Seriously thoughtful US/Europe Cultural Divide -- Musings

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by wodin

I think that would depend on if your perspective was from a position of being successful or not being successful.

Well - they would still earn more then "average", so they dont get punished for success, only "get less then possible" out of it.

And how would discussing differences in the tax systems of US/Europe be any further off topic than discussing the differences in education or medical treatment or capitalism vs. socialism. It seems to me to be part and parcel of the same thing.

I meant the discussion of "higher taxes for richer - fair or not". This is not a EU/US discussion

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by wodin

I think that would depend on if your perspective was from a position of being successful or not being successful.

And how would discussing differences in the tax systems of US/Europe be any further off topic than discussing the differences in education or medical treatment or capitalism vs. socialism. It seems to me to be part and parcel of the same thing.

Because "punishment for success" is only a phrase uttered by people who believe a very specific thing, namely that all taxation is "unfair" or "theft". While there are certainly countries that live by this motto (To name a few, Lesotho, Bolivia, Sierra Leone and Namibia), it can be argued that these places aren't very nice to live in for most of the population.
That said, "taxation" is only punishment if you start from the assumption that you have a right to all money you can get your hands on; something that is true only for democratic societies, and something that will cost you a sum of money, by way of taxation.
Examples of how other countries are different: look up mr. billionaire Chodorkovksy, or consider how people tend to die when they lose the favor of the dictator of the country they're living in. And ask yourself if that really is the world you want to live in.
Alternatively, accept that even living in a "Free and Democratic Society" will set you back some (although I suspect there are more than a few tax havens around to help you keep your money, like Florida.)

Anyway, I'm not really trying to be inflammatory, I just think that the notion of "only 0 tax is fair" is ludicrous.

[wodin]

Originally Posted by tirsales

Well - they would still earn more then "average", so they dont get punished for success, only "get less then possible" out of it.

I'm old enough to recall times when relatively higher paid wage earners in the US would routinely decline overtime because the extra earnings would cause them to jump to a higher "tax bracket" resulting in a net loss in their take home pay.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by wodin

I'm old enough to recall times when relatively higher paid wage earners in the US would routinely decline overtime because the extra earnings would cause them to jump to a higher "tax bracket" resulting in a net loss in their take home pay.

Hmm... I just don't think they were very smart then. The withholding tables are progressive, so you can't take home "less" if you make more.

BOb

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by wodin

I'm old enough to recall times when relatively higher paid wage earners in the US would routinely decline overtime because the extra earnings would cause them to jump to a higher "tax bracket" resulting in a net loss in their take home pay.

Something similar is happening in Germany - but this is easily fixable (see pilotbobs statement regarding progressive taxation).

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

My preferred solution -- although I'm certain many would disagree with me -- would be to attack the problem from the other side. If we ended the "war on drugs" and cleared all the non-violent drug offenders out of the prisons, we'd have a massive surplus of prison space. This would allow closing a bunch of prisons and saving a pile of money. And we'd have a massive decrease in law enforcement costs. And a new set of products in high demand for the government to tax. And we could treat drug issues via public health means instead of the criminal justice system -- experience elsewhere in the world suggests this is both cheaper and more effective. And finally, if all that wasn't enough, we'd be removing the primary excuse that's been used to encroach on our traditional civil liberties for the past 30 or 40 years! But I realize that I'm thoroughly out of step with most of America on this front, so it ain't gonna happen anytime soon. Sigh.

I completely agree with you on this.

Originally Posted by Lady Blue

Many people have said that smaller class size is better for learning, but I've never seen it that way.

When I was in school (long, long ago and far, far away), like I said, we had large classes. The teacher always made time to work one on one with weaker pupils, during class, and not to the detriment of the rest of the class either. Other students would also help the weaker ones without being condescending toward them. It just worked.

I'm not trying to argue with individual experience. I'm saying, however, that across the broad studies that have been done, smaller class size correlates strongly with student achievement. There will always be exceptions, and I'm happy for you that you were in such a good educational environment.

Originally Posted by slayda

Neko, IMO a large part is not what happens in the school environment but what happens in the home environment. I agree that there is a correlation between family wealth and a child's education, but I don't think it is a direct correlation. I think you have to look deeper and see the correlation between the parents education and the family wealth. The true (maybe I should say the proper) correlation is between the education level of the parents (or whoever keeps the kids when they are at home) and the child education because that is who sets the child's life expectations and those expectations are what's of vital importance. Yes, sometimes that person might be a non-family member, e.g. an exceptionally good teacher, a minister or priest, a neighbor, but most often is the person or persons who spend the most time with the child.

Believe me, I'm quite clear on the difference between causation and correlation. Regarding the education level of the parents, the SES correlation is still very strong even after correcting for education level of parents.

Originally Posted by slayda

When my wife taught 5th grade in rural Mississippi, we found that most of her class's expectations were to grow up to drive a gravel truck, work in a factory or beauty parlor. It was all they knew to expect.

On the other hand, when I grew up (poor) in rural Mississippi, my (college educated but poor) grandmother was an intimate part of my life. Both my father and mother went back to college. My mother was a college drop out but my father went on to get a master's degree. Because of all this, education was shown to be very important to me and I achieved a good education and a nice middle class income as an engineer.

So what is needed, IMO, is to instill a breath of possibilities for a child to choose from and to let them strive for their own goals in life.

I completely agree with this, actually. Not everyone is lucky enough to be born into a family where education is valued, whether the parents had access to it or not. Nor is a classic academic education necessarily what all students want or need. (Perhaps part of the problem is that we only offer free education to people who are often too young to know what they need yet-- and we trust that they'll get good guidance from adults in their lives, but that often doesn't happen.)

All I am trying to say, by discussing education and income levels, is that there is a very clear correlation, so the system is unbalanced. I'm not suggesting any specific cause or solution. I don't believe there is a simple cause or solution. Smaller class sizes with teachers who don't care, or who are overburdened with helping students cram for standardized exams, trying to help identify kids with learning disorders, etc. won't help.

The clearest ideas I've seen that I think would help are described by Nel Noddings in her various writings. These are from a "philosophy of education" standpoint. Practical implications are addressed quite well by researchers such as Barbara Rogoff. (Perhaps I should have mentioned that I have a Master's in Education and I am currently going for my doctorate.) I'm not talking about "ivory tower" stuff-- I think these writers have ample evidence that what they're suggesting has a strong likelihood to positively impact education, based on thorough research across many cultures, within and outside of the US.

But there are a couple of different personal outlooks possible here. I believe that when I read research, if I understand the methodology and it seems sound, I can trust the results insofar as they may be constrained to particular situations as described in the research, even if I may know of individual examples that don't match the statistics shown. Statistical research does not say, after all, that every situation will match what is described. It gives the likelihood that a situation will match what is described. I think we can use that calculation to try to make things better for everybody, though it's not a simple task to interpret which results apply to which situations.

Another personal outlook, and one that I see often, is "I don't care what the research says, or how it was conducted. It doesn't match my personal experience, so it's wrong." It's pretty hard for me to have a discussion with people with this outlook. I'm always interested in hearing examples of the educational experiences of different people, but the communication only seems to go one way, which isn't really a conversation.

[Greg Anos]

I suspect this entire forum is a self-selected group of outliers...

This leads back to the core of the discussion. The US values the outlier in it's social structure, at the cost of the statistical average. The EU values the statistical average at the expense of the outlier. You see this in these discussions, whether you are talking about education, health care, taxation, or most other issues.

One can't say that one is "better" that the other, because that is a value judgement, which falls back upon what value base you judge by. Different bases give different answers.

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by nekokami

[BIG SNIP]
The clearest ideas I've seen that I think would help are described by Nel Noddings in her various writings. These are from a "philosophy of education" standpoint. Practical implications are addressed quite well by researchers such as Barbara Rogoff. (Perhaps I should have mentioned that I have a Master's in Education and I am currently going for my doctorate.) I'm not talking about "ivory tower" stuff-- I think these writers have ample evidence that what they're suggesting has a strong likelihood to positively impact education, based on thorough research across many cultures, within and outside of the US.
[SNIP]

Neko -- Can you make some specific recommendations, preferably with links? Some time ago I tried looking for good practical stuff in the academic literature on Education -- and wound up over in Psych rather than Education. The bulk of what I found in education journals was... I'll politely say "seriously deficient" in terms of connection with any reality that I recognized.

EDIT: I was looking into English as a second language at the time, which may have skewed what I found.

Please note: this doesn't mean that all education research is lousy, but rather that the stuff I happen to have found was lousy.

I'd be very interested in readings that are actually useful or insightful or even well-supported by research. Better still if they're accessible to interested scientifically trained non-specialists as well.

Xenophon

P.S. I think I previously shared my Aunt's sad experience with her Ph.D. in education, so I'll not repeat that tale.

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

This leads back to the core of the discussion. The US values the outlier in it's social structure, at the cost of the statistical average. The EU values the statistical average at the expense of the outlier. You see this in these discussions, whether you are talking about education, health care, taxation, or most other issues.

Economic outliers, you mean. Or really the top 10-20% of those who "perform", because the rest really aren't that statistically special either. Because, no offense, if there is anything the US does not seem to value it's social outlying. After all, try being a socialist, or "having" a deviant sexual identity.
Additionally, there are quite a few Europeans that do fairly well even on the economic & innovation fronts (our GNPs aren't that much lower, after all), just on the front where it comes to accepting wealth redistribution.

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

One can't say that one is "better" that the other, because that is a value judgement, which falls back upon what value base you judge by. Different bases give different answers.

Sure you can. The only problem is that result comparisons are not deemed "valid". If the european system yields 5-10% living below the poverty line, whereas the american system yields 15-30% living below that same poverty line, you could very well argue that one system is more humane (although both murder and love are human behaviors, so the word is admittedly a bit weird) than the other. Similarly in income discussions. Sure, for a few it might be preferable to live in a country where it is possible to earn a $1 billion a year income, but seeing how that happens to what, a couple thousand people out of 300 million, the odds you'd be betting against would be horribly long.

[wodin]

Originally Posted by tirsales

I meant the discussion of "higher taxes for richer - fair or not". This is not a EU/US discussion

Quite right! A quick check of Wikipedia reveals the marginal tax rates of most EU nations and the US are for the most part within the same ball park (cricket field?).

My argument against "progressive” tax systems, it is indeed off topic.

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by wodin

Quite right! A quick check of Wikipedia reveals the marginal tax rates of most EU nations and the US are for the most part within the same ball park (cricket field?).

Highest tax on income I have found: USA 35%, Germany 42%, Austria 50%, Swiss 11.5%, Poland 32% (or something like that)

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

Economic outliers, you mean. Or really the top 10-20% of those who "perform", because the rest really aren't that statistically special either. Because, no offense, if there is anything the US does not seem to value it's social outlying. After all, try being a socialist, or "having" a deviant sexual identity.
Additionally, there are quite a few Europeans that do fairly well even on the economic & innovation fronts (our GNPs aren't that much lower, after all), just on the front where it comes to accepting wealth redistribution.

Not necessarily. Consider the following since 1900. Music - who invented Jazz (in it's many-splendored variants), Country and Western, Blues, and Rock N Roll (which has bounced back and forth across the Atlantic). The visual arts - (if you want to call them art). Say what you will about Hollywood and it's US cousins, they've had a bit of an impact on the rest of the world. Written word? With a serious tip of the hat to Wells and Verne, look what the US love of outlier has done to Science Fiction, an outlier literature if there ever was one. Shall I go on?

I concede the US is sexually hung-up, it always has been. I guess that's an artifact of wanting to get to the top of the heap, instead on top of each other...

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

Sure you can. The only problem is that result comparisons are not deemed "valid". If the european system yields 5-10% living below the poverty line, whereas the american system yields 15-30% living below that same poverty line, you could very well argue that one system is more humane (although both murder and love are human behaviors, so the word is admittedly a bit weird) than the other. Similarly in income discussions. Sure, for a few it might be preferable to live in a country where it is possible to earn a $1 billion a year income, but seeing how that happens to what, a couple thousand people out of 300 million, the odds you'd be betting against would be horribly long.

Hmmm. Which system has created more brakthough technologies. Which system has an embedded system (greed driven!) to take new research and ideas and produce marketable products with them. For example, the fiber optic telecom that drives this forum was driven by the US greed system. Ask Indian programmers about whether or not their lives have been changed by US greed...(Or the IC, PC, Internet ....)

But we pay a price for this, as you note above. Our workforce takes technological obsolecense first, ahead of everyone else in the world. There's nobody stopping you from failing here, or succeeding...

[wodin]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

There's nobody stopping you from failing here, or succeeding...

Discounting, of course our current administration.

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

I concede the US is sexually hung-up, it always has been. I guess that's an artifact of wanting to get to the top of the heap, instead on top of each other...

I'd guess that its more related to its religious roots - I know (nearly) no country where religion seems to be so important (and quite often, taken so literally).
At least (nearly) all "against homosexuality" (or whatever else) statements I have seen/heard in the US where related to religious reasons.

Regarding culture: Do we want to discuss what each nation has done and why one selves nation is the greatest of all? I've heard statements, that this thread is nice because it is NOT judging or valueing - do you think that this would continue if we start comparing cultural benefits or shortcomings?

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Not necessarily. Consider the following since 1900. Music - who invented Jazz (in it's many-splendored variants), Country and Western, Blues, and Rock N Roll (which has bounced back and forth across the Atlantic). The visual arts - (if you want to call them art). Say what you will about Hollywood and it's US cousins, they've had a bit of an impact on the rest of the world. Written word? With a serious tip of the hat to Wells and Verne, look what the US love of outlier has done to Science Fiction, an outlier literature if there ever was one. Shall I go on?

Hollywood? Anyway, SF: I'll give you that. Jazz/blues too. But the other examples hardly seem like they're designed to rock the boat (well, RnR & sexuality perhaps, but I find it a bit hard to argue that this wasn't a societally accepted phenomenon. It's pretty hard to argue that hippies were ostracized.

I concede the US is sexually hung-up, it always has been. I guess that's an artifact of wanting to get to the top of the heap, instead on top of each other...

Curious. As Michel Foucault pointed out, those who talk about a topic most are those most obsessed with trying to control it (and are in turn controlled by it), and this goes especially the discourse on sexuality. Looking at strange (internet) phenomena like "Girls gone wild" and "spring break", pregnancy figures, as well as the world's largest porn industry, I'd say we're hardly the ones obsessed with getting on top of each other...

Hmmm. Which system has created more breakthough technologies. Which system has an embedded system (greed driven!) to take new research and ideas and produce marketable products with them.

Even if we might not be on top of the heap when it comes to engineering, a quick look at the list of nobel laureates by country suggest we're not really all that much worse on the theoretical front; further, consider the fact that most of the world's biggest pharma companies are either german or the american wings of german pharmaceutical companies that were annexed by the US Govt during WWII. Sure, the phone might've been invented by an american, but the WWW was a CERN (or really an academic) inititiative.