Hacker News Reader

Arguably, the relatively low wealth per capita is partially because they've been one of the few western European countries to mostly avoid a major property bubble in the last while.

I partially disagree. You see the property bubble costs represented in the net wealth figures of most other European nations in the form of mortgage debt. For example, that's why Sweden has a median net wealth even lower than Germany, their housing wealth is mostly housing debt. The same is true of eg Denmark, despite their high median income.

Plus, the stagnation and low level of their median net wealth aligns with the other figures/problems I referenced. When you're lauded as Europe's most powerful economy and you fail to see your relatively low median net wealth climb for a decade or more, there is something wrong when it comes to household prosperity / household wealth formation. For example, if we accept a strict premise that Germany's low median net wealth is due to not having seen a big property bubble - then what accounts for those home owners having not paid down a lot of mortgage debt in the last 10+ years and significantly boosting household wealth accordingly? Not to mention, where is the traditional savings formation that one would expect to see outside of home ownership.

> For example, if we accept a strict premise that Germany's low median net wealth is due to not having seen a big property bubble - then what accounts for those home owners having not paid down a lot of mortgage debt in the last 10+ years and significantly boosting household wealth accordingly?

Well, for starters, differences in pension systems. Some types of retirement savings are counted as part of your net wealth, some aren't. In Germany, most don't, even though they're probably worth hundreds of thousands of Euros per person. If you look at net pension wealth, Germany is much closer to the top [1].

Second, net wealth is dominated by property owned, and German's don't buy homes as much, both for good and bad reasons.

1. The German tax system discourages property speculation (and to a lesser degree, also buying property). Fees and taxes on property sales can be hefty. If you buy, you generally buy for life and only once you've settled down. The upside is that controlling property speculation contributes to stable and affordable rents.

2. Renting is both more affordable and also otherwise an attractive, non-stigmatized alternative to owning. Tenants have strong rights vis-à-vis their landlords (arguably, too strong, but that doesn't make renting less attractive).

3. Germans tend to be debt-averse and are less likely to take up a mortgage even if they could afford one. A recent study showed that one third of German renters could buy ... if they wanted to, which they apparently don't. That said, due to a strong economy, the home ownership rate has been growing in recent years.

4. Higher population density and exacting building codes make homes comparatively more expensive.

[1] https://data.oecd.org/pension/net-pension-wealth.htm

I remember reading an article that dug into claims that France took better care of their poor than America. This was true in some areas but overall the quality of life of the American poor was still better in many ways because they had a far wider selection of services and products at far cheaper prices. So although primary services like day care were less subsidized they were able to do much more with the little money they had.

It's easy to gloss over the realities of peoples day-to-day life when comparing countries with different economies and social structures by only looking at high level statistics or only at the more highly visible government services.

What wide selection of services can the poor in the US access? My impression is that many services benefit the rich. Once you have a minimum amount of wealth, products become cheaper. Financial products are a prime example for that.

The poor in the US have a large entitlement structure, including free healthcare, and countless state / local / federal programs around food security and housing.

The top 1/3 in the US pay nearly all income taxes, for example. The bottom 1/2 in the US pay almost no income taxes (the bottom 1/3 have a large negative income tax level), while deriving substantial tax payer benefits. The US has an extremely progressive taxation system.

Just to add there are many non-profit and religious based support networks. Including things like “soup kitchens”, food drives, and shelters that are not government run.

Others answered re: the service part but I should note I'm not talking only about services but also products such as food, clothing, cars, entertainment, etc. Quality of life is a broad term.

> What wide selection of services can the poor in the US access?

Medicaid, Food Stamps, SNAP, Disability, Unemployment Benefits, Free Healthcare at any Emergency Room hospital that accepts Medicare, Food Staples (Cheese, Peanut Butter, etc), free phones, free defense lawyer, etc.

Comparing the level of care between Medicaid and the basic Sécurité Sociale benefits leads me to question this assertion.

Same for public transit, the lack thereof in most of America severly handicaps the poor who do not have a car.

Education too: the poor have the opportunity to put their kids through college or even med school. Yes there are higher failure rates among the poor, but 75% of the poor still graduate HS and if they make it past that, they've cleared the hardest hurdle (fewer dropouts among poor in college than MS/HS). http://www.education.gouv.fr/cid5008/les-trajectoires-scolai...

This is pretty much the type of analysis I was critiquing. You simply can't measure the quality of life of poor simply via a few highly visible public institutions... or something like GDP per capita.

This is isn't about who has better public institutions (which plays a part) but the fact economics and quality of life are complex, deep subjects, and debates about who 'takes care of their poor' are so often reductive and narrowly focused.

Arguably, the relatively high wealth per capita in Switzerland is mostly because they've been one of the few western European countries to mostly avoid wars (and subsequent rebuilding from rubbles) in the last centuries.

That depends on what you mean by "richest". Measured in GDP, Germany is the richest country in Europe, by a big margin [1].

I think that the point of the article is to demonstrate that a country's power and wealth doesn't translate into good lives or more wealth for its citizens. The statistics you brought up demonstrate that very nicely too.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_in_Eu...

Wealth is irrelevant - it just shows house prices.

GDP per capita is important, but not the only important indicator. Total GDP is also important, and it justifies the "Europe's richest country" headline.

Switzerland is definitely Europe's richest country. I left Germany to start my programming career and later recruiting agency here in Zurich; read my story from back then here: "8 reasons why I moved to Switzerland to work in tech" https://medium.com/@iwaninzurich/eight-reasons-why-i-moved-t...

Germany's the wealthiest of the large european economies, and is also the biggest economy in europe. that's why its dubbed as such

Germany isn't the wealthiest of the large European economies. Both the UK and France have far higher (2x for the UK and 4x for France) median net wealth per adult levels.

I was referring to GDP figures

> Their median income is also not impressive, given the way they're widely perceived as being Europe's most powerful economy. Their median income is near ~25% below that of the US.

That's not adjusted for prices. Living in the US is easily 25% more expensive at current exchange rates, if not more. The Euro is still massively overvalued if you think living costs should be roughly equal.

> Living in the US is easily 25% more expensive at current exchange rates, if not more.

Living in the US is not more expensive than living in Germany. A typical - median - house in the US costs beween $175,000 and $225,000 for example. Germany's prices are higher than that. US food and energy costs are also lower than Germany's.

This is also why the US has a far higher disposable income than Germany: precisely because not only does the US have a higher median income, it has a lower cost of living.

The only places that it's more expensive in the US, is in a select few cities such as NYC or San Francisco.

> The rich title goes to Luxembourg or Switzerland; then to Norway.

Tax havens are special cases, and so is Norway. Sweden and the Netherlands are more useful examples of somewhat richer countries that aren't rich because of one of those factors.

In general, it's more interesting to study wealth at the regional level (notice in particular the pretty vast difference between the former West and East Germany [1]).

> Their median net wealth per adult is a mere $42,000 and has not improved in over a decade. It's lower than Spain (which has over 1/3 less GDP per capita), Taiwan and the US.

This is largely a result of the low home ownership rate, second only to Switzerland in Europe. Net wealth is not a useful source of comparison, especially when it comes to poverty (poor people are generally more interested in the cost of renting than buying).

> Their median income is near ~25% below that of the US.

And so are annual hours worked per employee. It's a different tradeoff, work-life balance vs. income. And no, this is not the result of underemployment. Underemployment in Germany is pretty much middle of the road [2].

> What does that all add up to? Record poverty problems:

Ugh, no. Have a look at the income curves [3]. The bottom quintile in Germany is actually doing okay, other than compared to the Nordics. Yes, relative poverty and inequlity has risen over the past 25 years, but if you want to look for reasons, I'd start with reunification and the fall of the Iron Curtain. Living standards still differ greatly between the former West and the former East Germany and wage competition from and outsourcing to Eastern Europe hasn't helped, either (though that was good for Eastern Europe, something that shouldn't be forgotten).

[1] http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/...

[2] http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/...

[3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/08/15/this-...

I mostly agree with you, but what, in your opinion, makes Norway special, but the Netherlands not? Norway has oil, the Netherlands has/had natural gas.

The natural resources of the Netherlands do not have as much of an impact on the economy as the outsized effects of oil for Norway. The Netherlands are primarily wealthy for similar reasons as Germany: they're a successful trading nation (indicated by not just having high exports as a percentage of GDP, but also high imports). Obviously, the devil is in the details, but they are at a minimum more comparable to Germany than Norway.

Percentage-wise, the impact on Norway is larger, yes, but still, I think the effect of having lots of natural gas was fairly big. But yes, in other ways they are more comparable to Germany.

(as to that devil in the details, one could argue that the Rhine and the Meuse are natural resources that a) make farming way more productive by keeping the grass green and b) make it way easier to become a trading nation)