America vs. Europe
By DAVID BROOKS AND GAIL COLLINS

COMMENTARY TO THEIR COMMENTARY

"I came away convinced that the American model is in fact better, but
it was useless to try to persuade continental Europeans of this fact.

I became convinced that our system was better not for the wealth-
generating reasons the current bloggers are arguing about, but because
it leads to more exciting lives.

Gail Collins: David, you’re reminding me of an argument I listened to
several eons ago, when I was in graduate school, between my husband
Dan and a very conservative guy who I think was a relative of one of
our professors.

Americans would feel more free to take risks if they didn’t have to
worry about health insurance.
They were fighting about national health care. (Yes, this was the
early 1970s and we were having the same identical heated discussions
then.)
YOU MISSED LATE 50 TIES, DUDES
(..)
David Brooks: Here’s my point. The American model allows for
disruptive change because it is easier for firms to hire new people
when they start and shed people if they fail. That makes places like
Silicon Valley possible, where you have highly flexible workforces
chasing radical new ideas.

The European model protects producers more and has greater social
trust within companies. That makes steady, gradual innovation more
likely — the kind you find at German metallurgic firms. I’m glad the
world has both models, but I’d prefer to live in the more dynamic one.

(..)
The other big difference is that the American model encourages hard
work at the cost of instability. I think that encourages people to
maximize their capacities.

The continental model encourages less work at the cost of boredom. I
knew people in Brussels who went to work at an organization at 25
sitting in one desk, and they could tell you exactly what desk they
will be sitting in and what job they will be doing when they retire at
60 or 65. Yawn.
YES AND NO; THIS IS CONTENDED. BUTLET CHECK ON THEIR INTELECTUAL
PRODUCTIVITY THAT I ONLY KNOW FROM CASUAL CONTACTS NOW, BUT CAN
DEVELOP COMPARABLE CRITERIA, PERHAPS EVEN THANKS TO GOODNESS OF
INTERNET.
ARE THESE GUYS FROM BUSEL AND BRUSEL ITSELF LIKE THE WHOLE CONTINENTAL
EUROPE TO YOU?

Gail Collins: This may not be the best possible moment to tell
Americans about the dreadful boredom that they’d be suffering if they
were stuck with job security. However, the argument seems pretty moot,
given the fact that the number of Americans who are protected by a
labor union has been dropping for as long as I can remember.

I’ve had a tiny sliver of experience in what it’s like to manage in a
country with really stringent rules on job protection and I agree with
you that it does make innovation more difficult. But as I said, that
has almost no relation to anything we’re seriously debating here.
AS A MATER OGF FACT, CONGRESS JUST ENFORCES EEO RULS; WHAT ELSE DO YOU
NEEDC IF YOU CAN RECOVER THE LOSS USING THE WELL FUNCTINONG AGENCY
THAT MOREOVER WILL TAKE THEMATTER TO COURT FOR YOU.

IN EUPRESS TEHRE ARE ISSUES COMPARABEL TO THE USA VIEW ON THE FAIR
EMPLOYMENT TREATMENT BUT OUT EMPLYMENT LAW IS ALREADY BURNING SHELVED.
ONE THINK IN THE MEDIA - EU DOE SNOT TOLERATE THE JOB MOBBING AS WE DO
HERE BEFOIRE AND IF EEO TAKES EFFECT ( VICTIM MIGHT BE DEAD, MADE
SICKOR KIDNAPPED).
....
The question for Americans is whether we think people who have no
guarantee of long-term employment need to be assured that whatever
happens, they’ll still have health care and the guarantee of a very,
very modest pension when they get old.

THEY DO NOT HAVE EITHER - YOU HAVE TO PRODUCE AS PROFESSIONAL AT THE
SAID DESK; MAYBE YOU OVCERLOOKING SOMETHING; TEHY ARE RELAXED ASX THE
MATETR OF WORK STYLE.
( IF YOU HAD A CHOISE  WHICH ONE YOU PICK? RELAXED AT WORK AND PLAY OR
HIGHT STRUNG? DO YOU WORK AS PROFESSIONAL?

David Brooks: I do agree the debate is a little unreal. It is
conducted under the supposition that you can choose which model is
best and then adopt it. That’s not possible. (...) We in this country
live in an immigrant heavy culture and we need an economic model that
encourages assimilation. That’s what our system has always done. The
continental model exists in countries with stable populations that do
not feel the need to absorb immigrants. Their model is fine for that.

In the end, we stumble toward models that fit our personalities.
REALLY? I THOUGH THAT PERSONALLITY IS THAT ADOPTABLE BECAUSE GETS
FORMED. I SAW FEW PEOPEL LOOKING THE SAME,TWINS, AND ADOPTED TO WHERE
THEY LIVE, SO OPPOSITE
OF WHAT YOU SAY.

By the end of my stay in Brussels I concluded it would be wrong and
impossible for the Germans or the French to adopt our model and wrong
and impossible for us to adopt theirs. We each had stumbled toward
models that fit our persona.

PERSONA MEANS MORE LIKE THE GIVEN OUT SHELL OF PERSONALITY ; IT IS NOT
A FULL PERSONALITY, IF YOU POINT THE SHELL.


 ( could be that morons got a new words from Wikipedia)