Thursday, May 04, 2017

Socialism Is Expensive

If you've traveled to Europe you know that it can be a very expensive place to visit.  As far as I'm concerned, the reason for that is socialism is expensive.  Then we learn this:
The Pew Research Center recently released an ambitious study tracking the changing fortunes of the middle class in Western Europe and the United States from 1991 to 2010. Among the findings: the American middle class is smaller than Europe’s (and declining), but it nonetheless remains substantially richer than almost any other European country’s...

 In 2010, for instance, the median household income in Mississippi (in 2011 inflation-adjusted dollars) was $37,838; the equivalent in Maryland was $70,976. By comparison, the average Italian household took home $35,608 that year, while a middle-income Norwegian household earned a median income of $56,960. Put another way: average households in states like Maryland, Connecticut, or Massachusetts are richer than those in Norway, Denmark, or the Netherlands, while residents of Mississippi or West Virginia are better off than the Spaniards and Italians.
Europe's a nice place to visit, and I might even want to live there awhile--but let's not pretend that it's some economic paradise.


Anonymous said...

Interesting you should mention Italy. My daughter in law was there three years ago. She had a terrible reaction to an apple she ate, fainted and was taken to the hospital. It was serious and she stayed in the hospital for two days. She went to check out and pay at the front desk thinking this would break the bank. They told her that no one pays for health care in Italy. They had no way to accept payment.

You might think about adding things like that into the equation.


Darren said...

I'm familiar with the "pro" side of socialism. I don't want to accept the "con" side.

Auntie Ann said...

Italy's debt is currently over 135% of their GDP, so the taxpayers aren't paying for the healthcare system either...they're taking out loans to pay for it.

Darren said...

That's part of the "con" side, along with the loss of individual choice, and the *reliance* on govt--but excellent point nonetheless.