Worldwide Demographics

[mousquet]

^ The French are stingy like the Italians and won't spend too much of their money in their well being because they fear tomorrow, which is a pity, pathetic. They're like - I need a lot of saved money in case I'd go broke in a near future. That's the common mindset. They are scared, then they save their money.

Many landlords in Paris are mere crooks. They would lease a cupboard full of cockroaches for the price of luxury amenities.
But not all are that way. I saw some who actually care about their tenants and do what's necessary for their comfort. They take it as a matter of honor.
So there's hope in that respect.

That being said, the French are "very good savers". Local bankers make fun of them for that.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by moorhosj1

Couldn't this also be a case of what people in France and America choose to spend their money on?

The average French person has free healthcare and a longer lifespan.

The average American household has $105k of debt versus $30k in France.

Healthcare in France is not free. That's a cliché (used by those in the US who wish to extol the French/European model to denounce the US model). Not that the US model is good (it is bad, healthcare costs too much, and it's an unfair system), but the French system is far from perfect either, and has degraded a lot in the past 15 years.

The French healthcare system is like the Mexican healthcare system, i.e. it's a two-tier system (but not as extreme as in Mexico).

You have public healthcare, where you pay little (by US standards), but which is not free (unless you live on minimum income, in which case it's free).

And then there's private healthcare, where you have to pay more (or much more).

Problem is, more and more doctors choose to work in the private healthcare system, and not in the public one anymore, because they are greedy. Almost all specialist doctors now work in the private sector for instance (except those who work in public hospitals).

Problem is: very long waiting lists in public hospitals. If you don't have time to wait, then you have to go see a private specialist in town, but expect to pay lots of money (which is not a lot by US standards, but is a lot by French standards).

For example, if you need to see a proctologist in Paris: at the public hospital, where you'll pay as little as 10 € (or even nothing if you live on minimum income), you have to wait for 6 months (or even 10 months if you want a top specialist). In the private sector, waiting time: 1 week. But you'll have to fork out 120 to 150 € for a single visit.

And it's like that for most specialists.

Also, if you go to a dentist in the public sector, they'll give you, say, only low-quality crowns. If you want a higher-quality crown (that will preserve your gum long-term), only a dentist in the private sector will do that, and it will cost several hundred euros.

20 years ago, there wasn't even private vs public dentists. All dentists were the same and provided the same treatment.

But now, it's à la carte, depending on how much you can spend.

And let's not even mention nursing homes for old people. Whether you can spend 3,000 euros a month or 10,000 euros a month will make an enormous difference in terms of nursing home (from ugly waiting-room to the grave at 3,000 euros per month, to 5-star palace in a château with spa at 10,000+ per month).

The only thing that still holds is big, serious surgery. If you need some very serious heart surgery for a life-threatening condition, then yes, the public sector will operate you and it will cost you a grand total of, say, 200 €. But you may have to wait for 6 months before they actually examine you and determine that you need a surgery... (unless it's an emergency of course).

Waiting time in an emergency service at a public hospital in France: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 hours, with all sorts of crazy people, impatient and rude. Of course if you can afford the specialist that asks 150 € for a single visit, then you can phone his private surgery and he will examine you in an emergency without waiting.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by mousquet

I never went down as far south as Mississippi in the US, but yes, life surely can be rough over there.

Again, GDP per capita or median income are certainly significant indicators, but not enough to really assess standards of living by country.
Human Development Index is probably more accurate and reliable in that matter. It compiles gross national income (GNI), mean years of schooling and expected years of schooling and life expectancy in a formula.
I wouldn't like to be obnoxious, but American fellows may not like it, cause their country's not the most enviable, especially once inequality-adjusted.

And it’s not like Mississippi, West Virginia or similar states are just below the living standards of other developed country: it’s a completely different level. MS life expectancy is similar to countries whose GDP per capita are 20x, 30x lower.

People cannot take care of their own physical and mental health, living from paycheck to paycheck to die young from a preventable disease.

[mhays]

Preparing for retirement or a crisis is admirable. It's the spendthrifts that I pity.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by mhays

Preparing for retirement or a crisis is admirable. It's the spendthrifts that I pity.

There are excesses in both countries. Overspending in the US. Oversaving in France (and Japan).

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by mhays

Preparing for retirement or a crisis is admirable. It's the spendthrifts that I pity.

Yeah, exactly what I was thinking.

Living below your means is the key to happiness.

[New Brisavoine]

French aristocrats before the French Revolution were known to be doing exactly the opposite. Living above their means, and always dying heavily in debt. Can't say it was such a bad way of life. That's why you have all these mansions, châteaux, and Louis-something furniture in France.

It was called "vivre comme un prince" (live like a prince), i.e. without counting. Profligacy gave lots of social credit. Living like a miser was considered extremely petty.

I guess today's French people have changed greatly compared to their ancestors...

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Can't tell if this is sarcasm or not lol.

I mean, it's true.

For all its ridiculous and growing faults, the U.S. has nicer living spaces, on average, than basically any other country. Even Switzerland has crap living spaces compared to U.S.

Americans think every schlub with a mediocre job and no savings should have a 3,000 sq. ft. house, yard and 2-3 car garage.

[Age of Whamsies]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

For example, if you need to see a proctologist in Paris: at the public hospital, where you'll pay as little as 10 € (or even nothing if you live on minimum income), you have to wait for 6 months (or even 10 months if you want a top specialist). In the private sector, waiting time: 1 week. But you'll have to fork out 120 to 150 € for a single visit.

Weird. When I saw a proctologist in Paris, he paid me 10€. And then I never heard back from him..

[muppet]

There's another spanner in the works when taking into account the US, and that's the presence of American billionaires. They skew the economy hugely by the fact they double the figures.

About 80% of the US population shares only 7% of the wealth. This means half the population scrabble over 2.5%, while the Gini Coefficient now puts inequality worse than almost any country but the poorest of the Developing world. Worse than China, India, Haiti, Philippines, most of Africa.






This is why GDP is no longer considered an accurate measure of wealth as late stage capitalism across the world shows the higher the figure, and often higher the growth, the more indentured the populace. As costs rise and life shrinks the working, middle and even bottom tiers of the upper classes lose out, effectively paying for that rise. What you don't pay in tax you do more so in greedflation, junk fees, tips, driving, subscription models, securitisation and healthcare. It's effectively killing capitalism, and more closely resembles feudalism.

[muppet]

When you come to Europe, even ex-communist Eastern Europe, or rural areas, you'll still notice the difference. On paper they may be much poorer, and there will be plenty of the poor about, but overall life is good, everything costs less and you work less, with much more paid vacation time, and options to go abroad. Your taxes go somewhere too -healthcare and education is free or affordable, and if you get sick, fall out of work or have kids, the state will ensure you don't become destitute. This equates to more people having the freedom to quit shitty jobs, applying for others, re-entering education or changing their career paths. It also means employers have a goal to avoid high staff turnovers, that waste their resources and time in recruitment and training, by ensuring it's a nice place to work.

Which all makes for less desperation and crime. Even within Europe we see the same phenomenon. A Brit going to Poland or Latvia, Slovenia or Czechia will notice how much larger the houses are (even inside the commie blocks), cleaner the streets, better the infrastructure and public services, and more affordable the costs on the people. A Londoner going to a provincial town outside the city limits, might scoff at what people are wearing or the lack of a Michelin starred restaurant, but then witness how many working class people -even the guy dragging trolleys in the Tesco carpark -can afford to buy their own homes, own a car and heaven forbid, a dog.









And don't get me wrong -there is poverty, at times extreme:



But far less of it. Somewhere like the aforementioned Poland (where all the pics on this post are from) has some of the lowest risks of poverty in the OECD. And even with the housing and refugee crisis the country is going through.


Things aren't rosy and there are indeed bad actors in power trying to replicate the liberalist model (that flowers inequality), but that's kept in check by socialist principles and policies. I would posit that the majority of Europeans live a lifestyle less indentured than 80% of the US population, but we have less of the wealthy and ultra wealthy. We have smaller houses, and although we do have high car ownership, use them less. It's harder to do business here as an entrepeneur too.

But overall, a smaller economy doesn't have to mean a smaller life, and it's absurdist that it can now mean the opposite.

There's also something to be said on our societies not having to spend money to prove our worth or enjoy things, regardless of where we are.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by muppet

There's another spanner in the works when taking into account the US, and that's the presence of American billionaires. They skew the economy hugely by the fact they double the figures.

About 80% of the US population shares only 7% of the wealth. This means half the population scrabble over 2.5%, while the Gini Coefficient now puts inequality worse than almost any country but the poorest of the Developing world. Worse than China, India, Haiti, Philippines, most of Africa.






This is why GDP is no longer considered an accurate measure of wealth as late stage capitalism across the world shows the higher the figure, and often higher the growth, the more indentured the populace. As costs rise and life shrinks the working, middle and even bottom tiers of the upper classes lose out, effectively paying for that rise. What you don't pay in tax you do more so in greedflation, junk fees, tips, driving, subscription models, securitisation and healthcare. It's effectively killing capitalism, and more closely resembles feudalism.

This is MEDIAN disposable income (after taxes and social benefits), equivalized (i.e. it accounts for economies of scale in larger households), in PPP US dollars, in 2022, from the OECD:
- Luxembourg: 64,252
- Switzerland: 53,395
- USA: 46,410
- Belgium: 46,200
- Canada: 46,108
- Netherlands: 44,431
- Denmark: 44,152
- South Korea: 43,927
- Germany: 41,361
- Sweden: 41,254
- France: 40,067
- Australia: 39,072 (in 2020)
- New Zealand: 39,040
- Italy: 37,234
- Spain: 35,821
- UK: 35,595
- Czech Republic: 31,240
- Poland: 31,196
- Japan: 25,737 (in 2021)
- Turkey: 12,606
- Mexico: 9,320
- Brazil: 9,239

So no, even when taking into account the wealth inequalities, in median terms the average American is richer than most other people. But Luxembourg and Switzerland, which are French-speaking, are richer than the US, and Belgium is almost as rich, so the original comment was ridiculous.

UK is pretty low. Japan super low. On the other hand, Canada is higher than I would have imagined (but then that's 2022, before Trudeau's insane intakes of immigrants, so the figure now for Canada would be lower). Turkey still quite poor (despite the fact its GDP per capita, which is an average, shows it almost at Eastern European levels).

[Crawford]

Luxembourg is not that rich. It's essentially a tax/regulation avoidance city-state where half the employees live in France, Germany or Belgium.

Switzerland has high incomes but has outrageous consumer costs. $25 cheese sandwiches and Zurich homes are priced like Manhattan.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Luxembourg is not that rich. It's essentially a tax/regulation avoidance city-state where half the employees live in France, Germany or Belgium.

These OECD figures I posted are disposable income, not GDP per capita. So it's only the disposable income of the residents of Luxembourg. It is not inflated by inflows of commuters from France, Belgium and Germany.

And vice versa, France's disposable income is higher than its GDP per capita due to the fat revenues of residents of France who work in Luxembourg and Switzerland.

This was in 2011, it's much more now (the circle in the South-East is French residents working in Monaco).



% of people working in Switzerland. In the darkest color, more than 50% of people in employment work in Switzerland. They enjoy a a very good deal: they pay (low) income taxes in Switzerland, and they can enjoy low prices for housing and groceries in France. The wealth produced by these hundreds of thousands of people is not counted in the French GDP, which artificially decreases the French GDP per capita, but once you count disposable income, then their revenues are counted in the French revenues.

Originally Posted by Crawford

Switzerland has high incomes but has outrageous consumer costs. $25 cheese sandwiches and Zurich homes are priced like Manhattan.

Figures are in PPP US dollars, so the higher costs of living in Switzerland are taken into account.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

This is MEDIAN disposable income (after taxes and social benefits), equivalized (i.e. it accounts for economies of scale in larger households), in PPP US dollars, in 2022, from the OECD:
- Luxembourg: 64,252
- Switzerland: 53,395
- USA: 46,410
- Belgium: 46,200
- Canada: 46,108
- Netherlands: 44,431
- Denmark: 44,152
- South Korea: 43,927
- Germany: 41,361
- Sweden: 41,254
- France: 40,067
- Australia: 39,072 (in 2020)
- New Zealand: 39,040
- Italy: 37,234
- Spain: 35,821
- UK: 35,595
- Czech Republic: 31,240
- Poland: 31,196
- Japan: 25,737 (in 2021)
- Turkey: 12,606
- Mexico: 9,320
- Brazil: 9,239

So no, even when taking into account the wealth inequalities, in median terms the average American is richer than most other people. But Luxembourg and Switzerland, which are French-speaking, are richer than the US, and Belgium is almost as rich, so the original comment was ridiculous.

UK is pretty low. Japan super low. On the other hand, Canada is higher than I would have imagined (but then that's 2022, before Trudeau's insane intakes of immigrants, so the figure now for Canada would be lower). Turkey still quite poor (despite the fact its GDP per capita, which is an average, shows it almost at Eastern European levels).

For an idea of what these mean, a median household of 4 people (2 parents, 2 children) in the US has a yearly post-tax post-social benefits income of 92,820 USD. The same household in France has a yearly post-tax post-social benefits income that would buy the same as 80,134 USD in the US. The same household in Switzerland has an income that would buy 106,790 USD in the US.

The household in the US would have to spend lots of money for the education of their children, whereas education in France and Switzerland is largely free (although more and more parents in France put their children in private schools, because public schools are less and less good and more and more dangerous, but private schools in France still cost far less than in the US, and university in France is largely free). Then the US household would have to spend a lot on healthcare (as I've explained, the cost of healthcare in France has increased, due to the two-tier system, but it's still only a fraction of what a US household would have to spend).

So all in all, the US household is probably not much richer than the French household, but the US household uses credit card/loans much more (so spends more), whereas the French household saves more (so spends less), and the US household spends far less in vacation than the French household (5 weeks of paid vacations), so the US household has more money to improve their house and eat out in restaurants than the French household. That's quite visible when you live in the US.

[muppet]

You also have to take into account that while people may have more 'disposable' income, everything costs more and there are more costs overall to run your life -not just healthcare. The fact nearly 70% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck is unheard of in much poorer countries, who work far less.

I live in Zone 2 in London, 25 mins from the centre, and work 9-5 on below the UK mean or average pay, let alone the London one, let alone the Central London one. I only get $2.8K a month after tax, and about $400 from my hobby (film extra). However I only pay $600 in rent, and bills $230 with access to a gym, pool, sauna -all because we share among 3.

Transport is $20 a week, food $70. I get 40 days holiday and eat out about 3x a week, not counting lunch at work. I don't go to cinema (why would anyone?), to gigs or out drinking much -down from 2 or 3x a week to 2 or 3x a month. Don't drink coffee, all museums and galleries are free.

For the money that doesn't go out on essentials, I do have a habit on throwing it at fast fashion, books, an occasional coke-fuelled bender and about 5 foreign holidays a year, which can be weekenders a few hrs flight/ train away, or a week in the Med, and at least one 2-3 week trip outside the continent. I'll do staycations in the UK about twice, and daytrips a zillion times.

Basically I can save about $1.8-2K a month outside the essentials, even after spending on a normal life with lots of leisure. My life is far from rosy, but in terms of affordability and financial freedom, healthcare, security and pension, I'm fine. I even support another dependant on this wage.

The pay off is I'll never own my own house (although I have enough for a downpayment), not necessarily because I can't afford the mortgage, but more I wouldn't opt for an inferior deal, that's tied to a shithole - London property sucks for what you get (and why the rest of the country can 'afford' them). And if I had more than one kid, I would likely have to tap into the benefits system, or sell one of them.

Of course if I lived a truly middle class lifestyle you can easily double or triple that spending, eg shopping at Waitrose instead of Lidl, famous markets instead of local ones, taxis instead of PT, while paying for a fancy gym, a raft of TV subscriptions and endless nights out, then having multiple pets and kids -stuff the working class spend on despite. I'm lucky with the apartment I have too -most Londoners live in smaller places for much higher rates, and I have to say, with little monetary sense on what they spend on. Eg fashion labels no one notices, concerts, booze, Michelin stars, coffee addiction, pet insurance, overpriced hotel rooms they only sleep in, a new phone each year that's near identical to the last one, gyms and cars they don't use. Then complain they're in debt.

In short although I earn less, I save more, while still getting a lot.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by muppet

I live in Zone 2 in London, 25 mins from the centre and I only get $2.8K a month after tax. However I only pay $600 in rent, and bills $230 with access to a gym, pool, sauna -all because we share among 3.

Only 600 USD in rent?? With that little, you can only rent a tiny student room of 160 sq feet in Paris, on the 7th floor without elevator.

Even in London, even in a flat share, I can't see how it's possible (unless it's council estate). When I lived in London, and that was years ago, I think I paid like £125 per week for one room in a flatshare (so 700 USD per month). It should be at the very least 1,000 USD now, or even 1,200 USD.

Originally Posted by muppet

Transport is $20 a week

Again, the Tube costs far more than that. So that means you must use buses only.

Originally Posted by muppet

food $70

Only $70 per week for food? What do you eat???

I Paris I spend 23 USD per DAY in food, and that doesn't include eating out. Only buying food in the supermarkets. Not luxury food, but good food (which you can find in French supermarkets, whereas in the US/UK you'd have to go to gourmet stores to find the same quality as in French supermarkets).

70 USD per week is 10 USD per day. That can only be industrial, low-quality food from the cheapest chains like Lidl, which is both unhealthy and not tasty.

As for eating out, the cheapest I know in Paris is 16 USD (tax and tip included), in Asian restaurants. And then from there it escalates quickly (French meal in an average place is more like 35-40 USD tax and tip included). Boulangeries in the central areas have become extortionate (like 8 USD for a sandwich... exCUSE me??). Thanks God I'm fortunate to live in a wealthy neighborhood that surprisingly has a very cheap (and yet excellent) boulangerie, where you can, for example, still buy a delicious homemade pizza for 1 person with merguez and peppers for the grand total of... 4.80 USD tax included (the same in a boulangerie in, say, Le Marais, or St Germain des Prés, would cost 7 or 8 USD). My boulangerie also has delicious little one-person homemade apricot tart with delicious puff pastry and fresh apricots (and a stuffing of grounded almond cream) for the grand total of... 3.70 USD tax included, but it's impossible to find such a good deal at such a cheap price anywhere else in the central areas of Paris.

Gym costs only 24 USD per month now that we have that low-cost Dutch chain everywhere (before, I used to pay 70 USD per month in a more upscale chain), but the downside of it is you're surrounded by 16-22 y/o kids all the time who speak in their obnoxious lingo at super fast speed and never talk to you.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

This is MEDIAN disposable income (after taxes and social benefits), equivalized (i.e. it accounts for economies of scale in larger households), in PPP US dollars, in 2022, from the OECD:

What would be "disposable income" and people's lives should revolve around it? Money that some people use to bankrupt themselves buying plastic stuff? Something like this: https://www.france24.com/en/swatch-watch-triggers-consumer-frenzy-from-europe-to-new-york-city ?

[moorhosj1]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Healthcare in France is not free. That's a cliché (used by those in the US who wish to extol the French/European model to denounce the US model). Not that the US model is good (it is bad, healthcare costs too much, and it's an unfair system), but the French system is far from perfect either, and has degraded a lot in the past 15 years.

I've read this same comment my entire adult life and European countries still have significantly longer life expediencies, lower lifestyle-related diseases, more physicians per capita, etc.

Much of this is do to their lifestyle which is connected to how care is provide with low out-of-pocket costs and a focus on preventative measures. Insurance is not a healthcare system.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by muppet

The fact nearly 70% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck is unheard of in much poorer countries, who work far less.

Because many groups in the United States, as a culture, spend money as soon as they make it on stupid stuff like drugs, alcohol, gambling, car stereos, dumb trips, etc. The cultures that save money (Jewish, German Catholic, most Asians, etc.) are endlessly mocked by the people who are broke.

A good chunk of the U.S. population busies itself with scamming government programs, scamming their landlords, scamming their employers. They cause problems just to file slip & fall lawsuits. They appear as "poor" in the data because they are and they're poor entirely because of the way they choose to live their lives.

For example, two years ago I was spraying weed killer at one of my properties and a poor mother instructed her kid to put his hands into the weed killer I just sprayed. She then started yelling at me and called the police. I got in my car and left. Luckily I have not seen her since.