Even when I don’t agree with their conclusions (as I certainly don’t in this case), columns by my old boss Conrad Black always have fascinating factoids along the way. For example, “A World of Financial Ruin”:
The EU is in hot contention with the United States as the Sick Man of the Great World Economic Powers, because less than 40% of Eurozone citizens work and over 60% are on benefits of some sort.
The entire Western world is approaching the point at which Wile E Coyote looks down and realizes there’s nothing under his feet.
Obviously we, and the rest of the West, have to get "Acme, Inc." out of power in our governments. Beep Beep!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe're Wile E right after the earthquake pills have been swallowed and before the first tremors.
Suuuuuper Geeeeeenius!
Gotta get me on of those cool umbrellas too. You know, the ones that keep the anvil away?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFascinating, yes. Accurate, no.
It's a good policy to suspect that information provided by a person convicted of an offense of dishonesty is bogus, unless it's proved otherwise. On this occasion, that policy serves me well.
The first part of the statement is easily disproved. You can find Euro zone labor market participation rates here: External Link
The actual number is 64%.
For extra bonus ... can anyone tell me what the U.S. rate is?
(Hint ... you're not so different, you and me!)
Maybe you can get the number down below 50% if you include children, but obviously that would be utterly misleading.
I can't immediately find a source for the second statistic, but I will say with absolute confidence that to the extent that it means to imply that 60% of adult Eurozone citizens have government benefits as a primary source of income, it's a bogus number.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI missed one obvious thing in my last post.
Presumably the 40/60 split includes retirees, which would skew the figures more towards those numbers. But only 16% of the total Eurozone population is over 65, so it still doesn't get you anywhere near 40%, unless you include children.
(The US, by the way, has a slightly lower percentage of 65+, but not by much).
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusegbh changed 'some sort of benefits' to 'primary source of income' - changing facts to fit his argument.
Fact: US population, 310,000,000. US citizens with jobs, 131,000,000. (42%)
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusegbh, why not include children and retirees? Are they in any less need of being supported?
I believe the point was that 40 percent of the population earns the income for 100% and supports in some way 60%.
A healthy society will always have an acceptable ratio of earners to non-earners, especially if it has birth rates that can support a future. But the problem that we're running into isn't that we're supporting too many kids, it's that we're supporting too many so-called "adults" who are absolutely incapable of doing anything for themselves without the entitlement state to carry them along.
And it's these free-loaders who make it impossible to support children and the elderly (who will always exist). There's nothing wrong about a nation supporting its children and the elderly (although, we could also get into how "elderly" should be defined in an era of shrinking productive years...), but the question is: where is the tipping point between having a productive society that can support its vulnerable members and having too few earners with too many mouths to feed?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse