We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing
analytics and serving ads.
Learn More
Forums → WEPR → Linking Economic Attitudes to Race - Europe vs USA
| 12 | 3190 |
I have recently returned from a work placement where I spent large amounts of time with people from both Western Europe and the USA. I had ample opportunity to chew the fat with my comrades from across the pond and would like to add that I feel all the richer for the experience. Economics dominated most discussions with the effects of the global financial crisis still being felt on both sides of the Atlantic. After so many months of conversation what struck me was the racial connotations associated with wealth in America which seemed somewhat lacking in Europe. It intrigued me to the point where I have attempted to quantify these abstract emotions and draw my own conclusions. Whether or not you agree is up to you, however I would very much like to hear the opinion of whether or not you agree with me and why. All nationalities are very welcome in this thread, as I have a suspicion that the sentiments which will be aired on this thread will mirror those I encountered for the past few months. But I digress:
The topic of inequality is one which kept coming up between the Europeans and the Americans. What soon became clear was that the perception of why some people become rich while others remain poor is very different between Europeans and Americans. The old adage 'sink or swim' sums up the American attitude quite nicely I think. Provide everyone with the same opportunity succeed, and aided by the almost infallible free market, those who work hard will succeed and those who do not will not.
Of course, this begged the question from us European counterparts, how can you hold this belief and yet have the highest level of inequality in the industrialised world? According to ''Poverty Levels in the Developed World'' by David Jesuit and Timothy Smeeding (a small summary of which can be found here) 17% or 1 in 6 Americans lives in relative poverty, a level higher than all of the 16 European countries for which data is available. The only answer is that 1 in 6 Americans are lazy. But in a country which works longer hours than all of Europe, and where such a strong self reliant mentality has permeated the society, this answer seems unsatisfactory to say the least.
Now here I get onto the touchy subject. Before I begin this next segment, I'd like to be very clear that I do not believe for a moment that all, a majority or indeed even a large minority of Americans are racist. Nevertheless it would be foolish to suggest that the transportation and enslavement of millions of Africans in the American South, and then subsequent social upheaval does not have a bearing on the psyche on the contemporary white American. Where this links to the concept of inequality though is the issue:
Many Americans associate poverty with black America, even though in terms of raw numbers there are more whites living under the poverty line. But in terms of percentages, a far larger proportion of black Americans live in poverty. The 2002 US census reported that 8% of whites and 24.1% of blacks live below the poverty line. This racial economic disparity has I believe given the majority of white Americans the convenient excuse to associate poverty with race and not social circumstance, thereby enabling them to maintain their current laissez faire attitude to the issue.
Not to say racism does not exist in Europe. Believe me, I live in London, one of the most cosmopolitan cities on the earth and I still witness it on a frequent basis in some quarters. However, the difference is that it is not associated with economic inequality. This is because for Europeans until very recently (long term historical view here), the poor were white caucasians, and therefore even the richest in society are more easily able to sympathise or even identify with their plight. In America however, due to the much more pronounced racial atmosphere and history, it's easier to dismiss the growing numbers of people living in poverty if they are seen as separate on a racial or even biological level.
Where a European would look to America and see the the condition of black inner cities as a result of the American way of life and a lack of opportunities, an American sees a cesspit of fecklessness and laziness.
Do you think the distinction I have drawn here between American and European attitudes is fair or too simplistic?
- 12 Replies
Personally I believe that Europeans associate poverty with some race (or a group) likewise.
Exempli gratia:
The Romani People, are frequently describe as filthy and lazy bums, who don't do anything besides stealing and playing music. Many Europeans subconsciously (or purposely) link up poverty (as a consequence of idleness) with the Roma.
Plus the Flemish and Northern Italians separatists oftentimes consider the Wallonia and the South poorer just because they are work-shy.
Frankly I don't think we are that different.
The only answer is that 1 in 6 Americans are lazy. But in a country which works longer hours than all of Europe, and where such a strong self reliant mentality has permeated the society, this answer seems unsatisfactory to say the least.
Did you take into account employment rate?
What are the comparisons between the middle classes and upper classes?
Are you suggesting that the free market does not solve racial issues and therefore is unreliable?
I think people when trying to avoid being racist ignore the fact there are differences in different races. By IQ in America Asians are the smartest,then white skined people then black skinned people. In the world almost all countrys with a black majority are poor and almost all with a white majority are rich or averge wealth.
Even if there is a small genetic difference there are huge cultural differences, e.g in Japan they are far more likly to work as hard as they can non stop then in Somalia.
The one relgion Europe had for over a thousand years gave it a huge advantage and as a result it delevloped faster and went to invade the rest of the world. Now Europe is the richest place on earth as a result of it. This could create a culture for white europeans to try hard where as blacks know they have mostly been the lossers in history and they dont try as hard.
Many Europeans subconsciously (or purposely) link up poverty (as a consequence of idleness) with the Roma.
I think when people think of gypsies they think of impoverished nomadic thieves, however when people think of poverty they don't think of gypsies. For one thing there are hardly any true Romani people in Europe anymore, outside of Romania of course.
Plus the Flemish and Northern Italians separatists oftentimes consider the Wallonia and the South poorer just because they are work-shy.
Where regional inquality exists so do stereotypes. There is however a massive difference between this and associating a universal economic condition with a geographical one.
Did you take into account employment rate?
You cannot properly examine the poverty level in a given society without including everyone in the study, including the unemployed. That's like trying to do press ups after you've had your arms chopped off.
What are the comparisons between the middle classes and upper classes?
What comparisons, that's what a measure of income inequality is. If you earn less than 50% of the national average, you are living in relative poverty, and by that measure 1 in 6 Americans are.
Firstly what do you mean? Class is a relative position in society
Are you suggesting that the free market does not solve racial issues and therefore is unreliable?
Not at all. I do think it is unreliable but I don't think so because it doesn't solve racial issues. Race relations is a societal issue even though economics should also be taken into consideration. And please, let's not get into a debate about the merits and failings of the free market, it's a distraction from the real issue: that one of the reasns Americans cannot or will not sympathise with the poor is because of race. That has nothing to do with why people are poor in the first place ie., the free market.
As much as I hate to say it myself, and the majority of people I know including African Americans, do associate poverty more frequently with Black Americans that Caucasians. What you have to understand is that the fact that nearly one quarter of African Americans being poor makes it very easy, and in some circumstances correct, to assume that they are doing something "wrong".
This racial economic disparity has I believe given the majority of white Americans the convenient excuse to associate poverty with race and not social circumstance, thereby enabling them to maintain their current laissez faire attitude to the issue.
This seemed like the next logical place to go, so go I will. Now I personally know that poverty can be generally traced back to poor social circumstance such as having sub-par education facilities and parents who simply don't care. At the same point in time though it most often seems to be African Americans who populate the inner cities filled with crime, poverty, and ignorance so pulling the two (race and social conditions) together isn't that far if a stretch.
The next question that must be asked though is who;s fault is it? Can you attribute it to the poor themselves or do you attribute it to the American social system, or to both. My personal opinion is that both, to some degree, are at fault with awful schools and welfare support it isn't easy to rise above the class you were born into but at the same time it almost seems some do not wish to rise above it, some are content. Contentment leads to laziness which effects every class of American but seems to be worse in the lower classes as they often choose to survive only on welfare which is a massive problem. So what do we do about that, do we spend more money to help them or do we cut off spending in hopes that they help themselves?
Lastly I'll post something slightly controversial of my own, I'd like to note before I post it that I'm in no way a sociologist and this comes from my own, admittedly limited, observations. What if the problem with the large percentages of poor African Americans is because they have nothing to fight for? In American history the two times Black Americans were able to do fantastic things were the end and time period following slavery and the civil rights movements. Both times they achieved huge amounts of freedoms while also making great strides as a people, after the Harlem Renaissance though could it be said a lack of persecution has caused a social stagnation? I would say possibly.
You cannot properly examine the poverty level in a given society without including everyone in the study, including the unemployed. That's like trying to do press ups after you've had your arms chopped off.
If America has higher unemployment than Europe, then there could be a link between poverty and unemployment. Then, you must consider the cause of unemployment. You could argue the unemployment is high due to the economic system, or you could determine other possible causes.
And please, let's not get into a debate about the merits and failings of the free market
That has nothing to do with why people are poor in the first place ie., the free market.
That is pure rubbish. We'll agree to disagree.
Firstly what do you mean? Class is a relative position in society
I mean, how do Americans who aren't living in poverty stack against Europeans who aren't living in poverty?
Surely there are also links to GDP as well you have considered? What about Median household income?
Why do many African Americans remain poor in America? I honestly can't say for sure. Many poor areas are controlled by gangs. Why work for hours to make your pay when you can easily become rich selling drugs? Legalization of drugs would solve many of these gang issues, due to the fact most gangs thrive on the money made from inflated prices of illegal goods. Another issue is education. It has become so expected of today's generation to go to college that it is hard to get a good paying job without an education. You can come up with two solutions. One is to make it easier for the poor to get a college education, or another is to lower the standards to gain simply jobs so that a college education is not required. Personally, I prefer the latter. We live in a world where you need at least 9 months of schooling to become a hair stylist. College should be an advantage, not a requirement (obviously this only refers to some jobs, many jobs should require college education).
If you know how to do something well, you shouldn't need college as long as you can prove it (this can generally be done by working your way up a ladder).
Other reasons also include the fact that many people do live on welfare. It's not a great lifestyle, but it's a roof over your head.
Many poor people grow up with a twisted mentality picked up from living in bad areas. If you're black and you grow up poor with people who tell you how the man is keeping you down, you may come to believe it despite having any real evidence. This really goes for anyone living in a bad neighborhoods.
We live in a world where you need at least 9 months of schooling to become a hair stylist. College should be an advantage, not a requirement (obviously this only refers to some jobs, many jobs should require college education).
I think we discussed this in another thread that escapes me. The "Mechanic vs. Surgeon" discussion, where a mechanic could easily undergo an apprenticeship program and can easily perform par alongside one who had a college education, whereas a surgeon NEEDS a college education (and more, may I add) because an apprenticeship just can't cover all aspects of what a surgeon needs to know.
Just incase some of you were confused on that part.
Surely there are also links to GDP as well you have considered? What about Median household income?
I believe the median household income could provide a correlation to poverty. What is their minimum wage compared to ours? What is the threshold that defines poverty from non-poverty? What are the current conditions that are "holding people back" as far as income and taxes concern?
Surely there are also links to GDP as well you have considered? What about Median household income?
I was going to draw up a comparison to Lichtenstein bu that didn't seem overly fair, so a brief comparison of the United Kingdom's and the United Stat'es economic situation. Source's: United Kingdom; United States
GDP (Per Capita)
US:$14.12 trillion ($46,000)
UK:$2.123 trillion ($34,200)
Obviously the United State's is much more here.
Well, other than that I couldn't get much more important economic information except that the UK has a 14% poverty rate while the US has a 12% poverty rate. Also the UK has a 7.6% unemployment rate while the US has a 9.3% unemployment rate. Maybe our social programs are better than I thought.
In my opinion, what happened was after the Civil War, African Americans although free, were severely discriminated against. While many stood up for themselves in the public eye and fought for their rights, it is indubitable that there were more than a few who decided on a life of crime, or just resigned themselves to their 'fate'.
I'm sure that this trait carried on through the generations, if one is raised in a neighborhood that the police are afraid of venturing into, odds are he/she won't be as interested in a higher level education, good job, etc. Even those who are, have their dreams quickly crushed by inadequate funding to their schools, peer pressure, and an inability to find the resources needed.
In the end this stigma is carried on, and African Americans gain the stereotype that they are nothing violent gang bangers who would shoot you rather than look at you. Of course if one has even the slightest ability to reason, they know that isn't true at all, but the thought has been placed.
I believe that it is this chain of events which results in African Americans having a higher rate of unemployment than other races. If one is raised in the proper environment, than they can achieve great heights, however in the case of all poverty stricken people, a lot of the time that environment is just not available.
Kyouzou your theory is bogus.
1.The way of thinking of a an entire ethnic group is not forged in a merely 200 years,it takes thousands of years of development,influenced by culture and traditions.If one messily war determent the people's way of thinking,then after 2 world wars the world and especially Europe,should be a living hell right now.
2.Your making it look like an isolated case,when in every single country with a significant African minority you observe the exactly same behavior.
High crime rates,high unemployment and isolation from the non-blacks(forming ghettos).
What's their excuse for acting like this?
Apologies for the delayed response but I've been rather busy the past few days, but now I'll try and address your points as best I can:
First Samy.
The next question that must be asked though is who;s fault is it?
I believe the reason so any inner city areas are so impoverished is because of a lack of welfare. I understand that the American way of helping the needy is to rely on private individuals donating time and money to charity, however this clearly doesn't make up the shortfall a properly funded state welfare system could pick up.
Both times they achieved huge amounts of freedoms while also making great strides as a people, after the Harlem Renaissance though could it be said a lack of persecution has caused a social stagnation? I would say possibly.
I think the main reason black America regressed in the 80s and 90s was the introduction of crack into the ghettos by the Central and South Americna drug lords. The drugs culture had always played a role in deprived areas before, but it wasn't til then that it became a way of life for so many people, either using or dealing.
If America has higher unemployment than Europe, then there could be a link between poverty and unemployment.
In most EU nations the employment participation rates are lower than in the US which according to the US Labour Department stood at 6.3|% in 2003. However when you factor in hidden unemplyment that figure jumps to ub=The+Washington+Post&edition=&startpage=A.20&desc=Jobs+and+the+Jobless">9% much closer to the EU average of 9.6%. Neverthless poverty rates in Europe are still lower than in America.
Then, you must consider the cause of unemployment. You could argue the unemployment is high due to the economic system, or you could determine other possible causes.
The reason there is lower employment in the EU is because of different retirement ages, although mainly because most countries have welfare states that prop up the unemployed.
I mean, how do Americans who aren't living in poverty stack against Europeans who aren't living in poverty?
When it comes to the super rich the EU prevails. According to a report compiled by Cap Gemini Ernst & Young along with Merrill Lynch Europe boasts 2.6 million millionaires whilst the US has 2.2 million. Even more telling is that iin 2000 Europe added 100,000 to its list whilst the US dropped 88,000.
When it comes to quality of life for the vast majority of people including those not in poverty, the EU prevails yet again. First let's look at income inequality. The US ranks 25th among the developed world nations, with only Russia and Mexico being lower. All 18 European develloped countries have less income inequality. When it comes to upward mobility in a society, wages and related benefits are the best indicator. Of the 20 most developed countries, the US is behind the 7 most advanced European economies and is currently experiencing the lowest real wage growth in 40 years of $0.03.
Another good place to look for upward mobility is the manufacturing sector, since it is from these low and unskilled jobs that the poorest must depart. In 2000 US manufacturing compensation was below 5 European countries with most of the rest having significantly closed the gap.
Surely there are also links to GDP as well you have considered?
Indeed there are. Flaws of takin GDP too much to heart aside, the EU has a larger GDP than the US according to two out of the three interntaionally recognised measurements.
Samy's post is also relevant here:
US:$14.12 trillion ($46,000)
UK:$2.123 trillion ($34,200)
That is all well and good, however comparing the UK to the US is a facile exercise since the population of the US is about 5 times of that of the UK. A better comparison would be to compare the UK's GDP with the American state witht he second largest economy (New York)$799bn. You find it is almost twice the size.
What about Median household income?
Median income isn't so reliable a measure, simply because it's not how much yoy earn, but how much real spending power you have that really matters. The US has a high household income, but in all other aspects of quality of life ie., how comfortably Americans can live with that money, the US lags behind the EU.
Well, other than that I couldn't get much more important economic information except that the UK has a 14% poverty rate while the US has a 12% poverty rate. Also the UK has a 7.6% unemployment rate while the US has a 9.3% unemployment rate. Maybe our social programs are better than I thought.
The UK is an odd one. It is the most American in both economy and ideology of the EU nations which is why it has so much poverty. Look at any other EU nation and the levels of poverty will be much lower.
One is to make it easier for the poor to get a college education, or another is to lower the standards to gain simply jobs so that a college education is not required. Personally, I prefer the latter.
That ignores the fact that American public education befoe college is much worse than the average European one. In addition that still relegates a very large segment of the population to a life of semi skilled labour. Being a hair stylist is ok, but it's not exactly living the American Dream is it? How would you suggest people from poor backgrounds get highly skilled jobs without a college education? Or do you think that only those with rich parents deserve to go?
Other reasons also include the fact that many people do live on welfare. It's not a great lifestyle, but it's a roof over your head.
More people in the EU live off welfare as a proportion of the population.
I'll answer Freakenstein's questions later.
You must be logged in to post a reply!
Showing 1-12 of 12