Customer Reviews

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

5 star:		(11)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(6)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(6)

 

 

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.

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)

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.

While I have much sympathy for the overall views of the author, I was disappointed by this volume.

Though the book asks whether you were born on the wrong continent, almost the entire focus is on certain aspects of German social democracy. Interesting as Geoghegan's discussions of Germany are, Germany is only one European country and, given the title, more extensive discussion of other nations would have seemed to be appropriate. Alternatively the book should have been called "Should You Have Been Born in Germany?" Only limited passages address how other European countries adopt economic models differing from those of the United States and Germany. A knowledgeable reader might well wonder who has governed Denmark, Norway, and Sweden for large portions of the post-WWII period and how!

To my mind, more disturbing is that the author does not present a well-argued consistent case for a social democratic approach to the economy so much as present a large number of personal impressions, stories, incidents, etc. aiming to show the advantage of such policies. Many of these stories are very interesting and mind opening. They clearly contrast the economies of the United States and Germany. To most Americans, hearing how Germany, the economic power of the EU, runs its affairs ought be very thought provoking. Still, anyone wishing to construct a coherent case concerning such an economic approach, one that could be offered in a point-by-point argument with a supporter of the American style free enterprise approach to economics, will struggle. Basically you will have to read the book and formulate the pro and con arguments yourself.

And that is why this book did not satisfy me. With a little more care and effort, the author could easily have combined his narrative style with a summation clearly stating the case for and against German social democracy. Yet he did not. Such a summary chapter at the beginning or end of the book would have provided a clear statement, a concise argument, to readers. It would provide a walk away precis of the book. Sadly, Geoghegan did not do this.

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.

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.

Geoghegan is always pleasure to read. He has a wonderful style. In this particular work it's used to good effect -- it's a challenge to represent the salient differences between life in Germany/France and the US that aren't captured by GDP per capita (because, let's face it, GDP per capita does capture a great deal). For anyone who struggles to communicate the greater sense of well-being that arrives when social inequality is diminished, this book is a godsend.

I have never understood the American hatered of European Democratric Socialism. We pay about the same in taxes and get practicaly nothing for it except wars. The book shined light on things that I didn't know. Its an easy read and interesting. Was I borned on the wrong continent? No. I love America. I love reading about how other countries do thing. Good book.

Geoghagen starts with a good concept, but ultimately ruins it with his flippant writing style and frequent negative commentaries. The outcomes are not in question - more worker power, better benefits, a more equal society - and he domeonstrates that strongly, but I actually had trouble staying with the book at times because of digressions into his feelings while walking around cities or his quotes from people who feel the Social Democratic model is failing but offer no evidence to support that. The book felt more like a collection of random musings than a scholarly comparison of American versus European systems. Get to the point, Mr. Geoghagen, and stick with it.

I was very excited to get this book, anticipating a well-thought out treatise on why the European socio-economic model is so much better than America's (which it is, in many ways). What I got instead was a disappointingly disjointed book that reads more like an undergraduate's meandering term paper. I couldn't even finish the book, and had to shelve it halfway through, due to sheer exhaustion from trying to follow the author's train of thought. I got the feeling that the author wasn't able to polish this off and pull all the thoughts together and make it flow nicely. There are many great ideas, thoughts, and insightful vignettes in the book, but each chapter bounces between semi-scholastic research and overly cutesy personal anecdotal "evidence" to support his varying ideas that never quite come full circle to convince me of his argument. There was entirely too much leftist bashing of conservatives, and Bush in particular, which in my opinion provided no benefit to the narrative, and only led me to believe that the author was rather juvenile in his attitude. His constant reminder to the reader that he's a labor union lawyer in every single chapter was just beyond the pale and irritating in general. My advice is to look at "Europe's Promise: Why the European Way Is the Best Hope in an Insecure Age" if you are looking for a truly well-researched, scholastic, intellectual, and complete look at the European model, and what America could and should learn from it.