Is Europe still a better place to live Post Eurocrash

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by esquire

Absolutely. I mean, if you live in North Battleford or whatever most subcultures will be relatively small and less insulated from the mainstream... so even if you are a TFW from the Philippines working in the hospital, there's a decent chance that you will eat perogies and eventually join a curling team at some point. .

Multiply that by 100 for that TFW's kids if ever she ends up staying and raising them there.

[Stryker]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

P. Alouishous spoke of a "dominant culture" rather than a "mainstream" but I was wondering if someone wouldn't react to his post. Surely one of the Toronto mayoral candidates is a textbook example of Toronto's dominant culture (in its elite iteration).

I don't think that it's.

I think it's the worker culture.

People that don't even speak a word of english holding their cup of coffee in one hand newspaper in the other, politely keeping step in line, while skipping over the beggar.

There is a certain amount of walk in step the city has.

Could be partially that it's just a large city, but I think there is more too it than that.

[Xelebes]

Originally Posted by rousseau

Well said. I used to think that sort of provincialism was the exclusive province of Americans, but it seems that the rise of Canadian "pride" over the last decade or so has found no less ugly expression in its chest-puffing ignorance.

It's perplexing seeing it on a discussion board like this. How are you supposed to respond to posters who claim that Europe is just shiny baubles and cobblestone streets? Without sounding condescending, I mean. Because it's one thing to be happy where you live, but the idea that we're some kind of comparative nirvana is ridiculous.

I mean, you can indeed make a persuasive argument that Canada is undoubtedly the comparatively best place virtually any immigrant could hope to end up in when weighing the major metrics that these things are measured in, and while I wholeheartedly agree that that's a fine thing to be, it doesn't mean we don't have lots of shortcomings that should temper the unvarnished enthusiasm for exaggeration that so many people are fond of.

Please understand that my posts are not meant to disparage Europe, but rather to provide a differing opinion. Europe can be great. It can also be a place where you are stuck with little option for social mobility. You are a newcomer to Europe. You're strange, you're educated, you speak something close to American English! Thus you have fantastic mobility. The Polish plumber? The Romanian cleaner? Geographic mobility is not so much social mobility.

That said, Europe is a fine place. I just don't see why I should simply defer to it.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Xelebes

Please understand that my posts are not meant to disparage Europe, but rather to provide a differing opinion. Europe can be great. It can also be a place where you are stuck with little option for social mobility. You are a newcomer to Europe. You're strange, you're educated, you speak something close to American English! Thus you have fantastic mobility. The Polish plumber? The Romanian cleaner? Geographic mobility is not so much social mobility.

This is correct inasmuch as the debate is limited to immigration and in the broad sense of the concept.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Those 12-year-old girls eventually grow up to become women, and retain a lot of the cultural cues they acquire when they were 8, 12, 16 and 21. Sure they branch out a bit as we all do, but someome who grew up watching American sitcoms and top 40 music will likely continue to do so at least to some degree in adulthood.

Then what of the many (most?) people who don't watch American sitcoms and listen to top 40 music? You'd be right to say that more people consume these than watch Iranian realist cinema and listen to Berlin techno, but you also overestimate the reach of mainstream American media - particularly beyond a superficial understanding of it.

People who grow up in Toronto (or any place really) regardless of origin will have reasonably similar cultural cues that they follow.

There's the thing though - most Torontonians didn't grow up in Toronto.

Originally Posted by esquire

How anyone can argue that there isn't a mainstream in Toronto (or that it's less pronounced or whatever) is beyond me. The cultural niches that exist there exist just about everywhere else in North America, with the only difference being the breadth of cultures included in Toronto. I mean, maybe there isn't a large Macedonian or Jamaican immigrant community in Saskatoon, but frankly it doesn't really matter.

So Toronto and Saskatoon and North Battleford basically have an identical culture. Right.

We sometimes have a habit on SSP of downplaying differences between places (see for example, the endless "Alberta isn't conservative" debates), but I don't really see what's so preposterous about the idea that some of these different places have different cultures, that respond to their individual environment, history, and demographics.

Even less preposterous is the idea that some places (particularly larger and/or more high-growth, transient cities) have less dominant of certain cultures, where there's less of a cohesive, established identity, with a greater range for one to become enveloped in.

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by Acajack

You make some very good points.

There is however the question of what will be the historical take-away of these societies. What will people in 100 years retain from Wal-Marts, drive-thrus and Kim Kardashian celebrity gossip? Of course American society is not just limited to that, but a certain fringe of it (well described by kool) certainly dwells at that level. That level also exists to some degree in places like Copenhagen and of course it's an illusion as you say to think that everyone is involved in things more profound but geez, it just seems so much harder to find in so much of North America (even though it does exist here too in pockets).

It's not even only about the architecture, it's also about the topics people discuss. What are most people talking about at a café in Copenhagen vs. Tim Hortons in Anytown, Canada. Are they talking about ISIS, global warming, the evolution of society, or about the latest infotainment fluff? Because cities and even communities where people meet are supposed to be places where ideas are exchanged, where assumptions are challenged, and where new ways of doing things often emerge from that synergy.

A place where this does not happen (not saying there are none where it does in America BTW), is a "poorer" place in my view.

I'm not sure where you're going with this, but it's not hard at all to find people in tiny towns all across Ontario (and presumably Canada in general, and probably the U.S., too) talking about ISIS, global warming, the evolution of society and sundry other political topics in Tim Horton's and its analogues. I can't really believe you're suggesting that people in cafes in Europe are talking about these sorts of things more so than people in less quaint-looking cafes in North America. I don't know how that could possibly be true.

The over-65s who gather for morning coffee in diners or spend afternoons and evenings in Tim Hortons spend half the time talking about their children and grandchildren and the other half talking about the political topics of the day. Sometimes in the same sentence. You can go into any Tim Horton's anywhere, and you will find a group of older folks sitting around nattering away about political topics.

The only possible disparity I see between Europe and North America in this area is in the aesthetic qualities of the meeting places. Tim Horton's may not look as charming as a cafe in Paris, but it's still a place where people gather, even if they usually drive there to do it. In fact, you could even argue that a large contingent of patrons at those Parisian cafes with the seats facing outwards have no more lofty goal in mind than staring at women who are walking by.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

So Toronto and Saskatoon and North Battleford basically have an identical culture. Right.

We sometimes have a habit on SSP of downplaying differences between places (see for example, the endless "Alberta isn't conservative" debates), but I don't really see what's so preposterous about the idea that some of these different places have different cultures, that respond to their individual environment, history, and demographics.

No one's saying that they don't have differences on the margins given that Toronto is a big city and Saskatoon and North Battleford are smaller. But broadly speaking, they're really not that different. It's western culture in all three places.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by rousseau

I'm not sure where you're going with this, but it's not hard at all to find people in tiny towns all across Ontario (and presumably Canada in general, and probably the U.S., too) talking about ISIS, global warming, the evolution of society and sundry other political topics in Tim Horton's and its analogues. I can't really believe you're suggesting that people in cafes in Europe are talking about these sorts of things more so than people in less quaint-looking cafes in North America. I don't know how that could possibly be true.

The over-65s who gather for morning coffee in diners or spend afternoons and evenings in Tim Hortons spend half the time talking about their children and grandchildren and the other half talking about the political topics of the day. Sometimes in the same sentence. You can go into any Tim Horton's anywhere, and you will find a group of older folks sitting around nattering away about political topics.

The only possible disparity I see between Europe and North America in this area is in the aesthetic qualities of the meeting places. Tim Horton's may not look as charming as a cafe in Paris, but it's still a place where people gather, even if they usually drive there to do it. In fact, you could even argue that a large contingent of patrons at those Parisian cafes with the seats facing outwards have no more lofty goal in mind than staring at women who are walking by.

Agreed 100%. I had a similar thought but frankly I held my fire for not wanting to seem more disagreeable than usual.

I agree that the built environment in North American suburban settings often looks more laughable and childish than what you see in Europe, but what's being discussed comes down more to personal interests, and if you want to go in that direction, class distinctions than anything to do with built environments.

At this moment there could well be a few NDSU professors having an erudite discussion over big macs at a McDonald's in West Fargo, ND. At the same time, there are quite likely some garbagemen talking about female singers' asses in a charming cafe in the 6th arondissement.

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by esquire

At the same time, there are quite likely some garbagemen talking about female singers' asses in a charming cafe in the 6th arondissement.

Which is probably due to the fact that you don't get any special training to be a garbageman. You just have to pick it up as you go along.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by rousseau

Which is probably due to the fact that you don't get any special training to be a garbageman. You just have to pick it up as you go along.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, and don't forget to order the veal!

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, and don't forget to order the veal!

Don't encourage me!

[ue]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

endless "Alberta isn't conservative" debates),

Have you even been to Alberta? I'm not saying Alberta and Ontario are identical or that Alberta isn't perhaps more conservative than other places, but it isn't nearly as conservative as the province is made out to be. The shoppers at Yorkdale could easily be transplanted to Chinook or Southgate and no one would bat an eye.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Then what of the many (most?) people who don't watch American sitcoms and listen to top 40 music? You'd be right to say that more people consume these than watch Iranian realist cinema and listen to Berlin techno, but you also overestimate the reach of mainstream American media - particularly beyond a superficial understanding of it.






There's the thing though - most Torontonians didn't grow up in Toronto.






So Toronto and Saskatoon and North Battleford basically have an identical culture. Right.

We sometimes have a habit on SSP of downplaying differences between places (see for example, the endless "Alberta isn't conservative" debates), but I don't really see what's so preposterous about the idea that some of these different places have different cultures, that respond to their individual environment, history, and demographics.

Even less preposterous is the idea that some places (particularly larger and/or more high-growth, transient cities) have less dominant of certain cultures, where there's less of a cohesive, established identity, with a greater range for one to become enveloped in.

With the possible exception of food, there is no real evidence about there about a significant greater Toronto take-up of various cultural products from around the world in terms of music, TV, theatre, literature, etc. Immigrants all over the country retain the old country's culture to some degree, and then it fades progressively over subsequent generations. This is true in Toronto and in North Battleford. The process may be slowed down somewhat in Toronto due to the presence of larger communities in many cases but the process and evolution is still the same. If 5,000 Vietnamese moved to North Battleford tomorrow then they could retain their culture a bit longer than if they were 15 for sure.

A few generations after their settlement, Italian Torontonians today aren't any more Italian today than Ukrainian Canadians in Melfort, Sask. are Ukrainian.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by rousseau

I'm not sure where you're going with this, but it's not hard at all to find people in tiny towns all across Ontario (and presumably Canada in general, and probably the U.S., too) talking about ISIS, global warming, the evolution of society and sundry other political topics in Tim Horton's and its analogues. I can't really believe you're suggesting that people in cafes in Europe are talking about these sorts of things more so than people in less quaint-looking cafes in North America. I don't know how that could possibly be true.

The over-65s who gather for morning coffee in diners or spend afternoons and evenings in Tim Hortons spend half the time talking about their children and grandchildren and the other half talking about the political topics of the day. Sometimes in the same sentence. You can go into any Tim Horton's anywhere, and you will find a group of older folks sitting around nattering away about political topics.

The only possible disparity I see between Europe and North America in this area is in the aesthetic qualities of the meeting places. Tim Horton's may not look as charming as a cafe in Paris, but it's still a place where people gather, even if they usually drive there to do it. In fact, you could even argue that a large contingent of patrons at those Parisian cafes with the seats facing outwards have no more lofty goal in mind than staring at women who are walking by.

Oh my... where is Kool Maudit when I need him???

Seriously though, I am not saying it's non-existent, but it is definitely more ''elusive" on this side of the Atlantic.

[big W]

Originally Posted by Acajack

One thing that is often missed in talk of economic problems is that in an area with 15% unemployment, that means that 85% of the workforce is still working.

Not quite. It is the percentage of the work force. We need to consider the participation rate. So if you have 5% unemployment with 50% participation rate that means 47.5% of the population is employed vs 10% unemployment with 70% participation rate or 63% employed. The problem is the unemployment rate is always quoted but they never give the full stats.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by big W

Not quite. It is the percentage of the work force. We need to consider the participation rate. So if you have 5% unemployment with 50% participation rate that means 47.5% of the population is employed vs 10% unemployment with 70% participation rate or 63% employed. The problem is the unemployment rate is always quoted but they never give the full stats.

That's what I said and meant. It's the percentage of the workforce, not of the entire population obviously.

[big W]

Which again is not a complete measure as people who have been out of work for a certain amount of time are not considered part of the work force anymore even though they are. Then there is the issue of how each region measures unemployment. So if you don't count someone after 6 months out of work or 1 year out of work the numbers can swing as well. Its that quote again.

There are lies, damn lies and statistics.

[big W]

See for me there is no best place it is the best place for each person. I personally love all of Canada and have spent a significant amount of time in all 4 large provinces of Canada (the most being Alberta followed by Ontario). However I am currently in Canada for Alberta for work and plan on moving out of the country but Europe is not in my plans. I personally am considering the Middle East and hope to retire to a small town in the mountains in Lebanon overlooking the Mediterranean (Already have the land and now just to build ensure my finances are there to live and ensure my little guy is taken care of then off I go). To me living between the olive trees with orange groves below and overlooking the med on one side and 3,000M mountains on the other is perfect. I don't have to worry about high taxes that you have in Western Europe. It is very relaxed med climate is what is best for me and whenever I feel like going for a short trip I could visit Europe which is a short hop away or what is also likely a flight to Canada to visit friends and family.

So any argument is this place is the best or that place is the best is useless. It is what is best for each person. If that place is Toronto or Mississippi or Seville or even the Shetland Island then as long as it works for you all the power to you.

[kool maudit]

according to the economist, social mobility in much of europe is slightly greater than it is in the united states. denmark is just above california, that bastion of inventive, boundary-free new world know-how.

http://www.economist.com/news/united...ility-measured

canada does better than the u.s. too, though not as well as scandinavia, typically.

http://www.oecd.org/centrodemexico/medios/44582910.pdf

http://cep.lse.ac.uk/about/news/Inte...alMobility.pdf

europe is really large and varied. my experience here in scandinavia is different than it was when i was in the balkans and croatia and bulgaria were the closest european union nations.

[kool maudit]

Originally Posted by big W

I personally am considering the Middle East and hope to retire to a small town in the mountains in Lebanon overlooking the Mediterranean (Already have the land and now just to build ensure my finances are there to live and ensure my little guy is taken care of then off I go). To me living between the olive trees with orange groves below and overlooking the med on one side and 3,000M mountains on the other is perfect. I don't have to worry about high taxes that you have in Western Europe. It is very relaxed med climate is what is best for me and whenever I feel like going for a short trip I could visit Europe which is a short hop away or what is also likely a flight to Canada to visit friends and family.

that sounds awesome.

i am sure that could make a forum-ish case that a rational economic actor* would retire in london, ontario (or odense, denmark) instead, and that the olive trees and the date palms are just baubles, but life is not a spreadsheet.

(* when i grow up, i want to be....)