Inequality: Why Australia must not follow the US

[K-man]

An interesting read that addresses some of the issues that have been raised in recent threads such as inequality, health care, education and social welfare.

Australia is not the best country in achieving shared prosperity, but neither is it the worse. Its pre-tax and transfer inequality or its post tax and transfer inequality are neither among the best among the advanced countries nor the worst. By the standard measures, it does neither the best nor the worse in “correcting” the before tax and transfer inequality.


While the US (like Australia) prides itself on doing things bigger and better than elsewhere, its achievement in creating the highest level of inequality among the advanced countries is not something to be boastful about - or for others to emulate. As we look around the world, those countries that have most closely followed the American model have similar results - high levels of inequality.


...

There are several areas where Australia should be particularly cautious about imitating the US model. One of the reasons that the US has gone to the bottom of the league tables in economic opportunity is our education system, and especially the way higher education is financed. It is one of the reasons that only about 8 per cent of those in the bottom half get a college education. Australia’s income contingent loan program, HECS, is the envy of the rest of the world. It works. The best US universities are superb - the best in the world - but they are all either state financed or non-profits, supported by generous philanthropy. They compete vigorously in quality - but it is not conventional market competition, where price plays a pivotal role. The under-regulated for-profit universities excel - in exploiting children from poor families and in lobbying to make sure that they can continue to do so.


Another area in which Australia leads, and America fails, is health. The American mostly private health care system is probably the least efficient in the world - spending twice the percentage of GDP of Australia, with much poorer results, exemplified by a life expectancy that’s three years shorter. The country is perhaps the only in the advanced world not to recognise the right to access to healthcare, with the result that inequalities in health outcomes are enormous.


A third area where America trails is basic welfare support and systems of social protection. With almost one out of four children living in poverty, and with deficient public support, the prospects for their future are not rosy - and this will inevitably translate into weaker overall economic performance for the country. The combination of unequal education opportunities and access to healthcare and inadequate systems of social protection translates into poor average performance of our children - well below the average of the advanced countries in standardised tests, in contrast to Australia, whose children perform well above average. Contrary to what some in Australia’s government have suggested, support for poor families is not only a moral imperative, it is an investment in the country’s future.



Inequality: Why Australia must not follow the US

The author is an American.

 

[ballen0351]

Interesting

The country is perhaps the only in the advanced world not to recognise the right to access to healthcare, with the result that inequalities in health outcomes are enormous.

If access to heath care is a right, is access to food and housing a right as well? If not why?

 

[K-man]

Interesting


If access to heath care is a right, is access to food and housing a right as well? If not why?[/I][/COLOR]

In most first world countries, yes it is. That is why we have pensions, unemployment benefits etc.

 

[billc]

The mistake would be to take analysis from a former Clinton advisor, like this guy....democrat policies are the ones creating the problems in our country...from healthcare, to education and welfare...all three are entirely under the influence of democrat policy makers like this guy...they are the ones who made Detroit the paradise it is today...

So, pay attention to this guy at your peril...they create the mess, then complain about the mess they have made...

Mark Levin, a constitutional lawyer, head of the Landmark Legal Foundation, author and radio host described people like this economist....he likened them to locusts...


They move into a state...raise taxes, increase government spending, overwhelm the welfare system by simply throwing money at social problems with no accountability, they undermine law enforcement and defend the worst criminals, they go after private enterprise to the point they drive it out...and on and on....and then...when they have destroyed a city...like Detroit, and whole states, like Illinois and California, they move out...and move on to the next city and state...because they don't like the way things are in the state they created...

If this guy lives in your country, my best advice...deport him...before he does for Australia what he and his kind have done for America...

Joseph Stiglitz is the winner of the 2001 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics. He is a former chairman of President Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers and Chief Economist of the World Bank. His most recent book is The Price of Inequality: How Today’s Divided Society Endangers Our Future.

 

[billc]

actually, forget that last post...you guys like what this guy is selling anyway...how about we deport them and send the whole bunch to Australia...Hilary, bill, barrack...I would,almost feel guilty doing it to you but you want this....soooo...have at it...do what this guy suggests...of course, sadly, your system is designed to expedite what this guy believes so healthcare, education and welfare in your country will be destroyed quicker than here...but it will let us get things fixed here...there is a trade off for everything...

 

[ballen0351]

In most first world countries, yes it is. That is why we have pensions, unemployment benefits etc.

And homeless and church run soup kitchens to feed people.

 

[billc]

why you shouldn't trust people the Clinton's hired when you look at things like American healthcare...

The Myth of Americans' Poor Life Expectancy - Forbes

Car accidents and homicides don’t tell us much about health care quality




Another point worth making is that people die for other reasons than health. For example, people die because of car accidents and violent crime. A few years back, Robert Ohsfeldt of Texas A&M and John Schneider of the University of Iowa asked the obvious question: what happens if you remove deaths from fatal injuries from the life expectancy tables? Among the 29 members of the OECD, the U.S. vaults from 19th place to…you guessed it…first. Japan, on the same adjustment, drops from first to ninth.


It’s great that the Japanese eat more sushi than we do, and that they settle their arguments more peaceably. But these things don’t have anything to do with socialized medicine.

 

[K-man]

The mistake would be to take analysis from a former Clinton advisor, like this guy....democrat policies are the ones creating the problems in our country...from healthcare, to education and welfare...all three are entirely under the influence of democrat policy makers like this guy...they are the ones who made Detroit the paradise it is today...

So, pay attention to this guy at your peril...they create the mess, then complain about the mess they have made...

Mark Levin, a constitutional lawyer, head of the Landmark Legal Foundation, author and radio host described people like this economist....he likened them to locusts...


They move into a state...raise taxes, increase government spending, overwhelm the welfare system by simply throwing money at social problems with no accountability, they undermine law enforcement and defend the worst criminals, they go after private enterprise to the point they drive it out...and on and on....and then...when they have destroyed a city...like Detroit, and whole states, like Illinois and California, they move out...and move on to the next city and state...because they don't like the way things are in the state they created...

If this guy lives in your country, my best advice...deport him...before he does for Australia what he and his kind have done for America...

Joseph Stiglitz is the winner of the 2001 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics. He is a former chairman of President Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers and Chief Economist of the World Bank. His most recent book is The Price of Inequality: How Today’s Divided Society Endangers Our Future.

Actually he is in America ...

Joseph Eugene Stiglitz, ForMemRS, FBA is an American economist and a professor at Columbia University. He is a recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences and the John Bates Clark Medal. Wikipedia

Bill, your problem is that you never have a bipartisan approach. Everything is black and white ... Republicans good, Democrats bad.

Here we tend to have reasonably regular changes of Government. Our Labor Party (slightly left of centre) gets in with a social mandate, usually goes too far and borrows too much, then our Liberal coalition (slightly right of centre like your Democrats) gets in with an economic mandate and fixes the problem. That is generally unpopular so they lose the next election and are replaced by the other side.

The funny thing is, our public service doesn't change. They just change the emphasis depending on the direction of the party in power. So even when we have a change of government and a change of direction, behind the scene the same people are making policies work.

Good people are good people, regardless of their politics.
:asian:

 

[K-man]

And homeless and church run soup kitchens to feed people.

Homeless here are homeless by choice and we don't have a lot of people dependent on soup kitchens. The reason is found in Article 25 of the UN Charter of Human Rights ...

Article 25.


(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.


(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

 

[ballen0351]

Homeless here are homeless by choice and we don't have a lot of people dependent on soup kitchens. The reason is found in Article 25 of the UN Charter of Human Rights ...

So how is it paid for? If I where a citizen there and decide I'm not working and I want a house and food who provides it? If it's a right after all I'm entitled to it

 

[K-man]

So how is it paid for? If I where a citizen there and decide I'm not working and I want a house and food who provides it? If it's a right after all I'm entitled to it

If you were a citizen here you would get appropriate support according to your needs. You won't get much if you are not prepared to help yourself but Article 25 covers that. You have the right to a standard of living and you have a right to security. These are rights, not entitlements. There is a big difference. If you just want to sit on your **** and bludge and do nothing you have the right to do that too. Just don't expect anything in the way of assistance as our system is for those who want to help themselves. For those who can't help themselves there is assistance provided. As I said, the homeless here are homeless by choice. If you were here in the situation you described in your post, you may well be one of the homeless.
:asian:

 

[oftheherd1]

If you were a citizen here you would get appropriate support according to your needs. You won't get much if you are not prepared to help yourself but Article 25 covers that. You have the right to a standard of living and you have a right to security. These are rights, not entitlements. There is a big difference. If you just want to sit on your **** and bludge and do nothing you have the right to do that too. Just don't expect anything in the way of assistance as our system is for those who want to help themselves. For those who can't help themselves there is assistance provided. As I said, the homeless here are homeless by choice. If you were here in the situation you described in your post, you may well be one of the homeless.
:asian:

From my point of view, my observations of people, you have sort of shot down your own argument with the above. Too many people in the US seem to consider a fairly high standard of living a right. Not subsistence, nor even close to it. The only thing they seem to think they have to do to help themselves is go fill out paperwork, then sit back and reap benefits. Unless I am misunderstanding you, that would not be enough in your country; that is, :... to sit on your **** and bludge and do nothing ..." would not allow you to expect anything in the way of assistance.

We are I think all in tougher economic times in the last few years. But as I see it, many people in the US just failed to accept harder times, and make plans for it. They wanted to continue as they were. Who wouldn't? But when you see you can't, why not sell your house sooner, even is at something of a loss? You may then have to move into something less desirable, in a less desirable neighborhood even. Then you may end up flipping hamburgers or working for a trash pickup service. But you will have a job, an income, and won't be homeless.

Is it different in your country?

Oh, your quote of Art 25(1) has an interesting ending. "... in circumstances beyond his control.") Is that defined anywhere?

 

[K-man]

From my point of view, my observations of people, you have sort of shot down your own argument with the above. Too many people in the US seem to consider a fairly high standard of living a right. Not subsistence, nor even close to it. The only thing they seem to think they have to do to help themselves is go fill out paperwork, then sit back and reap benefits. Unless I am misunderstanding you, that would not be enough in your country; that is, :... to sit on your **** and bludge and do nothing ..." would not allow you to expect anything in the way of assistance.

We are I think all in tougher economic times in the last few years. But as I see it, many people in the US just failed to accept harder times, and make plans for it. They wanted to continue as they were. Who wouldn't? But when you see you can't, why not sell your house sooner, even is at something of a loss? You may then have to move into something less desirable, in a less desirable neighborhood even. Then you may end up flipping hamburgers or working for a trash pickup service. But you will have a job, an income, and won't be homeless.

Is it different in your country?

Oh, your quote of Art 25(1) has an interesting ending. "... in circumstances beyond his control.") Is that defined anywhere?

I'm not sure why my arguement was shot down when I was just quoting the UN documentation. However, yes, if you don't want to work but are physically and mentally able to, then bad luck, find someone who cares. Even now, I feel a lot of unemployment benefits are unwarranted. When I was a kid in the 50s if a guy couldn't find work locally he would either go to where the work was and send money home or move to a place where there was work. It seems that times have changed.

But, it wasn't really that type of benefit I was looking at in the OP. There are lots of other social security programmes that I feel are essential in a healthy first world society.
:asian:

 

[oftheherd1]

I'm not sure why my arguement was shot down when I was just quoting the UN documentation. However, yes, if you don't want to work but are physically and mentally able to, then bad luck, find someone who cares. Even now, I feel a lot of unemployment benefits are unwarranted. When I was a kid in the 50s if a guy couldn't find work locally he would either go to where the work was and send money home or move to a place where there was work. It seems that times have changed.

But, it wasn't really that type of benefit I was looking at in the OP. There are lots of other social security programmes that I feel are essential in a healthy first world society.
:asian:

From: Rights Versus Entitlements : The Freeman : Foundation for Economic Education

If we consider the original rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence and enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, it should be clear that there are massive differences between those rights and these new ones. The original rights were rights to live by one’s personal efforts without the interference of others, and in particular, without interference by government. That is what the founders of the United States were declaring independence from, after all. The Declaration of Independence speaks of the right to pursue happiness; it does not offer a guarantee that one will achieve happiness. This makes all the difference in the world; for in a free society there can be no guarantee that effort will meet with success.


Nevertheless, today we see plenty of demand for such guarantees, and more and more promises being made by government in response to these demands. Take the minimum wage. What this “right” does is force an employer to pay a higher wage than employees’ services might be worth under free market conditions. Or consider the “rights” to access now mandated by the Americans With Disabilities Act. This legislation requires businesses and other organizations to make extra-economic accommodations but does not clearly spell out what they have to do to comply. Such ambiguity is another characteristic of many recently discovered “rights.”


...


Given the vast differences between what is stated in this country’s founding documents and the demands we now see, accuracy and honesty call for a different term than rights. The term entitlements crept into our political and socioeconomic lexicon to refer to federal programs such as Social Security and Medicare. It is notable that the decision to partake of the fruits of these programs was not left up to the individual. By law, he had to participate, and this meant relinquishing an important aspect of freedom. Moreover, entitlements are always financed by compelling others to pay. Thus, they lead to more and more interference with individual freedom as government grows in size to administer its programs, seizing the fruits of individuals’ actions both to support itself and to fulfill its entitlement guarantees.


In other words, there is a hard and fast difference between rights and entitlements, a difference which the past seventy years of government policy has blurred to the point of indistinguishability. A free society must recognize the distinction. Otherwise, it has no way of knowing which claims of rights to acknowledge and which to reject as spurious. Legitimate rights are easy to recognize. They can be acted on by individuals without the assistance of government and without forcibly interfering with other individuals. Entitlements, on the other hand, cannot be fulfilled except through specific government actions which require forcible interference with others. Protecting rights is thus compatible with limited government. Granting entitlements requires an ever-expanding and increasingly meddlesome state.


...

While I think the author does have a bias, I tend to agree with him on the differences between rights and entitlements (as you brought out although you didn't explain), and the dangers of confusing them, which I think you meant above.

When and where I grew up, there was welfare. It was considered a necessary entitlement, but shameful to be on. And even in the depression, when the government provided jobs, or subsidized them, one had to go to where the work was. I guess your ideas aren't so far from mine. But I am not big on social programs of any kind. If the government doesn't tamper too much with the economy, it will usually come to a fair price for wages and job availability.

At least that is my humble opinion.