Regarding the unemployment rate in the Netherlands, this has been consistently low for the past 10-15 years, which might still mean it's a fluke but we'll know soon enough...
It hasn't been 2.6% for 10-15 years. According to
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?v=66&c=nl&l=en , as recently as 2006 it was nearly 7%. Over the past 5 years, it's hovered at 4-6%, same as the US, except in the latest year. It also dipped down to the 2.6% level around 2000 but throughout most of the 1990's it was 5-7% while the US rate remained in 4-6% range. But in general, I would agree that the Netherlands has had a low unemployment rate compared to the other more socialist European countries (Germany, France) where it was double digit for many of those years. In those countries, even since 2003 it's been as high as 10-11% at times and it's currently around 8%.
And there are a few facts to keep in mind when considering those unemployment rates. One is the number of people that have permanently dropped out of the labor pool entirely and decided to simply live on the dole. Here is an article, for example,
http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/economies/Europe/The-Netherlands-WORKING-CONDITIONS.html , that estimates in 1999 from 50,000 to 100,000 workers "simply dropped out of the labor force and decided to rely on the Netherlands' generous social benefits". That's 0.7-1.4% of the labor force. And those people were no longer counted as unemployed. Now the same thing may happen in the US but probably not to the same degree since the social net is not so inclusive and long term.
By the way,
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?v=66&c=nl&l=en has some other comparisons between our two countries that might be worth noting. The US death rate per 1000 has been around 8.1 the last few years and stable. The death rate in the Netherlands per 1000 has steadily climbed from 8.66 in 2003 to 8.71 now. Could that be due to your health care system? Due to, for example, wait times to be treated or decisions not to treat the more elderly? I'm not saying the latter is bad, by the way. One of the realities our society needs to face is whether it should spend the ungodly amount of resources it does to keep people in their 90's, many of them nothing but vegetables, alive. 30% of US health costs is spent in the final year of life. Do the Dutch devote as much resources to such people? Maybe not. Maybe you are a wee bit more sane in this area.
Finally, I notice that the above source says about 12% of the US population is below the poverty line. The percent below the poverty line in the Netherlands is 10.5% of the population. So it would appear that socialism in the Netherlands has not really solved this problem, like democrats in the US seem to think it will. . And of course, we won't get into what the poverty line really means. It's probably different in the Netherlands and US.
Regarding the relative health of the Dutch economy, I think that it has to do with the fact that there has been struck a good balance between allowing the market to sort itself out, and government regulation (or to put it in terms of -isms: Capitalism and Socialism).
Well let's talk a little more about the relative health of your economy compared to the US. Here's another interesting bit of data from the above source. US GDP real growth rate from 2003-2008 was between 2-4%. The Netherlands' real GDP growth rate between 2003-2008 grew to 3% but it started out as 0%. So US growth far outpaced yours for much of that period. And we don't have any long term data to be certain your economy will remain healthy. Maybe you have found the right balance but only time will tell. So maybe we in the US should wait a few more years before jumping on to your band wagon. Just in case.
This system is commonly referred to as the "Poldermodel". In other words it is the willingness of the different stakeholders that makeup our society to compromise that ensures stability and prosperity.
Interesting. But the Poldermodel, as I think you mean it, has been in existence since 1980's. Given how growth and unemployment fluxuated up and down since then, it clearly didn't work as well as it you now seem to think it does. What's different all of a sudden? Perhaps you are only in the calm before the storm? What if one of your parties suddenly gets greedy and decides they have a right to more control or one class decides its unfair that the top 20% own so much wealth? What if one of your groups decide the rest of you owe them something for some historic slight? That is the situation in the US.
I will agree that one of the big problems facing the US is that we aren't all working together any longer. We aren't letting the market freely decide which ideas are the best. Too much government interference. The media is no longer telling the public facts but what the media (or a political party) wants them to believe. We are losing our common language. Too many people are being encouraged to think in terms of rights rather than responsibilities ... begging instead of choosing.
Perhaps what is different is that unlike you Dutch, not all Americans love America. And that may be because there is too little effort to instill common values and roots in our democrat controlled schools. Little effort to instill a love of America or our culture. In fact, many of the schools in our country are now essentially teaching children what an evil country America is (and always has been) rather than what a wonderful country is has mostly been. And forget about teaching our children the principles that made this country great. Many liberal educators (and democrat politicians) openly view those principles as evil.
And Obama is knee deep in that anti-Americanism. Ayers' and Obama's Chicago Annenberg Challenge project typified it. Reverend Wright displays it. "G D America." So does ACORN and CODEPINK and MDS and many of the other groups that openly support Obama and whose support he willingly accepts ... even encourages. It's his real base.
The solution to this red/blue divide? At this point I'm not sure there is a solution. I'll just keep pointing out facts and truth and let the chips fall where they may. And the fact is that Obama's campaign has been quite dishonest about campaign funding. It has clearly violated FEC regulations and shows no real interest in correcting the problem or punishing those who violated the laws. Because all that matters is *winning* and *power*. Its party over country. Not Poldermodel.
the differences are mostly on the "left hand" side of the graph. Childpoverty rates (poverty rates in general) are higher in the US (though there are probably big differences between the individual states) source
For some reason, I can't load your source. But I will accept that the poverty rate of children in the Netherlands is much lower than in the US. I've seen numbers like 17 percent for the US versus about half that for the Netherlands. Again, we have the problem of whether the two numbers really represent the same degree of poverty, but in any case, one should understand that what drives US poverty rates is the situation in black and latino populations. The poverty rate amongst non-hispanic white children is not all that different from yours. And this isn't evidence of racism.
Your country isn't experiencing the sort of underlying problem that the US now has ... that of massive and uncontrolled immigration by very poor and very illiterate people (mostly latinos). As a country, you are not facing the problem of immigrant groups who do not want to assimilate, but instead want to maintain their separateness even if it costs them educationally and economically. They want to keep their culture and language over that of, until recently, our common one. And they bring with them many of the problems ... crime, disease ... that are endemic in their countries of origin. This has implications that we in America are just going to have to work out and that you do not share. Implications that color the interpretation of poverty rates.
Government social spending is not necessarily the answer. My understanding is that the Netherlands reduced its poverty rates by massive spending ... devoting some 14 percent of GDP (compared to our 4 percent) ... on social programs. And even with that massive investment, your overall poverty rate is still only 12.5 percent lower in relative terms than ours. It's still over 10 percent in absolute terms. And that's without you having to face the problem of massive numbers of poor illegal immigrants ... some 2-6 percent of our population. Are we going to have to spend an addition 10 percent of our GDP each year to lower our poverty rate by 12%? Is that really what we should do? I think there are reasonable grounds to question that approach.
The US spent over 10 TRILLION dollars in the last 50 years on social programs designed to eliminate poverty, in particular in one group ... blacks. And it obviously didn't work. In fact, the number of people at the poverty level in the US is just as high as it was 50 years ago. And a good case can be made that the program actually hurt economic progress in the black community ... that blacks are worse off today than they would have been had the US government not interfered.
In other words, this experiment seems to suggest socialism is not the answer. Making people "victims" and "dependent", which is what democrats in this country have done the past 50 years, has not worked. And yet Obama wants to do more of the same. Much more. Trillions more. Out of a bogus notion of "fairness". What Obama will do is he gets the chance is mess up things even more. If history is any guide.
if we assume that they get full benefits form education and healthcare
They mostly do in the US ... democrats have made sure of that. They are taught for free in our public schools. They are fed in free school lunch programs. They are treated for free in our hospitals. Some are even given free liver transplants ... multiple times. There is even legislation by democrats to provide them with free college educations. No wonder they want to come to the US.
and that they produce no wealth at all their footprint budgetwise should be equivalent to the 2.6% - 6.6% that they respresent demographically.
It's far more insidious than that. Their presence harms society in many ways besides a simple ratio of numbers. For example ...
They significantly impact the effectiveness of education programs. They cause overcrowding of facilities. They force the addition of remedial programs of all types. Do you realize how difficult it is to teach algebra to students that don't speak or read english? Yet teachers are expected to devote time to that. Which takes time from other students and impacts their achievement of goals.
They crowd emergency rooms. Increasing wait times. Do you know most of the babies born in certain hospitals in Los Angeles are born to illegals? For free. But the US, unlike the Dutch, automatically make these cute little babies citizens ... and their parents are then anchored to the US by those babies. This, in a time when the numbers of hospitals in Los Angeles is decreasing?
Likewise, the number of illegals impacts the transportation systems. Waste collection systems. Water supply systems.
How about the effect on crime? Has crime just gone up by 2 - 6 percent as a result of illegals? No. Do you know that the FBI says half of all gang member in Los Angeles are illegals? And believe me, gangs are a big problem in LA and the US. These gangs deal drugs. They steal. They murder. Do you know that 25% of all inmates in California detention centers are illegals? Do you know that the highly liberal Los Angeles Times (which openly supports illegal immigration, by the way) says that 95% of all warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens? Do you have any comparable problem dealing with illegals in the Netherlands? I suspect the answer is no. Do you begin to understand the problem we face in the US and why comparisons of poverty rates might not be all that meaningful?
I'm sorry, last time I checked the Cold War was over.
Technically yes. In reality, not quite. There are still Russian nuclear missiles aimed at Europe. And the reality is that the threat has merely changed. Now the US is spending 4% of its GDP (compared to your 1.6%) on a military to help protect not only ourselves but you from islamofanatics. You see, not everyone in that part of the world appreciates your cartoon humor.
But you missed my point in any case. All those decades of the Cold War, the US could have devoted significantly more of it resources to social programs or economic growth in the US, if we hadn't spent them helping to defend Europe (including you) from Soviet aggression. Had we done that, perhaps our standard of living would be even better now, relative to yours. In fact, you might have experienced your third European-wide war by now and be be living in ruins.
Sorry, didn't ask for it, and frankly, we don't need it. It only serves to aggravate Russia and Iran is nowhere near developing ICBM capacity (and if they were do you honestly believe they would commit to suicide by A-Bomb?)
Just like you didn't need the US nuclear umbrella during the Cold War? Do you think that appeasement was the answer there? Apparently so, since many of you were still advocating it as Reagan, Thatcher and the Pope orchestrated the collapse of the USSR. Are we going to have to go through that again?
As to Iran, it's probably much closer to building a nuclear weapon than admitted by any western government ... because they don't want to rattle their citizens. As for suicide by A-Bomb, leaders in Iran have openly stated that it would be worth losing 700 MILLION arabs if it meant the extermination of Israel. If Iran doesn't want Europe involved in that, what better way than the threat of dropping a nuke on the Dutch if the EU interferes? And the threat isn't just a Iranian nuclear missile. It's a nuclear weapon provided to terrorists and smuggled into EU cities. What sort of deal will the EU make with islamofanatics regarding the islamic factions in their country if that happens? Believe me, it is not in your interest to see Iran get nuclear weapons. And why do you think appeasement will work any better with Iran than it did with Hitler, Stalin, and any other dictator of the last century? Maybe the reason Europe did NOT have a major war with the Soviets is because the US stood up to them? Ever consider that?
I actually have that exact same choice (and yes, I would also have to pay for the privilege
Now I'm curious. Do you get health care comparable to what Obama and McCain receive? Because that's what Obama seems to be promising Americans.
Obama - "If you don't have health insurance, you're going to be able to buy the same kind of insurance that Senator McCain and I enjoy as Federal employees."
What kind of health care do Obama and McCain enjoy via Congress? Unlimited doctor office visits to doctors of one's choosing. It covers all accidents, routine exams, physical therapy, labs and X-rays. Unlimited hospital visits and stays. Chronic care and rehabilitation. Full prescription coverage. Unlimited specialty consultations. For the employee and the entire family with no deductibles, no co-pays, and only a $35 monthly fee. According to Joe Antos, a health economist at the American Enterprise Institute (
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95204017 ) that sort of plan "costs in excess of $12,000 a year".
If that's what Obama can really deliver for under $500 a year, you can be sure that ALL of us will be asking our companies to drop our health coverage so we can enroll. What a deal.
Oh wait. Obama is talking about raising taxes to subsidize this grand giveaway. Estimates are that his plan would reach about 34 million of the estimated 46 million uninsured (by the way that number is totally bogus but I'll save that for another day). His own campaign projects an additional cost of about $60 billion a year to do it. Let's see ... 60 billion divided by 34 million is less than $1800 a year. Are we being lied to? Or is Blue Cross going to give it away?
Standard of living is only partially determined by GDP (preferably PPP) as you know.
According to that source I cited earlier, the PPP of the Netherlands was $32,000 in 2007 (it suddenly jumped to $38,000 in 2008 after rises at a constant rate the previous 7 years). The PPP of the US in 2007 was $44,000 and $46,000 in 2008. That's a 37% delta in 2007 and a 21 % delta in 2008 (assuming there's not a mistake).
There is for instance the well-documented Happiness index (where both our countries are pretty much on equal footing).
In that index, US is ranked 17th in the world. The Netherlands is ranked 15th or 16th. Good for us! The Germans are 21th. British are 22nd. The French are ranked 39th. Weeeeee! But happiness is a funny thing. Even the poorest people can be happy. And ironically when it comes to happiness, republicans are far happier than democrats and independents. I guess the unhappiness of democrats and independents in this country is what is dragging our overall number down. Darn Obama.
Here, you might find this interesting (from a very liberal source):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/07/AR2008020701904.html
A 2006 Pew Research poll found that 45 percent of Republicans describe themselves as "very happy," compared with only 30 percent of Democrats (and 29 percent of independents). This is a sizable gap and a remarkably consistent one, too. Republicans have been happier than Democrats every year since the General Social Survey, conducted biannually by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, began asking about happiness in 1972.
... snip ...
Wealthy people are marginally happier than poor ones, and Republicans, according to some surveys, tend to be wealthier than Democrats, so that must be why they're happier, right? Nice try, but no dice. Even after adjusting for differences in income, the Pew researchers still found a marked happiness gap: Poor Republicans are, on average, happier than poor Democrats, and wealthy Republicans are happier than wealthy Democrats.
... snip ...
Basically, Republicans have in spades all the things that combine to make us happy. Church attendance is particularly crucial. People who attend religious services regularly are more likely to report being "very happy" than those who don't -- 43 percent vs. 26 percent (a happiness boost, by the way, that cuts across all the major religious denominations). In addition, Republicans are more likely to be married than Democrats, and married people are happier than singles.
... snip ...
Countries with large disparities between rich and poor are no less happy than more egalitarian ones, studies have found. And the happiest countries in the world tend to be homogenous ones, such as Denmark and Iceland, not the ethnic melting pots that liberals celebrate.
Darn. Another strike against us.
from my limited experience I would conclude that in the US standard of living is primarily associated with wealth, whereas in the Netherlands at least it is primarily associated with well-being.
Well-being is a vague and nebulous thing. My mother used to say "act happy and you will be happy" and I think she was right. That's why I smile a lot.
By in large, democrats (liberals) seem to see doom and gloom in everything. Whereas republicans (conservatives) don't. We may be about to put a man and a party that below the surface literally reek of doom and gloom into the Whitehouse. It won't surprise me if that brings down the happiness index of the whole world once they wake up to the fact that *change* and *hope* are just rhetoric but it's really the same ol' same ol'.
More on this Pew study:
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/301/are-we-happy-yet
And here's their latest study (from Oct 3 to Oct 19):
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1005/republicans-happier
One thing that is interesting in the last link is that the largest factor that increases the odds of happiness is Health. So politicians better get the solution to the health crisis right.
What is feasible is addressing the excesses at the low end of the healthcare market and offer some level of basic health insurance for everybody.
But that's pretty much already the case. The 46 million uninsured claim is bogus. Here is why.
More than 10 million of those people aren't even citizens of the US. Are the Dutch willing to insure people who aren't citizens (and you don't have even a fraction of problem we do)?
Second, many of those who are supposedly uninsured are not uninsured because they lack the resources to buy that "basic health insurance" policy. They made a conscious decision to prioritize their resources in the way they did. They've chosen partying or something else over health care. Perhaps because they are young and don't feel that health is a problem. In any case, US census data shows there are over 8 million people who make between $50,000 and $75,000 per year and almost 9 million who make more than $75,000 a year are "uninsured". That's 17 million people can “afford” health insurance because they make more than the median household income of $46,326. Is really "fair" to count them?
So subtracting the illegals and those who can afford insurance from the 45 million, leaves about 20 million people, less than 7 percent of the US population who could be called "uninsured". And the Kaiser Family Foundation, a liberal source, puts the number of uninsured who do not qualify for current government programs and who make less than $50,000 between 8 and 14 million. And even smaller percentage.
Should that 5% who aren't covered and lack the means to buy coverage be grounds for democrats nationalizing a third of the American economy? I don't think so. The government already pay nearly 40% of all healthcare costs with some analysts saying government involvement is what has caused much of the rise in costs. We've seen that happen in other areas. And certainly lawyers have played a role and government is full of them.
Finally, lack of insurance coverage does not mean lack of health care availability. As already noted, by law hospitals and ERs in this country have to treat anyone who needs medical assistance. They may have to wait in lines but the quality of the treatment is generally pretty good. That's where you'll find many of these people. They are getting health care in America. For free.
As you may have concluded from what I told you about the "poldermodel" the adversarial system as it is in place in the US does not exist here. The "Lawyer Problem" is because of that not as extensive as it is in the US, this is also due to some differences in the legal system that prohibit for instance a lawyer from drawing their fee as a percentage of the results of litigation (lawyers are required to be partial but independant if that makes sense).
Consider yourself lucky.
Per capita number of lawyers:
US - 1 per 265 people.
Netherlands - 1 per 1162 people.
Unfortunately I went and got my Masters' degree in Philosophy after that which spoiled the book for me
ing hypocrites.