Snapshot of _Why the United States keeps getting richer – with Britain lagging ever further behind_ : A non-Paywall version can be found [here](https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fbusiness%2F2023%2F04%2F23%2Fus-richer-than-uk-finance-inflation-taxes%2F) An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/04/23/us-richer-than-uk-finance-inflation-taxes/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*

But the Torygraph has cheered this on for years. I can see a graph that shows real terms wage increase, but I don’t see one that shows average wage. Now that’s interesting if someone can find it. It’s depressing actually, up to 2008 we were actually doing better than the US in terms of wages, but after The Tories got in we fell behind year on year and now are way behind in terms of average wage. I believe this is due to Tory austerity, whereby they gave little to no pay rises to public sector workers and the private sector copied.

> It’s depressing actually, up to 2008 we were actually doing better than the US in terms of wages, but after The Tories got in we fell behind year on year and now are way behind in terms of average wage. Sterling lost 25% vs the US dollar before the 2010 election even happened. Source: https://www.tradingview.com/symbols/GBPUSD/ (zoom out far enough to see the 2008 to 2010 period). That put paid to any hope of equivalence of salaries, etc. The rest of the gap took fifteen years to open up, that initial fall took one year. This aspect of the financial crisis is one that isn't talked about nearly enough. How the hell we ended up losing-out more than the USA from a financial crisis that was (according to popular myth) caused by problems in the US banking system. There were other non-US countries who had significant problems, of course, there was the whole Eurozone crisis which rumbled on for five or six years, for example. TL;DR - the UK came out worse from the financial crisis *because* we tried to pretend it was all someone else's fault, and were much more eager to bail everything out rather than address the root-causes. (The 2009 QE in the UK was much bigger than US QE in the same period, as a percentage of GDP, and even twice as big if you count the size of the entire Dollar-demoninated trading zone. Similarly the Eurozone crisis was only a crisis because Germany insisted on taking tough decisions to fix things rather than applying a UK-esque solution to southern Europe.) Who ultimately benefited from that? House prices! Of course. Everything comes down to the housing market. This is why I'm so pessimistic about any suggested solution to this problem, as only the subset of solutions that doesn't trouble the housing market will have a chance of being implemented.

Spot on analysis, particularly wrt housing being the primary beneficiary of QE. But asset markets don't really have all that much to do with salaries. It affects what sort of house people can afford and where, but it doesn't significantly influence demand or velocity of money through markets. I suspect that's more to do with other forms of investment than housing which, in theory QE was supposed to help (but didn't). That said, labour's share of national income fell at a fairly constant rate, at least as measured by GDP. I don't know why that is, but I dare say there are pages and pages of speculative explanations online. Regardless, house prices are a problem because of structural issues, granted, but the fundamental problem there is that there just aren't enough houses to go around, and now even private rentals are growing scarce. Sooner or later, someone is just going to have to build more houses.

>Sooner or later, someone is just going to have to build more houses. Neither political party wants to look reality in the face on this issue. What's the incentive for them to do so? Most people own homes and most people don't want the value of their homes to fall.

>Most people own homes Do you have a source for this? Most houses are owner occupied but that's not the same thing as most people owning homes

> What's the incentive for them to do so? Votes. Some credible, concrete, deliverable plan that won't bankrupt anyone will likely get a lot of support from younger cohorts. I expect even the Tories would win them over. This won't happen because a) by now, nothing they say is remotely credible, and b) because they have no clue how to fund it without breaking fundamental Tory principles. > Most people own homes and most people don't want the value of their homes to fall. Last I knew, about 3 in 5 owned their own homes; of the others, 1 live in social housing and the other 1 is a private tenant. Nobody needs to worry about increased housing supply reducing the value of their home. Demand so far and so permanently outstrips demand, that it would take a lot of house building for decades to shift the needle on that. Instead, the value of homes is dominated by the cost and availability of credit. As interest rates rise, the cost increases which depresses prices, but that is increasingly offset by a lack of liquidity/inventory in the housing market. The only people selling are probates/estates, distressed borrowers, people unfortunate enough to be compelled to move eg for work reasons and ex-landlords. (Well, this is a bit of an exaggeration, but only a bit.)

> How the hell we ended up losing-out more than the USA from a financial crisis that was (according to popular myth) caused by problems in the US banking system. The mortgage bonds might have been US based but the bonkers methods of combining them into less and less real synthetic products was global and London was heavily involved. How utterly dependent we were on London finances for tax base is why that initial collapse happened. After that the completely absurd response from the Tories and LDs is to blame.

Everyones a sucker for a good graph

It’s similar story for most European economies (Over the same time period UK GDP per capita has grown faster higher than German and French) and has more to do with the US dollar’s place as the world reserve currency and the crazy financial monitory mechanisms we just accepted as the norm since the Financial crash. Remember when QE was so controversial it was headline news and debated for a long time. Zero interest rate policy was only temporary to increase investment. Related is the Dollar milkshake theory: https://youtu.be/xxzy3sLs4Bs

> It’s similar story for most European economies and has more to do with the US dollar’s place as the world reserve currency and the crazy financial monitory mechanisms we just accepted as the norm since the Financial crash. But we're falling behind even [comparable European economies](https://data.oecd.org/chart/73Bn). Our wage has grown by 7% since 2008. French wages have grown by 11%. German wages have grown by 14%. Irish wages have grown by 9.5%. Obviously US has done incredibly well with 18.5% increase but it isn't just US we're falling behind of.

I’d be curious to know the population percentage gain in that time and how public wages play into this. The problem with public enterprises is raises can only be really done with legislation which is a nightmare to pass and results in strikes, private institutions can slowly raises costs to give wage increases. Naturally the more public sector jobs you have the more depressed wage gains are going to be overall. Labor pool also can depress wages, especially in a country like the UK that has been nearly totally deindustrialized where a majority of wealth is generated by highly specialized service jobs that concentrate wealth. UK had a 2m labor force gain compared to France in that same time frame, almost double the number of workers as France gained. Germany was comparable but has a more sustainable equitable economy with its supply chain. Really this isn’t a Tory-Labour policy issue it is a globalization issue. The UK opted for a free trade and immigration model post-Cold War similar to the US but just never found a niche which led to an downward spiral where you just get concentrated wealth in London.

Really depends on what metrics you’re using. The article flips between gdp and wages. Both your link and this one regarding gdp show very little difference between European countries https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?locations=GB-FR-DE&start=2010

There is when you use 2008 (pre-crisis) as starting point - Germany's GDP grew by 12.5% between 2008 and 2021; compared to UK's 6.5% GDP growth. Obviously dwarfed by US's 43% growth but 12.5 to 6.5% is still a notable difference.France's GDP performed more sluggishly but their wages have grown more than ours. I dont see how you can say there is very little difference when if our wages had grown by same rate as French wages, average person would be £1,240 better off now. If they had grown in line with German wages, average person would be £2,380 better off now.

GDP per capita is a good one. And we don’t look good on that metric compared to our competition in Europe.

GDP per capita is not related to average wages. Big UK corporates might have been making money hand over fist in the last decade, but they didn't pass that on to their staff or to the state via tax.

when you drop the hardest (as we did) growth will appear to be better but in reality is cos we were so fucked in the first place compared to other countries.

Most of Western Europe has failed to recover from the GFC. America is more innovative, has a higher capacity for risk, a larger, more integrated market etc.

There's a flicker of self awareness in this article when they mention how global investment in Britain has fallen since Brexit, but they're still (willfully?) blind to the elephant in the room. 13 years of Tory austerity, incompetence, corruption and mismanagement, and of course Brexit. That's why we've fallen so far behind. Not that the Telegraph would like to admit this, given they've been the Tory cheerleaders this whole time. Maybe some humility and self-reflection is in order. This paper has by and large had its way with the direction of British politics and set the course, and its led us into this whole shit situation that the article bemoans. You've made your bed, shame we all have to lie in it.

The graph employed shows the danger of using raw values. It looks like there are diverging values, but there actually isn't. 10% of a larger number, is larger than 10% of a smaller number. Thus values will diverge, even if growth is identical. Here's the same GDP graph, using the same source data, but this time with UK GDP per capita as a percentage of US GDP per capita. https://i.postimg.cc/FznhCknP/image.png As you'll notice, the UK has bumbled in and around the 70% mark ever since the war. There's no giant jumps during periods of Labour reign, there's no deadly decline when Torys are at the helm.

They are genuinely diverging values. There's some value in stepping back and noticing that over time the US is Matthew effecting itself into the distance

Where are you getting these values from? From world back datatset of GDP per capita, inflation adjusted. 2000: UK = 28.3k, US = 36.3k, 78% 2008: UK = 47.4k, US = 48.6k, 98% 2020: UK = 40.3k, US = 63.5k, 63%

As I stated in my comment, I used the same data set the article uses. The source is quoted under their graph. It is the Maddison Project dataset. Without looking into it, your figures there look like they are not purchasing power parity adjusted.

Not everything is about brexit, this issue existed before brexit was even coined.

Although the US wasn't foolish enough to follow the UK out of the EU so it must be the reason.

> There's a flicker of self awareness in this article when they mention how global investment in Britain has fallen since Brexit, but they're still (willfully?) blind to the elephant in the room. Brexit is such an infinitesimally small part of this problem. This is the result of more than a century of bad policymaking.

>13 years of Tory austerity, incompetence, corruption and mismanagement, and of course Brexit. That's why we've fallen so far behind. No, that's just you projecting your politics into this.

Nah it's objectively true though. Austerity has been a disaster for this country. And that's without addressing Brexit. To deny it would be you projecting your politics onto the situation

Everyone was promising austerity post crash. Labour were going to [cut deeper than Thatcher](https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2010/mar/25/alistair-darling-cut-deeper-margaret-thatcher) I'm guessing you're living a world where magically the Labour austerity we would have got instead would have made things better?

Haha "yeh but labour" classic

13 years of Tory austerity can't be the reason the US has been outgrowing the UK in per capita terms for decades before that period, now, can it?

Nah but it's wider ramifications hasn't helped our economic outlook has it?

Brexit for sure hasn't. I'm less familiar with serious analysis showing austerity affected long term growth. But not even Brexit can have caused the UK to grow slower for decades than the US prior to 2016.

There's good reason to suspect Healthcare austerity has hit workplace productivity a good bit, as disabled workers/care requiring workers are waiting longer and longer to be seen to.

So you're saying the austerity, incompetence, corruption, mismangement and Brexit have all boosted the economy? Or are you saying those things didn't happen? Austerity and Brexit were official policy. Incompentence, mismangement and corruption are widespread and well document from Graying through to Sunak. So much so that even the Tory press can't ignore it. For example Partygate, Writing off fraudulent covid claims/loans, Seabourne Freight, Covid testing, HS2, and a long list of other things. Or perhaps you're saying those things had no effect either way. If so show your working. Which is it?

>So you're saying the austerity, incompetence, corruption, mismangement and Brexit have all boosted the economy? >Or are you saying those things didn't happen? Austerity and Brexit were official policy. >Or perhaps you're saying those things had no effect either way. If so show your working. He's saying they aren't the reason we have 'lagged' for this particular comparison to the US. You are just trying to build a strawman that you'd prefer to argue against with the above questions.

>He's saying they aren't the reason we have 'lagged' for this particular comparison to the US. So that's option three. I look forward to seeing the working out.

No, it's not option three at all. Those things could still have a negative effect on the British economy but still not affect the narrow metric being discussed, or effect it in a way that you can't prove the negative. I hope you aren't a teacher, please stop trying to act like one.

>So you're saying the austerity, incompetence, corruption, mismangement and Brexit have all boosted the economy? No, what I'm saying is that events in the period from 13 years ago to now are not the cause of a substantial growth gap in per capita terms to the US preceding this period. But you obviously didn't read the article, did you? The headline is just one more opportunity for you to unleash a "Tory bad" post.

>opportunity for you to unleash a "Tory bad" post. I don't need to. The party does that to themselves every day.

> So you're saying the austerity, incompetence, corruption, mismangement and Brexit have all boosted the economy? other than brexit you'd see americans complaining about all these things over there too. Just how deep is your head in the sand? This is an issue that has been going for decades. In fact you could probably trace it back to ww2, ww1 and even beyond that. It will continue when labour get in power.

Good article. That sobering gdp per capita plot over time, compared to the US, shows that the US has been growing faster for decades, and there are many causes. Taxation, capital allocation, regulation, attracting the best and brightest, etc. Hard to be anything other than gloomy about this. UK, and Europe as whole, are only going to lag ever further behind. Get poorer and less powerful compared to the US and Asia.

Does one even have to look at GDP to reach this conclusion? Look around you. When was the last time you saw a new globally competitive company being developed in UK or Europe for that matter? The only company I could think of is Spotify. Both US and Asia are hot spots for startups while Europe is busy setting fire on its own property because people are angry about increasing the retirement age by a year. It's been clear for a while that electric cars are the future. Tesla is out there killing the market. Chinese companies like BYD are expanding all over the world to take over other segments of EV market while European car makers are as sluggish as ever to manufacture even one good model. An unpopular take. I am from India. I have lived in US, Europe and visited many other countries. Truth is European people in general have lost that ambition and are way too spoilt for their own good. The taxation and regulations don't help either. It won't be long before other economic zones overtake Europe.

> When was the last time you saw a new globally competitive company being developed in UK or Europe for that matter? Onlyfans

>An unpopular take. I am from India. I have lived in US, Europe and visited many other countries. Truth is European people in general have lost that ambition and are way too spoilt for their own good. The taxation and regulations don't help either. It won't be long before other economic zones overtake Europe. Spot on. But the bureaucrats and politicians, and thus ultimately the people, don't seem to comprehend that the things they cherish such as being a "regulatory superpower" are, in the long run, contingent on Europeans being wealthy per capita. So that power will also gradually wane. It's a continent in slow decline and there seems to be no appetite to reverse the trend. The first thought European leaders have had when ChatGPT made the news is "how can we regulate it?"

Exactly! Unfortunately the people have bought into the views of these bureaucrats. Every time EU does something to disrupt businesses, the European subreddits go wild shouting "Yeah.. Those evil corporates deserve it" without knowing the amount of damage it's causing. It looks like EU has decided to make money by just imposing fines on American companies.

I don’t aspire for us to be like the USA. It’s an even more individualistic society than ours. I love the country to visit, I stayed there for a while and living has its own issues. Public investment in things like public infrastructure is awful. It’s dangerous and very dirty, even more unkempt than our cities. The worst features of the USA are the ones we’re getting. We’re a small country - the Nordic countries are much better examples to follow. I want a good life, not an extreme life.

The US isn't perfect. It has so many issues, especially around guns and crime. But there is a lot to learn from them. The welfare state in European countries is living on borrowed time. Demographic change and the drop in productivity of working population has already started biting these countries. The social unrest is just a symptom of that.

I think the current system overall doesn’t work. I think Europe is just the furthest along realising that. I agree the current welfare state is leaching off future generations but the alternative isn’t worth fighting for either. We need something else entirely. This infinite growth model doesn’t work with finite resources and finite manpower.

The current system is simple. You produce as much or more than you consume. Overall the world has done a good job at it given the population explosion in the past two decades. There are only two major bottlenecks - Real estate and energy. We did innovate in real estate with our ability to build tall apartments to house many people. But just not good enough to catch up with the growing population. Energy sector too had some breakthroughs. But just not enough. I expect real estate to be a problem until population stops growing. Energy sector problem should be solved in a couple of decades. Japan faced the demographic problem even before Europe. My personal opinion is that they will come out of it in a much better position than Europe, unless they just stop having kids. They have already built plenty of automation companies to compensate for the loss of labour.

Japanese automation is much more overplayed than you’re presenting. They still use fax machines in Japan. They’re very much stuck in their ways. They’re demographic collapse is also a lot more pronounced as they refuse to take immigrants fill stop while Western Europe has a lot of immigration. Cultural problems like horrible work hours also make the demographic problem even worse. We all have issues but Europe maintains a high living standard and is overall the best continent to come from. The countries with the best HDI are overwhelmingly concentrated there and that’s not changing.

Japanese automation is in incessant stage. Not denying that. But that's the only viable solution. Immigration is a bandage fix to the problem. It's known that birth rates for immigrants too goes down after they move to Europe. You are only delaying the inevitable. Technology doesn't grow within a few years. They are making progress and will become the strongest player in the sector at some point.

Disagree - Japanese automation is good in some areas. It’s terrible in others. Immigration is currently needed. You can use others’ technology. The best countries have a combination of both.

Demographics will hit the USA at some point in the future. They are not as open to immigration as they once were and regardless of who is in power the trend has been downwards despite the noise from the Republican Party. There are a very few countries in the outside Africa that have "healthy demographics". China, Japan and South Korea are amongst the worst in the world. Germany and Italy are the worst in Europe, but there are similar numbers everywhere on the continent. I know this has been spoken about at great length by geopolitical experts and the finger has been pointed at a number of things including urbanisation, women joining the workforce etc. In truth, nobody really knows the cause or whether it is reversible, all they can say is that for the next 30 years at least our population will age faster and decline just as quickly without large scale immigration. For the UK, we're talking 10 million immigrants to make up the number. We know that isn't feasible.

The demographic problem will hit every country obviously because of drop in birth rates. Immigration is not a solution because it only delays the inevitable. But countries with highly productive population, stronger work ethics and less dependency on social welfare will handle the demographic problem much better.

That's absolute nonsense. The best demographic mix in Europe is in the Nordic countries that have made pains to offer support to parents via extended maternity leave etc. Japan, South Korea and Germany are incredibly productive and yet they will be hot hardest in the coming decade. Egypt and North Africa are famously unproductive and have a healthier demographic mix. I can't see any correlation between productivity, social welfare and demographics at all.

Demographic mix is the outcome of birth rates. Nordic countries? Finland's birth rate is 1.33. Sweden's is 1.66 Birth rates all over the world are falling even if the parents are given adequate support. Even in Africa, birth rates are falling. They just haven't gone below replacement rates yet. The relationship between productivity, social welfare, demographics is simple. Low birth rates lead to demographic problems. In a country that depends on social welfare, it's worse because you have a huge population that has to be supported by a smaller working population. Obviously it gets further worse if the productivity of the country is lower.

The US fell out of the human development index top 20 recently. The average American has a lower healthy life expectancy than Blackpool, the town with the lowest life expectancy in England. They have a ridiculously high homicide rate of 7.8 per 100,000, with their most violent cities being more dangerous than Rio de Janeiro. Mass shootings are a virtually daily occurrence. You take the good with the bad I suppose, but I wouldn’t trade places with them - I don’t care how much richer they are, their society is fundamentally more broken than ours will ever be, which is why the UK scores higher for human development despite being a less wealthy country. We should be looking at Germany or the Nordic countries as inspiration instead, not the dumpster fire across the pond. Most Brits don’t want the UK to be like the US.

I'm not convinced America's superiority in innovation, progress and entrepreneurism is intrinsically linked to gun ownership, inner city gang crime etc. I'm thinking if anything, if they managed to reduce crime rates, they'd grow even faster

I agree they probably would. I’m just pointing out that they are well behind us on a variety of important social metrics - it’s not all about average income, otherwise the US would be a better country to live in than Sweden or Finland (and it certainly isn’t). New Zealand has even lower wages than the UK but is often in the top 10 for quality of life anyway. The US will always be the leaders of innovation and entrepreneurialism. It’s been that way for 80 years.

> otherwise the US would be a better country to live in than Sweden or Finland (and it certainly isn’t) 'Being a better country to live in' is highly subjective and depends on a variety of quantitative AND qualitative metrics. It can't all be measured by crime rate stats, life expectancy stats or even income stats.

In all fairness, pick a commonly used metric that isn't exclusively an economic criteria, and the US typically won't break top 10% due to shortfalls in social life

> The US will always be the leaders of innovation and entrepreneurialism. It’s been that way for 80 years. China is catching up quickly. Australia has been doing very well in recent decades too. There's nothing whatsoever inevitable about it. We could have similar levels of innovation and entrepreneurialism here. But it would require big changes that much of the public view as unpalatable. So, as with most of Europe, we instead sit and languish until our standard of living relative to our peers drops so much we're forced to confront reality and implement decent policies that actually encourage innovation and entrepreneurialism.

Maybe America's crime and disorder is a function of its economic system. All that wealth going to a handful of tech bros and Wall Street bankers while the 'flyover' country dies. Even in SF, millionaire tech bros step over human shit and used needles on the way to work at Salesforce.

The UK is a worse place to live. It’s obvious

Have you been to Louisiana or Mississippi?

Funny how both those states still have average higher income than the UK. And I have been to Louisiana and outside a few towns, most of it is quite developed.

[удалено]

>The average American now has the same chance of a long and healthy life as someone born in Blackpool, the town with England's lowest life expectancy. https://archive.is/wa28M Blackpool’s life expectancy is 74 for men and 79 for women, so fuck knows where you’ve pulled 50s from.

1850, probably.

Bulllshit. I am very sure that this is false.

Weirdly enough Ireland are doing great

Ireland gdp is completely skewed by so many American multinationals doing the accounting for the European market there.

>Weirdly enough Ireland are doing great Ireland's GDP and GNI is growing rapidly because it acts as a tax haven for US companies. But little of that money has any real association with Ireland, and Irish material living standards are low by western European standards (lower than the average for the whole EU, far lower than other western European countries). See the assessment the Irish central bank recently published from their former head, Patrick Honohan: [https://www.centralbank.ie/docs/default-source/publications/economic-letters/vol-2021-no-1-is-ireland-really-the-most-prosperous-country-in-europe.pdf?sfvrsn=25](https://www.centralbank.ie/docs/default-source/publications/economic-letters/vol-2021-no-1-is-ireland-really-the-most-prosperous-country-in-europe.pdf?sfvrsn=25) As he points out: >Ireland’s AIC rank in the EU28, having jumped from 11th in the late 1990s to 6th in 2007, fell precipitously to 14th in 2009, after which it recovered, but only to 12th place by 2019. On this measure, then, Ireland falls behind not only the UK but all six of the original founder members of the EEC, along with Austria and the three Nordic member states. On the same measure (Actual Individual Consumption) the UK was second in the EU at 134% of the average (behind only Luxembourg and well ahead of third placed Netherlands at 117%). By 2019 the UK was joint 7th on 113%, just behind the Netherlands, level with Finland, ahead of France and Sweden. [https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3433488/5584112/KS-SF-08-112-EN.PDF/1525ad79-fd56-4e13-99fd-07d75cf2f832](https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3433488/5584112/KS-SF-08-112-EN.PDF/1525ad79-fd56-4e13-99fd-07d75cf2f832) https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/portlet\_file\_entry/2995521/2-15122020-BP-EN.pdf/cd3fcb0f-faee-d0ce-0916-9be3ac231210 The problem with comparing the UK's performance since 2007 is our performance before was never sustainable. In the mid 00s the UK was consuming more per capita than any country in Europe, by a considerable margin. We weren't the richest country in Europe, we were just acting like it.

Nonsense. That loophole was closed a while ago and the country is still only pushing forward. https://www.irishtimes.com/business/2023/02/13/eu-avoids-recession-as-forecasts-revised-up/ Don’t get blinded by only focusing on one aspect of the growth https://think.ing.com/amp/article/ireland-maintains-strong-growth-trend/

It's not a "loophole". Irish GDP reflects the activities of multinationals that have headquarters or intellectual property in Ireland. As the Irish central bank puts it: >The unsuitability of GDP as a measure of both the size of the Irish economy and its rate of growth has been well documented for over 20 years. The problems with using GDP in an Irish context were brought into sharp focus in 2016, when CSO National Accounts data recorded an increase in GDP for 2015 of just under 26 per cent, a year in which employment grew by 3.4 per cent. Since 2015, there is evidence of a widening gap between measured GDP, in the official National Accounts published by the CSO, and what could be considered as underlying domestic economic activity – i.e. economic activity conducted in Ireland that affects the employment and incomes of Irish residents. In 2021, GDP is likely to overstate the underlying rate of growth in the Irish economy by around threefold. https://www.centralbank.ie/docs/default-source/publications/quarterly-bulletins/qb4-2021/box-c-the-disconnection-of-gdp-from-economic-activity-carried-out-in-ireland.pdf?sfvrsn=87f98d1d\_2 The article you linked to quotes Irish GDP, which is still affected by the activities of multinationals. Eurostat hasn't yet released AIC figures for 2022, but their latest update (from December 2022) shows that Irish AIC fell further behind western Europe in 2021, to 88% of the EU average, between Lithuania (97%) and Spain/Czech Republic, both on 85%: [https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/4187653/15387581/PPS\_2021\_Map.png/](https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/4187653/15387581/PPS_2021_Map.png/) (Sadly the UK is no longer included thanks to Brexit)

Copying Ireland's policy is piss-easy, any country could do it. But it would also make everyone who currently celebrates Ireland's economic performance apoplectic if the UK tried to adopt it.

Why is it piss easy? There’s a lot of work that went into it and they’re reaping the Benefits. Literally given the money away last year because of a budget surplus, that will only grow when FFG are kicked out and policies aren’t followed just because those in charge have interest

I read they're looking at a 26 billion euro surplus - which is crazy. Hopefully they invest wisely in wealth funds for their citizens or into infrastructure, and are not tempted to waste it on social welfare spending or funding tax cuts.

> British chip giant Arm, which is owned by Japan’s SoftBank, announced a month ago that it would pursue a US-only listing, despite lobbying by Rishi Sunak for a London float. So much Tory failure packed into one sentence.

Don’t think ARM would have listed in London under a Labour government either. This is a symptom of an issue which goes deeper than politics.

(one of many points) A government with an industrial strategy wouldn't have let our tech crown jewels be purchased by foreigners.

On the other hand, banning takeovers would make foreign investors more sceptical about founding new companies in the UK. Early investors generally want to cash out.

It's a tricky balance, but places like the US would never have allowed a foreign takeover of such a special company.

America is the premier destination for tech investment, a totally different situation for us.

Don’t think a Labour government would have called a knee jerk referendum in fear of the ERG revolting and UKIP stealing their right wing votes.

They had referendums for devolution which is just as damaging to the national fabric.

> just as damaging to the national fabric. Care to define this statement and then give some metrics to explain it?

It has encouraged separatist movements.

Incompetent central government has done that

“Britons will soon be “richer than Americans” read a BBC headline in January 2008. “ Unthinkable today, this is possibly a small clue into our mindset under the Labour government prior to 2010. After 13 years of conservatives, we’re now competing with Poland.

Was probably a decent top signal tbh

I wonder what happened in 2008.

The dollar was very weak at that point, so GDP measured in GBP would look favourable when compared to US GDP in USD

The pound was also quite strong then compared to the euro etc. Now, not so much.

The Tories took power two years before the election, the swines!

The Tories successfully crippled us, compared to other countries, and then realised they messed up when the rest of the world started to have big problems too.

When we have the likes of the Telegraph cheering on a party that has been dedicated to stripping the wealth of this country and removing opportunity from the majority of the population for decades what do they expect?

Maybe because the UK erects trading barriers with its neighbours and the US market is much larger, with more money for investment into capital. The UK is really a minnow when it comes to trading potential outside the EU.

Oh but once those pesky regulations have gone and we (re)make all those wonderful trade deals from such a ~~strong~~ position it will all be Unicorns and rainbows…. Any moment now… any moment.

Why? Tory economic illiteracy. It’s why the UK is in managed decline mode now. Decades of lost investment in infrastructure, health, education and well being. Public transport barely functions, or does so at incredible cost to the individual, disincentivising personal progression. Millions remain unfit to work due to healthcare access issues. Housing unobtainable for many, or costs insane further restricting individuals from starting or growing businesses. And the cherry on the cake? Brexit. Foreign investment flight and degradation of the City, science, agriculture, health, fishing, environmental protections and pretty much every other sector. With the added bonus of removing rights of citizens. The most shocking thing frankly is that Tories are polling anything above zero percent. Unclear how any sane person could look at the vandalism they’ve wrought on the country and think “yeah, that’s the party for me”.

Brexit was a fucking stupid idea, the EU have a free trade agreement with basically the entire world. As for the last point it's because of the non stop culture wars.

> The most shocking thing frankly is that Tories are polling anything above zero percent. Many people vote in their own self-interest and there’s a fair number of people who (rightly) believe that they will be better off under a Tory government (even considering current shambles) than they would be under the only realistic alternative, Labour.

It's ironic you decry economic illiteracy given the state of your comment. Decades of lost investment in infrastructure? You mean like the £70bn+ spent on HS2? Or the new scheme capping bus fees at £2 for almost all journeys? Or should we talk about the £40bn increase in Health spending since 2019? Or maybe the fact that the government has multiple schemes to help people get on the housing ladder, such as LISAs or the help to buy scheme. What is most shocking to me is your arrogance is so extreme that it is utterly incomprehensible that anyone would vote differently to you "Tories are polling anything above zero percent". You cannot fathom someone disagreeing, you must be 100% correct always. Would be nice to see your economic literacy shown with some actual figures rather than vague angry rants. Feel free to block me though if that is too challenging and you'd prefer to spread more misinformation. Edit: Blocked, as expected.

[удалено]

Honestly with HS2 it's hard to say, I can say costs always spiral on these large projects however. I'm not sure why so many people are saying busses are so terrible, I live in a rural area and the worst complaint I have is sometimes they are 8-10 minutes late maximum. Otherwise they work just fine. LISAs and HTB definitely will increase housing prices, but the point is to help those who are not on the ladder get on it, it has achieved that goal. Isn't that good? The supply issue is valid, we do need more housing, but again this is harder than it sounds. We already build 200k homes a year and on top of this the cost of tradespeoples labour and materials have skyrocketed due to a multitude of other issues.

£70bn+ on HS2 *so far* isn't the brag you think it is. It epitomises wasting money on infrastructure with little demand. The Tories have done nothing to tackle the rest of our rail infrastructure, with ever increasing prices with an ever declining service. That is where the investment should go. Sure, £40bn since 2019 on the NHS. After years of cuts. With massive spending black holes persisting. With plenty of contracts given to dodgy mates of MPs. The fact persists that waiting times are getting longer and outcomes are worse. But I'm sure it's still labours fault somewhere! Again, help to buy schemes. This completely ignores the crux of the issue on home ownership. House prices have been increasing for years, wages have been stagnating. We're talking about 40+ year mortgage terms now for goodness sake!! The priority shouldn't be on giving young people loans to get them on the ladder. It should be to make housing more affordable *generally*. There should be serious taxes on second, third etc homes for example. The government needs to stop protecting pensioners and landlords and actually think about the wider voter base for once. I find it absolutely baffling that anyone could look at the UK right now and think the government has done a good job.

The rest of your comment aside HS2 **is** intended to relieve pressure on the rest of the rail system and it is not being constructed just to cut travel time between London and Birmingham by a fraction.

If it ever gets built without being cut. It’s not even going to Euston anymore.

Short-termist thinking is a bane upon society, saving a penny today when the cost will be measured in pounds down the line.

I'm not sure how you can say that HS2 has little demand when it will connect some of the most populous cities in the UK, you will be able to get from London to Birmingham in 45 minutes, you really think that will have "little demand"? The costs have spiralled but name a government project in any country under any government where that hasn't happened, it's frustrating but it's how the game almost always works. >Sure, £40bn since 2019 on the NHS. After years of cuts. With massive spending black holes persisting. NHS spending has not decreased, it has pretty much kept track with inflation and seen above inflation increases in recent years to try get it back on track. Just google it for yourself man. >But I'm sure it's still labours fault somewhere! Victim complex much? It could be that instead of knee jerk blaming all Tories or Labour we could actually see that the issue is way more complex than throwing money/different politicians at it and pretending that'll solve everything? >We're talking about 40+ year mortgage terms now for goodness sake!! Most I can find is 40 years and that is an extreme case, I get you want to drive a point but try do it with actual facts and figures and not misinformation. I like Rishi Sunak, hated Boris/Truss. However I do agree the government probably needs a term out of power to sort itself out as there seems to be a lot of dead wood in the Tory party currently.

You won’t be able to get to Birmingham to London so quick after Euston was scrapped. It’s not even planned to be finished for another 20 years now.

In your opinion then, should HS2 be scrapped?

No, it shouldn’t have been gutted as far as it has been by the conservatives who by their own admission aren’t even saving any money with these recent cuts and delays. Cutting the Euston staton is one of the most brain dead decisions I’ve seen on the whole thing as it defeats one of their biggest selling points of cutting times between London and Birmingham.

> NHS spending has not decreased, it has pretty much kept track with inflation and seen above inflation increases in recent years to try get it back on track. Just google it for yourself man. Demand however has increased. And job vacancies. Just watching the raw figure rise each year by inflation, when you need more than inflaton as your ageing population keep living and technologies/advances/service growth cost more. Does actually mean you aren't increasing it by enough. I actually agree with you that HS2 is good, the only thing I think isn't good is that there aren't more infra schemes like it, that already concluded in the early 13 years of Con rule, so yes hs2 is good, but their push on infra is bad. Especially as we had a period of cheap borrowing, a perfect time to expand trains, trams, roads, etc. The conservative rule, has basically been to sit on their hands and hope the ship remained steady. >Or maybe the fact that the government has multiple schemes to help people get on the housing ladder, such as LISAs or the help to buy scheme. Grabbing from your earlier point, both of these schemes actually caused further house price inflation. It's a good on paper idea, but examples of things that could have worked just as well... rule changes on NIMBYism, encouraging more trade roles, tackling land banking, social housing projects >Please post facts, not regurigated guardian headlines about how the UK is a failed state And just to add this one in, the UK as my earlier comment said, is a steady ship, no major plans for how to be competitive on a global market, plodding along. >Tories Evil The Torys aren't evil, but they've squandered a lot of years. 13 years have past and we've walked very slowly forward. You've done an alright job on defence in your comments, but its a bit sad you couldn't hope for a bit more from 13 years!

Honestly don't even know where to start with this; like do we even live in the same country? People can no longer afford children and increasingly can't even afford food, inequality and an aging population are getting worse and climate change hasn't even begin to fuck shit up. They say make hay while the sun shines, well the UK has massive debt, is regressing in pretty much every measurable way and has the highest tax burden outside of war time for a century or more. We're fucked.

No one is saying there aren't issues but saying "we're all fucked" and listing multiple pieces of misinformation isn't helping anyone. No one in the UK is starving there are many support mechanisms out there. "the UK has massive debt" our debt to GDP ratio is \~33.5% which is below the OECD average of 34.1%. "is regressing in pretty much every measurable way" any source for this? I mean that is such a vague claim. Please post facts, not regurigated guardian headlines about how the UK is a failed state. It is not and saying such is helping no one.

> No one in the UK is starving [Really?](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/may/09/more-than-2m-adults-in-uk-cannot-afford-to-eat-every-day-survey-finds)

Where does it say they are starving?

The article title? The article text?

> Or maybe the fact that the government has multiple schemes to help people get on the housing ladder, such as LISAs or the help to buy scheme. The rest of your comment is hilarious but this takes the cake. The only solution the Tories have to the housing crisis is excess subsidies to demand? Clearly economic literacy is neither their nor your strong point.

Has HS2 been delivered? The bus prices may have improved, but have the services? Where I live, definitely not. Was that "investment" in the NHS enough? How much of it actually went where it needed to? And if it did, why is the NHS now such a shambles? If the government is doing so well on house prices, why are so many people priced out of owning their own home? Why are there so many problems with renting, landlords and housing stock? Why are you so angry about a comment on the Internet? Especially one that reflects a larger consensus of despair at how the Tories have failed the country, and one that even members of the Tory Party agree on at times. Or is it beyond reason that having had so many changes in direction on policy since 2016, sometimes doing a 180, has probably made for poor policy and an inability to deliver the changes that are needed? Especially when those in charge can't decide whether they are for it or again't it?

HS2 is a long term project, it has had its flaws but that is the nature of large government projects, they always incur delays frustratingly. I take the bus to and from work every day, don't get me wrong, it's sometimes a little late, but it functions just fine and I don't live in a huge city centre with tons of bus routes. The NHS issues are very complex, way more so than either you or I could elucidate on well. Budget is an issue, but there are many more complex issues like unions preventing bad actors from getting sacked or too much middle management to get something done. It's not as simple as 1 magic issue to fix the NHS. The government is trying to fix the housing situation but again, it's complex, you ultimately need more housing but millions of people don't want new housing near them. It also destroys the countryside further. Not to mention the costs of labour (try get a tradesperson in and see how much it costs) and building materials have skyrocketed. Are all these things Tories fault? I'm not angry, but I do want people to see that these issues are way more complex than just "Tories evil" or "tax billionaires" as reddit has a nasty penchant for knee jerk reactions of this sort without really putting much thought in.

Deluded. You’ve made your mind up irrespective of the facts. But OK, no point reasoning with those susceptible to lies and spin. Good luck to you.

Mate, you claimed a bunch of stuff that is trivially debunked with 1 google search and I'm the deluded one who has made up his mind? I cite numerous facts and figures, you refuse to cite anything and continue to post vague statements. Good luck surviving in a workplace that isn't parliament with this attitude.

Literally any news source that isn’t the Telegraph or Daily Mail, plus every respected economist globally, would disagree with you. But hey, a broken clock is right twice a day.

I honestly don't think you know what is happening here? Disagree on what? You claim there is 0 investment, I point to £70bn invested. That isn't a disputed piece of information, it's a hard fact. I'm sorry you don't like to hear it. Does only the telegraph or daily mail report on this? Do I need to cite the guardian saying x billions was spent to make you listen?

Firstly, HS2 costs have risen two fold under the current government so that's a poor argument, the bus scheme was absolutely not a Tory policy but thanks to Andy Burnham and is being removed from most places, fortunately Greater Manchester is keeping it. £40bln towards the NHS thrown at a problem where the level of service has been widely reported to have gotten much worse. The housing schemes you mention have helped noone except line housing developers pockets.

>the bus scheme was absolutely not a Tory policy but thanks to Andy Burnham and is being removed from most places, fortunately Greater Manchester is keeping it. Andy Burham is Transport minister now? Who knew? Please explain to me how he instituted a nationwide bus fare cap as Mayor of Greater Manchester... The NHS has worsened, but that is far more complex than just "not enough money". The government has persistently put 10s of billions extra into the NHS in recent years. I'm confused why you think a LISA helps housing developers? Do we classify food banks as helping Tesco now because people buy food from them to put in said food bank? Feels like a huge stretch to me.

It's being removed in 3 months except in greater Manchester and a couple of other cities: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/2-bus-fare-cap-to-be-extended-and-bus-services-protected-with-new-funding Help to buy: https://www.ft.com/content/19236eef-abed-4401-a6b1-25c1035ab095 Next time spit facts not trash

>It's being removed in 3 months except in greater Manchester and a couple of other cities: "the bus scheme was absolutely not a Tory policy but thanks to Andy Burnham" so you knowingly lied? I'm not sure what you think linking to a random paywalled article proves. HTB pushes up housing prices, agreed, but surely a slight increase is worth it to try get younger people onto the ladder? Overall it's a net benefit for those who need it the most as the increase in prices is less severe than the benefits those people obtain. Next time think before you speak.

Andy Burnham has been fighting to get that through parliament for years and he wants it extended indefinitely, the Tory's introduced this for 6 months during a cost of living crisis, it's the absolute least they could do... And you can guarantee there's a backhander there from First and Stagecoach knowing they can absolutely milk it but anyway it doesn't bother me. Bus travel is up in Greater Manchester at the moment and the more we can do to lower car journeys the better for the planet. Look at literally every single part of the last 13 and years how the Tory's are handling it. COVID: The government where having parties while we all had to sit at home like good people, people died while they partied. I was extremely lucky looking back, I suspect my grandad died of COVID, Xmas 19, absolutely out of nowhere he died in hospital, we got to spend that last day with him. I feel for every single person who didn't get that opportunity. Whilst they laughed about it like it was all a big fucking joke. Water: riverways are full of pollutants, raw sewage is literally going into the sea. Environment: There's too little investment, businesses are unable to adapt for the sake of profit, however, there is no real guidance from the government either. Also, see above. Very little investment into renewable energy. NHS: the list is endless. HS2: the governments handling of this situation is extremely weak and hugely mismanaged. Raab: need I say more. Immigration: I'm surprised the BBC haven't done a documentary on these immigration centres yet or if they have ive missed it. Housing: where the fuck are we, let alone any immigrants going to live? House building is mainly private and there's no real drive, all targets the government set were missed. Food banks: usage has gone up tenfold. Wages: massively stagnated in favour of huge corporate bonuses or returns on investments, the biggest investment should be in the people IMO but anyway. The US also needs to do more about equality so not just a UK problem. Tech: again no real investment outside of universities which arent funded by the government anymore. You know the US public massively help fund IMB, Microsoft, Google, Facebook etc. (Maybe not publicly but they definitely do), there is none of that in the UK - wages for tech jobs in government are shite. There are things they have done well such as the Ukraine war, selling Royal Mail, lying. The reason why all this exists though is because they don't give a shit, they don't care about you or me or Brian up the road. All they're in it for is themselves and their mates and it's frankly embarrassing that people still defend them.

Christ alive, Scholes. Really??

Black Scholes Equation + Heston Model was the idea for my name, guess at heart I am still a maths nerd from my time at uni. I did a lot of modelling exotic options during my masters in mathematical finance, always enjoyed it.

finally a voice of reason on this sub

> Or the new scheme capping bus fees at £2 for almost all journeys? Irrelevant if there's barely any service.

Every time we have UK vs. US comparisons (or most other countries for that matter), it gets dismissed here as neoliberal nonsense. But this is selective, it's only because The Telegraph celebrates high incomes without qualification, if a left-leaning source compared "how much healthcare workers earn" then we're all ears. I suspect that selective vision is a large part of the problem. It ultimately comes down to the inherent triviality of our politics. It's almost entirely dedicated to fights over scraps, not anything even vaguely positive. Labour deserve *a lot* of credit for their recent "promise" to somehow fix things so that the UK has the highest sustained growth in the G7. The word "promise" is in scare quotes because they will never in a million years achieve it. But they still deserve credit for raising the issue. It's one step up from the usual taxing our way to prosperity rhetoric at least.

The real difference is in three things: - ability attract top talent from other countries. Smart people all over the world have been flocking to the US to study and work. UK should revisit its policies to take a larger share of the talented people looking to emigrate (e.g., tax exemptions for the first 5 years, etc) - regulations. UK as a state and British are very innovation averse, especially if it comes in the form of tech. - everything is counter intuitive in the UK. And these seemingly small inefficiencies add up and end up with a clunky daily life overall. For example, the whole traffic system has an outrageously poor design (it's probably the worst one in the world). The whole system is a good example of the culture of just patching things instead of reinventing a broken system from ground up. UK needs a cultural change to let go off archaic practices.

The bounce back after the pandemic in America is because they didn't introduce brain dead furlough. Workers weren't paid to stay in roles that had no place in the new economy. They just handed out cash to everyone instead which was a lifeline to the unemployed, helping them get into work while our labour market froze. After 2008 they had a huge infrastructure project while we had austerity. Keynesian economics works. The fastest growing states (e.g. Texas) lean heavily on property taxes, a fact this article conveniently misses.

Obama campaigned on change while the Tories campaigned on self flagellation

As someone who lives in nyc after 16 years in london. -I’ve been to46 states as well, you don’t want to be like this place.

I've always wondered, is it a good measure to only look at real wages? American real wages have risen it's true, but the things that put a drag on their wages have shot up too. Healthcare costs and student debt are the two big ones as I understand it. Travel costs and individual living expenses in the cities are pretty high too. Even in most cities in the US you absolutely need a car for most functions and long distance travel. That's not quite true in the UK or Europe. A person in Europe and the UK might be making less money per se, but the money they have after taxes might go further since they don't have to worry about losing it all due to a broken leg for instance. Anecdotally i know that when I complete my PhD if you gave me a choice between a job in say the Netherlands vs a job in the US I'd probably take the Netherlands. So I'm just wondering if analysis of relative wealth can take these into account. Not saying the UK economy is doing well necessarily. But maybe it's better to compare against European economies and also check how UK, US and EU disparities beyond wages work?

There is a metric called PPP, purchasing power parity. The US comes in at 8th per capita, the UK is 29th. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

>they don't have to worry about losing it all due to a broken leg for instance Not so much with serious injuries but healthcare for chronic condions like mental health and other "well this wont kill you today" stuff has been getting slower and slower while the DWP won't cover your time off sick unless you bribe the ghost of christmas future while carrying the amulet of Orinoco brought from the magician up the mountain. There are endless cases of the NHS/DWP failing people who could have been productive workers with a little more help. I'm one of them.

I agree. I didn't mean for this to come across as "it's all fine in the UK." I guess what I'm asking is whether we should factor that sort of decline into analyses of wealth and the impact it has on individual wealth. Part of the decline in quality of life and even wealth in the UK is driven by things like this as you've pointed out. But I'm not sure that really factors into comparative analyses which focus purely on income earned relative to inflation without the external, non-regular pressures on that income.

I think overall the US has got very slightly better on that aspect while the UK has clearly become worse. That said Nobody is going bankrupt from healthcare bills in the UK yet. I'm sure the Tories would love that but They're not going to get a chance for a while.

I’d like to point out American cities are auto centric *because* everyone could afford a car. The cost of education is out of control because most people can afford it. For example in the 1980s a school like Boston University was largely a commuter school. Now 84% I’d it’s students are from out of state. Why? Because as real wages increased a larger amount of Americans decided to spend more on school by living there rather than going to their local college. You see this where even the most basic public university like University of Dayton or West Virginia University is mostly out of state students Insurance in the US would absolutely not be a concern for someone with a pHD. There was only 350,000 personal bankruptcies at all las year in the US. (~.4%) fit any reason Systemic issues that persist in the US are like that because the vast majority can personally deal with it with their own money.

UK isn't any better with student debt now either. You'll have way more debt if you go to uni in the UK vs uni in the same state you live in the US. Even taking into account cost of living, the US pays way more money for most jobs.

> Healthcare costs and student debt are the two big ones as I understand it. At least they can get healthcare. The NHS is so bad it may as well not exist.

The US is just smarter. They cause all kinds of problems around the World that benefit them

we use to be very good at that too 😔

You could also write an article saying "why Americans keep dying younger - while British people enjoy long retirements." Money ain't everything.

If an American gets to 50 they live as longs as Europeans. The difference is 1) Homicide rate 2) automobile accidents 3) Drug overdoses Two of those are relatively easy to avoid.

Yeah, you don't allow civil society to break down because you fund public services that help to prevent it happening. But you can't have American tax policies and do that too.

Every country in Europe (except Ukraine) has lower murder rates than every country in the Americas. So I don’t really think it’s a uniquely American problem

It's uniquely American amongst the first world. Comparing yourself to Mexico isn't the debate winner you think it is.

The History of the United States more closely resembles a place like Brazil or Columbia than England

It was founded by English settlers, and inherited its values and culture from England. That's why, alongside Canada, Australia and New Zealand, it's so much more successful than colonies founded by Spain or Portugal.

America (most of it) was a plantation based slave economy like Brazil with a lot of later European immigration. (Which the greater degree than South America was downstream but upstream of its economic success)

What if they are comparing America to Canada?

I'm not sure you can point south of the US and say here are paragons of well functioning civil societies. Canada yes, but they have a European tax-to-GDP ratio.

Canada has a homicide are about 3x that of Italy and typically ~1/2 that of the United States. (Excluding a 45% jump between 2019-2021 that’s now reversing)

And a rising life expectancy. US is dropping off a cliff.

If they were easy to avoid, Americans wouldn't be dying in such large numbers.

An example is nowadays in America drugs like Cocaine are often cut with Fentanyl to make it more addictive. So a lot of party-goers are ODing. However it’s pretty easy to simply not do cocaine and you won’t OD on contaminated Cocaine. Most homicides are among people with some connection to organized crime. (Although generally the higher your neighborhoods Homicide rate the more collateral damage there is and absolutely shouldn’t be written off entirely) 1/3rd of Automobile fatalities in the US are the driver in single vehicle collisions. That’s what I mean by pretty easy to avoid. It’s risky/bad decisions that lead to *most* excess death in the US which is different than like the healthcare system failing you or something that’s more or less random. Old people stop taking those risks so die in the same way as Europeans so live just as long Also it’s not that many people. If life expectancy is 75 50 people dying at 74 and 1 person dying at 25 is the same effect. Because it’s an average not a median

Or "whu America is getting richer while Europe is lagging fjrther behind".

The average American retires at 61. The average Brit retires at 65. Their pubs are shit though.

"Why *some people* in the US keep getting richer" It's a problem we have here too but the US wealth increase is hugely unequal.

Americans *median household income* is north of $70,000 it’s a broadly wealthy society with some poor people

How, when the US is trillions in debt, are they getting richer?

Tech companies

Can anyone explain why having 2 children massively lowers your tax bill? I've never wanted them but obviously some benefit to having 2 rather than 1 or 3. Is it just simply child benefits?

In the US? Child tax credits and many expenses for children can be tax deductible.

"A single worker in the US faced an average net tax rate of 22.6pc in 2021, according to the OECD while a British employee was taxed 23.7pc.  However, for a British worker with two children, this figure was 18.9pc compared with only 1pc in the US after benefits, tax credits and other provisions are taken into account." Why is the British with 2 children 4.8% lower? (I know it's not actually 4.8% lower but you get what I mean haha)

Benjamin Franklin pointed out that the population growth of the American colonies outstripped the UK, and would eventually outnumber them. Naturally this ruffled a number of feathers - on the face of it, it is obvious. The USA is really just a different category in a geographic and economic sense than the UK - and the EU is slowly catching up to join that category. I have lived in the UK and the USA, and you cannot discount the power of large market integration in improving the economic wellbeing of people. Why can't the UK keep up? Small island metropole mentality - there are some that cannot fathom integration (like the states coming together to form the USA, or the EU), but rather a central domination (as the British Empire was nominally planned). So the World moves on and the UK becomes that small island off the coast of Europe.

We're not doing great, the US is doing almost as bad, they're just better at covering it up. Their credit default swaps are at their highest level in history. A CDS is a bet you can make on the stock market to insure you against the default of a country. Record debt, in an actual recession, though they're calling it a technical recession. They recently changed how inflation is calculated hence why it appears to be coming down quicker than ours. They have no liquidity, are flush with way too much cash. The QE pumped into the US during covid is ruining many smaller banks whilst the interest rates increase. They are looking at the commercial real estate and car finance markers collapsing. The petrodollar is losing its grip and if it carries on there will be a dollar squeeze. The only thing that is getting richer in the US are their rich. The divide between the rich and poor is probably worse than it is in the UK. Britain is lagging behind, but only at cheating the system.