Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

But maybe those experts should've been raising alarm over this? Western Europe is doing pretty poorly when it comes to economic growth. And prior to that Germany got a lot of help from the US, Spain did not do well, Italy was questionable, Portugal did not do well. Netherlands did well, but a lot of it is down to their location as a place for trade. That only leaves France and Belgium. Did they do well?

>We've been able to finance better healthcare before

Modern healthcare is better than anything before. Even in its dysfunctional state it is better. Sure, you might have to wait longer to see a specialist, but the number of cases where the reply you get is "nothing we can do" is lower.

The things you mention are more expensive to provide today. One of the reasons is that our requirements for those services are much higher leading to much higher inherent costs.



> That only leaves France and Belgium. Did they do well?

Looking at France and the quality of their industrial output in the 70s to 90s, ranging from high-speed trains, rockets, passenger airplanes, Concorde, helicopters, (racing) cars, submarines, nuclear power plants, medical labs, etc. I would say yes. Their infrastructure has also been of high quality, so has the education system of their elites, and their healthcare.

And from what I could see of Belgium and their infrastructure, it also looked like that period was good for them.

> Modern healthcare is better than anything before. Even in its dysfunctional state it is better.

This is a more relevant point. The question is if we aren't well past a point of diminishing returns. For instance, for France, the data shows that the life expectancy of women was increasing by 2 years every 10 years, until 2010. It has increased by 0.5 years since then. The life expectancy of men followed a similar trend.

In fact, we might not have seen the full effect dysfunctional health care just yet, and we could be riding on the momentum of previous gains. And the ever increasing delays to see a specialist can only have detrimental effects in the long term. In parallel, the disproportionate increase of healthcare costs per patients means that, at some point, life expectancy is going to go down.

> One of the reasons is that our requirements for those services are much higher leading to much higher inherent costs.

No, I don't think I agree. The house you are getting has not improved 3 fold in quality compared to 20 years ago. The roads you are driving on are not 2 times better. Train travel is not a lot safer, nor faster, nor with more frequent service. On the contrary. The food quality in your supermarket has not improved. The electricity you use still has the same voltage and the same frequency. The clothes you wear are not of higher quality.


>France

France also has kind-of a colonial empire still going on. Could that have an effect?

>The house you are getting has not improved 3 fold in quality compared to 20 years ago

That's true, but there is likely the 80/20 principle at play. Every additional level of quality costs more and more to achieve. Not to mention that often the increase of quality isn't really noticeable. Eg lead paint vs not, better wiring (fewer house fires), better insulation (lower heating costs), better air circulation (less mold) etc.

You also have the problem of survivorship bias. The old homes that are still used today are the probably the better ones. The worse ones from back in the day just didn't last.

But all-in-all, I can only suggest reasons. I'm from a former Soviet state. Some of the transformations are that good. Eg sidewalk roads actually feel 2x better if not more. These days they are nice and smooth roads you could skateboard on. Back in the day I'm not sure I would even want to ride a bicycle on them because they looked like the surface of the moon. And clothes are much cheaper in relative terms and even in absolute terms. But I think this is an exception and not a general trend.


> France also has kind-of a colonial empire still going on. Could that have an effect?

They were officially post-colonial by that time, and what is left is perhaps more a financial drain than a net income gain, although geostrategically invaluable.

> Every additional level of quality costs more and more to achieve. Not to mention that often the increase of quality isn't really noticeable. Eg lead paint vs not, better wiring (fewer house fires), better insulation (lower heating costs), better air circulation (less mold) etc.

They might increase cost, or they might not, as they are logical continuation of progress (as in, does lead-less paint really cost more to produce than leaded paint?) but in the end, they are "marginal" costs on a house, maybe in the order of 15%? So by themselves, they are not going to increase the price by 300%.

> I'm from a former Soviet state.

That brings a very different perspective, yes. Having spent quite a lot of time in eastern Europe, it is clear that the life experienced in that period was very, very different, and that many improvements where brought in, in quality and quantity.

But taking the road example, if you go to Belgium, you will have the joy of experiencing the inverse phenomenon, with a decrepit infrastructure that has been much, much better in the past. Imagine the moon surface you described, and then on a motorway, with cars driving by at 130 kph.. I've seen motorway signs covered in moss, as if an apocalypse had hit.

For clothes, I have items that were bought at the turn of the century and are still "wearable", but no recent clothing item seem to survive more than a year or two, independently of the cost. Which is an annoyance: I wouldn't mind paying more for something that lasts, but, so far, haven't found a brand that does. Of course, the current state of affair is an upgrade on the quality and quantity of clothing that was available in ex Eastern-block states. (Although, as bad as the fabric and colors were, I can only assume that they were built to last?)


Based on what data ? I checked and I can't see these claims being supported. I could be wrong but and may have misunderstood something.


How well the countries are doing? Nominal GDP/capita has been relatively stagnant in most of western Europe:

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?location...


Why are we using nominal GDP/C? You should use real GDP/C

This is the Gini coefficient for those countries: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI?locations=F...




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: