GreecePwns wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Falkomagno wrote:By the way, and even knowing that [Phatscotty], as a fanatic as you are in the subject, and therefore unable to consider this actual state of knowledge in the subject, there is not evidence that a welfare state affects negatively the performance of the economy (A. B. Atkinson, "Incomes and the Welfare State", 1995), but at the contrary, countries that 50 years before applied welfare states measurements have been decreasing their poverty rates.
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~lkenwor/sf1999(poverty).pdf
Well, it really just examines the 1960s-1990s.
It's a nice read, but it can't separate the consequences of welfare programs from other consequences of other decisions in order to see how the economy performed. It just looks at each country's GDP then declares, "Ah yes, you see? There's been nothing but overall upward growth, so it must be due to welfare programs (but let's ignore other factors here)."
What welfare states do create are subsidies for poverty. They increase the poor's incentives to do the bare minimum to get by. I do agree that sometimes benefits (like unemployment checks) are good, but only after a certain amount of time (a.k.a. diminishing returns, or diminishing marginal value). With the current system in the US, you can play that unemployment game for years and still receive money (Hah, recently the US govt decided to extend such benefits for two years). It's inane. It just incentivizes people to keep playing that game and not get a job. You know why the government went ahead with such a costly decision? To hopefully guarantee future Obama votes.
Social mobility is aided at small times by benefits provided by welfare states, but in the long run it's provided by one's access to a good education (through personal loans or govt subsidies) and the availability in the job market (assuming one picks a reasonably marketable degree)---and overall, with greater economic freedom and liberty.
Welfare benefits play a small role in this, and from its increased need for higher taxes, it will actually discourage people who earn more money to either stay in the country or earn more money in the first place.
I believe there was another thread in this forum that discussed how people aren't as happy anymore. In heavy welfare states, the people don't see money as that important to a good life. The point isn't to be rich - it is to be happy. Our political debates are about tackling debt and taxes, while theirs are "how can we create more stable families?" "how do we balance work and time with family?"
Sure that doesn't make for a world power-type economy, but the poverty rates (using the US definition of poverty and applying it to other nations) in heavy welfare states are many times less than five percent and some slightly higher than one percent.
The success of the Nordic (and to a lesser extent, Dutch) model is a successful one.
The biggest welfare states in the world also have
the happiest people in the world,
some of the most stable economies in the world, and are actually
some of the easiest to do business in.
You know what's funny about that economic stability list? It's from 2008, and Ireland's at #10, Portugal #18, Italy and Spain in the 20s, and Greece at 41. That's the problem with information when it's collected only for one year (and at a pretty turbulent time too).
If the peoples of the Nordic countries and Belgium are so happy, then why are their suicide rates so high?
[Suicides per 100,000 people per year] provided by WHO
Rank| Country| Males| Females| Average| Most recent year available.
#14 Finland 28.9 9.0 18.8 2007
#15 Belgium 27.2 9.5 18.2 1999
#28 Sweden 18.1 8.3 13.2 2006
#37 Norway 16.8 6.0 11.4 2006
And the US is at #40.
Also, that happiness chart doesn't prove that the welfare state provides that happiness. It only shows that according to their methods of conducting research, those countries had pretty high percentages of people marking the "Hell yeah, I'm happy" option more frequently than others.
If you read the 2nd page of that, read why they think (or really what the reporter thinks) why Costa Rica was ranked so highly. It's not money; it's something inherent within their culture (family values, high value placed on maintaining good relationships, and yada yada).
And for the "ease of doing business" chart, look past that averaged ranking system, and at the "starting a business" ranking which puts those countries in the 30s instead of the top 15. But with more complex studies like ones from the World Economic Forum, the Nordic countries do rank well in "the ease of starting a business," but if starting a business is easy, will one remain competitive and profitable? Not with those countries' high taxes and restrictive labor regulations (which are a necessary evil of welfare states).
