David Bernstein (George Mason Law) has expressed some skepticism about the import of the statistical data showing that the average person is better off--will live longer, is less likely to have children die at birth, less likely to have them killed in their youth, less likely to be poor, more likely to be highly literate, etc.--in the social democratic nations than in the United States. He offers four primary grounds for skepticism.
First, he says, "if we measure things by revealed preferences, i.e., voting with their feet, this seems false. For example, the number of Canadians moving to the U.S. dwarfs the number moving in the opposite direction, and, anecdotally, despite living in cosmopolitan cities I don't recall any American I've met in my entire life permanently settling in Europe, and I would guess the stats would support my impression that immigration is almost entirely westward." Anecdotal evidence of this kind is not very probative of anything, of course, and invites anecdotal rejoinders (see, e.g., the comments of Chris Bertram (Bristol Philosophy)). More importantly, though, evidence of this kind has no bearing at all on claims about the comparative well-being of the average citizen, absent some showing that the anecdotes are tracking the migratory patterns of average citizens, which seems rather unlikely.
Second, Bernstein claims "the U.S. would be much wealthier relative to Europe and especially Canada if they didn't mooch off of the U.S.'s military protective umbrella." I'm not sure whom Bernstein thinks the U.S. is protecting Canada from (Greenland? Iraq?) It also seems rather unreal to describe U.S. military expenditures as having as their aim creation of a "protective umbrella" as opposed to a military adequate to the imperialist ambitions of those in power (what does Bernstein think all the talk, even in the mainstream media, about an American "Empire" is about?). Canada is less prone to invade other countries than the U.S., so can afford to spend less on the military and more on social well-being. Perhaps the U.S. should make the same choice? But that brings us to the real issue: the preferred Keynsian economic policy of the Republicans has, since the days of Reagan, consisted in deficit expenditures on the military, rather than health and human services. This approach is reflected in the statistics on comparative well-being originally adduced. Social democracies choose to spend more of their money to improve human well-being; that the U.S. does not, does not count in its favor.
Third, Bernstein claims that "the U.S. in fact has a quasi-socialized health system, in the sense that the government pays most (yes, most!) of the health care costs (from Medicare, Medicaid, and the Veterans Administration) and is responsible for a good chunk of the remainder (through tax subsidies, mandates to insurance companies, mandates re emergency care, etc.)." Much emphasis would have to be laid on "quasi-" here: it's a "quasi-" socialized system in which tens of millions have no health insurance, and so unreliable access to medical care (ever visit an emergency room?), and in which more than one hundred million depend for health insurance on employers (and so tens of millions lose their health insurance for periods of time). Quasi-, indeed. (Bernstein also suggests, without any documentation, that the U.S. spends more per capita on elementary education and the poor; I'm not quite sure I understand the point of this speculation, quite apart from whether it has any basis in fact.)
Fourth, Bernstein alleges the statistics are unreliable (when all else fails, deny the facts!). He says, bizarrely, that "infant morality is measured differently in the U.S. than in Europe" (in the U.S., they count all dead babies, while in Europe they only count the ones who are really, really dead?). I have no idea what Bernstein is talking about. And, alluding presumably to Tom Smith (though he again cites no one or any data), Bernstein says the comparative poverty statistics are also unreliable. Here, at least, there is something to discuss, since Smith, unlike Bernstein, states clear grounds for the skepticism:
"Looking to the top of the chart we find the 'poverty line' is defined as a percent of the median income. If you are below 50 percent of the median income, that's it, you're poor. Shut up and go back to watching your color TV. In other words, if you come from a poor country, such as Slovenia or Russia, you have a much better chance of not being poor."
The comparison is actually for median equivalent income, though that qualifier probably does not affect Smith's complaint. Some of the difficulties in comparative measures of poverty are discussed in this article, but the bottom line is that a percentage of median equivalent income is the best measure, even if there may be extreme cases in which the whole society is so poor, in absolute terms, that relatively few turn out to be poor in relative terms (whether Slovenia is such a case, I do not know. I'm less sure Russia is such a case; bear in mind that, as this table makes clear, the researchers included both private and public sector sources of income, which is surely the correct way to measure how badly off people really are.) For the overwhelming majority of countries, it will turn out that those who earn 50% of the median income in that society will be recognizable as poor. Note, for example, that the poverty figure for the U.S. in relative terms is roughly equivalent to the poverty figure for the U.S. as measured in absolute terms, i.e., in terms of what income one needs to meet basic needs (see, e.g., the most recent U.S. Census measures. I wonder whether anyone in the blogosphere thinks they could actually meet "basic needs" on what the U.S. Government treats as an income sufficient to do so?)
But let's put this challenge the other way around: can Bernstein or Smith or someone else on the right produce credible data showing that the U.S. fares better than the social democratic nations on measures of per capita well-being? There are various ways to measure poverty, and every way I've seen over the last 20 years gets the same result: poverty is worse in the U.S. than in Canada or France or Germany. Does anyone, other than Rush Limbaugh and his acolytes, really not know this?
In a sense this is an odd debate, and only partly because only one side has adduced pertinent evidence. It is odd because, on the terms set by Smith in his original posting (the comparative well-being of the average or randomly chosen person), the right can't even pretend to win--except by following the Bernstein route of no facts, no pertinent evidence, and vague and not even prima facie plausible speculations. The best bet for my friends on the right is to admit the facts, and point to a different set of facts: to wit, that in a reactionary country like the U.S., it is possible for an individual to accumulate greater wealth--at the expense, of course, of per capita well-being. This, as best I can tell from the evidence, is true. But it is a tougher sell to the public at large if one is candid about the probabilities, of course.
Recent Comments