don't actually need!

The ignorance of so many Europeans in this thread is enough to make me
Throw up.

Its not the ignorance, its your unhealthy US diet that makes you wanna vomit. It leads to less well being and health, less life expectancy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy) and less quality of life....;)

The safety conditions in the US no matter if cities or suburbs are the worst in the western world. Statistics and common knowledge speak a pretty clear language. There is a reason why the US has the most Gated communities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gated_communities#United_States) in the world. Its citizens want extra security, a living condition the state and the society can´t deliver.

There are many systemic reasons why US cities, large and small ones, are unlikely to achieve the high living condition standards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livable_cities) like the EUropeans or the Japanese.

You aren't very smart are you? You understand the US about as much as the standard Ethiopian.

Gated communities are a status symbol, nothing more! They typically are serviced by an automated gate! One of the most typical status symbols in the us is a white picket fence! Why? Because it represents the middle class! Not because we need to protect ourselves!

Throw up. remember volvos, opels, and saabs are or very recently were American owned! As daewoos still are!
Plus europeans drive fords about as much as any other car! My family drove a BMW for 3 years before that thing gave out! Let's be honest, Chrysler sucks, GM is mediocre, but ford is top tier! The ford I drive is 4 years old and it works and looks brand new! With 100,000 miles!

Well, both Volvo and Saab still have do a huge part of their production in European factories.

There's this great This American Life episode that's about the US car industry and what went wrong, and how they're trying to get back on course. Really interesting. It mostly focuses this joint venture between GM and Toyota where they basically opened a Japanese-style factory in California in 1984. GM hoped to learn how to build reliable cars from Toyota, but it was huge disaster. Absolutely fascinating stuff.

Cosmo's ridiculous comment about crime in the US.

High income inequality is one (not the only) reason for social segregation.
Social segregation and perceived injustice in a society leads to higher crime rates. Higher crime rates foster the need for higher private security measures among high-income population. Thats why Gated communities are standard in the US and mostly unknown in EUrope.

Actually, I think that the material standard for an average American and Swede is roughly the same (the pros and cons of each country pretty much cancels each other out if your middle class).

Are we gonna go over that again? :). If nothing else, let's just agree that Americans live in houses that are, on average, 50% to 75% larger than Scandinavians for equivalent type properties, and let's let people draw whatever conclusions from that they want.

Btw, have you followed my reference in Queens?


Politically speaking though, I think that our system is more beneficial for those belonging to the
lower socio-economic levels, which to me (being the bleeding heart liberal that I am) edges us ahead a little bit in the "quality of life" thing. I mean, isn't it better if more people can enjoy all the positive things that western society can provide?

What you fail to realize, having lived all your life in Europe where there is a much more rigid and highly regulated labor market, is that it is amazingly easy in the US to avoid poverty. There is a reason America is called the land of opportunity. To be legitimately poor in this country, you most likely have to be both lazy and stupid, have drug abuse problems, or grow up in an environment where that kind of mindset is prevalent. Its a gross generalization, of course, and surely there are exceptions and sad cases, but to a large degree that is true in my experience (as hard as it may be for a bleeding heart liberal like you to believe). Even if you make not much more than minimum wage in this country, you should not be poor unlessnyou have too many kids or live beyond your means. So why should those that do work hard be subsidizing those that don't, beyond something very basic?


Then again, I'm sure that if you're filthy rich you'd want to be in the states. You get to keep even more money you don't actually need!

That is true, though I am sad to say I am not filthy rich (yet). ;)

Edit: wrote the above too fast. The actual truth is that if you are filthy rich you can be anywhere and live well. But if you want to become filthy rich, then you are much better off living in the states.

You aren't very smart are you? You understand the us about as much as the standard Ethiopian.

Gated communities are a status symbol, nothing more! They typically are serviced by an automated gate! One of the most typical status symbols in the us is a white picket fence! Why? Because it represents the middle class! Not because we need to protect ourselves!

We have already debunked Cosmo's idiotic claims about "safety conditions" in US suburbs. Faced with the undeniable absurdity of his claims, he is left with only one thing to do - run back to the general crime statistics which its already been explained to him are irrelevant for most of the US population.

His argument is as subtle as PadArch's blind insistence that Norwegians are the richest people in the world just becuase they have the highest nominal GDP per capita.

---> Healthcare in the US is expensive (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/16/us-healthcare-costs-double-report_n_862677.html), the best universities cost up 40000 $ a year and the cheaper ones can't compete with European ones.
.

But surprisingly, out of pocket health exp. in USA is not even that high. Belgium and Switz are higher!

And the university comment is 100% wrong. Many of the $5000 schools are in the top 100 in the world.

I´m impressed. The kids here agreeing to debunk official international data sets and surveys by simply stating personal feelings and google map imagery.

Whats next ? Denying a more developed public transport and bicycle culture in EU cities because CSI Miami looks cooler on TV ?

Didn't I debunk that pages ago? The PPP figures that Rocan mentioned are heavily affected by inequality, and

The mean is, but I also put medians.

Actually, I think that the material standard for an average American and Swede is roughly the same (the pros and cons of each country pretty much cancels each other out if your middle class).


No. In the case of Sweden and USA, there's about $7000 (ppp) more in economic resources available per person, in MEDIAN household. Healthcare and education has already been adjusted, so that's the number. For the MEAn household the difference doubles.

I have already debunked Cosmo's idiotic claims about "safety conditions" in US suburbs. Faced with the undeniable absurdity of his claims, he is left with only one thing to do - run back to the general crime statistics which its already been explained to him are irrelevant for most of the US population.

His argument is as subtle as PadArch's insistence that Norwegians are the richest people in the world just becuase they have the highest nominal GDP per capita.

I can say this thread had taught me a lot about the incorrect European stereotypes of Americans! I lived overseas 8 years in the 19 years I've been alive, and never talked to such blatantly ignorant stereotype-reliant foreigners!

TO use info like prisoners per capita is blatantly irrelevant information! There are far too many cultural aspects to use that as a credible means of determining crime rates. And let's remember, you can go to jail for 20 years in the us for insider trading, most if not all European countries don't punish insider trading. Were not comparing apples and oranges, we're comparing apples and artichoke, completely different things!