Europe's demographics simply cannot support the size of their social safety nets. European countries are already relying more on immigrants, but immigration from central / eastern europe is already tapped out.

That only leaves you with immigrants from beyond the EU. Most of those who have any skills are going to try to get into the US. The ones that can't are probably going to try and get residency / citizenship in canada and get in via a TN visa.

Europe is left with the remainder, and unskilled migrants from cultures which frankly have a much harder time integrating into a western one. Over the long term it's a pretty dire situation.

> European countries are already relying more on immigrants

The birth rate in the US is 1.64, the EU average is 1.53. So this is almost equally true for the US, a country historically built on the backs of immigrants.

The chickens are going to come home to roost soon enough wrt America's population growth. Lots of talk about what happens when the Boomers have fully exited the workforce, but 30+ years down the road when Millennials follow them we're going to be in a similar situation as Europe/China. My hope is that we open ourselves up more.

That's happening sooner than you think. We are in the boomer retirement wave. The peak is within 5 years. The tail end is in 10 years (from now).

I don't have the stats in front of me, but when you factor in immigration the us is over 2.0 while Europe still lags.

>Europe's demographics simply cannot support the size of their social safety nets

Neither can the US with social security, pensions and 401ks. All ponzi schemes created on infinite growth with the future generation paying off the last. The rate of pension bailouts by the Feds has been increasing even now.

Most countries in Western Europe have the social net curse blogging them down. The high tax, high social care system only works if the country is on a good growth track. As more people turn old and retire, someone has to pay for those. With wage stagnation in most normal occupations and lack of growth, the way they have tried to tackle this is with increase in immigration, which in turn keeps wages low in low paying sectors. Also, unlike US which does integration really well, this is not true for Europe where high immigration is leading to even frictions because of lack of integration.

On top of that, tech emerging as a big industry which forms a big part of the whole economic output of a country, has led to Europe losing out to US. Although only China through thier protectionism has been safe from that.

You can see this in the commentary about UK politics, where they don't have money to fund NHS and NHS wages haven't grown which has bogged down their healthcare system. Most of the manufacturing ecosystem is completely degraded. Productivity is at a complete toss as well, as they are not even able to build high speed rail well now, which for a social net country like UK should be of paramount importance.

To combat this, they have increased taxation, either through freezing slabs or moving down tax slabs. This penalises people in high wage professions and it leads to loss of competitiveness.

You know, the US spends most of our government money on old people too (social security, medicare, etc.). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget#/... We just get less bang for the buck for it because our healthcare and housing are so terribly inefficient and expensive, and we don't have a strong culture of familial support.

We can't build high speed rail either -- we can't even keep our low-speed rail running well -- and our answer to expensive healthcare is typically just "let them die, we can replace them" (immigration too, except we don't have to give our immigrants anything, just wink and pretend we hate them).

At the end of the day no society has it all figured out yet, but I'd love to live in a place with social services and a less hostile democracy so that all the citizens can work together to figure out next steps, instead of being dragged kicking and screaming by the rich. It's just a more collectivist mindset, not necessarily better or more right in any way.

> You know, the US spends most of our government money on old people too (social security, medicare, etc.).

My whole point was how these issues are less of an issue for US, again comparing with UK

US has better age demographic distribution than UK

The net tax burden on an average UK person is way higher compared to US while having worse average wages. Quick googling shows per capita income tax collected in US is $15K, while in UK it is $21K

GDP per capita of UK is $46K compared to US's 70K

If even after having high taxes, a country is having problem funding social services, then that's a big issue as the high taxes are meant to take care of that. US doesn't have this issue as taxes being lower, people can use the money not spent on tax on funding the social care things for themselves.

Also, overall US is still an attractive place for high earners so it will keep on attracting people from those segments which will boost its tax revenues and lead to decline of Europe. As while western Europe might be still a good place for people on median wages or below, USA might be much better for people on the other end

> US has better age demographic distribution than UK

I can believe that. Japan's even worse off, wonder what they're gonna do...

> The net tax burden on an average UK person is way higher compared to US while having worse average wages. Quick googling shows per capita income tax collected in US is $15K, while in UK it is $21K

It's a bit trickier than that, because some of the same services (like healthcare) are still paid by the typical consumer in the US, it just doesn't show up in their taxes. $6k/year might actually just cover the premiums for a small family (what you pay the insurer before you use any services). Using that healthcare would be way more expensive.

I think a fairer comparison would be discretionary income (disposable income minus cost of living expenses like housing, healthcare, food, education), etc. Unfortunately that data isn't easy to find, and definitions differ, but without considering all of those, it's not really apples-to-apples just to look at taxation rates.

The average person is more affected by "how much money do I have left to spend after the essentials" than "am I paying the government or a private company for these essentials".

> $6k/year might actually just cover the premiums for a small family (

This is not true anywhere in the US. The lowest premiums are ~$400 per person per month for bronze level insurance.

Lowest premiums for a family of four would be ~$2k per month plus annual deductible of $5k to $10k plus annual out of pocket maximum of ~$10k to $17k (legal limit).

This is incorrect.

At least until the end of 2024, insurance premiums are capped via subsidies (either paid directly, or as tax credits). The computation of the cap is extremely complex, but basically: you do not pay more than 8.3% of your household AGI for your state's 2nd most expensive silver-level insurance plan.

This is not widely talked about. It was a part of the ACA, but there was a salary cap somewhere near 100k/yr. The cap was removed during the COVID19 pandemic, and this currently runs to the end of 2024.

I used to pay $1300/month for my wife and I (in our late 50s); I currently pay $440/month (annual income approx $120k).

Interesting, does that only apply if you buy via healthcare.gov?

I see the full $30k+ in annual premiums that my employer plus I am paying in my W-2 (box 12 code DD), which is money that could have been cash compensation.

It does not apply (by my understanding) to employer-provided insurance. It does apply to all individually provided insurance whether purchased on exchange or not.

US GDP per capita is $80,000 for 2023, not $70k. It's nearly double that of France or Britain at this point, and rapidly running away from them both. It's now more than double that of Japan.

I think you are focusing on less important things.

Europe faces three big issues: demographic crisis, energy/resources dependency, and security vulnerability. US on the other hand will have good demographic outlook for most of this century, it is energy (including renewables) and resources rich, and separated by oceans from anyone who can threaten it.

High speed rail? Non-factor in a bigger picture.

The problems of the UK and US declining industrial base is due to lack of “protectionism” as you call it. Really it’s been a de facto industrial policy of disinvestment and off shoring driven by financialization of their economies over the last ca. 45-years. Free capital flows benefit capitalists, not ordinary citizens.

And yet these countries still focus on taxing income only, meanwhile a massive mountain of growing untouchable wealth is sitting there, owned by the older generation who supposedly need to be supported with the income generated by the young.

Tax and wealth distribution needs a fundamental rethink going into the next few decades - I really don't have high hopes that the current approaches will work. As you say, they are predicated on high growth scenarios which western nations are no longer experiencing at a macro level.

Don't kill the goose that lays golden eggs

People have been trying to link the two together, but I see no direct link between (good) economic growth and public social spending.

It is not because of welfare that there are less startups in Europe and it is not because of welfare that the big companies in Europe prefer to be more conservative with their spending on R&D. It's cultural. It's people being more financially conservative and risk averse.

> To combat this, they have increased taxation, either through freezing slabs or moving down tax slabs. This penalises people in high wage professions and it leads to loss of competitiveness.

I'm a relatively well paid software engineer in the UK, and I don't recognise this at all. I would be very happy to be taxed more to have a better health system. I wouldn't see this as being penalised, but something I'd vote for.

I have plenty of disposable income; if I had a bit less I'd probably spend less on buying expensive tech gadgets from American companies, investing in international shares or taking foreign holidays. It would be better for the country if that cash was diverted towards the NHS. I think overall it would make the country more prosperous. A sick workforce is an inefficient workforce.

Having a bit less cash would not make me less keen to start a company or change employer for more cash. In fact it would probably do the opposite.

> where they don't have money to fund NHS

We do have the money to fund the NHS. Successive Conservative governments have made the choice to defund the NHS, along with public health, and social care. And they did all of this on top of Brexit.

There may be some part of subjectivity and pessimism involved, but here are a few things in France (and I think it applies to most European countries):

- heatlhcare isn't what it used to be. Sure, it's free but it can take months to see some doctors, or even a dentist.

- retirement: the pension system isn't good. Most people will get less than 1.5K a month, and not before 64. The effects of the various pension reforms aren't visible yet but they will increase old people poverty.

- safety: this is political and people hold strong opinions on this, but my feeling is that poverty is on the rise, there are more and more unemployed young refugees...

More speculatively, I think Europe lacks natural resources and this is going to bite us more than the US.

Housing crisis, wars, uncontrolled immigration, high taxation, crumbling infrastructure (atleast here in ireland), declining economies. You name it.

Many countries in Europe have been in an economic malaise for some time now.

https://archive.ph/dqbDH

> The eurozone economy grew about 6% over the past 15 years, measured in dollars, compared with 82% for the U.S., according to International Monetary Fund data. That has left the average EU country poorer per head than every U.S. state except Idaho and Mississippi, according to a report this month by the European Centre for International Political Economy, a Brussels-based independent think tank. If the current trend continues, by 2035 the gap between economic output per capita in the U.S. and EU will be as large as that between Japan and Ecuador today, the report said.

> The European Union now accounts for about 18% of all global consumption spending, compared with 28% for America. Fifteen years ago, the EU and the U.S. each represented about a quarter of that total.

> Adjusted for inflation and purchasing power, wages have declined by about 3% since 2019 in Germany, by 3.5% in Italy and Spain and by 6% in Greece. Real wages in the U.S. have increased by about 6% over the same period, according to OECD data.

> Many countries in Europe have been in an economic malaise for some time now

Keep in mind a lot of this is exchange rates. If you look at GDP PPP, while falling slightly behind, the EU has mostly kept up with the US: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.PP.KD?locat...

Now nominal value is more important on a global influence scale so the usual figures still mean a lot, but it's way more nuanced than most peopl think.