When Paul Krugman said "Europe's economic success should be obvious even without statistics. For those Americans who have visited Paris: did it look poor and backward? What about Frankfurt or London? You should always bear in mind that when the question is which to believe -- official economic statistics or your own lying eyes -- the eyes have it." I had roughly the same reaction that Matt Welch did: having lived in London for intermittent (short) periods, I found it noticeably poorer than the United States.I remember seeing similar differences in Paris in the 1990s. Parisians weren't poor but they had a noticeably lower standard of living than we have here. For example, kids there obviously had seen Rollerblades on television shows from North America but most couldn't afford them and bought old style roller skates instead. By the end of the decade, the kids all had Rollerblades but in 1995 they were nonexistent on Paris streets. (Although a few rich kids must have already had them. The other thing that really jumps out at you in Paris is how much more clearly the line between rich and poor is marked there.)
And, at the risk of offending lots of fellow Canadians, we are in the middle; when I go to the USA, I can't help but notice that people there have a higher standard of living than we do here. I know the temptation is to say "So what?" about such an unimportant difference but the cumulative effect of such small differences is substantial. Morally speaking, the difference isn't worth worrying about, economically speaking it matters.
PS: The really rude question about Canada is whether we could exist in anything even vaguely like our present form without the USA for a neighbour. It's a rhetorical question of course. Bring it up in the company of any member of the Canadian intellectual class, however, and you will get a quick demonstration of what irrational hatred looks like.
Jules, I'm really enjoying your blog, and will be reading more and more. Please keep it coming. Sorry that I must disagree forcefully with you here.
ReplyDeleteBoth the quotation and your post use personal experience in the countries discussed for authority, so I must add my own. I lived in the state of Virginia for two years during which I think I walked up to every residential door in that state, from Norfolk to Charlottesville, and even talked to a good selection of the people behind those doors. I saw enough wealth there that I could join in your chorus, if I hadn't also, both in rural communities and in the inner cities, saw poverty that blew my college-age mind--the sort I thought I would only see in TV shows about developing or even third world countries, and which permanently altered my universe. I don't think McCardle or Krugman are aware of their own backyard, much less visited it.
So, in my own authoritative opinion you are wrong. Even if I were to observe the rich/poor gap in Paris, I assure you it would not jump out at me or (more honestly) that if it did, it would jump out to say "Wow, I never imagined Paris could be as bad as the States."
You are at least better than McCardle, who's "I found [London] noticeably poorer than the United States" is totally vacuous. Why is she comparing a city with a country? What parts? How? Here's guessing she not only hasn't thought about what she's saying at all, but isn't even really sure what topic is under discussion.
If you both were to saying the middle class in the States was better off (read richer) than the same in Europe, I'd be able to add my 'amen'. Until then, I will only observe that statistics are where the truth must be.
You may have a point about the bottom of the economic ladder. The American approach does leave this sort of poverty out on display in ways that are quite jarring. It's here in Canada as well, although to a lesser extent, if you know where to look.
ReplyDeleteBut I still think that if you leave New York City today and travel to Toronto, I think it is fair to say you'll notice a little less sheen and if you keep going to London or Paris even less so.
These places aren't poor but when you create a really social safety net you lose a lot of economic innovation and drive too. Maybe the cost is worth it but it's a real enough cost.