Hmmm... as I understand the situation, at least in france, the "shorter hours" and "more leisure" are not really a choice, but they have been forced on the population in an attempt to boost the number of workers businesses have to employ. Their continually worstening unemployment problem both in france and germany, as well as many of the other EU countries is testament this is not the solution, but they continue to ignore the real problem: socialism.
I could be wrong, but maybe this is the reason we're kicking your Europeon asses all over the globe, and why your position on Iraq or much of anything else is of little concern to the current Administration in Washington.
I'm surprised they aren't looking at the "Chilian Model" as an answer, much as the GOP is trying to do on a limited scale. The successful results are right before their (and our) eyes.
No doubt the problem (there as well as here) is, it is so easy to demogogue. Plus, it takes power away from the politicians, and we certainly can't have that!
The alternative is financial collapse and societal chaos, which to socialist politicians is preferable to successful capitalist schemes. That means they get to play Savior again for at least another round.
"Europe" argues Adair Turner, "is making social choices which are rational and natural for human beings in mature, already rich, and peaceful societies."
He's right. But one additional adjective might be "protected" societies, that is, societies for whom defense outlays and efforts are being made by someone else. The author has split economics and military here for purposes of discussion, but the two are inextricably linked politically. The consequence of choosing social services and leisure over military spending and long hours is the concomitant loss of influence by people lucky enough to be in a position to make that choice (and live with the consequence), if I understand the implications of the author's case correctly. But that choice is not one made in a vacuum - the ability to make it depends not only on the proper apportionment of one's internal priorities, but on the willingness of the outside agency, by aligning its own priorities, to maintain the situation as a whole. What the author suspects is a difficulty of sustainability is, IMHO, more likely to fail from a change in that external condition (due to a change in priorities on the part of the U.S.) than from internal contradictions such as dwindling tax revenues and increased demand for social spending as a result of demographic change. In short, the consequence is that they're not entirely in charge of their own fate. The reward for the choice of fewer benefits and longer hours is more than simply political clout, it is the right to choose.
One other thing that particular alignment of priorities creates is a far more economically risk-averse environment. An elaborate social safety-net and high taxation, shorter hours, and a comfortable society are characteristically risk-averse. The demographic movement the author cites illustrates the consequence. Movement of a younger, more skilled, more aggressive population to more risk-tolerant areas (New York and London to use the author's examples) in pursuit of a higher expectation of economic return is as rational an alignment of priorities as the one cited for a more risk-averse, older, more comfortable population. But it has demonstrable benefits for the society that rewards it, which accounts for the increasing disparity in both production and in progress between the European and the U.S. models. The only sense in which this is sustainable would be Europe as a gigantic retirement community - not the happiest of models for a vibrant, dynamic society that expects to influence world affairs.
The unfortunately effect of this leisure, and lavish social welfare, is that it reduces the incentive to acheive.
Can you name *any* singificant contribution to culture, science, engineering, etc from a W. European nation in say the last 20-30-40 years?
Bill Whittle wrote a great essay called "Confidence" where he says:
The sun will contract to a white dwarf, the inner solar system nothing but black cinders, the outer planets shrunken and frozen corpses. Perhaps fifteen billion years from now, a time as far in the future as time goes into the past, there will be nothing here except a burnt-out and cold white dwarf.
But somewhere out there, somewhere, there will be four battered, unrecognizable hunks of aluminum and titanium and gold, spinning through deep space, their names recalling the spirit in which they were hurled into the abyss: Pioneer, and Voyager. And the day before the Universe dies, you’ll still be able to dimly make out the stripes and dotted square, and read the words in the ancient language, from a dead race in the far distant past, when the stars were young and alive: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
There are at least five nations on the earth that had the technical skill, not to mention the money, to do something as grand and noble – as immortal -- as this. Yet only one has done so. Why us? Why not them?
Confidence. That’s why.