Nine Myths about Socialism in the US

[one...two...tree 2,762]

By Bill Quigley

April 11, 2010 -- Glenn Beck and other far right multi-millionaires are claiming that the US is hot on the path towards socialism. Part of their claim is that the US is much more generous and supportive of our working and poor people than other countries. People may wish it was so, but it is not.

As Senator Patrick Moynihan used to say "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. But everyone is not entitled to their own facts."

The fact is that the US is not really all that generous to our working and poor people compared to other countries.

Consider the US in comparison to the rest of the 30 countries that join the US in making up the OECD – the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. These 30 countries include Canada and most comparable European countries but also include some struggling countries like Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Slovak Republic, and Turkey. See www.oecd.org

When you look at how the US compares to these 30 countries, the hot air myths about the US government going all out towards socialism sort of disappear into thin air. Here are some examples of myths that do not hold up.

Myth #1. The US government is involved in class warfare attacking the rich to lift up the poor.

There is a class war going on all right. But it is the rich against the rest of us and the rich are winning. The gap between the rich and everyone else is wider in the US than any of the 30 other countries surveyed. In fact, the top 10% in the US have a higher annual income than any other country. And the poorest 10% in the US are below the average of the other OECD countries. The rich in the U.S. have been rapidly leaving the middle class and poor behind since the 1980s.

Myth #2. The US already has the greatest health care system in the world.

Infant mortality in the US is 4th worst among OECD countries – better only than Mexico, Turkey and the Slovak Republic.

Myth #3. There is less poverty in the US than anywhere.

Child poverty in the US, at over 20% or one out of every five kids, is double the average of the 30 OECD countries.

Myth #4. The US is generous in its treatment of families with children.

The US ranks in the bottom half of countries in terms of financial benefits for families with children. Over half of the 30 OECD countries pay families with children cash benefits regardless of the income of the family. Some among those countries (e.g. Austria, France and Germany) pay additional benefits if the family is low-income, or one of the parents is unemployed.

Myth #5. The US is very supportive of its workers.

The US gives no paid leave for working mothers having children. Every single one of the other 30 OECD countries has some form of paid leave. The US ranks dead last in this. Over two thirds of the countries give some form of paid paternity leave. The US also gives no paid leave for fathers.

In fact, it is only workers in the US who have no guaranteed days of paid leave at all. Korea is the next lowest to the US and it has a minimum of 8 paid annual days of leave. Most of the other 30 countries require a minimum of 20 days of annual paid leave for their workers.

Myth #6. Poor people have more chance of becoming rich in the US than anywhere else.

Social mobility (how children move up or down the economic ladder in comparison with their parents) in earnings, wages and education tends to be easier in Australia, Canada and Nordic countries like Denmark, Norway, and Finland, than in the US. That means more of the rich stay rich and more of the poor stay poor here in the US.

Myth #7. The US spends generously on public education.

In terms of spending for public education, the US is just about average among the 30 countries of the OECD. Educational achievement of US children, however, is 7th worst in the OECD. On public spending for childcare and early education, the US is in the bottom third.

Myth #8. The US government is redistributing income from the rich to the poor.

There is little redistribution of income by government in the U.S. in part because spending on social benefits like unemployment and family benefits is so low. Of the 30 countries in the OECD, only in Korea is the impact of governmental spending lower.

Myth #9. The US generously gives foreign aid to countries across the world.

The US gives the smallest percentage of aid of any of the developed countries in the OECD. In 2007 the US was tied for last with Greece. In 2008, we were tied for last with Japan.

Despite the opinions of right wing folks, the facts say the US is not on the path towards socialism.

But if socialism means the US would go down the path of being more generous with our babies, our children, our working families, our pregnant mothers, and our sisters and brothers across the world, I think we could all appreciate it.

Bill Quigley is Legal Director at the Center for Constitutional Rights and law professor at Loyola University New Orleans. There is a version of this article with footnotes for those interested. Quigley77@gmail.com

Edited April 13, 2010 by El Buscador

[JimandChristy 1,689]

No surprises really, the rich in this country somehow convince some proportion of the middle/working class population (with the cries and paranoia of socialism) that they are living the "American Dream" and are indeed far better off than other people in first world countries. The gap between the rich and the poor is increasing, there are corporations/businesses who treat their employees like dirt and if that gap continues to increase the US will be acquiring 2nd world status. It is already in good company in some categories in that regard.

Edited April 13, 2010 by JimandChristy

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Huff and puff post? Talk about zero credibility!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Huff and puff post? Talk about zero credibility!

Call me puffy, but opinions from actual constitutional scholars hold more weight for me than bloated celebrities who have a natural flare for being drama queens.

Bill Quigley is Legal Director at the Center for Constitutional Rights and law professor at Loyola University New Orleans. There is a version of this article with footnotes for those interested.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Call me puffy, but opinions from actual constitutional scholars hold more weight for me than bloated celebrities who have a natural flare for being drama queens.

Ah, I get it. I get laughed at for posting a story from a right leaning publication and you discount the story out of hand for it but you can post something from a extreme far left blog by a hard lefty and it is OK? Right. Tell me, if your author writes a book like this does it lend to his credibility?

Quigley is the author of Ending Poverty As We Know It: Guaranteeing A Right to A Job At A Living Wage (Temple University Press, 2003)

Sounds a bit socialist doesn't it?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Ah, I get it. I get laughed at for posting a story from a right leaning publication and you discount the story out of hand for it but you can post something from a extreme far left blog by a hard lefty and it is OK? Right. Tell me, if your author writes a book like this does it lend to his credibility?

Quigley is the author of Ending Poverty As We Know It: Guaranteeing A Right to A Job At A Living Wage (Temple University Press, 2003)

Sounds a bit socialist doesn't it?

What do you mean by Socialist? That word gets thrown around a lot around here, but the meaning seems a bit allusive.

Edited April 13, 2010 by El Buscador

[JohnSmith2007 353]

What do you mean by Socialist? That word gets thrown around a lot around here, but the meaning seems a bit allusive.

So you don't think that someone that writes a book whose title says we have a "right" to a job at a "living wage" isn't socialist? While I would like to see everyone to earn a good living calling it a "right" insinuates that the government should grant that right. That is very much a socialistic POV.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

So you don't think that someone that writes a book whose title says we have a "right" to a job at a "living wage" isn't socialist? While I would like to see everyone to earn a good living calling it a "right" insinuates that the government should grant that right. That is very much a socialistic POV.

I don't I'm qualified to have an opinion about a book I've never read, but I'm still confused by what you define as Socialism, particularly in regards to the OP. For example do you consider Canada a socialist country?

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

John, if you disagree with the article why don't you show us why it is wrong? Start with the wage gap. I'm guessing you disagree and that the gap is closing?

[Dan J 277]

So you don't think that someone that writes a book whose title says we have a "right" to a job at a "living wage" isn't socialist? While I would like to see everyone to earn a good living calling it a "right" insinuates that the government should grant that right. That is very much a socialistic POV.

It should be a goal no?

If you don't want people relying on social programs to make ends meet, then they need jobs that can pay enough to live off of?

[JohnSmith2007 353]

I don't I'm qualified to have an opinion about a book I've never read, but I'm still confused by what you define as Socialism, particularly in regards to the OP. For example do you consider Canada a socialist country?

Why are you leading the conversation from the point I made? How is it OK for you to post from a far left blog by a far left author and it isn't OK for me to post from a right leaning source without getting laughed at?

[JohnSmith2007 353]

It should be a goal no?

If you don't want people relying on social programs to make ends meet, then they need jobs that can pay enough to live off of?

A goal yes, granted by government decree, no. A person gets a good job at a living wage through hard work and a continuing program of self improvement. If someone does not put out the effort then they have no right to a comfortable life.

[LaL 418]

If someone does not put out the effort then they have no right to a comfortable life.

like rich people with trusts too?

kidding of course, just had a laugh when I read what you wrote.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Why are you leading the conversation from the point I made? How is it OK for you to post from a far left blog by a far left author and it isn't OK for me to post from a right leaning source without getting laughed at?

Washington Times is owned and operated by a bonafide nut - Reverend Moon. Do you want me to give you a background on his lunacy?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

The only fallacies I see in the article are Myth #2 and Myth #3.

Myth #2 because of the lack in consistancy in the way the United States calculates infant mortality versus the rest of the world. We actually consider a lot more cases than most nations do.

Myth #3 because Poverty in the United States as defined is a variable depending on where you live in the poverty level. If you live at the Poverty level in NYC, yeah it might be harder to live and you're in trouble. If you live at the same poverty level in South Carolina though, you can actually survive ok. Either way though, poverty in the United States isn't as 'ugly' as some make it out to be unless you're by some chance homeless.

Everything else in the article is fair game though and debatable as such.