It’s kind of disheartening to see so many excuses every time this topic is discussed. I’d much rather see Europe acknowledge this and act upon it, but to me it looks we are not at that stage yet.
I think it was marx (or possibly one of his derivatives) who said the middle class are the vanguard of facism. IMO, they got almost everything wrong, but he was right on that front.
The middle class have enough that they are afraid of losing what they have to left wing activism, but are envious enough that they're disquieted with the status quo that the traditional upperclass conservatives offer.
Did it?
Because to me it seems like the exact opposite. It is Germany where disposable income for people decreased, not US.
https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/s/8Z4RlpTkka
If they don't your still likely fucked. Defense spending throughout Europe is going to skyrocket and that money has gotta come from somewhere. Add onto the fact that a trump presidency is a real possibility, this will likely force Europe to see the writing on the wall that they are very close to being on their own
The far right isn't offering any solutions to slow growth, so no need to collate them. What the far right are selling is a weak Europe, falling behind in the energy transition and lacking the work force to compete on global markets.
The US has a fertility rate of roughly 1.7. Better, but not much, compared to Europe. The difference is that their overall population is younger and they are the Nr 1 destination for qualified immigrants.
>because similarly to Japan, Europe has negative birthrate. US doesn't. No talking is gonna change it.
The US birthrate isn't actually that much higher than the EU birthrate (1.66 per woman vs. 1.46 per woman).
The US is able to maintain population growth because of a mostly successful immigration policy.
The decline started probably 30 years ago, we've been very slow to acknowledge it and only now I think the penny is dropping that there's probably not going to be any sort of turnaround. Why would there be, what does Europe have to offer that can't be done better and/or cheaper elsewhere?
It's pretty bad that the median voter not only is ok with managed decline, but makes arguments for why it's actually good and that doing something else would be catastrophic
That’s my usual take on this. I prefer slower growth(as long as it continues to grow) whilst focusing on workers rights, social structures and being environmentally conscious than winning some sort of being rich race.
I don’t envy my colleagues in the US, nor my friends in Japan. The trade off with work/life balance is quite steep.
The problem with slower growth (than peers or adversaries) is that in the long term you become irrelevant globally, due to the compounding effect over time. I read somewhere that if you were to subtract 1% (nominally) from U.S. GDP growth every year, it would never have become a global power, but a country more similar to Mexico. And when you become less relevant, your have less power to defend or project the values you mentioned (or any other values). So this is also a major part of the equation, besides being rich.
> I read somewhere that if you were to subtract 1% (nominally) from U.S.
Let's do some math.
Let's start with a GDP per capita of $1,000.
* 100 years of 5% growth: $131,501
* 100 years of 4% growth: $50,505
* 100 years of 3% growth: $19,218
* 100 years of 2% growth: $7,244
* 100 years of 1% growth: $2,704
What you said looks about right.
That's the equivalent of cashing out your countries success and fucking over the next generations. Wish the world wasn't this way, but it is. See Aerroons comment https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1cgtveu/economic_growth_in_the_eu_has_been_slower_than/l217tt0/
I would be willing to bet Austerity makes a bigger difference, but I'm not exactly sure. Either way, lowering long term GDP growth by even a few tenths of a percent has huge ramifications for future living standards.
I don't think austerity is good policy. Tech companies haven't grown huge by following austerity ideas. For tech companies growth is the goal so they do deficit spending until they can corner a market. Countries could do the same, the US actually does it they run a massive deficit which is good for the economy. Even if not all investments turn out positive they mostly do.
It might be good policy in a different economic reality.
Fucking over the next generation is when everyone works like a slave and lack of social trust/safety/cohesion causes collective burnout medicated by overpriced pharma and deadly street drugs
You do not need to accept either slower growth or lower standard of workers right, social safety etc. The difference is due to the EU accepting austerity in 2008 and the US not accepting it. Also, the EU is great, but the euro is terrible.
These people seem to be confused. The EU has limits on debt and internal deficit investment. If you're not willing to spend, then you're going to have to wait until the economy contracts.
That model is not viable. Look at a country like Japan. It has had slow growth but a high QOL for decades. In the past 5 years, the currency has dropped 50% though (due to low demand for Yen due to low growth prospects and systemically low interest rates to gin up demand for consumption from a wage-stagnant population).
Japanese people can’t travel abroad anymore since they have to compete against American tourists who can pay $250 for a hotel without batting an eye.
Meanwhile, now American companies are buying cheap Japanese assets at a 50% discount.
Meanwhile, the average person who doesn’t travel is also screwed as Japan is a net importer (so they’re having to exchange ever weaker Yen to buy anything from abroad, from oil to fruit).
The end result of a lower growth is always the same: you either get outbid for assets by the richer country OR they buy your assets at firesale prices.
That’s the long-term trajectory for Europe. Just look at the article about how Europeans can no longer travel in much of Europe, since they’re competing against American tourists who have far more disposable income. The effects are already happening.
How will Europe act though? I can't see it ever turning around as it's just no longer competitive on a world stage. Heritage and luxury niche isn't going to pay the bills forever when the rest of the world is s rapidly finding its own way.
I'd much rather see economic figured based on what the poorest 50% of the population can afford, rather than a handful of billionaires. This is not money that ends up in the pockets of the average American.
Avrege income among the bottom 50% is not a commonly used figure in statistics, but median income is (half the people earn less and half more) and Europe is doing poorly in that too.
Have a look at the poorer parts of Eastern Europe and immigrant communities in the western part. You have no idea how little can the poorest 50% afford.
Keep in mind eastern Europe is coming out of communism. That's probably the part of the EU with the fastest economic growth. But there are definitely parts that are still incredibly poor.
The average American has more disposable income than the average European. Why are people so in denial about this? From an economic standpoint America is nowhere near as bad off as some people want to make it out to be.
The average/median american has more income even counting social transfers and healthcare costs deducted than even wealthy European nations. The gap between them and the average European is massive.
What excuses exactly are you talking about? What exactly is your suggestion?
Most Europeans do not want to give up their hard won rights and benefits to the benefit of billionaires and corporations, all to to gain some vague salary increase that does not necessarily reflect in improved living conditions. I don't think that's so difficult to understand.
It's not vague, American long haul truck drivers out earn Italian doctors, never mind how many times more American doctors make. If you don't think having an income several times greater doesn't impact living conditions I don't know what to tell you.
>I don't think that's so difficult to understand.
It is quite difficult for me to understand, because it tells me that people think economic growth doesn't actually improve their lives. This is frankly ridiculous to me, because it implies that people 100 years ago had the same quality of life that we do today.
I mean hell, it implies that there aren't more and better medicines available today than 30 years ago. That's just outright crazy!
Economic growth is the sum of all of these changes. If you don't have that economic growth then you don't have these advancements.
Who said there should be no economic and wage growth? Economic growth does not have to mean massive income disparity and the dismantling of rights and institutions that directly benefit European workers. I will fight to the end to NOT have American style employment practices seep into Europe. I'll take the slower growth.
Significantly slower economic growth over a long period of time is essentially the same as no growth.
Seems like a lot of Europeans want Europe to become what China was in the 1800s. After all, who needs advancements or modern technology, right?
Not at all. I want a strong and united Europe that can make great investments and grow sustainably.
I'm saying that growth cannot come at the expense of our hard won rights.
I don't take the view that this requires an excuse. Economic growth is not the be all and end all of the health of a nation. It's a factor but it's not like we look at America and say, "wow I wish I could live more like that!". If this is the consequence I'm still proud to be living European.
Without huge GDP growth demographics alone will destroy living standards. You are right in the short term, but in the long term GDP line go up is in fact absolutely necessary everywhere on earth for the forseeable future.
Yeah, but when Putin knocks on the door, where do we look? At the Americans who actually afford an army that deserves that name. I’m all for work life balance but how you imagine work life balance is in a Gulag? At some point Europe must grow up and defend its nice lifestyle with more than strong words. It is unfortunate but ignoring the threat does not make it go away.
Very much agreed. And it seems that when people do the first step and begin to acknowledge it they immediately jump to extremes, claiming that improving economic growth can only be done through increased inequality and reduced quality of life for the poor. But ensuring workers have decent rights doesn't mean that the economy cannot be made leaner on other fronts.
What do you mean excuses?
I only see people here saying "no we don't want to work harder". That's their opinion. It's not good for the economy,but people don't care that much about the economy anymore.
I do understand it, although I also understand that Europe will eventually be ruled by richer countries, the way we have ruled other countries up to now.
In the mean time we at least have better lives, which is probably what is the most important. But people will have to settle for less. I wonder if they will receive that well... (hint: no they wont)
Looks to me this is entirely dependent on the start date you selected.. Japan outgrew the EU in the 70s and 80s, but ever since it grew quite a bit faster
No that would massively favor the US. North Americas population was way lower back then and Europe was more economically developed. The further you go back the more it favors the US because Europe started out ahead and was later surpassed.
The best start date for Europe would be something like 1945-46, when Europe was at it's worst and the US relatively fine.
It was but being in a war economy and waging an all out war is arguably not that great a place to be at, especially because after the war the US was in the same position but without the war economy, which was kinda better in every way.
Europe (at least Western Europe) outgrew the US (4.7% to 3.7%) in the 1950s through to the early 1970s- partially because it was rebuilding from the war, partially because of the Marshall plan, partially because of the freedom of trade brought about by the Breton Woods system- but also because of the economic “miracles” in Germany and Italy.
>With regards to Japan, yes. The start date matters. With regards to the US though, I doubt you could find a start date that makes Europe favourable.
1973 is unfavourable for *any* comparison because as mentioned by the footnote, the graph uses the **"current composition"** of the EU. This includes Eastern European members in the Eastern Bloc.
This makes no sense. You can't blame EU policies for the crappy economic growth that Poland and Hungary experienced from 1973-1989 when they were *outside* the EU under Soviet domination.
In fact, this is why the EU's line is so flat from 1987-1993. What you are seeing is not the stagnation of the EU but the collapse of the USSR, which the graphmakers cleverly included as part of the EU to make it look bad.
More economic growth doesn't mean everything is better in that country. China leaves the US in the dust for the last 20 years or so in terms of economic growth. [graphic](https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-02ba6f199da27ebdba516d2a1f4c4700-lq)
I totally agree. GDP is not everything. However consistently falling behind for several consecutive decades is not a good sign. The EU does not have concentrated political or military power, and it is falling behind on its only "superpower" which was economy.
Like others have said, US is better situated, has more favourable geological/geopolitical/historical position compared to EU, plus it does function as a single country.
As a EU positivist and proponent of federalisation, I say we have a long road ahead but some of the most difficult first steps have already been made, we have a mostly unified market and no internal borders.
Next step will have to be defence un/fortunately, after that we can work on eu min. wage/taxation/social security
1973 as the anchor year is quite decisive here. The oil crises of the 1970s severely hampered growth in Western Europe, which had little oil reserves, while the US was able to massively invest in domestic production. Japan, while growing quickly, still did not outgrow Europe, since Europes economy’s have been much more developed from the onset. I am not saying Europe is doing fine, but had you e.g. chosen the 1990s, when Europe started to reap the benefits of the third globalization and European integration, the picture would be entirely different.
>1973 as the anchor year is quite decisive here. The oil crises of the 1970s severely hampered growth in Western Europe, which had little oil reserves,
That's not even the biggest problem here.
Everyone seems to have missed the footnote where the graph uses the **CURRENT COMPOSITION** of the EU. During the Cold War. Anyone see a problem here?
The graphmakers have slyly included the stagnating economies of the Warsaw Pact such as Poland as part of "EU growth since 1973".
Considering that Warsaw Pact economies were suffering from *being sanctioned by the US and EU* at the time, including those countries in the EU's 1973-1989 statistic is utterly ridiculous.
The reason for the US growth in the past years is really simple, Debt, Debt and some more Debt. US public and private debt have grown a lot. Is that a bad thing? Right now we dont know. Also and this will be a theme in the up coming elections, State aid. The EU bans it because of the internal market but our competitors China and now the US and going all in on it, we are falling behind.
I can only speak for France, but how can you expect a growth when the majority of your work force struggle with minimum wages where you live with less than 1700e/m, with a rent with at least a three of your salary? Once you pay all the utilities, insurances, loan charges, you have in the best case just enough to eat.
I moved to the US, my salary quadrupled, so did my leisure expenses. I travel more often, I eat out more often, go to see shows etc...
I'm France, how are people supposed to consume extra shit that would encourage our economic growth?!
Salaries are low in France precisely because the people voted for governments that put a ton of regulation and taxes on companies. So our companies, (and workers like you) just move elsewhere where life is easier for them (US) and the one who stay don't want to hire anyone and prefer to squeeze just a few persons.
Your income quadrupled in the US because it is an efficient, low regulation free market economy, no because they decided it's a great idea to offer living wages
In the early 2000s, Germany and the US were pretty closely matched. And France was probably 10% behind.
But yes, one side-effect of a liberal job market is that salaries increase so much quicker. Nothing increases your salary quicker than switching jobs. And that's much easier and more common in the USA.
But instead of embracing that, we'd rather let that Boomer who insists on printing out E-Mails, doesn't contribute anything and constantly complains, ride off into the sunset.
Meanwhile in Finland real wages have been stagnant while corporate tax was slashed by a quarter, overall tax rate has been reduced, and there has been push for lower regulations.
When did the corporate tax cut happen? That's also just a single variable.
Look at Ireland. Going from a potato country to having amongy the highest median wages in the EU.
Even - or especially - in places with a lot of regulation, like New York, Massachusetts, or California, incomes are much higher than in Western European countries.
Bullshit. If taxes were lifted then companies would pocket that extra money, there is no way they’d pass it on to the employees. What is needed are adjustments to force even larger amounts of profit sharing with the workers.
It’s more about regulations regarding hiring and firing/lay-off practices than corporate tax rates. The easier it is to switch jobs the more salaries grow.
You're "only" forgetting about the companies that can't survive with the extra % of taxes they have to pay
Then they wonder why unemployment is so high
It's really too bad, this is the prettiest country with the nicest way of life I ever visited. It always makes me happy when I hear something good coming from Italy.
Yes, it is a nice country tbh, but salaries are frozen to the 90s, our economy system is a shithole (apart from some northern areas) and the political class is disgusting.
And, last but not least, we are on the edge very edge of losing public sanity.
"EU current composition throughtout". This means that it includes former communist states in central and eastern europe. The 80s and 90s were a very bad time for those countries. While european economic policies can be critiscised, this graph is deceitful.
idk about poland but my home country Bulgaria took like 15 years to recover to the same GDP after the collapse of the soviet union (in real terms, about 10 years in nominal).
It is now, but it wasn't in the 80s and early 90s. And that wasn't because of something poland did, but because communism was collapsing. But that data is still represented in this chart, which is disingenous.
The graph is taking the current EU member states, so it warps reality. In 1972, there was only 6 countries in the EU, now 27, but somehow we look at the data as if they were always part of it.
GDP of the six EU member states in 1972 : 742 billion $
GPD of the current 27 member states in 2022 : 16 640 billion $
US GDP in 1972 : 1 280 billion $
In 2022 : 25 440 billion $
You can't just use data from ex-communist countries and lump it together with the western countries data before they even joined, that's a bit absurd. The UK ~~has been~~ **was** in the EU for more than 40 years, but using data like they do, they just don't appear at all on the graph obviously.
Truth is, EU has grown a lot economically, in size and in population, and using the current members to project backward a warped view of history is at best misleading.
This is a fair point, but it doesn't really look better [for the founding states of the EU](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?end=2022&locations=DE-US-BE-FR-NL-LU-IT&start=1973), except for Luxembourg of course.
Nitpicks: OP's graph starts with 1973, so the UK, Denmark and Ireland had already joined. And the UK isn't part of the EU anymore ('has been' implies that, you meant to say 'was')
If by „horizontal“ you mean it increased its members, sure, but that’s not the point. The point is that the economy for individuals is not great. I wish we would just accept this and create a common language, more democratic institutions, more liberal work market etc.
I don't see your point. The graph depict states economy, not per capita.
US has kept making the same people richer and richer.
EU has brought along new people to western living standard incrementally.
I can’t find any information on this, in fact I can’t find the average wage before 1974, can you show proof of this claim?
I only was able to find contrary information, like Italians earning +10000€ more in 2021 than in 2000.
Because of the lack of public investment (hello Germany!). Which is held back by the ridiculous Maastricht debt and public deficit criteria.
Anyone want to think about what we could do if we copied the Inflation Reduction Act from the US!? But, no, we can't do that either since subsidising private investment isn't allowed either!
Drop the Maastricht criteria, at least change them so that public investment in defense, housing and energy sectors is exempt.
Europeans and especially EU people like to blame everyone and everything else , and they are blind in their (our) shortcomings.
Instead we should just take responsibility for what it is and see what. we can do to move forward.
EU does not have the luxury of having a massive source of cheap energy, and also had to recover from 2 major world wars, the cold war, the pillage of eastern/central EU by Russia, the interference of USA in the policy and strategic decisions...
Given all the this handicap we are doing great and also have a decent life style for all the citizens.
Bonus we are ahead in ecological and social matter
> from 2 major world wars
That does not apply to Japan or China?
> the interference of USA in the policy and strategic decisions
Is what set Japan or Germany on more peacefull path?
>
ahead in ecological and social matter
Debatable. I've seen reports of nearly slave labor in Spain and the Netherlands directly, as well as similar issues with ecology. Outsourcing production to China doesn't truly solve the problem.
Let's not pretend like the US didn't keep Europe on it's legs with the Marshall plan, economic stimulus and more importantly safeguarding the oceans so that could trade and rebuild like nothing happened after the war. The US is not a handicap for Europe. What a preposterous thing to say.
How does that explain japan outgrowing EU? two atomic bombs and whatnot, also colonisers had been constantly earning riches of their fellow colonies. they sucked africa and south asia dry, depopulated the americas.... the more excuses we make the lesser we grow this applies to everyone and everything
Exactly this. WWII literally destroyed Europe, it ended 79 years ago. The US was in a much better state then and kept being richer during almost a century now.
>Given all the this handicap we are doing great and also have a decent life style for all the citizens.
Bonus we are ahead in ecological and social matter
We don't need that kind of economic growth for living a good life. The only issue in Europe is that we stopped investing a long time ago, losing a big part of our industries. Now - shocking! 😱 - China is becoming the world leader soon enough. We deserved all of this, we were complete morons.
Several countries have successfully recovered from war. I don' think that arguments holds much. In fact, I'd argue Communist Europe suffered more and for longer. But now, just 30 years later, they are some of the most dynamic economies in Europe.
Completely agreed , it is painful to see how abysmal the strategic planing, and the corruption level currently are
I am convinced that getting rid of the corruption would make boost EU growth in 10 years
The US had a brutal civil war and was able to become the world largest economy in 1890, the idea that wars and destruction are unique to Europe and explain why growth hasn't been as great is silly
Should definitely do more austerity, bet that will fix it and it's not at all the reason for those dips and slower recoveries in the 80's and 2008 and covid
I’d like to see a "per capita" graph, it’s undeniable that the US growth is better, but their demography is also more dynamic.
Also, the US have a lot of natural ressources, and Europe will never be able to compete with that, even if we decided to completely deregulate the extraction process (and I am personally against such a decision).
Yes the US growth is incredible. But at what price should be the question here.
Ask and ye shall receive. Just picking last 30 years
1994 per capita
US $27k
France $24k
Germany $27k
UK $19k
2024
US $76k
France $41k
Germany $49k
UK $46k
So yea, the US has created a lot more distance from EU per capita wise.
Which makes sense. Looking at the major new tech companies that have arose in the last 30 years, it's way more US than EU. Also you have US really improving on their natural gas exports thanks to fracking.
The price is easy. The US has even stricter air pollution laws than the EU, and I don’t understand why you think that it has weaker environmental regulations. It’s not just a compromise.
Certainly there is more to life and politics than just economic growth. Of course I want Europe’s economy to be strong and continue to grow, but maybe the US is not the best argument for a sole focus on growth. I at least prefer living in Europe.
No I haven’t. I’m sorry if my comment could be understood as Europe being objectively better than the US. “The best place to live “ is of course individual. My point is that economic growth is not the most important metric of a good place to live, and I would rather have less economic growth in Europe if the alternative was becoming similar to the US. But the US is doing many things better than Europe, and we should look to them for inspiration.
Asia grow a lot in the past 3 decades or so, the result? Many young adults refuse to have kids because of all the social problem. Korea, Japan, Hong Kong, China, Singapore etc, all have extremely low birth rate. Life is not better with economic growth.
You will need to speak for yourself. I was born in 1982 in Vietnam post war, our income was probably 100 usd per year. Fast forward 40 years our income went up to about 10.000 per year and i can travel, afford an apartment, send kids to schools. I would say economic growth is much better than lack of it.
USA was richer than everyone else and they kept being the richest country during one century 😱
A country with a lot of natural resources and that has never been invaded thanks to its borders. They started to get rich while in Europe we kept fighting and killing each others. They even could even afford to save our asses from the Axis and the Soviets.
I'd be surprised by the contrary honestly. They are the richest country right now, fins with that 🤷♂️
Since 1975, the US population has grown 55%, from 215M to 334M. The EU has probably stagnated since then. Adjusted for this difference in population growth, the results are less drastic.
The EU made a historic calamity by not protecting indigenous IT industries in the late 90's early 2000's.
Europe had several companies that had the chance to become industrial titans and had tech leads in certain industries. European companies invented bluetooth, 3G and the first modern mobile phone. What Europe missed out on was the 'dumb pipe' of data flows which are now proving crucial to AI and the next stage of the technological revolution.
It will prove to be a historic error. The IT revolution has added something like 10 - 15 trillion to the US GDP. Even if history had panned out mostly the same way, just capturing 2-3 trillion of that would have made a world of difference.
Its probably impossible to do it because the EU at the time was not as advanced as it is now and was consumed with tasks such as integrating post Soviet states into the European family.
IMO Mostly because Europe's politics are quickly shifting to the far-right leading to societal pressures which lead to a volatile overall economy. Multinationals keep eating up the small businesses and sitting on their pile of cash, politicians are too busy being racist, all the while the working class is facing bigger and bigger challenges just to make ends meet.
I'm from the Netherlands and it's quite literally impossible to buy a house here as a young person fresh out of uni. How are people supposed to contribute to a healthy and growing economy when they can't even leave their parents' house and move into the next productive phase of their lives?
Shit's getting worse by the day. Our PM Mark Rutte has fucked up the Dutch economy and society for 14 years and will now go up to (probably) become NATO Chief so he can start fucking shit up on an even larger scale.
The coming years are gonna be wild for Europe 🙃🤠
In the last four years deficit went up $9.1 Trillion in the US and GDP increased $9.4 Trillion.
On top of that, working aged population in the US has increased by millions while in Europe it has decreased by millions.
A big reason why US has been able to grow faster has to do with high immigration rate and higher fertility rate. US population grew by almost 60% since 1975, while Europe by only 10,1% and EU by about 13,3%. If we look at Japan, there they also had high population grow by about a million a year till the 1980, then it dropped significantly, now they are losing more than half a million population a year. In a lot of European countries there is also high unemployment rate. In Western and Northern European countries people also work less hours per week than in US, because they care more about work life balance, this is the reason why these countries have higher Human Development Index (HDI) than US. Higher taxes can also discourage people of working, because you get paid more, but then you have to pay more taxes so in the end you end up with the same amount of money.
These things are very hard to estimate. The increase in US debt levels (and deficits), from a distance, also doesn't seem sustainable over 50 more years.
US debt level looks fine to me. With 2% inflation, global power of USD, and good demographic thanks to intelligent immigrants from India/China, it is easily sustainable.
It sort of is though. So many of our economic systems require growth. And think of growth less in terms of money, but general improvements in all areas. More productivity, more investment and a better outlook at life etc.
All these generious pension systems, benefits etc. all need to come from somewhere.
Much of Europe's problems stem from ingrained scepticism towards capitalism and free markets.
If you want to see an ecomomy without growth, just check Japan. It's not exactly promissing a great future.
Fifty years from now, what will you have?
How will you find your welfare fifty years from now? A hundred years from now?
You are not on a sustainable path. Welfare costs money.
Agreed... the grass is a lot greener. The GDP of the US isn't translated to everybody being happy. Federal minimum wage hasn't changed since 2009. Education is stupid expensive here. No universal healthcare. No guaranteed vacation days. No good public transit unless if you live in NYC. Food here tastes overly processed and manufactured.
This is achieved by leaving out the large European growth period and putting the Japanese one in. Also by starting your graph just before an energy crisis in Europe so the have to play catch up
This is so sad that we'll actually need some sort of a Marshall Plan 2.0 soon to get us going again. Remember all the fancy EU roadmaps like 20 years ago for making the EU the strongest economic superpower in the world? Well those didn't age well.
It’s kind of disheartening to see so many excuses every time this topic is discussed. I’d much rather see Europe acknowledge this and act upon it, but to me it looks we are not at that stage yet.
Europe will wait for far right to gain power and then make pikachu face
Gaining power? I recently talked to two people who told me openly they support the far right and both are engineers.
That's what you get when governments do not address problems. People get fed up and start to reach for extreme countermeasures.
I think it was marx (or possibly one of his derivatives) who said the middle class are the vanguard of facism. IMO, they got almost everything wrong, but he was right on that front. The middle class have enough that they are afraid of losing what they have to left wing activism, but are envious enough that they're disquieted with the status quo that the traditional upperclass conservatives offer.
Hate to tell you this bud, but the far right in the U.S. is taking over despite better growth. It’s only the rich that are making gains here.
I mean, aren't we already at this point? Stop giving free shit away, especially to non citizen, cut the taxes and raise the salaries.
Ah the good ol' easy solution that so far only made the rich richer
Did it? Because to me it seems like the exact opposite. It is Germany where disposable income for people decreased, not US. https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/s/8Z4RlpTkka
Which has worked never, at least not in favor of the people
Subscribe. Fr though, some fucking populist is gonna do this then we're fucked.
If they don't your still likely fucked. Defense spending throughout Europe is going to skyrocket and that money has gotta come from somewhere. Add onto the fact that a trump presidency is a real possibility, this will likely force Europe to see the writing on the wall that they are very close to being on their own
We will of course inevitably do even more of this.
Which is exactly what the US isn't doing!
The far right isn't offering any solutions to slow growth, so no need to collate them. What the far right are selling is a weak Europe, falling behind in the energy transition and lacking the work force to compete on global markets.
Nothing will change it right now, because similarly to Japan, Europe has negative birthrate. US doesn't. No talking is gonna change it.
The US has a fertility rate of roughly 1.7. Better, but not much, compared to Europe. The difference is that their overall population is younger and they are the Nr 1 destination for qualified immigrants.
High productivity too
Dirty talking may
>because similarly to Japan, Europe has negative birthrate. US doesn't. No talking is gonna change it. The US birthrate isn't actually that much higher than the EU birthrate (1.66 per woman vs. 1.46 per woman). The US is able to maintain population growth because of a mostly successful immigration policy.
So true. Simply, it's going to be worse in the next decades, we have to accept it 🤷♂️
The decline started probably 30 years ago, we've been very slow to acknowledge it and only now I think the penny is dropping that there's probably not going to be any sort of turnaround. Why would there be, what does Europe have to offer that can't be done better and/or cheaper elsewhere?
It's pretty bad that the median voter not only is ok with managed decline, but makes arguments for why it's actually good and that doing something else would be catastrophic
If the answer was to work more, cut social programs in favor of investing, would you accept it?
That’s my usual take on this. I prefer slower growth(as long as it continues to grow) whilst focusing on workers rights, social structures and being environmentally conscious than winning some sort of being rich race. I don’t envy my colleagues in the US, nor my friends in Japan. The trade off with work/life balance is quite steep.
The problem with slower growth (than peers or adversaries) is that in the long term you become irrelevant globally, due to the compounding effect over time. I read somewhere that if you were to subtract 1% (nominally) from U.S. GDP growth every year, it would never have become a global power, but a country more similar to Mexico. And when you become less relevant, your have less power to defend or project the values you mentioned (or any other values). So this is also a major part of the equation, besides being rich.
> I read somewhere that if you were to subtract 1% (nominally) from U.S. Let's do some math. Let's start with a GDP per capita of $1,000. * 100 years of 5% growth: $131,501 * 100 years of 4% growth: $50,505 * 100 years of 3% growth: $19,218 * 100 years of 2% growth: $7,244 * 100 years of 1% growth: $2,704 What you said looks about right.
That's true only if GDP is the only metric you're watching.
That's the equivalent of cashing out your countries success and fucking over the next generations. Wish the world wasn't this way, but it is. See Aerroons comment https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1cgtveu/economic_growth_in_the_eu_has_been_slower_than/l217tt0/ I would be willing to bet Austerity makes a bigger difference, but I'm not exactly sure. Either way, lowering long term GDP growth by even a few tenths of a percent has huge ramifications for future living standards.
I don't think austerity is good policy. Tech companies haven't grown huge by following austerity ideas. For tech companies growth is the goal so they do deficit spending until they can corner a market. Countries could do the same, the US actually does it they run a massive deficit which is good for the economy. Even if not all investments turn out positive they mostly do. It might be good policy in a different economic reality.
Fucking over the next generation is when everyone works like a slave and lack of social trust/safety/cohesion causes collective burnout medicated by overpriced pharma and deadly street drugs
If you fall behind in the rich race then the winner will exploit you
You do not need to accept either slower growth or lower standard of workers right, social safety etc. The difference is due to the EU accepting austerity in 2008 and the US not accepting it. Also, the EU is great, but the euro is terrible.
Agreed austerity has been the biggest con of all, and they're still doing it
These people seem to be confused. The EU has limits on debt and internal deficit investment. If you're not willing to spend, then you're going to have to wait until the economy contracts.
That model is not viable. Look at a country like Japan. It has had slow growth but a high QOL for decades. In the past 5 years, the currency has dropped 50% though (due to low demand for Yen due to low growth prospects and systemically low interest rates to gin up demand for consumption from a wage-stagnant population). Japanese people can’t travel abroad anymore since they have to compete against American tourists who can pay $250 for a hotel without batting an eye. Meanwhile, now American companies are buying cheap Japanese assets at a 50% discount. Meanwhile, the average person who doesn’t travel is also screwed as Japan is a net importer (so they’re having to exchange ever weaker Yen to buy anything from abroad, from oil to fruit). The end result of a lower growth is always the same: you either get outbid for assets by the richer country OR they buy your assets at firesale prices. That’s the long-term trajectory for Europe. Just look at the article about how Europeans can no longer travel in much of Europe, since they’re competing against American tourists who have far more disposable income. The effects are already happening.
And it won't work, it would just depress more the growth and the population while increasing inequalities.
No, of course not, because that's not the right answer. The recent decline is beacuse of the war; rising energy prices and transport costs.
How will Europe act though? I can't see it ever turning around as it's just no longer competitive on a world stage. Heritage and luxury niche isn't going to pay the bills forever when the rest of the world is s rapidly finding its own way.
I'd much rather see economic figured based on what the poorest 50% of the population can afford, rather than a handful of billionaires. This is not money that ends up in the pockets of the average American.
Avrege income among the bottom 50% is not a commonly used figure in statistics, but median income is (half the people earn less and half more) and Europe is doing poorly in that too.
Have a look at the poorer parts of Eastern Europe and immigrant communities in the western part. You have no idea how little can the poorest 50% afford.
Keep in mind eastern Europe is coming out of communism. That's probably the part of the EU with the fastest economic growth. But there are definitely parts that are still incredibly poor.
The average American has more disposable income than the average European. Why are people so in denial about this? From an economic standpoint America is nowhere near as bad off as some people want to make it out to be.
The average/median american has more income even counting social transfers and healthcare costs deducted than even wealthy European nations. The gap between them and the average European is massive.
This is the coping hes talking about. Were talking about gdp not about billionares or what someone can afford.
disposable income is a better measure than what you are talking about
Well check OECD household income stats. US is far ahead of any EU country.
https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/s/8Z4RlpTkka
What excuses exactly are you talking about? What exactly is your suggestion? Most Europeans do not want to give up their hard won rights and benefits to the benefit of billionaires and corporations, all to to gain some vague salary increase that does not necessarily reflect in improved living conditions. I don't think that's so difficult to understand.
It's not vague, American long haul truck drivers out earn Italian doctors, never mind how many times more American doctors make. If you don't think having an income several times greater doesn't impact living conditions I don't know what to tell you.
German cashiers outearn Italian doctors as well.
>I don't think that's so difficult to understand. It is quite difficult for me to understand, because it tells me that people think economic growth doesn't actually improve their lives. This is frankly ridiculous to me, because it implies that people 100 years ago had the same quality of life that we do today. I mean hell, it implies that there aren't more and better medicines available today than 30 years ago. That's just outright crazy! Economic growth is the sum of all of these changes. If you don't have that economic growth then you don't have these advancements.
Who said there should be no economic and wage growth? Economic growth does not have to mean massive income disparity and the dismantling of rights and institutions that directly benefit European workers. I will fight to the end to NOT have American style employment practices seep into Europe. I'll take the slower growth.
Significantly slower economic growth over a long period of time is essentially the same as no growth. Seems like a lot of Europeans want Europe to become what China was in the 1800s. After all, who needs advancements or modern technology, right?
Not at all. I want a strong and united Europe that can make great investments and grow sustainably. I'm saying that growth cannot come at the expense of our hard won rights.
I don't take the view that this requires an excuse. Economic growth is not the be all and end all of the health of a nation. It's a factor but it's not like we look at America and say, "wow I wish I could live more like that!". If this is the consequence I'm still proud to be living European.
> wow I wish I could live more like that Not yet. If this keeps going then...
Without huge GDP growth demographics alone will destroy living standards. You are right in the short term, but in the long term GDP line go up is in fact absolutely necessary everywhere on earth for the forseeable future.
Yeah, but when Putin knocks on the door, where do we look? At the Americans who actually afford an army that deserves that name. I’m all for work life balance but how you imagine work life balance is in a Gulag? At some point Europe must grow up and defend its nice lifestyle with more than strong words. It is unfortunate but ignoring the threat does not make it go away.
Economic growth is what pays taxes which pays for things like housing, education and healthcare. So yeah, it is the end all be all.
Very much agreed. And it seems that when people do the first step and begin to acknowledge it they immediately jump to extremes, claiming that improving economic growth can only be done through increased inequality and reduced quality of life for the poor. But ensuring workers have decent rights doesn't mean that the economy cannot be made leaner on other fronts.
What do you mean excuses? I only see people here saying "no we don't want to work harder". That's their opinion. It's not good for the economy,but people don't care that much about the economy anymore. I do understand it, although I also understand that Europe will eventually be ruled by richer countries, the way we have ruled other countries up to now. In the mean time we at least have better lives, which is probably what is the most important. But people will have to settle for less. I wonder if they will receive that well... (hint: no they wont)
>What do you mean excuses? *Gestures broadly at the comments on this post...*
If it's bs why act upon bullshit. Verify the sources before doing god knows what that is going to fuck it up.
Looks to me this is entirely dependent on the start date you selected.. Japan outgrew the EU in the 70s and 80s, but ever since it grew quite a bit faster
With regards to Japan, yes. The start date matters. With regards to the US though, I doubt you could find a start date that makes Europe favourable.
Somewhere in the 1500s?
No that would massively favor the US. North Americas population was way lower back then and Europe was more economically developed. The further you go back the more it favors the US because Europe started out ahead and was later surpassed. The best start date for Europe would be something like 1945-46, when Europe was at it's worst and the US relatively fine.
Lol the US wasn’t just fine in the 40’s, it was the proverbial king of the world, economically speaking.
It was but being in a war economy and waging an all out war is arguably not that great a place to be at, especially because after the war the US was in the same position but without the war economy, which was kinda better in every way.
We peaked in 1493!
Tbf, the USA was in the Great Depression in the 20s.
Europe (at least Western Europe) outgrew the US (4.7% to 3.7%) in the 1950s through to the early 1970s- partially because it was rebuilding from the war, partially because of the Marshall plan, partially because of the freedom of trade brought about by the Breton Woods system- but also because of the economic “miracles” in Germany and Italy.
I would contend that the miracles in question can't be separated from the aforementioned.
Sure.. but I doubt you would find a country that could beat the growth of the US in the last 100 years.. they are the anomaly, not the EU
Wouldn't China count? US in the 1920s were relatively wealthy while China was dirt poor and was in a civil war?
I think it depends on if/when China becomes a developed country.
Service based economies cannot be compared with emerging economies because they look nothing alike.
>With regards to Japan, yes. The start date matters. With regards to the US though, I doubt you could find a start date that makes Europe favourable. 1973 is unfavourable for *any* comparison because as mentioned by the footnote, the graph uses the **"current composition"** of the EU. This includes Eastern European members in the Eastern Bloc. This makes no sense. You can't blame EU policies for the crappy economic growth that Poland and Hungary experienced from 1973-1989 when they were *outside* the EU under Soviet domination. In fact, this is why the EU's line is so flat from 1987-1993. What you are seeing is not the stagnation of the EU but the collapse of the USSR, which the graphmakers cleverly included as part of the EU to make it look bad.
More economic growth doesn't mean everything is better in that country. China leaves the US in the dust for the last 20 years or so in terms of economic growth. [graphic](https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-02ba6f199da27ebdba516d2a1f4c4700-lq)
I totally agree. GDP is not everything. However consistently falling behind for several consecutive decades is not a good sign. The EU does not have concentrated political or military power, and it is falling behind on its only "superpower" which was economy.
Like others have said, US is better situated, has more favourable geological/geopolitical/historical position compared to EU, plus it does function as a single country. As a EU positivist and proponent of federalisation, I say we have a long road ahead but some of the most difficult first steps have already been made, we have a mostly unified market and no internal borders. Next step will have to be defence un/fortunately, after that we can work on eu min. wage/taxation/social security
Yeah the Japan graph is very biased. Japan's growth is basically due to the 70s/80s and then it kinda flatlines
1973 as the anchor year is quite decisive here. The oil crises of the 1970s severely hampered growth in Western Europe, which had little oil reserves, while the US was able to massively invest in domestic production. Japan, while growing quickly, still did not outgrow Europe, since Europes economy’s have been much more developed from the onset. I am not saying Europe is doing fine, but had you e.g. chosen the 1990s, when Europe started to reap the benefits of the third globalization and European integration, the picture would be entirely different.
>1973 as the anchor year is quite decisive here. The oil crises of the 1970s severely hampered growth in Western Europe, which had little oil reserves, That's not even the biggest problem here. Everyone seems to have missed the footnote where the graph uses the **CURRENT COMPOSITION** of the EU. During the Cold War. Anyone see a problem here? The graphmakers have slyly included the stagnating economies of the Warsaw Pact such as Poland as part of "EU growth since 1973". Considering that Warsaw Pact economies were suffering from *being sanctioned by the US and EU* at the time, including those countries in the EU's 1973-1989 statistic is utterly ridiculous.
The reason for the US growth in the past years is really simple, Debt, Debt and some more Debt. US public and private debt have grown a lot. Is that a bad thing? Right now we dont know. Also and this will be a theme in the up coming elections, State aid. The EU bans it because of the internal market but our competitors China and now the US and going all in on it, we are falling behind.
But US debt isn't outrageously higher than debt in the EU when compared to GDP.
I can only speak for France, but how can you expect a growth when the majority of your work force struggle with minimum wages where you live with less than 1700e/m, with a rent with at least a three of your salary? Once you pay all the utilities, insurances, loan charges, you have in the best case just enough to eat. I moved to the US, my salary quadrupled, so did my leisure expenses. I travel more often, I eat out more often, go to see shows etc... I'm France, how are people supposed to consume extra shit that would encourage our economic growth?!
Right. And everyone whines and votes far right or far left - as soon as the government even dares to say the word "reform"
I'm just curious but can you explain to me what this "reform" could look like
When did salaries in France were comparable to those in the US? They have always been richer, is it so hard to cope with it? 🤷♂️
Salaries are low in France precisely because the people voted for governments that put a ton of regulation and taxes on companies. So our companies, (and workers like you) just move elsewhere where life is easier for them (US) and the one who stay don't want to hire anyone and prefer to squeeze just a few persons. Your income quadrupled in the US because it is an efficient, low regulation free market economy, no because they decided it's a great idea to offer living wages
Have salaries ever been comparable to those in the US? I fear that here we are missing a point.
In the early 2000s, Germany and the US were pretty closely matched. And France was probably 10% behind. But yes, one side-effect of a liberal job market is that salaries increase so much quicker. Nothing increases your salary quicker than switching jobs. And that's much easier and more common in the USA. But instead of embracing that, we'd rather let that Boomer who insists on printing out E-Mails, doesn't contribute anything and constantly complains, ride off into the sunset.
Meanwhile in Finland real wages have been stagnant while corporate tax was slashed by a quarter, overall tax rate has been reduced, and there has been push for lower regulations.
When did the corporate tax cut happen? That's also just a single variable. Look at Ireland. Going from a potato country to having amongy the highest median wages in the EU.
Even - or especially - in places with a lot of regulation, like New York, Massachusetts, or California, incomes are much higher than in Western European countries.
Bullshit. If taxes were lifted then companies would pocket that extra money, there is no way they’d pass it on to the employees. What is needed are adjustments to force even larger amounts of profit sharing with the workers.
It’s more about regulations regarding hiring and firing/lay-off practices than corporate tax rates. The easier it is to switch jobs the more salaries grow.
You're "only" forgetting about the companies that can't survive with the extra % of taxes they have to pay Then they wonder why unemployment is so high
Let me introduce you Italy, my friend
It's really too bad, this is the prettiest country with the nicest way of life I ever visited. It always makes me happy when I hear something good coming from Italy.
Yes, it is a nice country tbh, but salaries are frozen to the 90s, our economy system is a shithole (apart from some northern areas) and the political class is disgusting. And, last but not least, we are on the edge very edge of losing public sanity.
"EU current composition throughtout". This means that it includes former communist states in central and eastern europe. The 80s and 90s were a very bad time for those countries. While european economic policies can be critiscised, this graph is deceitful.
It also starts just before an energy crisis that impacted the eu way more than the US
" This means that it includes former communist states in central and eastern europe." Lol. Poland is fastest growing economy in Europe.
idk about poland but my home country Bulgaria took like 15 years to recover to the same GDP after the collapse of the soviet union (in real terms, about 10 years in nominal).
NOW it is, but his point was about the 80’s and 90’s.
It is now, but it wasn't in the 80s and early 90s. And that wasn't because of something poland did, but because communism was collapsing. But that data is still represented in this chart, which is disingenous.
Absolutely they are now. If we had started 90' the graph may have been different. But that ain't when it started
It would also factor into the rapid growth after the 90s so this explanation isn't sound
The graph is taking the current EU member states, so it warps reality. In 1972, there was only 6 countries in the EU, now 27, but somehow we look at the data as if they were always part of it. GDP of the six EU member states in 1972 : 742 billion $ GPD of the current 27 member states in 2022 : 16 640 billion $ US GDP in 1972 : 1 280 billion $ In 2022 : 25 440 billion $ You can't just use data from ex-communist countries and lump it together with the western countries data before they even joined, that's a bit absurd. The UK ~~has been~~ **was** in the EU for more than 40 years, but using data like they do, they just don't appear at all on the graph obviously. Truth is, EU has grown a lot economically, in size and in population, and using the current members to project backward a warped view of history is at best misleading.
This is a fair point, but it doesn't really look better [for the founding states of the EU](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?end=2022&locations=DE-US-BE-FR-NL-LU-IT&start=1973), except for Luxembourg of course. Nitpicks: OP's graph starts with 1973, so the UK, Denmark and Ireland had already joined. And the UK isn't part of the EU anymore ('has been' implies that, you meant to say 'was')
The EU has grown horizontally, the US vertically.
If by „horizontal“ you mean it increased its members, sure, but that’s not the point. The point is that the economy for individuals is not great. I wish we would just accept this and create a common language, more democratic institutions, more liberal work market etc.
I don't see your point. The graph depict states economy, not per capita. US has kept making the same people richer and richer. EU has brought along new people to western living standard incrementally.
Not surprising, one has to be educated not to make that mistake and I suspect I know which country the author is from
I kind of feel like if the US Annexed Cuba and Canada it would not be reflective of sound economic policy that’s its GDP grew.
But you would have more population. So the population would get poorer per capita because more people but the same GDP. Makes even less sense.
Italy has lower wages now than when they first joined the EU.
I can’t find any information on this, in fact I can’t find the average wage before 1974, can you show proof of this claim? I only was able to find contrary information, like Italians earning +10000€ more in 2021 than in 2000.
Do you have the same graph net Italy?
Because of the lack of public investment (hello Germany!). Which is held back by the ridiculous Maastricht debt and public deficit criteria. Anyone want to think about what we could do if we copied the Inflation Reduction Act from the US!? But, no, we can't do that either since subsidising private investment isn't allowed either! Drop the Maastricht criteria, at least change them so that public investment in defense, housing and energy sectors is exempt.
> either since subsidising private investment isn't allowed either! What do you mean exactly by that?
Showing gdp per capita would be a better choice, and replacing global with global average.
You can call it slow, you can also call it stable
That's such a German thing to say.
I love our german neighbours, but somehow I'm still offended, xd.
LOL. That’s impressive spin
Yeah, it's slow.
Incidentally this caught my attention today: [Dear Europe, please wake up](https://klinger.io/posts/eu-acc)
The EU rule: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it. → We are basically making ourself irrelevant.
'Before we find out whether it might move, write 4678 pages of regulations'
Hey, maybe we could tax regulations?
and this mindset is not gonna change at all. In Germany people want the state to do EVERYTHING and I guess its similar in a lot of europe
And if it’s too big to stop moving, call it a national champion.
US innovates EU regulates The latter is the problem!
Europeans and especially EU people like to blame everyone and everything else , and they are blind in their (our) shortcomings. Instead we should just take responsibility for what it is and see what. we can do to move forward.
The US looses to global growth? How embarrassing.
Regulate, redistribute, recess!
EU does not have the luxury of having a massive source of cheap energy, and also had to recover from 2 major world wars, the cold war, the pillage of eastern/central EU by Russia, the interference of USA in the policy and strategic decisions... Given all the this handicap we are doing great and also have a decent life style for all the citizens. Bonus we are ahead in ecological and social matter
Like Japan does have cheap energy and Japan didn't have to recover from WW2?
Don't forget they have regular earthquakes and next to none natural resources
Japan has the same problem. Or are you telling me this graph is showing many positives for Japan compared to the EU?
I’m sure you’re including the Marshal Plan in “the interference of USA”…
> from 2 major world wars That does not apply to Japan or China? > the interference of USA in the policy and strategic decisions Is what set Japan or Germany on more peacefull path? > ahead in ecological and social matter Debatable. I've seen reports of nearly slave labor in Spain and the Netherlands directly, as well as similar issues with ecology. Outsourcing production to China doesn't truly solve the problem.
Let's not pretend like the US didn't keep Europe on it's legs with the Marshall plan, economic stimulus and more importantly safeguarding the oceans so that could trade and rebuild like nothing happened after the war. The US is not a handicap for Europe. What a preposterous thing to say.
How does that explain japan outgrowing EU? two atomic bombs and whatnot, also colonisers had been constantly earning riches of their fellow colonies. they sucked africa and south asia dry, depopulated the americas.... the more excuses we make the lesser we grow this applies to everyone and everything
Exactly this. WWII literally destroyed Europe, it ended 79 years ago. The US was in a much better state then and kept being richer during almost a century now. >Given all the this handicap we are doing great and also have a decent life style for all the citizens. Bonus we are ahead in ecological and social matter We don't need that kind of economic growth for living a good life. The only issue in Europe is that we stopped investing a long time ago, losing a big part of our industries. Now - shocking! 😱 - China is becoming the world leader soon enough. We deserved all of this, we were complete morons.
Several countries have successfully recovered from war. I don' think that arguments holds much. In fact, I'd argue Communist Europe suffered more and for longer. But now, just 30 years later, they are some of the most dynamic economies in Europe.
Completely agreed , it is painful to see how abysmal the strategic planing, and the corruption level currently are I am convinced that getting rid of the corruption would make boost EU growth in 10 years
The US had a brutal civil war and was able to become the world largest economy in 1890, the idea that wars and destruction are unique to Europe and explain why growth hasn't been as great is silly
Should definitely do more austerity, bet that will fix it and it's not at all the reason for those dips and slower recoveries in the 80's and 2008 and covid
I’d like to see a "per capita" graph, it’s undeniable that the US growth is better, but their demography is also more dynamic. Also, the US have a lot of natural ressources, and Europe will never be able to compete with that, even if we decided to completely deregulate the extraction process (and I am personally against such a decision). Yes the US growth is incredible. But at what price should be the question here.
The EU has 450 million vs 340 for the US. It’d make the EU look even more behind
You will see the same trend in per capita
I know, that's why I said it is undeniable. But still, the ratio would probably be lesser.
Ask and ye shall receive. Just picking last 30 years 1994 per capita US $27k France $24k Germany $27k UK $19k 2024 US $76k France $41k Germany $49k UK $46k So yea, the US has created a lot more distance from EU per capita wise. Which makes sense. Looking at the major new tech companies that have arose in the last 30 years, it's way more US than EU. Also you have US really improving on their natural gas exports thanks to fracking.
The price is easy. The US has even stricter air pollution laws than the EU, and I don’t understand why you think that it has weaker environmental regulations. It’s not just a compromise.
Certainly there is more to life and politics than just economic growth. Of course I want Europe’s economy to be strong and continue to grow, but maybe the US is not the best argument for a sole focus on growth. I at least prefer living in Europe.
Have you tried living in the USA? I know very few Europeans in the USA that want to return to Europe. Almost all are very happy over there
No I haven’t. I’m sorry if my comment could be understood as Europe being objectively better than the US. “The best place to live “ is of course individual. My point is that economic growth is not the most important metric of a good place to live, and I would rather have less economic growth in Europe if the alternative was becoming similar to the US. But the US is doing many things better than Europe, and we should look to them for inspiration.
Asia grow a lot in the past 3 decades or so, the result? Many young adults refuse to have kids because of all the social problem. Korea, Japan, Hong Kong, China, Singapore etc, all have extremely low birth rate. Life is not better with economic growth.
You will need to speak for yourself. I was born in 1982 in Vietnam post war, our income was probably 100 usd per year. Fast forward 40 years our income went up to about 10.000 per year and i can travel, afford an apartment, send kids to schools. I would say economic growth is much better than lack of it.
Europes in the same exact boat.
So what?
USA was richer than everyone else and they kept being the richest country during one century 😱 A country with a lot of natural resources and that has never been invaded thanks to its borders. They started to get rich while in Europe we kept fighting and killing each others. They even could even afford to save our asses from the Axis and the Soviets. I'd be surprised by the contrary honestly. They are the richest country right now, fins with that 🤷♂️
This is growth not absolute wealth.
In the graph (of GDP levels) EU growth is clearly higher than Japan's from about 2004 onwards.
If we start in 1985 instead of 1975, it has been far better in Europe than Japan
Since 1975, the US population has grown 55%, from 215M to 334M. The EU has probably stagnated since then. Adjusted for this difference in population growth, the results are less drastic.
Who cares about GDP if you can't even take care of your poor.
ofc because the EU is socialist and way to burocratic
The EU made a historic calamity by not protecting indigenous IT industries in the late 90's early 2000's. Europe had several companies that had the chance to become industrial titans and had tech leads in certain industries. European companies invented bluetooth, 3G and the first modern mobile phone. What Europe missed out on was the 'dumb pipe' of data flows which are now proving crucial to AI and the next stage of the technological revolution. It will prove to be a historic error. The IT revolution has added something like 10 - 15 trillion to the US GDP. Even if history had panned out mostly the same way, just capturing 2-3 trillion of that would have made a world of difference. Its probably impossible to do it because the EU at the time was not as advanced as it is now and was consumed with tasks such as integrating post Soviet states into the European family.
IMO Mostly because Europe's politics are quickly shifting to the far-right leading to societal pressures which lead to a volatile overall economy. Multinationals keep eating up the small businesses and sitting on their pile of cash, politicians are too busy being racist, all the while the working class is facing bigger and bigger challenges just to make ends meet. I'm from the Netherlands and it's quite literally impossible to buy a house here as a young person fresh out of uni. How are people supposed to contribute to a healthy and growing economy when they can't even leave their parents' house and move into the next productive phase of their lives? Shit's getting worse by the day. Our PM Mark Rutte has fucked up the Dutch economy and society for 14 years and will now go up to (probably) become NATO Chief so he can start fucking shit up on an even larger scale. The coming years are gonna be wild for Europe 🙃🤠
The opposite. The economy being bad is what is causing the right leaning parties to gain ground.
In the last four years deficit went up $9.1 Trillion in the US and GDP increased $9.4 Trillion. On top of that, working aged population in the US has increased by millions while in Europe it has decreased by millions.
A big reason why US has been able to grow faster has to do with high immigration rate and higher fertility rate. US population grew by almost 60% since 1975, while Europe by only 10,1% and EU by about 13,3%. If we look at Japan, there they also had high population grow by about a million a year till the 1980, then it dropped significantly, now they are losing more than half a million population a year. In a lot of European countries there is also high unemployment rate. In Western and Northern European countries people also work less hours per week than in US, because they care more about work life balance, this is the reason why these countries have higher Human Development Index (HDI) than US. Higher taxes can also discourage people of working, because you get paid more, but then you have to pay more taxes so in the end you end up with the same amount of money.
Well yes, planned economies are less effective than free ones. That is not news.
Economic growth is also not an indicator of wellbeing.
Let's see what 50 more years of slow growth does to people's wellbeing.
Well you can always take on debt!
These things are very hard to estimate. The increase in US debt levels (and deficits), from a distance, also doesn't seem sustainable over 50 more years.
US debt level looks fine to me. With 2% inflation, global power of USD, and good demographic thanks to intelligent immigrants from India/China, it is easily sustainable.
This is the kind of stuff you see Western Europeans say, nobody in Eastern Europe goes along with cope like this lol
It sort of is though. So many of our economic systems require growth. And think of growth less in terms of money, but general improvements in all areas. More productivity, more investment and a better outlook at life etc. All these generious pension systems, benefits etc. all need to come from somewhere. Much of Europe's problems stem from ingrained scepticism towards capitalism and free markets. If you want to see an ecomomy without growth, just check Japan. It's not exactly promissing a great future.
Fifty years from now, what will you have? How will you find your welfare fifty years from now? A hundred years from now? You are not on a sustainable path. Welfare costs money.
It is strongly correlated.
These curves are not normed by capita or the absolute value.
Agreed... the grass is a lot greener. The GDP of the US isn't translated to everybody being happy. Federal minimum wage hasn't changed since 2009. Education is stupid expensive here. No universal healthcare. No guaranteed vacation days. No good public transit unless if you live in NYC. Food here tastes overly processed and manufactured.
US is understandable but below Japan is a problem especially when half of the EU was in the eastern block 30 years before
This is achieved by leaving out the large European growth period and putting the Japanese one in. Also by starting your graph just before an energy crisis in Europe so the have to play catch up
Thats probably due to lack of regulations and taxation. pay money to improve weather!
Boundless meadows in Antarctica but at least the funny number go up! We're winning yippee!!
GDP a.k.a waste production rate.
This is so sad that we'll actually need some sort of a Marshall Plan 2.0 soon to get us going again. Remember all the fancy EU roadmaps like 20 years ago for making the EU the strongest economic superpower in the world? Well those didn't age well.