Economy Trumps Environment in Poll

[RBM]

For the first time (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) in Gallup’s 25-year history of asking Americans about the trade-off between environmental protection and economic growth, a majority of Americans say economic growth should be given the priority, even if the environment suffers to some extent.

I view this as notable since homo sapiens are the most rapacious ape on this finite planet and Americans are the most rapacious homo sapien on the planet.

Full Disclosure: I am a US citizen.

[Lohengram]

I'm always amused by this idea that homo sapiens are a disease on this planet. 1st point if you feel that they are and you're one why not kill yourself and end your own parasitic contributions and prevent the chance that you could reproduce and create more parasites? 2nd Why only homo sapiens? If you see Elephants pushing over trees and destroying forests which they do do, do you think they are parasites? What definition of parasite are you using and why does this not apply to any and indeed perhaps all life on this planet?

[Tyrant Soup]

I'm always amused by this idea that homo sapiens are a disease on this planet.

Overpopulation is certainly not beneficial to the planet.

[Sequoia]

Hard to say if this is accurate, simply because the question is so broad based. If those that responded the economy or ecology is more important survey were given specific either/or examples demonstrating various ecological vs. economical issues in different areas, the results might have come out quite differently.

As a snapshot of the country's mood, it is far too general and broadbased to be focused or accurate.

[Lohengram]

Overpopulation is certainly not beneficial to the planet.

Over what?

[RBM]

I'm always amused by this idea that homo sapiens are a disease on this planet. 1st point if you feel that they are and you're one why not kill yourself and end your own parasitic contributions and prevent the chance that you could reproduce and create more parasites? 2nd Why only homo sapiens? If you see Elephants pushing over trees and destroying forests which they do do, do you think they are parasites? What definition of parasite are you using and why does this not apply to any and indeed perhaps all life on this planet?

And I'm amused that you are amused, especially since you wish to put words in my mouth.

I lead a frugal lifestyle. Could it be more frugal, sure and I'm working on it.

You, on the other hand, have replied in extremist vein with lots of preconceptions about my personal reproduction capacity and my worldview.

BTW, I'm learning some gardening, which is new for me.
And yourself ?





RBM added to this post, 4 minutes and 43 seconds later...

Hard to say if this is accurate, simply because the question is so broad based. If those that responded the economy or ecology is more important survey were given specific either/or examples demonstrating various ecological vs. economical issues in different areas, the results might have come out quite differently.

As a snapshot of the country's mood, it is far too general and broadbased to be focused or accurate.

Yup, certainly general. Accurate ? ever heard of 'good enough' ?

[Lohengram]

And I'm amused that you are amused, especially since you wish to put words in my mouth.

I lead a frugal lifestyle. Could it be more frugal, sure and I'm working on it.

You, on the other hand, have replied in extremist vein with lots of preconceptions about my personal reproduction capacity and my worldview.

BTW, I'm learning some gardening, which is new for me.
And yourself ?

You described the human race as “rapacious” is that really so different from parasitic? I didn’t think it was that different but maybe it is. As for myself, I have been looking into growing a portion of my own food, not as a result of ecological concerns but economic concerns about the future of our economic system and possible substantive price appreciation in agricultural commodities in the future.

[Sequoia]

Yup, certainly general. Accurate ? ever heard of 'good enough' ?


Of course. I also have a pretty good background in survey and data collection and statistics. Just reframing the questions slightly and doing the survey again will give more info. If it agrees with the general 1st survey, then I'd be more inclined to believe it. As it stands, I'm not at all sure. I don't disbelieve it, so much as not concluding if this is an accurate snapshot or not.

[Lohengram]

Of course. I also have a pretty good background in survey and data collection and statistics. Just reframing the questions slightly and doing the survey again will give more info. If it agrees with the general 1st survey, then I'd be more inclined to believe it. As it stands, I'm not at all sure. I don't disbelieve it, so much as not concluding if this is an accurate snapshot or not.

They've been asking the same question since 1985, it you reject the findings now then you reject them when they put the environment ahead of the economy in the past.

[Sequoia]

They've been asking the same question since 1985, it you reject the findings now then you reject them when they put the environment ahead of the economy in the past.

That was implied when I stated my concerns.

[RBM]

You described the human race as “rapacious” is that really so different from parasitic? I didn’t think it was that different but maybe it is. As for myself, I have been looking into growing a portion of my own food, not as a result of ecological concerns but economic concerns about the future of our economic system and possible substantive price appreciation in agricultural commodities in the future.

Rapacious in that the US wastes tremendous amounts of energy that have nominal costs to save.

Your reservations are warranted, see Wheat, Fertilizer, and Land (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and as that article indicates the ecology is inextricably linked to energy in the 21st century world.

[RBM]

A political play seems to have been hatched incorporating this element:

H/T Robert Rapier Does This Look Familiar? (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

Regular readers know that I am a proponent of a carbon tax with income tax offsets. See my essay The Case for Higher Gas Taxes for details.

A bill proposing that has now been proposed:

Revenue-Neutral Carbon Tax: The Raise Wages, Cut Carbon Act of 2009

* see link above for embedded links

I’m Bob Inglis from South Carolina’s Fourth District. Thank you for being part of this virtual hearing on our bill—The Raise Wages, Cut Carbon Act of 2009. I’m here to talk about—and give you the opportunity to talk about—how to make this bill even better.

Let me start by describing where I think we are. Polling data shows for the first time in a number of years that people are actually valuing the environment below economic recovery. The challenge before us is to come up with something that works for both: accomplishes good economic progress and recovery, but also addresses the problem of climate change.

emphasis added.

This should be viewed and evaluated through the US political filter of the US 'consumer society' to be fully appreciated.

Cue David Bowie's Changes (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.(David_Bowie_song))

[Henry]

I view this as notable since homo sapiens are the most rapacious ape on this finite planet and Americans are the most rapacious homo sapien on the planet.

Full Disclosure: I am a US citizen.

8.5% unemployment when there's a very, very limited social safety net is a legitimate problem.

[RBM]

8.5% unemployment when there's a very, very limited social safety net is a legitimate problem.

And you're being optimistic at only 8.5. That's the official number from a gov. who in the recent past has practiced massive manipulation. I don't believe that number for a second.

Lack of limited social safety net is just the start of the problems.

Katrina made news cause of lack of gov. emergency response. What did you read about the recent storms through AR and KY ?

[eternaltriangle]

8.5% unemployment when there's a very, very limited social safety net is a legitimate problem.

First of all, America does not have a limited social safety net. If you compare what somebody earns on welfare with the average income a few decades ago, they are not that different. Poverty is only "impossible" to solve because poverty is a relative concept. The number of truly poor people that have no food or shelter are very small. Because of medicaid/medicare (the one for poor people), lower income people often have better and cheaper healthcare than the working poor and middle class.

Secondly, 8.5% is not that high a level of unemployment. The NAIRU level of unemployment (the rate below which inflation accelerates out of control, making such a state of affairs unsustainable) is maybe 4%. 8.5% only seems high because the US tends to have low unemployment relative to the rest of the world.

In 2004 - in the midst of a global economic bubble - Germany had 9.8% unemployment, France 9.3%, Greece 10.5%, Italy 8.1%, Finland 8.9%, Canada 7.2%, Belgium 8.4%, Czech Republic 8.3%. The average for the EU was 9% unemployment. Yes, European countries have more extensive welfare states, but they also have a higher cost of living which squeezes the poor.

According to the OECD the average income for people in the bottom decile (20%) was about...

Italy: $5800
USA: $6000
Japan: $6000
Germany: $7750
Canada: $8000
France: $8300
UK (which has a limited welfare state): $9000

So the US was at the bottom but hardly alone. Moreover, its poor have a much greater chance of finding employment than in say, France, Germany or Italy.

[Henry]

Secondly, 8.5% is not that high a level of unemployment. The NAIRU level of unemployment (the rate below which inflation accelerates out of control, making such a state of affairs unsustainable) is maybe 4%. 8.5% only seems high because the US tends to have low unemployment relative to the rest of the world.

Its 8.5%, or roughly double the level it was in 2007 and triple what it was in the late 1990s. Its the highest level since the early 80s.. Its climbing rapidly.

There's welfare for those that lose their jobs, and for some there's unemployment benefits, but on the whole

In 2004 - in the midst of a global economic bubble - Germany had 9.8% unemployment, France 9.3%, Greece 10.5%, Italy 8.1%, Finland 8.9%, Canada 7.2%, Belgium 8.4%, Czech Republic 8.3%. The average for the EU was 9% unemployment. Yes, European countries have more extensive welfare states, but they also have a higher cost of living which squeezes the poor.

Oranges to apples. All of the states you mention have universal health care (except for Gree and the Czech Reupiblic, both of which I'm not sure about). Most of them have guaranteed minimum income levels. Most have little in the way of homelessness, except for drug addicts or alcoholics. Most have free or very low cost university education.

The US system is completely broken. My parents - both fit and in their early 50s - are paying more for catastrophic health care than I live on. Welfare is a joke, unemployment compensation is difficult to obtain unless your employer is honest (rare) and your state is liberal. Housing is insanely overpriced. Jobs are hard to come by for those with college degrees, and nearly impossible to come by for those with just high school education.

I'd question that most EU countries have costs of living that are all that much higher than they are here. Rent is cheaper in most major European cities than most American, health care is generally provided at no cost, and food costs aren't that much higher.

According to the OECD the average income for people in the bottom decile (20%) was about...

Italy: $5800
USA: $6000
Japan: $6000
Germany: $7750
Canada: $8000
France: $8300
UK (which has a limited welfare state): $9000

So the US was at the bottom but hardly alone. Moreover, its poor have a much greater chance of finding employment than in say, France, Germany or Italy.

And the US has about 130-60% of the GDP/P that each of said countries has. So to be at the bottom of that list is an ebmarrasment.

[aku chi]

For the first time in Gallup’s 25-year history of asking Americans about the trade-off between environmental protection and economic growth, a majority of Americans say economic growth should be given the priority, even if the environment suffers to some extent.
This poll is misleading for a few important reasons. Firstly, the poll question assumes that the economy and the environment are two distinct entities. This seems strange to me considering that much of our economy involves the exchange of natural reasources. I would argue that it is crucially important to any discussion of the environment to recognize that human interests in natural resources (like produce) encourages us to increase the growth of such resources. Gallup might assume that if it is exchanged amongst humans, it is not part of the enviroment; this is a bizzare view of the environment.

Secondly, the poll question regards the environment suffering as a result of economic growth. I'm not entirely sure how 'the environment' suffers. Does the environment suffer if human interests aren't affected? For instance mosquitos, unlike most animals, seem to have no 'positive' impact on humans, even if you consider a broad ecological outlook. Mosquitos, it would seem, are not a primary foodsource for any other animals and they don't help to pollinate or decompose or anything else; they just suck blood and carry diseases. Would the environment suffer if mosquitos were eradicated? I don't expect a poll question to clarify such issues of environmental ethics, but it is still a problem with the poll.

Thirdly, the poll question presents "protection of the environment" as a counterpoint to economic growth. This reflects a conservationist view of environmentalism that is long outdated amongst scholars. We have seen, over the past century, that keeping human influences away from the environment does not neccessarily maintain it. The environment is complex and dynamic; perhaps we should be cultivating for human interests (the only interests we know) as opposed to 'protecting' it. Yes, I do have an anthropocentric outlook on environmental ethics.

There is also the obvious assumption that economic growth and environmental protection are oppositional. A brief counter-example can be seen in National Parks. Conserving park land and charging tourists to view the land involves economic growth and environmental protection.

In conclusion, I also find the poll disturbing, but not its results. Gallup makes several assumptions that undermines the validity of the complex issue with which it intends to guage public opinion. I wish that poll questions should list their assumptions and allow people to reject the poll question if they reject an assumption. But "People Reject Gallup's Assumptions About the Economy and the Environment" wouldn't make as many headlines and wouldn't be in Gallup's self interest.

[eternaltriangle]

"The US system is completely broken. My parents - both fit and in their early 50s - are paying more for catastrophic health care than I live on. Welfare is a joke, unemployment compensation is difficult to obtain unless your employer is honest (rare) and your state is liberal. Housing is insanely overpriced. Jobs are hard to come by for those with college degrees, and nearly impossible to come by for those with just high school education."

I agree that the US healthcare system has problems. I moved down here 3 years ago and was surprised - I thought that if you had health insurance everything was essentially free. Down here, my provincial government will cover me, but only pays what they would pay in Canada, which is often 1/10th the US cost. Preventive care is often avoided because of cost. I am not sure the problem is too little government though. The US actually spends more per capita than most of the EU or Canada.

Moreover, the US blows everybody else out of the water in terms of medical research. Part of why the US is innovative is that you have strong IP protections for pharmaceutical companies, and a system where the latest gadgets are pimped by doctors and paid for by massive profits. Governments are far less inclined to invest in research because the fruits of medical research are rarely reaped within the course of a 4-year term. All of these things raise costs for patients. Of course, adverse selection in the health insurance market also raises costs. Then again, the US does not have problems with waiting lists. The EU and Canada would have much worse health-care systems if the US didn't have the system it does, because they indirectly benefit from innovations in the US.

US unemployment is and was (pre-crash) lower than most other countries, so I am not sure where this impossibility of finding a job argument is coming form. Obviously right now it is hard to find a job, but not as hard as in Germany or France. You seem to be making this argument without a reasonable basis for comparison.

As for the affordability of university education, the US is surpassed only be Canada in terms of university (tertiary education) graduates, and that is only because most studies incorrectly consider Canadian "colleges" to be universities (in Canada a college is essentially what Americans would consider a community college). This would suggest that university is more affordable and accessible in the US than in most other countries, despite the lack of massive tuition subsidies. Where American universities really shine is in terms of academic output because universities have the revenue streams necessary to commit to what should be their primary function (conducting basic research).

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.(EN).htm

"I'd question that most EU countries have costs of living that are all that much higher than they are here. Rent is cheaper in most major European cities than most American, health care is generally provided at no cost, and food costs aren't that much higher."

Western Europe has the highest cost of living in the world.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"And the US has about 130-60% of the GDP/P that each of said countries has. So to be at the bottom of that list is an ebmarrasment."

The US has a larger GDP per capita BECAUSE it is at the bottom of that list. Inequality is the unfortunate price of rewarding success - that means costly universities and high healthcare costs. But it also means funding long-term innovation that nobody else in the world is likely to fund.

[Monte314]

If you ask people to choose between a good quality of life for snail darters, and a good quality of life for themselves, what do you expect them to pick? Why does this choice surprise you?

[Henry]

I agree that the US healthcare system has problems. I moved down here 3 years ago and was surprised - I thought that if you had health insurance everything was essentially free. Down here, my provincial government will cover me, but only pays what they would pay in Canada, which is often 1/10th the US cost. Preventive care is often avoided because of cost. I am not sure the problem is too little government though. The US actually spends more per capita than most of the EU or Canada.

It spends more per capita because it panders to special interest in the legal, medical, and pharmaceutical industries, and rarely does anything other than stimulate demand to ever-higher levels, rather than addressing the ridiculous cost structures that's made health care inaccessible for 20% of the population and rarely utilized for 40%.

Moreover, the US blows everybody else out of the water in terms of medical research. Part of why the US is innovative is that you have strong IP protections for pharmaceutical companies, and a system where the latest gadgets are pimped by doctors and paid for by massive profits. Governments are far less inclined to invest in research because the fruits of medical research are rarely reaped within the course of a 4-year term. All of these things raise costs for patients. Of course, adverse selection in the health insurance market also raises costs. Then again, the US does not have problems with waiting lists. The EU and Canada would have much worse health-care systems if the US didn't have the system it does, because they indirectly benefit from innovations in the US.

I'm so tired of hearing this argument because it has so little merit. The gap in health care costs between the US and the next highest country is about 6% of our much larger GDP. The US in total spends about 3% of GDP on research. So don't pretend like research is the reason that we're paying 600-700 per month in health care premiums alone, because its not.

US unemployment is and was (pre-crash) lower than most other countries, so I am not sure where this impossibility of finding a job argument is coming form. Obviously right now it is hard to find a job, but not as hard as in Germany or France. You seem to be making this argument without a reasonable basis for comparison.

Again, apples to oranges. If you can't find a job in Germany or France, you just don't get to buy nice things. If you can't find a job in the US, you will have no health care and eventually become homeless. So yeah, unemployment at 10% with a liberal social safety net is no big deal; unemployment at 10% without a social safety net is a huge deal.

As for the affordability of university education, the US is surpassed only be Canada in terms of university (tertiary education) graduates, and that is only because most studies incorrectly consider Canadian "colleges" to be universities (in Canada a college is essentially what Americans would consider a community college). This would suggest that university is more affordable and accessible in the US than in most other countries, despite the lack of massive tuition subsidies. Where American universities really shine is in terms of academic output because universities have the revenue streams necessary to commit to what should be their primary function (conducting basic research).

Or perhaps it suggests that people are cognizant of the fact that if you don't have a degree it is nearly impossible to find a job that pays more than 10/hour?

The university system is only moderately broken and somewhat overpriced. It is not a market that is in outright failure as the US health care industry is.


Western Europe has the highest cost of living in the world.

I can rent a flat in London, perhaps the greatest city in the world, for 400-500 pounds a month (500-700 US), to rent a tiny flat in bum-fuck Salt Lake City where my contract work is is costing me over 750, and when I was in San Diego I was paying 1200 per month for a one bedroom. Food costs aren't that much different. Health care is free. And you don't need a car to get around in most of Western Europe because you can just take the subway.

So, yeah, if I want to buy a fancy car and eat out at fancy restaurants and go to the movies every week then it is. But if I'm not a materialistic prick, then Western Europe actually has a lower cost of living.

The US has a larger GDP per capita BECAUSE it is at the bottom of that list. Inequality is the unfortunate price of rewarding success - that means costly universities and high healthcare costs. But it also means funding long-term innovation that nobody else in the world is likely to fund.

Bollox. Growth has been fine in many socialist countries - Sweden and the US' growth rates have been comparable over the past 50 years despite the fact that Sweden has universal health care, no homeless, a guaranteed minimum standard of living, free education and extremely liberal labor laws.

The vast majority of research that goes on in the country is the direct result of public funding, or to take advantage of liberal tax breaks and credits. Here's the most recent data that I was able to quickly find.

And note that you could cover *all of the research activity that occurs in every fucking industry* in the disparity between US health care costs and the next highest country's costs. The health care system is completely broken - not somewhat, not overpriced, not sort of not working - completely broken.

[eternaltriangle]

1. Healthcare
Yes, I agree that in the US things are skewed towards the benefit of HMO's, pharmaceutical companies etc. What you do not seem to understand is where corporate profits go. Some proportion of corporate profits are taxed, some proportion go to higher wages, some proportion goes to dividends (rewarding people for investing in the industry), and some proportion goes into R&D and plant expansion. The US system does screw consumers, but there is a clear upside to this.

R&D isn't the only reason, it is true - there are a lot of inefficiencies in the system. For instance, some people are voluntarily uninsured because they are young and unlikely to get sick. So the healthiest are often not in the market. Moreover, the market for healthcare is not very market-like. Most people get healthcare through their employer, so they are not in a position to switch providers.

2. Cost of Living
Firstly, London is one of the most expensive cities in the world to live in rent-wise.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

And no offence, but you don't sound like you are very good at looking for apartments in the US. Lets compare the best apartment I could get for $500/month in Salt Lake City versus London ($500 = 338 pounds, though a PPP conversion would be more favourable to my argument).

In Salt Lake City you would have your pick of one of three crappy studio apartments. For an extra $60 you could get a one bedroom with 500 sq. feet, which is not that bad.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

In London I could afford... to rent a parking space.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Secondly, there is a VAT of almost 20% on all purchases in the UK - much higher in other places. That alone cancels out any income advantage for the poor.

Thirdly, you are less likely to be able to get a job in a country with lots of labour laws. Companies think twice before hiring somebody if they are going to become responsible for that person's well-being from cradle to grave.

Fourthly, I am not really convinced by personal experience arguments when reputable statistics show otherwise.

Fifthly, the CPI, which is what they use to calculate cost of living includes a wide range of things - many of which are bare necessities. I would not say that the breakdown listed there is reflective of one being a "materialistic prick". The breakdown is shown below:

Total Food and beverages 36,06
Rice and cereal products 2,68
Meat , poultry and fish 5,32
Vegetables and fruits 4,77
Eggs and milk products 2,23
Seasonings and condiments 1,79
Non-alcoholic beverages 1,56
Consumable food - within the household 7,03
Consumable food - outside the household 10,68

Total Non-food and beverages 63,94
Clothing and footware 3,40
Housing and furnishing 23,86
Personal and medical care 6,04
Transportation and communication 21,99
Recreation and education 5,82
Tobacco and alcoholic beverages 2,83

3. Education and jobs

Firstly, you are talking about starting salaries. $10/hour is not that bad for a starting salary. It works out to $20,800/year, higher than the GDP of most countries. I presently make less than that as a grad student, and have no complaints about my dire poverty. I am debt-free, and have money for luxuries. I don't have a car or a cell-phone, I suppose, but those are things I can live without.

Secondly, you are actually incorrect. Even high school dropouts earned, on average, more than 20,800 in the US - and that was in the late 90's (it is higher now).
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

4. The relationship between income and inequality
Perhaps I should have explained my argument better. There are many tradeoffs that governments and institutions have to make between better serving the best and brightest and better serving those at the bottom.

In particular universities must make tradeoffs between an emphasis on research and an emphasis on teaching students. When the government gets involved, the latter, more politically popular option wins out.

Looking at public spending (your figures don't show up) is a measure only of inputs. A country could spend a great deal but get very little out of it. Lets look at outputs. Want to look beyond medical research? Fine.

Americans generate far more academic citations per paper (a good measure of the merit of academic work) in the sciences than Europeans (except perhaps the Swiss).

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Another indicator of innovation is productivity per worker. Americans are substantially more productive per hour worked than most of Europe. The Dutch and Norway, of course, have oil. Ireland actually has lower taxes than the US. France may be impacted by its strange labour laws. Nonetheless the US certainly does quite well.

It is also reasonable to say that if the US was less productive, there is some technology that would not have been developed as quickly, such that Europe would be less productive than it is today.

Percentage gap with respect to US GDP per hour worked
Turkey -59
Mexico -65
Poland -61
Hungary -54
Slovak Republic -46
Portugal -48
Czech Republic -54
Korea -58
New Zealand -43
Greece -40
Italy -25
Spain -20
OECD total -28
France 1
Japan -29
Germany -5
Finland -18
Belgium 5
United Kingdom -15
Iceland -34
Denmark -18
Sweden -12
Austria -13
Australia -17
Canada -19
Netherlands 2
Switzerland -19
Ireland 8
Norway 33

5. Bottom line
I think you seem to have interpreted this as a pissing match between two systems. I do not view it as such. It is entirely reasonable if you prefer social equality to root for the European system. However, I do take issue with unsubstantiated claims and a failure to address some of the real and unfortunate tradeoffs that exist in economics.