<p>Yes, censorship and limitations on speech are real signs of social progression...</p>
<p>Maybe more liberal in that they are willing to give everyone a free ride, resulting in their economic stagnation with their +10% unemployment. I'd rather pay for my healthcare and recieve quality care quickly than have to wait years and get crap.</p>
<p>Sam Lee, you claimed that women have more mobility in places other than the US. I just wanted to point out the fallacy of that statement.</p>
<p>I see your point with the moral judgements, though. Regardless, I felt the need to express my beliefs because I believe in them strongly. Isn't it wonderful that we are able to do so in the US? Thats what makes this nation great. Freedoms like that are found in few places.</p>
<p>Military and social issues have far different measures of elasticity. The strength of a military can be measured in absolute terms--troops, weapons, etc. Whereas social issues are in the eye of the beholder. What makes pro-choice a better alternative than pro-life and vice versa? It depends on the person. So to say that Europe is ahead of the United States socially can purely be regarded as opinion, whereas in terms of military power you are correct.</p>
<p>A leading writer about European politics and culture, Jeremy Rifkin, claims that a low fertility rate and massive immigration will cause Europe to "wither and die -- both figuratively and literally." The European standard of living may be higher than the U.S. right now, but it will soon come to an end because the EU cannot handle the dynamics of a changing society. When I was in London last month, I was told that there are more non-Italians in Italy then there were Italians. How scary is that? By the end of the century it is predicted that Muslims will be the majority in Europe.</p>
<p>Another interesting thing to note about Europe is that it is COMPLETELY settled. Save un-inhabitable terrain in the mountains and forests, Europe is packed full of people whereas the United States is relatively sparse in terms of population density. The United States can handle expansion a lot better than Europe can.</p>
<p>Now let me present you with the biggest difference between the two "nations." The United States thrives on indpendence whereas the EU espouses community. It is impossible to compare social issues because of the nature of each nations values. The "American Dream" would not be so if health care, welfare, etc. were a bigger part of our nation. These institutions hold the common individual back from rising above the crowd. The EU uses smoke and mirrors to try and give the impression that they are free enterprise system, but it is incredibly hard to use that to ones advantage because of the socialist demeanor of the government. The national SPOKESPERSON of France lives in ENGLAND because she wanted to escapre the near 50% tax rate on her earnings. That says it all.</p>
<p>Now, who says NU is all about preprofessionalism where nobody cares about domestic/foreign issues and intellectual debate?? ;)</p>
<p>UC_Benz, yours is a very simplistic and academic look at Europe, a continent with over 800 million people, 40+ countries and 30+ languages. Immigration cannot kill Europe since the majority of immigration from 2010 until 250 is going to be from within the European union (I.E., labor movements, not racial or religious infusions). </p>
<p>Secondly, the majority of demographic experts estimate that at its peak, Europe will never be more than 20% muslim. And who told you that the majority of Italians aren't Italians? That is not true. As of now, Italy is 93% Italian...ethnically speaking. </p>
<p>Thirdly, what makes Europe's standard of living so good is its social structure. That is not about to erode. If anything, Europe is becoming more socially aware. Since the 1960s, authorities measuring standard of living have rated Europe very highly, and that has not changed in recent years. </p>
<p>Fourthly, you most certainly can measure social advancement. There are many important indicators, such as average life expetancy, infant mortality, crime rates, % living below the poverty line, access to good and affordable medicine and education etc...</p>
<p>As for the "spokesperson" of France living in the UK, so what? Many Americans are becoming UK citizens for the same reasons. I do not think that signifies much. </p>
<p>You seem convinved that Europe is inferior to the US in every way and that it has no future. If you really believe that, it is too bad. Europe has many strengths and the US is not perfect. In short, it depends what one values and prefers.</p>
<p>Well if you're as productive in real life as you are on CC then no one is going to miss you anyways. Go ahead and go to France.</p>
<p>Alexandre, I am specifically talking about the European Union which only has a population of 455 million. It is predicted that the population will reach almost 470 million by 2025, but it will slowly decrease to the tune of 1.5 million in the five years following. Meanwhile, the U.S. stands to increase its population over 25% in that same time period. </p>
<p>What does this mean for the EU? It means that its productivity as a nation will fall, and they will eventually lose some of the world's economic pie. It is also very troubling because the elderly will not have as much help financially because the pension funds will start collapsing and healthcare money will be scarce. How bad is the population regression? Well in the next 25 years the retiree-age people are set to increase 50% while working-age people are set to decrease 7%. To prove my point: Adair Turner, vice-chairman of Merrill Lynch and professor at LSE said "Even if European productivity rises as fast as that in America, the US economy will grow by around 1% faster per annum thanks to higher immigration, as it has done for the past 25 years. And Europes share of world population and of world income will shrink."</p>
<p>Now in this case, I do agree with you that immigration is good for the EU, but historically immigrants have accounted for the unemployed in pretty much every country. Since the unemployment rate is so high, the EU will need an inordinant amount of immigrants to support the work force. For a nation that thrives on government-aided social programs it will be hard to sustain that once the population starts dropping off significantly.</p>
<p>I'm not purporting a "doomsday" scenario because neither you or I know what will happen in the next 20 years. It could happen that the EU could fix its problems and sustain their economic growth. However, it is more likely that they will not, and they should be preparing for this outcome. You are 100% correct when you say that the merits of each "nation" are decided by the values of a person. I happen to espouse free-enterprise and the "American Dream." Everyone in the United States has the same opportunity as everyone else to become "something." Whereas in the EU, the aristocracy will always be the aristocracy so it does not give the same type of motivation. It is not to say that this system is wrong, but I certainly don't prefer it. That is why I am here and not the European Union.</p>
<p>Primitivefuture_returns,</p>
<p>Are you currently a student in America? If so, what's your major and what college do you currently attend?</p>
<p>SOL in the US is actually higher than most EU nations:</p>
<p>The US was 8th in the 2004 survey, ahead of the UK, France, Switzerland, and Austria</p>
<p>And Alexandre, I dont think Americans are moving to the UK for lower taxes...</p>
<p>By socially aware, do you mean more and more regulations (which leads to greater inefficiency) are being placed on business in the EU?</p>
<p>UC_Benz, GDP growth is not an indication of wealth, it is an indication of consumption. Europeans save over 10% of their income. Americans save less than 5% of their income. Besides, if you look at GPD per capita, the average annual increase between Europe and the US has been negligible (2.2% in the US as opposed to 2.1% in Europe since 1980). What accounts for the difference is immigration, which has been much large in the US between 1980 and 2000.</p>
<p>Taking the US's population growth (both organic and inorganic) and spending habits, it will always have a larger GDP than Europe...relatively speaking. </p>
<p>As for population increase, why would Europe want a larger population? Europe has 800 million crammed in an area one third the size of the US. </p>
<p>Like you, I do not forsee a "doomsday" scenario. The US and Europe will both remain highly advanced societies with great strengths and some weaknesses. Economically and Militarily, Europe is always going to lag the US because in order to catch up, they will have to give up certain things they value too greatly. But socially, Europe will continue to develop and improve where I think the US will continue to retreat and lose ground. In short, they are growing apart in many other ways and the way I see it, I prefer the way Europe is headed.</p>
<p>"But socially, Europe will continue to develop and improve where I think the US will continue to retreat and lose ground."</p>
<p>Since you've lived Europe for six years, I was hoping you'd give us a few examples that will support your argument when you say that Europe has the edge on the United States regarding social life.</p>
<p>That would take way too long. One can write a few volumes on the subject. But I will start by saying that Europe is better than the US in terms of:</p>
<p>1) Social consciousness
2) Global thinking and understanding
3) Dealing with poverty
4) Affordable access to world class medicine for all citizens
5) Affordable access to world class eduecation for all citizens
6) Crime rates
7) Less stressful lifestyle (more vacation time, shorter work hours, better maternity and paternity rights etc...)
8) Better rights for women
9) Better acceptanceof gays.
10) More rights to the worker
11) More freedom of expression
12) Longer life expectancy
13) Lower infant mortality rate
14) Lower teen-pregnancy rates
15) Fewer restrictions placed on society because of outdated religious convictions
16) Less government interference on social issues
17) Better relations with other nations
18) More aid donation to poor nations
19) More responsible enviornmental policies</p>
<p>I don't know how you stand to even measure half of those points. A lot of them are products of the people you have associated with throughout your life. You cannot generalize about an entire nation by expanding your own experiences.</p>
<p>This is the best one:
"Less government interference on social issues." Most of the governments in Europe are near-Socialist! How can you say their government does not involve themselves more on social issues. That defeats your whole argument about Europe being more socially advanced. How do you think they have better (according to you) healthcare? education? crime rate?</p>
<p>No UC_Benz, you misunderstand my point. Governments in Europe do not intrude in social issues. Issues like marriage, euthanasia, abortion, etc... </p>
<p>That's not to say that Europe does not have restrictive governments, but they aren't as restrictive as the US.</p>
<p>And none of the points I list is based on personal friendships and exposure to limited numbersd of people. About half of them are based on actual numbers. Points 4, 5, 6, 12, 13, 14, 18 and 19 can be backed statistically. The other half are based on polls and on my obeservations as a neutral resident of both the US and Europe.</p>
<p>I think we do have a misunderstanding here. Like I contended earlier, our expectations of social issues are shaped by our experiences in life. Thus it is going to be an endless argument because some of the things "right" to you are "wrong" to me and vice versa.</p>
<p>Where are these statistics? Until you provide proof to support your claims, your arguement is weak. You have little basis to judge the US. "But so and so said..." So who really gives? Until you provide statistical evidence to support your ludicrous claims such as More freedom of expression, More Rights to the Worker, etc. you might as well be talking to yourself.</p>
<p>In case you didn't know, labor unions are counter-productive and inefficient. Ask a citizen if he would rather be unemployed or have a secure job that pays a little less. Guess which one he'll answer. Oh, but thats right, he'd rather stay unemployed because he can make more money than if he had a job in many EU nations (i.e. Germany). Europe's economic system is broke, no if ands or buts about it. Many Germans and French are starting to realize this and thats why there is a pretty significant shift toward the right.</p>
<p>I'd be more than happy to see you stay in Dubai, we certainly do not need such narrowminded people here.</p>
<p>Alexandre: When you say that France's lifestyle is great, I assume your speaking of Southern France. Correct me if I'm wrong. I heard that people from Paris are rude and not very welcoming to tourists. When you said that you've lived and worked in France, Germany and UK; what were your jobs in each country? Did you work for seperate i-banking companies or the same one (lehman brothers) when you moved from Germany to France to UK?</p>
<p>There are obvious differences between Paris and the rest of France. Paris is a city with close to 10 million people, so clearly, it is faster-paced and the people are usually very involved in whatever they are doing. But Parisians are not "rude". </p>
<p>I worked for Lehman Brothers for the first couple of years and then, when my boss accepted a job at Goldman Sachs, I moved with her. So my 3+ years of work in Europe were split almost evenly between LB and GS.</p>
<p>During your 4 year i-banking career experience, were you promoted to associate? I remember in one of the other previous posts in a different thread, you mentioned your salary during your 3rd and 4rth year to somewhat close to 400K. </p>
<p>Do you have to become an associate to make that kind of money?</p>
<p>Eternity, when I visited Paris the people were extremely nice and welcoming. I know some people have had bad experiences, but they can happen anywhere.</p>
<p>My salary as an IBanker never crossed the 6 figures. It was my bonuses, particularly after my third and fourth years, that really made the difference. But that was not common for colleagues at my level. I was fortunate enough to have connections thanks to my family's network. Those connections gave me an edge that most employees at my level simply didn't have. My father was a very high-level VP at Paribas in the 80s and his connections have remained loyal. </p>
<p>I was an analyst while with LB and became an associate when I transfered to GS.</p>