Anecdotal impressions of course, and superficial ones at that - I lived there for a few years but I'd need pages to write about them. If you ever have a chance to work/study/live there for a year, I'd say jump at the chance. It's not heaven on earth by any means, but Dutch people and society are worth getting to know.
(Using crimes committed per 100'000 people between ages 12 and 79.)
For those that speak Dutch, the link to the table is: http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?VW=T&DM=SLNL...
On a semi-related note: I'm quite pleased that the Statistics Bureau's StatLine application now works in my browser. It's mostly HTML right now. It used to be mostly Java.
Demographic transition (fewer young people of the age most likely to commit crimes) might have a large enough effect size to account for that.
Before the U.S. economy took off in the 20th century, it was the UK and Netherlands which had the most dynamic and open market place. Further, the Netherlands were always a tolerant place for divergent political and religious views.
There was a good article from the NY Times posted a few weeks ago which provides a good summary of life in the Netherlands: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=595465
Also, Nicholas Freeling's van der Valk series, ditto.
I just noticed, reading the Wikipedia article, that he died last July 4. Another one gone. Damn.
US: 760
Netherlands: 100
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/law/research/icps/worldbrief/wpb...
That's right... there's now more slaves in the USA than before it became illegal.
Most prisons in the USA are run by private companies. They get paid by the states to hold the prisoners. Recently there were some judges convicted of sending innocent children to jail in exchange for financial payments from some of these private prisons.
With a minimum wage of about $20/hr it's difficult to break in at the low end of the labor market. [edit- appears this is an off base presumption]
It seems like Ms. Mees is exaggerating a bit to make her point.
Another inaccuracy in her article surfaces when she refers to the polls that say that Wilders' party is currently leading. The polls she is referring to suffer from severe selection bias. People sign up to be part of the panel that gets polled. Since Wilders' supporters are mostly disgruntled with current political affairs, it seems very likely that they are overrepresented in those polls.
I don't think she was aware of that though. These polls are done weekly and generally get some press (sad but true), mostly without any critical note (or any note at all) about the methodology (even sadder). [Wilders' may very well gain quite a following, but it's not evident from those polls.]
And when you're not a low-paid worker - like me - the payroll duties etc are a very small part of what my employer pays, maybe 5% or so, but I pay more than 50% of my salary in income tax! So, in either case, the state and the social institutions get their cut.
I personally like living somewhere where health care is a basic right for everyone (even if provision of it is a bit backward compared to somewhere like Spain or Australia - they're just discovering evidence-based medicine for example), people on the street are either foreigners and/or actively refuse help from the social services, and there's a generally strong tendency to solidarity despite recent trends towards an American-style consumerism and (not to be too blunt) selfishness.
Poverty in the US is above the median wage in Portugal.
And there is something to be said for it. If everybody in a country is making more, the price of living will be higher as well. If you're in the lower x%, you'll still have a hard time to pay for it.
While we could define "poor" as "wearing yellow pants", such a definition isn't useful.
> If everybody in a country is making more, the price of living will be higher as well. If you're in the lower x%, you'll still have a hard time to pay for it.
That depends on what "it" we're talking about.
Suppose that 95% of the population can afford to travel at Warp 10 to {wherever}. Does that imply that the remaining 5% are necessarily "poor"? To me, whether they're poor depends on facts not in evidence, namely, what can they afford?
Those who define poverty in relative terms are basically in the envy camp; they're unhappy if someone has more. Me, I'm in the greed camp. I don't care what other people have - I care what I have.
Yes, but you may have noticed that I described a definition after my statement, which is the generally accepted definition of poverty in The Netherlands, the country under discussion. By all means, disagree (I'm not sure I agree with it myself), but brushing it aside as some random statement with the usefulness of "wearing yellow pants" is not really fair.
> That depends on what "it" we're talking about.
Random stuff. May include foodstuff, may also include random luxury stuff. Obviously for the former it's important, while for the latter it's supposed to be normal.
> Those who define poverty in relative terms are basically in the envy camp; they're unhappy if someone has more.
True enough, but that would seem to be the more "normal" attitude. (Keeping up with the Joneses and such.)
Before the banks fouled up and it became trendy, the Dutch were already in uproar about high salaries for some top dogs. This has lead to something called the "Balkenende-limit": no one in the public or semi-public sector is allowed to earn more than the prime minister (Balkenende currently). While this is reasonable (it is public money after all), minor uproars break out from time to time when a newspaper gets his hand on somebody's wage details, even if that person is in the private sector.
Interesting enough, nobody cares about the salary paid to soccer players, which are just as high.
>Random stuff. May include foodstuff, may also include random luxury stuff. Obviously for the former it's important, while for the latter it's supposed to be normal.
Not so fast. The claim was "If everybody in a country is making more, the price of living will be higher as well. If you're in the lower x%, you'll still have a hard time to pay for it."
I took "hard time" to mean that you can't afford something important, where it matters.
> This has lead to something called the "Balkenende-limit": no one in the public or semi-public sector is allowed to earn more than the prime minister (Balkenende currently). While this is reasonable (it is public money after all),
Is that standard necessarily reasonable? Lots of US medical doctors who work for public hospitals or medical schools make more than the US president, let alone the various state governors.
Why should "status" offices, especially elected ones, be high paying? Surely you're not arguing that you have to pay them a lot to keep them from stealing? And, if they feel that their skills are so valuable, shouldn't someone be willing to pay them voluntarily?
Yes, I'm one of those folks who don't think that folks "in public service" should be especially well paid. I make an exception for folks who could do the exact same thing in the private sector, but legislators, judges, and the executive branch don't qualify.
Since I dealt with its substance later on, I didn't brush it aside.
That said, when the only support given is "lots of folks believe it", is brushing it aside unreasonable? Does it matter if they're Dutch? Should I have argued about the number of people who believe that position, whether they're Dutch, or whether the Dutch are authorities on this subject?
I thought not, so that's why I argued against a valid reason for their position and disussed its implications.
What it essentially boils down to is some variation of "Well, so and so has a Lamborghini, but I've only got a Corvette."
Wouldn't that mean that, by definition, it is impossible to eradicate poverty?