A Big Safety Net and Strong Job Market Can Coexist. Just Ask Scandinavia.

[ksen]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/18/u...-in-employment-rate-.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1

It is a simple idea supported by both economic theory and most people’s intuition: If welfare benefits are generous and taxes high, fewer people will work. Why bother being industrious, after all, if you can get a check from the government for sitting around — and if your choice to work means that much of your income will end up in the tax collectors’ coffers?

Here’s the rub, though: The idea may be backward.

Some of the highest employment rates in the advanced world are in places with the highest taxes and most generous welfare systems, namely Scandinavian countries. The United States and many other nations with relatively low taxes and a smaller social safety net actually have substantially lower rates of employment.

well now . . .

 

[ZiprHead]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/18/u...-in-employment-rate-.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1

It is a simple idea supported by both economic theory and most people’s intuition: If welfare benefits are generous and taxes high, fewer people will work. Why bother being industrious, after all, if you can get a check from the government for sitting around — and if your choice to work means that much of your income will end up in the tax collectors’ coffers?

Here’s the rub, though: The idea may be backward.

Some of the highest employment rates in the advanced world are in places with the highest taxes and most generous welfare systems, namely Scandinavian countries. The United States and many other nations with relatively low taxes and a smaller social safety net actually have substantially lower rates of employment.

well now . . .

Goddamn commie pinkos, the lot of them...

 

[fromderinside]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/18/u...-in-employment-rate-.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1



well now . . .

Goddamn commie pinkos, the lot of them...

No nursery schools for your kiddies then it is. You sure shouldn't sign up for ACA because those godless death panels and all.

 

[coloradoatheist]

So I am confused. People were complaining in the other thread about how two parents had to work but in these countries that have more women participation it's not a problem?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/18/u...-in-employment-rate-.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1

It is a simple idea supported by both economic theory and most people’s intuition: If welfare benefits are generous and taxes high, fewer people will work. Why bother being industrious, after all, if you can get a check from the government for sitting around — and if your choice to work means that much of your income will end up in the tax collectors’ coffers?

Here’s the rub, though: The idea may be backward.

Some of the highest employment rates in the advanced world are in places with the highest taxes and most generous welfare systems, namely Scandinavian countries. The United States and many other nations with relatively low taxes and a smaller social safety net actually have substantially lower rates of employment.

well now . . .

Duh. I've know a lot of women who support deadbeat men, but most men I know want to work and contribute to the greater good. Like me.

 

[EricK]

So I am confused. People were complaining in the other thread about how two parents had to work but in these countries that have more women participation it's not a problem?

Also confusing is that when businesses don't pay much and so government has to take up the slack that's a bad thing. But when government pays a lot so businesses don't have to take up the slack that's a good thing.

 

[ksen]

So I am confused. People were complaining in the other thread about how two parents had to work but in these countries that have more women participation it's not a problem?

cut it out

 

[coloradoatheist]

So I am confused. People were complaining in the other thread about how two parents had to work but in these countries that have more women participation it's not a problem?

cut it out

I am curious then. Do women want to work or do they want to stay at home? The good old days was when women could stay home and tend to their family needs.

 

[dismal]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/18/u...-in-employment-rate-.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1

It is a simple idea supported by both economic theory and most people’s intuition: If welfare benefits are generous and taxes high, fewer people will work. Why bother being industrious, after all, if you can get a check from the government for sitting around — and if your choice to work means that much of your income will end up in the tax collectors’ coffers?

Here’s the rub, though: The idea may be backward.

Some of the highest employment rates in the advanced world are in places with the highest taxes and most generous welfare systems, namely Scandinavian countries. The United States and many other nations with relatively low taxes and a smaller social safety net actually have substantially lower rates of employment.

well now . . .

Stop proselytizing.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

cut it out

I am curious then. Do women want to work or do they want to stay at home? The good old days was when women could stay home and tend to their family needs.

Now a man is born to go a lovin'
A woman's born to weep and fret
To stay at home and tend her oven
And drown her past regrets
In coffee and cigarettes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRyN9wQ1taY

 

[ksen]

cut it out

I am curious then. Do women want to work or do they want to stay at home? The good old days was when women could stay home and tend to their family needs.

I'll say this once and then I'm done with another of your attempted derails:

No one in the other thread was bemoaning women entering the workforce. That was something you imagined up that got that thread off track from actually talking about how it takes two or three jobs to even come close to providing what one job did 30 or 40 years ago.

 

[coloradoatheist]

I am curious then. Do women want to work or do they want to stay at home? The good old days was when women could stay home and tend to their family needs.

I'll say this once and then I'm done with another of your attempted derails:

No one in the other thread was bemoaning women entering the workforce. That was something you imagined up that got that thread off track from actually talking about how it takes two or three jobs to even come close to providing what one job did 30 or 40 years ago.

It does apply to this thread because we have countries where to make up for the higher labor participation women work in larger numbers in the workforce. So in these countries that have a higher women workforce, are they doing it out of necessity, which is the argument for the US, or are they doing it because they like to work?

 

[TV and credit cards]

In the US it's, 'I have to work so I'm stuck leaving my kids with god knows who'. Whereas in Scandinavian countries it's 'I can work, I can contribute, and I know my children will be well care for by professionals'.

 

[ZiprHead]

Goddamn commie pinkos, the lot of them...

No nursery schools for your kiddies then it is. You sure shouldn't sign up for ACA because those godless death panels and all.

My kiddies have four paws and fur so no nursery school is needed. A death panel might be better than having to listen to those long horns they play over there.

Aside from that, I actually think they got a lot of things right, society wise, over there.

 

[KeepTalking]

I'll say this once and then I'm done with another of your attempted derails:

No one in the other thread was bemoaning women entering the workforce. That was something you imagined up that got that thread off track from actually talking about how it takes two or three jobs to even come close to providing what one job did 30 or 40 years ago.

It does apply to this thread because we have countries where to make up for the higher labor participation women work in larger numbers in the workforce. So in these countries that have a higher women workforce, are they doing it out of necessity, which is the argument for the US, or are they doing it because they like to work?

Women should have the choice to work, or stay at home and raise their children.
Men should have the choice to work, or stay at home and raise their children.
Is that clear enough for you.

 

[funinspace]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/18/u...-in-employment-rate-.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1

It is a simple idea supported by both economic theory and most people’s intuition: If welfare benefits are generous and taxes high, fewer people will work. Why bother being industrious, after all, if you can get a check from the government for sitting around — and if your choice to work means that much of your income will end up in the tax collectors’ coffers?

Here’s the rub, though: The idea may be backward.

Some of the highest employment rates in the advanced world are in places with the highest taxes and most generous welfare systems, namely Scandinavian countries. The United States and many other nations with relatively low taxes and a smaller social safety net actually have substantially lower rates of employment.

well now . . .

Denmark spends 1.3% of its GDP on its military. In US terms, that would be about $220B. Between the DoD budget, war funding, massive spy apparatus, nuclear weapons (DoE), VA funding, F-16 cotton candy gifts to various dictators, the US comes in at nearly a cool trillion spent each year on its military-complex. What could the US do with $780 billion freed up annually for the last decade? Never mind the dead, wounded, and psychologically damaged from the Korean war, Vietnam war, Iraq, Afghanistan, et.al.

Denmark's post WWII short list of engagements of significance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya

Denmark: The Royal Danish Air Force participated with six F-16AM fighters, one C-130J-30 Super Hercules military transport plane and the corresponding ground crews. Only four F-16s were used for offensive operations, while the remaining two acted as reserves.[94] The first airstrikes from Danish aircraft were carried out on 23 March, with four aircraft making twelve sorties as part of Operation Odyssey Dawn.[95] Danish F-16s flew a total of 43 missions dropping 107 precision bombs during Odyssey Dawn before switching to NATO command under Unified Protector[96] Danish flights bombed approximately 17 percent of all targets in Libya and together with Norwegian flights have been the most efficient in proportion to the number of flights involved.[97] Danish F-16s flew the last fast-jet mission of Operation Unified Protector on 31 October 2011[98] finishing with a total of 599 missions flown and 923 precision bombs dropped during the entire Libya intervention

43 Danish soldiers have died in Afghanistan:

http://www.fmn.dk/eng/allabout/Pages/ThedanishengagementinAfghanistan.aspx
Since 2002, Denmark has gradually increased its military engagement in Afghanistan. Currently, the Danish contribution counts approximately 280 persons. The main part of the force is a training contingent in support of the Afghan security forces and a contingent in a battle group, which has been deployed to the British-led Task Force Helmand in the Helmand Province of southern Afghanistan.

Other Danish force contributions are located as follows:

Kabul: ISAF Headquarters.
Kandahar. Air transport contribution by a C-130J Hercules transport aircraft.
Northern Afghanistan (at Maymanah, Mazar-e Sharif and Kunduz). Mobile radar-equipped air transport centre

Seven Danish soldiers died in Iraq.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participants_in_Operation_Enduring_Freedom#.C2.A0Denmark

Since 2002 the number of ground forces committed by the Danish army has been steadily increased from 50 to 750 soldiers and support staff. These forces include a tank platoon with 3 Leopard 2 model 2A5DK tanks. The majority of the Danish forces are deployed in the Helmand Province operating in the Gerishk District as part of the ISAF force under UK command. The Danish forces have suffered substantial casualties including 43 deaths up till January, 2013.

So Denmark has lost 50 soldiers to war since after WWII. The US has lost 92,287 ( calculated from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_of_war ) soldiers to war since after WWII. Now the US has 56 times the people, so I’ll even multiply that by those 50 dead, arriving at the equivalent of 2,800 (or just 3% of the US deaths per capita).

Add in the US’s horribly dysfunctional and expensive health care “system”, one comes up with another shitload of poorly spent money. The US and Denmark respectively spend 17.9% and 11% of their GDP on health care. So that’s another roughly 7 percentage points of GDP (or $1.2 trillion) down the toilet. So between the military-complex and our health care mess, that is $2 trillion a year flushed…

So, can a Big Safety Net and Strong Job Market Coexist along with $2 trillion a year being flushed? I’m not sure, but I do think it would be much, much harder to pull off under such conditions.