Those Socialist Canadians
Ask fire-breathing right-wingers which countries are more “socialist” than America, and they might list Canada, among others. Interesting:
In Canada on Friday, the government reported that the country’s economy added more jobs than expected in November, erasing the losses in October. Statistics Canada reported a net employment gain of 79,000 in November, topping expectations of a 15,000 gain. The unemployment rate fell to 8.5 percent from 8.6 percent in October.
But surely, a socialism-leaning country like Canada can’t outshine America on job growth … can it? From the same article:
The United States economy shed a surprising few 11,000 jobs in November, and the unemployment rate fell to 10 percent, from 10.2 percent in October, the Labor Department said Friday.
Not bad. But not as good as Canada.
Now … don’t get me wrong. I am not a raging fan of so-called “socialism” — I still prefer capitalism, thank you very much — nor am I suggesting Canada is better than the U.S., nor do I think it’s fair to draw a comparison on two month’s worth of employment data. But what might be fair to conclude is that a country like Canada, with a sizable investment in social programs, can still generate jobs and expand its economy. In other words, responsible expansion of social programs in the U.S. does not have to be the end of our country as we know it, no matter how much the fire-breathing right-wingers might want us to think so.
20 Responses to “Those Socialist Canadians”
Good morning from a resident fire-breather…LOL
Seriously though Pete, even though you give some caveats, surely you can see that the comparison in the one month job stats isn't even significant enough to warrant this commentary at all? For one thing, when you look at the percentage drop, the US actually fared better than Canada anyway and if I remember correctly I think Canada had a bad period in the prior month so they're at best just making up a bit for that. And that's not to mention the numerous other issues with unemployment stats that would have to be examined in each country's case (long term unemployment, wages, underemployment, fewer work hours, etc.) Plus, in both the US and Canada, stimulus programs have been used to 'create or save' jobs which are mainly govt jobs. That's fine as it goes, but it's not proof of, as you put it, expansion of the economy.
On this:
responsible expansion of social programs
Define “responsible” please.
Regardless of what's happening up in Canada, I think it's a pretty sad state of affairs to see a headline that proclaims “U.S. Economy Lost Only 11,000 Jobs in November”. I'm sure every one of those 11,000 newly unemployed are pretty happy about the situation.
I can always count on you to push back, CStanley, and constructively so. Mea culpa x 2: I'll admit it's a weak excuse for a post — and my caveats don't sufficiently change that equation. However, I also believe, weak or not, there's a larger point here that's still legitimate; namely this: Canada offers its citizenry far more robust social programs than the U.S. does. And yet Canadians still have the opportunity to lead free, productive, secure and — through some skill and a little luck — wealthy lives. If the worst we can say about expanding social programs in the U.S. — and yes, I'm thinking in particular about universal health care — if the worse we can say is that, as a result of such programs, the US and its citizens might “only” enjoy lifetime prospects similar to those enjoyed by their counterparts north of the border … well, that's really not a terrible thing. I’m not looking to move to Canada; I’m not saying they have it better than us; I’m only saying that if our lives mirrored theirs, we probably couldn’t tell the difference. And yet, rather than talk about the expansion of social programs in that vein, the Beck's and Limbaugh's (and their elected counterparts) want us to believe we'll end up not like Canada but like some third-world country.
Pete, I figured that the healthcare comparison was mainly what you were getting at, but I think a post like this is pretty counterproductive toward making that argument (notwithstanding the fact that you're absolutely correct about some of the rhetoric from the right also being counterproductive, and disingenuous.)
That's why I asked you to define 'responsible' WRT social programs though. From what I've learned, Canada was operating on a balanced national budget until recently (their recent deficit spending, which is miniscule compared to ours, is a point of contention among fiscal hawks there.) It seems that they've been much more successful in convincing the public to pay higher tax rates, and to accept what in some cases we'd consider medical rationing, in order to support their healthcare system. Compare that to the US, where thre is absolutely no political will to do either of those things- consider, for instance, that we currently already have 40% of our healthcare system socialized and on both sides of the aisle there's a recognition that the expenses of our publicly funded healthcare are totally unsustainable.
Also, in order to make your case you'd have to look at a whole lot of other factors of total social spending in each country. It's true that there's that perception that they have much wider safety nets, but that is not necessarily the case in all instances- I noticed in looking up some data after reading the article you linked to, that Canada currently only offers 50 weeks of unemployment benefits (and that was a recent extension during the current recession) while we in the US recently expanded our coverage to 99 weeks. I'm not arguing which is correct, just pointing out one instance where the US is currently actually ahead of Canada in extending larger amounts of public funding to those in need.
So, yeah, you can count on me to try to keep you on your toes- a comparison of different amounts of social spending per capita, and how each country pays for it (or doesn't), would be interesting and might deflate some of the overblown rhetoric from the right- but if you're going to go there you have to do a lot more homework.
It seems that they've been much more successful in convincing the public to pay higher tax rates, and to accept what in some cases we'd consider medical rationing, in order to support their healthcare system.
CS Please supply a link or two to back up your claim on those Commoe Canadians. The Canadians don't pay that much more than US citizens.
This link debunks your claim:
http://www.canadiansocialresearch.net/taxes.htm
Canadian federal marginal tax rates of taxable income
2009
(est.)[5] $0 – $10,320 $10,321 – $40,726 $40,727 – $81,452 $81,453 – $126,264 over $126,264
0% 15% 22% 26% 29%
Pete,
I understand what you are trying to say but I think you've set up a straw man:
“I’m only saying that if our lives mirrored theirs, we probably couldn’t tell the difference. And yet, rather than talk about the expansion of social programs in that vein, the Beck's and Limbaugh's (and their elected counterparts) want us to believe we'll end up not like Canada but like some third-world country.”
Only the most extreme believe we're going to end up like some third-world country, and so if your point is that the fringe extreme is wrong, I'd have to agree with CStanley that it hardly warrants a post to point out that the wackos are wrong. But conservatives are worried that we are moving more in the direction of Canada, which although you point out is not “the end of the world as we know it”, but it certainly would be very bad. Median household income is $10,000 less (in PPP) in Canada than in the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_i…. I think it's fair to say that if household incomes fell by $10,000 in relation to the rest of the world, that's more than enough to be concerned about.
This report (http://www.csls.ca/data/iptjune2009.pdf) shows personal disposable income.
In 2008:
US: 34,950
Canada: 28,591
As Rudi's link points out though, the poor in Canada are taken care of better than in the US. That comes at a price, however (the rich make much less, contributing to a “brain drain”). I don't believe there is a “right” answer to which economic system is better. The question is what principles do we value most. Some of those principles are in conflict: equality vs. efficiency, which is what economists call “the big trade-off”. So in the end the argument cannot be made either way based on the numbers. In the end it comes back to values.
“But what might be fair to conclude is that a country like Canada, with a sizable investment in social programs, can still generate jobs and expand its economy.”
The most recent information aren't sufficient to rush to any any conclusion. (Just as the recent change in job-loss statistics here doesn't mean miracles have been performed [finally] here in the States.)
The Canadian situation is not identical to our own. They don't have the same set of problems we have (nor the same set of special interests, nor identical decisions made by our respective federal governments).
“But conservatives are worried that we are moving more in the direction of Canada, which although you point out is not “the end of the world as we know it”, but it certainly would be very bad.”
It's the continental model that is more likely to be pursued (the lefties currently neglect the Canadian example, though “single-payer” [sic] advocates have often said that our future model, in addition to our existing Medicare and VA, has long existed just to our north). I had noted in Obama's address at West Point about Afghanistan that buried in the mush that accompanied his announcement of his decision about sending more troops there was a remark about finishing things there to be in a better position to do more here (in the USA) [gulp]. And I'm not surprised that others caught on to this as well, namely:
“Since World War II and especially from the 1960s, Europe has built elaborate domestic income-maintenance programs, with government-run health care, pensions and jobless benefits. These are hugely expensive, requiring high taxes and government spending that is a huge proportion of GDP. The nearby table compares the so-called tax wedge across nations, which is one measure of the relative burdens to finance cradle-to-grave entitlements.
One consequence has been slower growth in Europe, relative to the U.S. and China, with less tax revenue to spend on everything. Another result is that welfare spending has crowded out defense spending. …
… Democrats are rushing the U.S. down this same primrose entitlement path. With ObamaCare certain to eat up several more percentage points of GDP as it inevitably expands, we will take a giant step toward European social priorities.
For many Democrats, this is precisely the goal. …”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487…
I suspect what's considered above as well as in general on this thread isn't limited to Barney Frank's desire to reduce the Defense Department by 25 per cent (at first, and even if “only” by that much, we all know the savings will be spent, and likely where).
How is Canada so bad as far as median income? They're ranked third in the world, just behind the US.
Canada subsidizes much more than the US, so Canada is better…
As far as brain drain, it's not that bad in Canada.
http://www.straightgoods.com/Analyze/0018.shtml
“different governments subsidize different services”
To what extent does that conceal problems in Canada? What's the situation just with equalization payments and what would happen if they ended, for example? I believe they're well managed, but don't subsidies and transfer payments conceal underlying unsound states of affairs at least in parts of that country?
Not to mention, does anyone believe Canada's future will trouble-free? (It, like the USA, may not suffer as badly as the European nations, which many in the States want to see imitated, but it will still suffer badly in the future, in its present state, without implementing any vast new set of entitlements.)
The Canadian government estimates that 9% of the US population originated from Canada. If that is true, Canada's lost 30 million citizens to the US. Half of their population left to live in the US.
Are Beck, Limbaugh and the Republicans so wrong to use Canada as an example of why socialism doesn't work?
OK, so let's use GDP numbers then. GDP per capita encompasses not only wages but also government spending, so that accounts for subsidized services. And according to my link in my previous comment to CSLS, Canada's GDP is 84% that of the US and that has held relatively steady over the past decades (except for in the early 80s).
GDP per capita I think is the best measure we have of average quality of life. Would you agree? The CSLS does: http://www.csls.ca/ipm/5/sharpe-un-e.pdf. In fact, that link is a document describing Canada's goal to surpass the US in quality of life as measured by GDP per capita. But since that document was published, they have not been able to close the gap. So obviously Canada doesn't think their quality of life is better than in the US.
So I will repeat my previous point, this time using GDP numbers instead of income: If the US GDP per capita were to drop to Canada's levels, we'd all agree that would be a very bad thing.
The original comment by CS implied that Canada has oppressive taxes, this isn't true. You imply that socialist Canada is a worse place than the US. Well, a truly socialist country has a much higher PPP than us – Norway.
IMF
Rank Country Intl. $
1 Qatar 86,008
2 Luxembourg 82,441
3 Norway 53,738
4 Singapore 51,226
5 Brunei 50,199
6 United States 47,440
World Bank
Rank Country Intl. $
1 Luxembourg 78,559
— Macau 59,451
2 Norway 58,141
3 Singapore 49,288
4 United States 46,716
5 Ireland 44,195
Norway has a greater PPP, so by your logic we should emulate their nanny state because the US trails by $6000 to $10,000.
The original comment by CS implied that Canada has oppressive taxes,.
That's your inferrence, not what I wrote or intended to imply.
I didn't comment one way or the other on their tax rates and structure, other than to note that until recently they've been able to collect enough in tax revenue to pay for the social services that their govt provides. I don't know enough about their taxation to comment in more detail than that (and much of what you're posting here is unreadable because the formatting gets messed up when you list the tax brackets and such.) I also don't have time right now to follow all of the links, so I don't know if anyone is including all of the other levels of taxation like VATs in these discussions, and that makes a considerable difference as well.
But back to the point, which was that 'responsible' social spending depends on whether or not programs can be paid for. If some countries' citizens value the expanded social services enough to pay higher tax rates, and don't have the special interest groups that prevent cuts from being made when necessary or taxes raised when that's necessary, then I'd say they're being responsible. I see little of that in the US, however.
It isn't a matter of whether I think other countries' taxes are onerous- that is for their citizens to decide. However, when i see the way that our federal govt operates and the waste, fraud, and abuse, I'm not inclined to say that we should favor expansion of federal programs and higher taxation to pay for it.
All countries are more Socialist the United States, and, America is not a country, it's a continent, with further divisions of North, South, and, Central.
Pete, I don't think there's anything weak about the reasoning behind your post. I think your central point — that Canada's strong social programs have not prevented Canadians from “leading free, productive, secure” lives is not only well taken, but a very important point to make — one not made in our country often enough.
When you demonize conservatives as “fire-breathing right-wingers”, you attack a great number of hard working American's like me. The idea of taking from one and giving it to another isn't new. Forgive me if you feel I am some sort of villain for believing it is morally wrong to do so.
When I read your past posts, I see that a high percentage of them are focused on health care. I notice one in which you identified your child as having a medical issue. For that, I am sorry.
People like yourself, often turn to the government for help when the security of their children is at risk. It is obvious to me that this blog is your podium for promoting a government health care system that resolves the personal financial burden your own children will face on their own at some point.
I respect your efforts to protect your own children's future, yet, I would hope you recognize your family's gain will be my family's loss. Can you please stop demonizing us?
@CS In an earlier column you did say Canadians pay higher taxes:
It seems that they've been much more successful in convincing the public to pay higher tax rates, and to accept what in some cases we'd consider medical rationing, in order to support their healthcare system.
Well fot the middle class they pay about the same. And insurance companies ration US health care.
Yeah, I wrote that they 'seem' to pay higher taxes (not a very high burden of proof for me to write what my perception is, which may or may not be entirely accurate- but the basis of my perception is that somehow they have been taking in enough revenue to pay for what in some cases is higher levels of social safety net, entitlement programs.)
And yes, you're point about rationing is well taken- I probably should have more accurately worded that as 'government rationing' because there is a greater resistance to that in the US (we are generally more accepting of market type of rationing.)