Earlier quoted context omitted.
The immigrants will have children that will be better-acclimated and contribute more, no?
The graph includes the descendents.
The US economy and the EU were the same size in 2008, the US is now nearly 2X
721–730 of 767 posts
Re: The US economy and the EU were the same size in 2008, the US is now nearly 2X
#722Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since ~2012 disposable income for Americans has lapped that of Europeans. See for yourself. https://dart.lisdatacenter.org/dart
I don't think anyone is disputing that the US had a really good run from 2014 until 2020, but real wages still have not recovered to pre-COVID levels. See eg. the BLS Employment Cost Index. https://www.bls.gov/blog/2023/more-ways-to-look-at-wages-and...
Re: The US economy and the EU were the same size in 2008, the US is now nearly 2X
#723Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Even the poor do better when there's more jobs available Only if those jobs offer a livable wage. If instead they are McJobs that result in workers spending more than they earn (e.g. SNAP), then poor people are doing worse, and it's a net-negative on society.
This misses the reason so-called McJobs don't pay a "living" wage. You're not supposed to earn a living wage doing zero skilled work. You're supposed to develop skills and move up in the working world. Why are people stagnating instead of moving up? That's a really good question.
It's a difficult question to answer thoroughly, but there should be a few obvious factors. Most of the labor market is effectively priced out of acquiring higher valued skills/degrees that would improve their career. Their opportunities for advancement are laughable.
So, then, why is that?
Re: The US economy and the EU were the same size in 2008, the US is now nearly 2X
#724Could the energy policy and the costs of electricity for the industry have contributed to this outcome in the eurozone? Just as an example, Germany has the highest electricity prices in the world (20% higher than second place Italy), and starting April, switched to being a net electricity importer, after it shut down the last remaining nuclear power plants.
Yes, it can and does. Go to a chemicals conference these days and half the research is on managing blackouts. In the best case your plant, which is the same CAPEX in Europe as it is the US, is producing 25% less. There's only so much sugar-coating you can do. The atmosphere's like a funeral.
Unfortunately the people who downvoted me must be thinking differently. Would have loved so much to hear their reasoning and POV on the matter, especially if they disagree with my hypothesis, I’m always willing to learn.
Re: The US economy and the EU were the same size in 2008, the US is now nearly 2X
#725Here’s a better comparison. The thing that really hurt the Eurozone was the 2011 - 2013 recession that the US did not experience. Plus there’s a slower growth rate even in the good times. https://freedomandprosperity.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/... That said, these numbers are very misleading and do not show well what a person’s life looks like in the US. By my own anecdotal estimation, in the EU low and medium in…
See this one for Spain: https://www.reddit.com/r/SpainFIRE/ or Bogleheads Spain: https://bogleheads.es
The wealth tax also makes FIRE harder, but there are exemptions that make it more manageable.
Here is information about the wealth tax in Valencia: https://atv.gva.es/es/ipatrimoni
Let's use a married couple in Valencia with 2M euro in index funds as an example.
They get 500K allowance each to subtract from their taxable base. Subtracting the 1M total exemption for the couple, their taxable base would be 1M euro for the purposes of the wealth tax. On the remaining 1M, they'd pay 10,595.71 for the first 668,499.75, and 1.12% on the remaining 331,500.25, for an additional 3,712.80. This puts their total yearly wealth tax at 14,308.51, or about 0.7% of their total 2M portfolio.
Generally, 4% is seen as a safe withdrawal rate for a properly managed portfolio for a 30 year retirement. Subtracting 0.7%, that'd give them a 3.3% safe withdrawal rate on their 2M portfolio, which gives them after-wealth-tax money of 66K to play with. Let's say half of what you're pulling each year is taxable for capital gains. With a 20% capital gains tax, that ends up being about 60K. This is a pretty good income for Valencia.
Estimated cost of living for a family of 4 there is about 28K: https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/in/Valencia
That gives them another 32K after tax for travel, luxuries, etc. Not to mention, you also get an exemption of 300K (individual) for your primary residence. There are also some other limits on the tax like it not being able to exceed 60% of your total income.
In the US, with a withdrawal rate of 4% on the 2M and no wealth tax, you'd get 80K. After 15% capital gains on half of what you're pulling each year, 74K. Subtract $1400/month or ~$16K for good health insurance for a family of 4 and it's a basic tie, not accounting if you have to actually hit a deductible. In Spain you will just get free public healthcare if you're a citizen.
It's definitely harder to build that level of wealth because of salaries there, but I don't think it's fair to say that it's completely impossible to FIRE there.
Re: The US economy and the EU were the same size in 2008, the US is now nearly 2X
#726Earlier quoted context omitted.
The €3 million one is a new "temporary" tax since this year from the central goverment. "Impuesto al patrimonio" has existed for long and it depends on where in Spain you live. It's not applied in the region of Madrid, and the it kicks from a net worth of €400k in Aragón. In all regions your main residence is exempted. For a net worth of €4m, you'll pay €60k in Aragón to €22k in Vizcaya to €0 in Madrid.
So like 1.5%? With US&International based investment returns that means like 40% more money is needed above what's normally required, or say 23 years instead of 19 years of investing. So that hurts the whole FI/RE thing, but doesn't sound like it would be the primary blocker.
Re: The US economy and the EU were the same size in 2008, the US is now nearly 2X
#727Earlier quoted context omitted.
No one uses PPP for measuring growth, GDP PPP can increase whilst your economy contracts. PPP isn’t a good measure for population’s wealth or quality of life especially for developed economies either. The economy of the US is still twice that of the EU and its global purchasing power has also pretty much doubled.
" GDP PPP can increase whilst your economy contracts. " Still, if PPP GDP increases, with all else being equal (eg. stable population) it would imply the standard of living is increasing. That is why PPP GDP captures a more accurate measure of the real world. Said another way, what truly matters isn't "GDP growth", but changes in purchasing power/quality of life.
That's not necessarily true, depending on how the PPP is calculated it may not reflect the cost of imported food or energy or other necessities.
Re: The US economy and the EU were the same size in 2008, the US is now nearly 2X
#728Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not necessarily about strength but brick buildings will survive both fire and water much better than wooden buildings, they don't burn or rot. Brick buildings generally last hundreds of years with minimal maintenance (assuming no earthquakes). Wood buildings can last hundreds of years but require far more upkeep.
This argument kind of falls apart when you start trying to maintain or improve plumbing, HVAC, and electrical through the house. It's much easier to do that through the wood and drywall of a typical American house.
HVAC also can generally also be run under floors (and outside of the USA forced air systems are pretty unusual so you're only dealing with pipes).
Re: The US economy and the EU were the same size in 2008, the US is now nearly 2X
#729Earlier quoted context omitted.
So if employees are more productive, you would naturally expect all of the benefits of that increased productivity to go to their employers? I'm curious as to your reasoning about why people do anything other than the absolute minimum to receive their paycheck.
If my employees are more productive, I need fewer employees to produce the same number of widgets. If this happens across all industries, the price of labor goes down because there's more labor and fewer jobs. Historically, between lower prices driving more demand, other workers driving the productivity gains (maybe they make robots for factories), and new opportunities for workers, we still have full employment, but…
You're presuming a fixed demand for labour, regardless of how much value it provides. Imagine if, for a moment, productivity increased to the point where one person could do all current work for all current employers, but of course there were many, many other people who could provide the same productivity. Do you expect that employers would not figure out a way to use some of that additional productivity to make more money?
The demand for a product increases as value it provides increases. The net effect is that employers' profits increase, but so do labours'. The divide on the split is determined by relative strength of their positions, but if it ever goes to zero for either side, it really kills the incentive for increased productivity in the first place (if employers see no benefit from increased worker productivity, there certainly won't be any more demand, and there will be no effort to exploit this new productivity... if employees see no benefit from the increased productivity, they'll have no incentive to be more productive).
Re: The US economy and the EU were the same size in 2008, the US is now nearly 2X
#730Earlier quoted context omitted.
So if employees are more productive, you would naturally expect all of the benefits of that increased productivity to go to their employers? I'm curious as to your reasoning about why people do anything other than the absolute minimum to receive their paycheck.
I think this is a bit uncharitable