« What I've Been Reading | Main | Food Fight »
Where is inequality greater?
Bryan Caplan writes:
In the U.S., we have low gas taxes, low car taxes, few tolls, strict zoning that leads developers to provide lots of free parking, low speed limits, lots of traffic enforcement, and lots of congestion.
In Europe (France and Germany specifically), they have high gas taxes, high car taxes, lots of tolls, almost no free parking, high speed limits (often none at all), little traffic enforcement, and very little congestion. (The only real traffic jam I endured in Europe was trying to get into Paris during rush hour. I was delayed about 30 minutes total).
If you had to pick one of these two systems, which would you prefer? Or to make the question a little cleaner, if there were two otherwise identical countries, but one had the U.S. system and the other had the Euro system, where would you decide to live?
Much as it pains me to admit, I would choose to live in the country with the Euro system. If you're at least upper-middle class, the convenience is worth the price. Yes, this is another secret way that Europe is better for the rich, and the U.S. for everyone else.
I wonder sometimes whether inequality of status -- as opposed to wealth -- is greater in Western Europe or in the United States. In this country you can love NASCAR and be proud of it. Millionaires won't look down on you much for that taste. In Europe you are expected to dress well and be educated and not watch too much TV. So the egalitarian left is in an odd position here. On one hand it wishes to elevate the European system over the United States. Furthermore it also wishes to claim that wealth isn't a final determinant of happiness (i.e., Europe is worthy), while at the same time circling back to emphasize inequality of wealth as a prima facie fault of the American system.
Tighter social networks, by inducing conformity, make a society more egalitarian along both political and economic dimensions. Yet those same networks place especially high "taxes" on those who don't follow the norms, thus creating another kind of inequality.
Happiness studies are highly imperfect but the inequality of measured happiness doesn't seem to be any higher in the United States than in Western Europe. Oddly that result doesn't seem to get a lot of attention.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on June 10, 2008 at 06:59 AM in Philosophy | Permalink
Comments
I think you need to add "in an urban area". If you live in a rural area, then the US system is a no brainer because congestion only effects urban areas.
Posted by: Gary at Jun 10, 2008 7:18:12 AM
anecdotally, germany has less intra city congestion but more intercity congestion. would be nice to get the data on this.
this might at least partially be due to the insane policies of deutsch bahn. it is now far faster and cheaper to fly within germany than catch the train.
Posted by: c8to at Jun 10, 2008 7:44:36 AM
Sorry, but this is an unusually ignorant post. It not only invents a place called "Europe" which seems to be a substitute for certain parts of France and Germany, but it then goes on to make broad and highly questionable statements about this place.
Tyler states "In this country you can love NASCAR and be proud of it. Millionaires won't look down on you much for that taste. In Europe you are expected to dress well and be educated and not watch too much TV."
a) On what planet US do people not look down on each other for their tastes. I may inhabit elitish circles but there's plenty of Americans who look down on most of the habits of people living between either coast. I would also point out that the pressure to conform in US high schools, (and to conform to some fairly idiotic things in my elitist european opinion) is especially strong.
b) Finland has about the least strict societal dress code you are likely to come across and lots of people watch lots of TV. I believe the same is true in the rest of the Nordics. Your understranding of "Europe" is clearly very partial.
Posted by: Finnsense at Jun 10, 2008 7:49:34 AM
What's left out is that in Europe they have world-class rail systems, bike and pedestrian friendly cities and great transit systems. All of these things help the poor (nothing cheaper than walking), so if you're poor it's better too. I can't afford a car so I bike everywhere. Believe me, I'd rather bike in Copenhagen than DC. It's not just the upper middle class who benefit.
Posted by: DC at Jun 10, 2008 8:00:58 AM
High speed limits, no congestion and no enforcement of traffic laws? Obviously he hasn't visited the Netherlands.
Posted by: Daran at Jun 10, 2008 8:18:30 AM
"In Europe you are expected to dress well and be educated and not watch too much TV" : and this is not true of high status groups in the US?
"In this country you can love NASCAR and be proud of it. Millionaires won't look down on you much for that taste." : millionaires who are hicks, that is.
Posted by: jonm at Jun 10, 2008 8:22:18 AM
how much of this is cause and effect? is a society that promotes income equality doomed to have an offseting increase in other forms of inequality? or is a society with greater cultural inequality more likely to support income equality, since it doesn't threaten the higher cultural status of elites?
in the end we're all status seeking primates.
Posted by: DK at Jun 10, 2008 8:37:36 AM
"Millionaires won't look down on you much for that taste."
Really? I'd love to see how popular Nascar loving folk are in the rich neighborhoods of Connecticut, Newport, etc. Any sport where the performers have to wear the brands of their owner/sponsors will not be a sport held in any true esteem by the wealthy.
Posted by: Ha! at Jun 10, 2008 8:46:16 AM
My parents like Nascar and ARE millionaires.
Oh, and they did it by working hard and saving A LOT, starting out both from single-parent households that were extremely poor.
I'd like more toll roads, fewer parking lots, and less on-highway parking, but I'll take the USA, thanks.
Posted by: Andrew at Jun 10, 2008 8:54:20 AM
"In this country you can love NASCAR and be proud of it."
Really? Left hand turns for three hours is something to be proud of? I am no fan of F1 but at least they have to turn right, speed up and slow down sometimes.
Making sweeping generalizations of Europe when what they really want to comment on is the situation in France and Germany I do not think is helpful.
Posted by: Jeff at Jun 10, 2008 9:02:09 AM
I think the whole point and allure of NASCAR is a complete lack, or even disdain for subtlety. I suspect the rich in America are more likely a bourgeois rich, and have some sympathy for that. The more "refined" money, probably not so much.
I'm not a fan, but I think I get it, and could be if the sport itself wasn't so boring. I find F1 incredibly boring as well. I find almost all racing boring. In fact, anything with anything resembling a track I find boring. This may be why I don't like baseball either. There just aren't enough interesting things happening on a defined path. Maybe why I'm a libertarian!
Posted by: Andrew at Jun 10, 2008 9:09:24 AM
...living in a NASCAR heavy area of the country (central florida...yeeehaw), but with a relatively high level of wealth (Winter Park/Orlando), I can agree with "Ha!" that the wealthy certainly DO look down on the oval track lovers.
However, to disagree with 'HA!'...isn't there some sport where the participants wear logo/sponsors on their chests, as opposed to team names? I think it's pretty big over in Europe...
Posted by: shawn at Jun 10, 2008 9:11:10 AM
Any sport where the performers have to wear the brands of their owner/sponsors will not be a sport held in any true esteem by the wealthy.
Not true. Professional golfers wear the brands of their sponsors on their hats and shirts.
Posted by: Dr. Kenneth Noisewater at Jun 10, 2008 9:14:10 AM
The only real traffic jam I endured in Europe was trying to get into Paris during rush hour. I was delayed about 30 minutes total.
The worst traffic jam I've ever driven in in my life was trying to get into Paris. And it wasn't during rush hour. I've been in bad traffic jams in London (before the congestion charge--haven't driven there since) and Manchester. The U.K. has the same 70mph expressway speed limits as most of the U.S. European auto-route speed limits are generally 110-130 km/hr which is only marginally higher than the U.S. (none at all is German-only anachronism)
Much as it pains me to admit, I would choose to live in the country with the Euro system. If you're at least upper-middle class, the convenience is worth the price.
I guess I am upper-middle class, and maybe if I lived in a highly congested coastal city, I might be tempted to agree. But most Americans enjoy the convenience of relatively uncongested roads without the price of high tolls and gas taxes. This is borne out by American commute times which are substantially shorter on average than those in western Europe. The U.S. average is 24 minutes, compared to the E.U. average of 38 minutes. In France, the average is 36. In Germany, 44:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3085647.stm
Posted by: Slocum at Jun 10, 2008 9:22:43 AM
It reminds me of a piece I once heard from a BBC foreign correspondant. He recounted the fantastic meals he'd had with well-heeled politicians and bureaucrats. Then contrasted with what he ate and drank with a billionaire from the US - basic burgers, and coke. The point being the US elite are, or make an effort to be, more in touch with proletarian level culture than those in Europe. (But Brussels gets fantastic restaurants.)
Whether this is actually true or not as a generalisation I have no idea.
Posted by: Tim at Jun 10, 2008 9:42:22 AM
The only real traffic jam I endured in Europe was trying to get into Paris during rush hour. I was delayed about 30 minutes total.
Way back when when I lived in West Germany, we'd listen to the German Radio before venturing out to see how long the traffic jams were if we were traveling to a large city. I distinctly remember the recitation of the 7 km jam, the 9 km jam, the 6 km jam...
If they were too long, we'd jump on the train. In the summer travel season, they were guaranteed and we'd just jump on the train.
Best,
D
Posted by: Dano at Jun 10, 2008 9:46:16 AM
I think the difference is that in the U.S., social status is based primarily on monetary wealth, while in Europe, social status is based upon family lineage. Certainly, there are "new money" and "old money" distinctions in the U.S., but those types of distinctions are much more entrenched in European culture (if only because they have several centuries on us in terms of historical development). In that way, there is an argument that there is more inequality in Europe because you can't control what family you were born into, so there is a barrier to the upper class that can't be overcome even if you become wealthy.
Posted by: Frank the Tank at Jun 10, 2008 9:48:46 AM
This post is a lesson for those who wish to be regarded as scientists. Never put down a bunch of unsupported opinions. People may believe your science is founded on the same soft sands.
Posted by: es32 at Jun 10, 2008 10:03:23 AM
Bryan Caplan says Veblen-like,
"If you're at least upper-middle class, the convenience is worth the price."
Do we conclude, we should preserve much of the public domain for the wealthy?
However, I gather most households own a car in many European countries,
while they drive far less than U.S. car owners.
Anyway, the real preference for European transportation by the 80% lower and middle class lies not in driving cars but in public transportation.
Shouldn't an economist ask not "what transportation system do the wealthy prefer",
but "which transportation system leads to a higher GDP?"
I haven't a clue.
A public transportation system like Hong Kong's largely has a circular train system on which 100,000 people live at each stop. Large grocery stores, restaurants, ... reside on the first three floors of 60 story buildings beside each train station. You get a piano lesson or a tutor comes to your apartment from the same 60 story building. Your grandparents live in an adjacent 60 story building. This concentration reflects many efficiencies.
In the U.S., even the poor use their cars. Cheap energy and cheap cars give the poor and middle class a great freedom that forces local markets to compete against more distant markets; and a great freedom to attain more remunerative employment.
Digressing as the poster and commenters did, we can ask,
"if we specialize our friends from the population of people, do we and the GDP gain?"
Again, I haven't a clue.
But Jane Addams (at whose Chicago Hull House, America's most famous philosopher John Dewey considered working)
said in Democracy and Social Ethics, 1902,
"...there is a conviction that we are under a moral obligation in choosing our experiences,
since the result of those experiences must ultimately determine our understanding of life.
We know instinctively that if we grow contemptuous of our fellows,
and consciously limit our intercourse to certain kinds of people whom we have previously decided to respect,
we not only tremendously circumscribe our range of life, but limit the scope of our ethics."
And perhaps limit GDP increases to the top 20% of the population,
so limiting the nation's whole GDP,
which comes from all people.
Posted by: jamesonburt at Jun 10, 2008 10:27:10 AM
For me the major difference between the USA and Europe is that the USA is unspeakably boring. Same fast food everywhere, same lousy beer and wine choices, same choice of local papers or USA Today, same 1000 bland TV channels.
Driving from here in Austin, a rare cultural mecca in the USA, it takes a day to get to another state, and in the meantime you will pass through country where you can't even get a beer or a glass of wine. Where, because of that, there is no such thing as fine dining, let alone an interesting variety. Where you won't even find a USA Today, let alone an NYT or WSJ. Even in Austin, you can hardly find a London, Frankfort, Paris or any other world-class foreign newspaper anywhere. You can't even see sex or nudity on public TV! For the European, it must seem a cultural wasteland indeed.
If I were to spend the 700 boringissimo miles from Austin to El Paso driving in Europe instead, I would pass through 10 countries with a much greater choice of everything. Not only that, I would meet people conversant in world geography, politics and economics who could name more than one head of state, and who could express themselves in several languages and actually speak better English than a Texan!
Posted by: Jimbino at Jun 10, 2008 10:34:57 AM
I don't understand how higher unemployment benefits and universal healthcare make Europe a worse place for poor people. Surely that's a typo.
Posted by: Dave R. at Jun 10, 2008 10:37:07 AM
Also with respect to congestion. The cool thing about low gas taxes and free roads is that when roads get overused, short of a helicopter, there is no escape for rich people -- they're stuck in the same traffic as the plebes. And the only way for the rich to get out of the congestion is to solve it for everybody -- which is to say, to support taxes for road construction. High usage taxes and tolls, on the other hand, allow rich people to pay to have the roads to themselves, forcing the poor people to take other less convenient options (or to stay home).
And, empirically, it's simply not the case that free roads are always 'over-fished'. It might seem that way if you live and drive in D.C., but the reality for most Americans is relatively low levels of congestion and relatively quick commutes.
Posted by: Slocum at Jun 10, 2008 10:49:41 AM
This discussion seems to be narrowly avoiding the major difference between the transportation networks of US and Europe: geography. Way back in the early days of the Republic we envied the canals of Europe for their more efficient transportation value, especially for freight. So we built some canals too. And guess what, aside from the Erie Canal, they were mostly boondoggles, because our geography, specifically the Appalachian Mountains, made them almost completly useless.
Europe is a small, dense place so getting around it is fundamentally different. We may never reach their levels of population density, so it's foolish to assume that we can approach transportation the same way.
Posted by: Christina at Jun 10, 2008 10:57:43 AM
A few of you are attacking what you thought or wished I said instead of what I actually wrote. Consider for instance the simple sentence: "I wonder sometimes whether inequality of status -- as opposed to wealth -- is greater in Western Europe or in the United States." It's odd to call what follows an unsupported speculation or to cite Finland as Western Europe, for a start.
Posted by: Tyler Cowen at Jun 10, 2008 11:18:29 AM
Tyler: The annecdotal premise of your post is not representative, and maybe just plain wrong. As others have written above, and I can also attest, traffic conjestion is a major problem in many places in Europe. Germany has whole classes of conjestion that are unheard-of in the U.S., like highway traffic jams between cities not associated with any regular commuting time. Perhaps your musings on social status have some truth, but this was a terrible example with which to illustrate them.
Posted by: David Wright at Jun 10, 2008 11:52:53 AM
