Were You Born on the Wrong Continent?: How the European Model Can Help You Get a Life [Hardcover]

Thomas Geoghegan (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: August 10, 2010

The acclaimed labor lawyer and prizewinning author Thomas Geoghegan asks: where are we better off—America or Europe? In an idiosyncratic, entertaining travelogue that plays on public policy, Geoghegan asks what our lives would be like if we lived them as Europeans. Sneaking out of his workaholic American life, he takes five trips where he tries to understand so-called European socialism firsthand. Though he first tries France (which has become a rhetorical stand-in for the continent as a whole in many Americans' minds), he eventually ventures into Germany to see what some call the "boring" Europe. There he finds the true "other"—an economic model with more bottom-up worker control than that of any other country in the world—and argues that, while we have to take Germany’s problems seriously, we also have to look seriously at how much it has achieved. Social democracy may let us live nicer lives; it also may be the only way to be globally competitive. This wry, timely book helps us understand why the European model, contrary to popular neoliberal wisdom, may thrive well into the twenty-first century without compromising its citizens' ease of living—and be the best example for the United States to follow.

Germany is more generous than the U.S.:
The average number of paid vacation days in the U.S. is 13, versus Germany’s 35
New mothers in the U.S. get three months of unpaid job-protected leave and only if they work for a company of 50 or more employees, while Germany mandates four months’ paid leave and will pay parents 67% of their salary to stay home for up to 14 months to care for a newborn.
U.S. life expectancy is 50th in the world, compared to Germany’s 32nd.

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

Labor lawyer and Europhile, Geohegan (Which Side Are You On?) makes a passionate case for the high-tax, regulation-heavy model of life on the Continent. Using Germany as a model, he argues the middle class is the real beneficiary of European social democracy--its members reap free education, free child care, free nursing home care, guaranteed vacation time, and generous unemployment payments--while their white-collar American counterparts struggle to pay for the same. "Europe is set up for the bourgeois," writes Geohegan. "America's a great place to buy kitty litter at Wal-Mart and relatively cheap gas. But it's not set up for me, a professional without a lot of money." While he's quick to acknowledge that critics seize on labor's costs and prominence as a potential path to the collapse of the system, he's convinced of the framework in place. The narrative unspools in a chatty, anecdotal style; it's jumpy, appealingly digressive, and winning, all the more so for being such an unabashed polemic that refuses to be resigned to the rising rate of inequality in the U.S.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Review

“Most diverting… [Geoghegan] has the great virtue of being witty and ironic—and to the point… A necessary primer.”
—Jurek Martin, Financial Times

“Clever and immensely appealing.”
—Katha Pollitt, The Nation

“All dissatisfied Americans, not just progressives, should read the book.”
—Jeremy Gantz, Alternet

“A travelogue, self-discovery prose and business book all at once… written with humor and candor, making for an easy, fun read.”
—Courtney Crowder, Chicago Tribune

--This text refers to the Paperback edition.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 336 pages
• Publisher: New Press, The (August 10, 2010)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 159558403X
• ISBN-13: 978-1595584038
• Product Dimensions: 8.5 x 5.8 x 1.2 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.2 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.5 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (32 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #240,790 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

64 of 65 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars Manic style, sound substance September 9, 2010

By A. J. Sutter

Format:Hardcover

This is a very clever and worthwhile book. It's hard to imagine an easier, more entertaining or more vivid way to learn about the differences in social policies between Europe and the States. It has something in common with Michael Moore's "Sicko," except it's broader in scope, more first-person, more self-deprecating, a touch more wonkish and from a someone with a lot more gravitas. (Warning: it makes no pretense of being "fair and balanced": the author (TG) touts his liberal credentials proudly -- though he ridicules Larry Summers as much as any Republicans.)

The style put me off at first: TG is a double-Harvard graduate (college & law school) and a partner in a law firm, but tries to make us believe he's a clueless, farcical shlemil as he embarks on his first trip to Europe as an adult. But by the second half of the book he often peeks from behind this mask, and his humor is much more ironic and pointed. I read most of the book in a couple of cafés, and got stared at for chuckling out loud.

Stared at, because I live in Japan where people reading books in public don't usually laugh. But otherwise Japan has a lot in common with the Europe described in this book: most people are much better taken-care of here, with far lower unemployment than the US (or even Germany), health care that's almost as cheap as Germany's, and far less impact from the recent recession. And yet people in America imagine we're spiraling down the toilet, mainly because US media outlets spin their reportage (and op-eds, Prof. Krugman) to align with that theme. Just as they demonize Europe as socialist. I totally understand why TG uses such an unsubtle, though good-humored, tone: because Americans so often refuse to see what's really, really true....

Actually, even Japan could learn some things from Germany, such as the low cost of the educational system, and the strength of labor unions and work councils. TG's remarks about how Americans use their disposable income to turn their homes into gadget-filled cocoons while even blue-collar Europeans go out drinking, dancing and to the (live) theater also make one ponder the strength of our social fabric. If you have any interest in reading about social reality rather than vampire tales, "escapist" murder mysteries, or political rants by folks who are proud to be ignorant, you'll find this book a great mix of fun with seriousness. Read more ›

42 of 43 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars A must read, even for conservatives September 6, 2010

By John Wasik

Format:Hardcover

As a Harvard-educated labor lawyer, Geoghegan is acutely aware of how frayed and tattered the social contract has become. Companies close down factories and wreck communities. The workers are left with little to nothing. Globalization forces the business to find cheaper labor in Mexico, China or Viet Nam. It's a constant race to the bottom if you are in a high-wage country. Well, maybe not, and that's the strange interplay of sacrifice and hope when we look at the future of American labor.

Geoghegan sees the European Model of Social Democracy as a beacon in the Western World. Germany offers a prime example. Once ridiculed for its rigid model of union-management partnerships, huge social safety net and six-week vacations, Germany seems to have evaded the ugliest aftershock of globalism.

In the European "worker-first" system, both mothers and fathers get paid leave after the birth of a child; work weeks are shorter, there's lots of vacation time (three times as much as the US), nursing home benefits, national health care and workers who are not only allowed to work with management -- but sit as active members in boardroom decisions.

Is this the horrible socialist peril that ravaged the Soviet Union? Hardly. Social democracy thrives. The Germans have an export surplus, high productivity, a vibrant manufacturing base and low debt. They didn't suffer from a housing meltdown and their banks didn't need bailing out. Of course, German unemployment is still a problem (although it's a few points lower than the US) and taxes are high, yet look what they get for their public-sector dollars....

In the US, even after health and financial reform, we are still hostage to the private insurance industry (with a lot more consumer safeguards) while the biggest banks have grown bigger still to corner even more investment capital.

What about those big, evil European Unions? In Germany, the unions have protected benefits instead of bargaining them away just to survive. Germans have high savings rates and pension plans not tied to the stock market. "Most Germans have big supplements from collective bargaining," writes Geoghegan. In the US, unionized workers are clinging to mostly government sector jobs. The white collar workforce has to deal with endless work without pay, shrinking benefits and uncertain pensions, which are underfunded to the tune of $260 billion.

If Americans can somehow get around the dogma that we must be the world's supercop, suppress unions at all cost and assume that corporate interests have primacy, we might be able to see the light that social capitalism -- profits generated in the public welfare -- could work. Obama has certainly tried, only to run into the relentless buzzsaw of corporate-funded propaganda and misplaced Tea Party rants. So I doubt if Geoghegan will change any minds, but his way of illuminating the disparities between corporate capitalism and social capitalism is nothing less than brilliant.

-- John F. Wasik, author "The Cul-de-Sac Syndrome: Turning Around the Unsustainable American Dream (Bloomberg): Turning Around the Unsustainable American Dream" (Bloomberg Press, 2009) Read more ›

66 of 73 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars Great Book July 30, 2010

By John Foster

Format:Hardcover

Explains our problems in the US and why Europe is doing better. We don't get that in our news here. The rich own the media here and tells us what they want to believe. Anyone in the lower or middle classes should read this book.

12 of 12 people found the following review helpful

4.0 out of 5 stars Yes, I was September 6, 2010

By R. Hanks

Format:Hardcover|Amazon Verified Purchase

As a Francophile, I have long been enamoured of the European lifestyle. It always seemed to me that they were just having a more enjoyable journey through life. Whether it be a café scene with people reading, conversing or just observing the world through a deeply-rich espresso, the wonderful hand-writing that I observed in their written work or the delight they took in everyday meals, that was what I longed for. This book helped me see how they achieve that. If the author hadn't seemed to get bogged down in the latter part of the book, I would have rated it 5 stars.

52 of 64 people found the following review helpful

1.0 out of 5 stars A book full of wrong facts about Germany. Read it, but be aware not everything is true November 7, 2010

By Lars S.

Format:Hardcover

Just to give you my background, I'm a German student of politics with a broad interest in economics as well, and currently live in Berlin. One might say, I tick a lot of boxes to read and comment on the book.

Before starting to look at the book's content, I would like to say, I found the book often difficult to read. I think it's badly edited, I missed a red line running through the book and I soon got bored of his various intermissions of telling irrelevant travel stories. Even worse, most times I put the book away, I was just upset with the book for its content, which I think is in many points simply factually wrong.

At first, I would like point out some methodological flaws of the book, or shall I say the authors research. Geoghegan describes the German economical and social model based on a few visits to Germany, which in a 20 year span might sum up to 6 month. He only visits German cities, concentrates on Berlin in particular and as I understand even on specific areas of Berlin. He makes clear from the start that he writes this book as a labor lawyer (a phrase probably reoccurring about 100 times) and that he is not interested to look at the issue in an objective manner. He rejects any enlightenment from the "right side", as he would know their views from the FT already. This is actually a particular ironic point. Based on the logic that the German right is similar to the US right and has nothing else to tell, one might actually conclude that the German left would accordingly be similar to the US left. Therefore his "research" would be meaningless to start with. He does not provide the reader with proof to whom he speaks, only giving them code names.... He should surely be able to name the more prominent figures, like the former German Union boss or some of the politicians, as some of his major points depend on their contributions. Finally, though I didn't look further into it, his presented numbers seemed not to add up at some points. At one point, I was sure that he was comparing unemployment data from different points in time. The fact that on page 269 he writes about trillions and in a attempt to show the significance of the number writes it out and get's it wrong (he actually only writes Billion) does not strengthen my trust in his handling of statistics and numbers, or the qualification of the editors.

To get back on the bigger picture, his book seems to compare the worst in the US with the best in Europe. I write Europe instead of Germany, because in his first part he throws social policies of different European countries together and thereby creates a picture that is of course more shiny than that of one specific country. Further, as I can't speak for his US examples, he certainly gets lots of facts wrong about Germany and the German model. Actually it is scary how he seems to limit his observations on very specific and single facts and then generalizes them to be valid for Germany in total. In the following I would like to give you some examples:
- he says that the state would pay people money, if they had their elderly parents moving in with them. In fact that is true, if your parents moving in with you need constant care and help. This usually boils down to the fact the children will no longer be able to work, but that the care of their parents builds up to be a full-time job. Further on, it's hardly the state giving out free money, but the money comes from a mandatory insurance for care of the elderly, similar to the mandatory health insurance. In the contrary, a recent ruling from a federal court said that children have to take financial responsibility for the care of their parents in nursing homes, even if they were not in contact for the last 40 years. This is an example how he gets many "social benefits" wrong.
- he writes that Europeans read much more than in the US and stresses that one can not inform themselves using news on the internet. At this point I was surprised of the picture presented of online media. At least in Germany pure online media such as the Huffington Post is often praised for their high quality of journalism. Also, recently the first Pulitzer Prize was awarded to a purely online news portal in the US. Here I get the feeling that the author is a bit out of touch with the reality. This is an example how I think he makes maybe wrong, but at least improper judgments on how the world functions.
- Geoghegan explains that the German basis social security benefit, Harz 4, would ease unemployed and might even be a general level on which one could life for a few years. In fact there was recently a general debate in Germany, if Harz 4 is sufficient to guarantee a dignified life in Germany. Also, before receiving this specific Social benefit, people will have to use up all their assets, which might include pension savings or the selling of property. Again, he improperly describes the mechanisms of the German social state.
- the author also describes the recent reforms of the German social state as an enlargement of the social state. This hardly holds up to the truth. It is true that in many areas social security reform includes the creation of new schemes or the inclusion of new groups, for example the inclusion of non-married couples or the support for families. However, since the late 80s, the social system in Germany (including health, pension or unemployment) is reduced and benefits are getting cut. Finally, the way the author describes the social-democratic Agenda 2010 sounds like a spinning job of reality, which not even the social democrats in Germany would have dared to present as their view.

Some other myths he presents:
- English is the official language of the EU,
- Berlin's economy is based on students (4% of Berlin's population are students),
- University education in Germany is for free,
- The German semi-state banking sector was not affected by the banking crisis,
- Most Germans would retire with 55 and would end up with more money after retirement.

At this point I could enumerate many more, if I would take another look at the book. I have to say I found it astonishing how he keeps on going making up new facts about the Germany and its social model.

To say something positive about the book, I think Geoghegan often raises the right questions. When he asks if GNP is the defining factor for wealth or happiness, he is surely right when he describes that the equation GNP=happiness is not correct. However, this is hardly new to someone interested in politics. The UN for example publish the Human Development Index for already 20 years. Ironically, the author stresses in a whole chapter the flaws of the GNP measurement, but randomly comes back to the idea that he should support the German model by spending money in Germany and thereby boosting German GNP.

As far as Geoghegan main thesis is concerned that German social democracy (sometimes also called socialism - a no-go in Germany) would be a superior model to the US, I guess some doubts could be raised. I think he rightly describes how work councils, co-determined boards and collective wage agreements shape the German economy and to some extend empower labor in Germany. Here I'm not able to make a comparison to the US as he can. However, again I'm afraid he generalizes from specific examples to the whole German economy. The described mechanisms do only cover parts of Germany's economy. Labor co-determination is only legally obliged for companies from a certain size, in some cases 500 in other 2000 employees, and is therefore hardly a universal principle of the German economy. The collective wage agreements are more and more by-passed by local agreements for certain areas or certain companies to accommodate the specific circumstances of companies. This actually results in a loss of power of Unions in Germany, which is evident in the last 20 or so years. Even with "strong labor co-determination", labor could not stop that major German industries left and downsized their German factories. If a company is not competitive anymore, labor empowerment can't change that.

So when Geoghegan is right to make valid points on the German model favoring co-determination, there are many other factors resulting in the particular strength of the German model. He argues that Germany is world-leading in the production of many highly specialized and complex industrial products because of strong labor movement. But of course the origin and success of the German economic model also based on the other factors. One example: While I'm not a big fan of stereotypes, it might hold true that a society that is paraphrased to be punctual, straight, well-organized, looking for perfectionism etc. is good in producing high-end quality products better than others. The socialization process and the work environment in different countries simply result in different strength, also in the organization of its economy. The US has strength in creating innovation, providing services or utilizing the American pop-culture resulting in companies such as Microsoft, Google, Apple or McDonalds and Coca-Cola. The Italians are world leading in design, creating the world's leading style labels, the Russians are for obvious reasons big in gas and oil and the Germans are better in creating highly complex industry goods. A change in the economic model would in my view not change any of that. I also think that it is hardly possible to transfer the German model for example onto the US, as proposed in the book. Germany's society and political system is based on stability, compromise and security, while the US is a country shaped by stronger political conflict, individual responsibility and the idea that anyone can achieve anything. Therefore the question if Europe would be the better continent is wrong, as it is just a different continent, based on different basic values and beliefs which results in different social and economical models. I think it is as easy, or better as complex and complicated as this. The fact that Germany has a historically grown model of stronger labor influence might favor the German economy in some instances, but it surely is not the one and only defining factor. The same holds true for the idea that a strong labor influence in Germany would result in higher levels of media readership, a better understanding of democracy and all the other things Geoghegan credits it with. The world cannot be explained in back vs. right, right vs. wrong, but this is what Geoghegan tries to do in his book.

Finally, I also wanted to mention that I often felt offended by the authors reoccurring comparisons of Germany with Nazi Germany. When he writes "Germany is dark" and "For what I argue depends on a country that not so long ago had a government based on murder" I do not understand what the author is trying to say. Does the author dare to tell me that the basis of Germany's society, my personal value and believe system, is not different from that of 60 years ago? When he describes that a New Year's night in Germany reminds him of a "firestorm" or a "night raid on Berlin" reenacted by the Germans, I'm speechless the same way as when he puts a German senior into a SS-uniform and calls him a murderer. I found these episodes personally offending, sickening and making me doubt the author moral integrity, not even to mention ability to observe and comment on Germany. Read more ›