Yes, in countries with real health care, the employer does not have to pay for it - everyone has it “free”, i.e. by being a legal resident. So “full benefits” means the icing - prescription coverage, sick days, life insurance options, dental coverage, etc.
Also, yes - pay and living expenses are relative. I tell people that we in North America (particularly in Canada) live in a fool’s paradise, where people pumping gas or flipping burgers can own their own their own car, possibly even live in their own place, and have all sorts of toys. Outside of North America, general expectations are much lower. I bet the proportion of Danes who own a car is much lower - but then, you could probably walk across the country in a day or two…
Well, it doesn’t have to be paid as a separate, specific, individual benefit. It still needs to get paid as taxes, which may cover only healthcare or may cover other items as well (for example, Seguridad Social covers healthcare including prescriptions and basic dental, but also other items such as disability or unemployment benefits; for people employed by a second party, the employer pays half the tax and the employee the other half). And in those countries, stuff such as “sick days” are also often regulated by law or by group agreements and the same for everybody.
Grabbing some numbers from statistics sites it is 2.335 million passenger cars (2014) for a population of 5.707 million (2016), e.g. 40.9 cars for 100 people.
That’s in spite of high taxation on cars as a luxury item - according to a 2011 EU study a certain model/engine/trim version of VW Golf was 28,267 € inclusive taxes in Denmark; in Germany it was 16,825 € inclusive taxes (Source (German language))
For the US I found a 2011 number of 127,576,670 passenger cars (2011), with 324 million population (Wikipedia, current) that would be 39.4 cars for 100 people.
Re my above post: on second thoughts, my numbers for the US might not accurately reflect passenger car ownership because of some vehicles being effectively passenger cars but counted as light trucks for statistics purposes.
That’s fine. I was just letting you know what the article said, so you could argue with it directly. Forbes is popular enough that I think it’s good to refute it, especially if it’s brought up.
I will also add that they use the PPP: the purchase power parity index to figure out their numbers, and claim that’s about 1.4 for Denmark. Anyone know how those numbers are derived, and if they have any value?
I will freely admit to not being knowledgeable at all in financial matters. That’s why I’ve not offered even the slightest bit of an opinion on the matter. I mean, I get basic supply/demand curves, but that’s about it.
I think you’ve got that wrong - largely, cars are a luxury in Europe, but a necessity in the US. Someone pumping gas or flipping burgers in the US are forced to buy a car and make car payments. In most cities, public transport is so bad (or non-existent) that the only practical way to get to work ifs by owning a car. (John Oliver had a good explanation of the subprime auto loan business)
I’ve also heard people mention that poor Americans still have cell phones, but that also misses the fact that it is now a necessity, not a luxury. Cell phones are now cheaper than land lines, and you need a phone to apply for jobs.
A big Mac is actually cheaper in Denmark than in the US, which surprises me. So an over 18 entry level McDonald’s worker in Denmark could eat four Big Macs per hour worked.
Because, as others have already pointed out, Danish workers do pay for these things, in the form of taxes. IOW, even when there’s a glimmer of truth in your claim, the claim is still slanted, misconstrued and wrong.
It’s possible you could do some sort of analysis incorporating taxes and make a case for your position. But pretending that things provided by the government just fall from the sky is not a valid approach.
This idea that there is Nordic paradise very over-stated. I’ve said before on this board and recently, I went there to see for myself. Rather than post what can be interpreted as bias, let’s just clear up some of the PPP issues that BigT has mentioned.
The first thing to mention is that the tax rate in Denmark is high. Tax rates are between 41% to 56%. I believe they were upwards of 70% (but a quick internet search says 65% recently), though I believe it was flatter before (meaning most payed close to the 65% mark). So, as you can see, they both lowered and stratified their tax rate. I believe there is a pass on the first 18k kroner, but after that effectively 50% of your wage goes to taxes. Oh yeah, there is a VAT of 25%. i don’t know if Big Mac index accounts for VAT. As I am a fan of the Big Mac Index, the last time I compared it (last week on business travel), the prices were off compared to the web site. Oh and cars are taxes at 180% in Denmark (how’s that for social engineering). With all those taxes, let’s take cars as an extreme example, a $20k Honda accord will now be $50k. (Even though no one mentioned it, a good reason to stay away from protectionist policies).
But, you say, education and health care are free! First off, for education, how many are using it, is something that I always wonder. Second, even with my law school loans, my property tax pays for grades k-12. With law school and undergrad loans, I will pay much less than 40 years of tax at (let’s even it out) at 50% tax rate at my salary (let’s assume that I never get a raise). As for healthcare, I hardly use it, so does my family. It was free before ACA, now I will have to pay almost $18k (that’s a rant for another time).
This supports the point I made in my prior post. Nonetheless, it’s important to appreciate that it’s very difficult to compare taxes in different countries, and just pointing to the tax rates can be very misleading. This is for a number of reasons, including that there are different jurisdictions imposing their own taxes (e.g. state taxes on income and sales, local taxes on property), different forms of taxes (e.g. the VAT tax you mention in European countries, SS & Medicare in the US) and different levels of progressivity.
The general point is that anything provided by the government is paid for by the people, in the end, so just pretending that it’s free is not valid. But you need a pretty comprehensive analysis to actually compare tax levels. (I assume people have done it, somewhere.)
As somebody who has lived both here in the Nordic paradise (Finland and not Denmark, but they are close enough from US point of view) and in the US, I can say it’s a lot less stressful financially to be poor here. The society catches you if you fall on your ass and tries to help you back up, be it because of sudden unemployment or illness.
On the other hand people like my parents (upper middle class, my mom’s a shrink and my dad used to be the boss at a paper factory with a few hundred workers under him) get a lot less money for toys here. Taxes are higher and wages are lower. At that point you don’t really get much more happiness from some extra cash though - when you already have three boats, buying a fourth or upgrading the 21 ft one to 25 ft one isn’t going to change your life much.
I’d never move to US again but I can see why some people would prefer to live there. I know a couple who moved there from Ireland and are a lot happier with their new location.
Oh, and cars are a luxury to European singles living in cities. Once you have a family or live outside the mass transit network they are almost as much a necessity as in the US.
I’m pretty sure Denmark has a more progressive tax system than the US. Which means much of the Danish McDonalds worker’s benefits are paid for by taxes paid by richer Danes.
OK, so suppose that the Danish burger-flipper is paying 50% tax, and the American burger-flipper is paying no tax at all. After tax, they both earn enough to buy two Big Macs per hour, so by that measure, they’re even… except that the Danish burger-flipper also has health insurance and other benefits, which the American almost certainly doesn’t.