For example, prior to the 08 global recession France's GDP per capita was only 74% of the U.S.. That sounds like a pretty compelling argument against the nanny state, right? Well, consider this. While France does have a lower GDP per capita, that's mostly because less of their population is in the workforce. The young (15-24) are only employed at a rate of ~25% while here in the U.S. 54% are employed; This largely reflects the fact that the French youth largely focuses on it's studies rather than having to drop out and work. 92% of french youth are in school and 45% of those aged 20-24 are in school compared with 85 and 35% in the U.S.. Only about 10% of French youth work and go to school at the same time, compared with 20% in the U.S.. The main working age group(between 25-54) participates in the workforce just as much as the U.S. at ~80%. The fact that the French often retire early is bad economically - due to the added taxpayer burden - and this is really the main cause of the lower overall GDP per capita.
Now, GDP per worker is 90% of the U.S. number. Well, again is this cause to move away from the nanny state? Not really, as most of the difference here is due to the fact that the French get more vacation time and work less hours weekly than we do. On average, they only work ~86% as many hours as Americans do yearly. International studies have shown that the French report more "life satisfaction" - which seems to argue that the French have sacrificed overall faster growth in GDP for slower gains and higher standard of living for the majority of citizens. The U.S. by contrast has seen most of it's economic growth go to the top 10%.
So in short, yes, the nanny state creates slower economic growth overall. But at what cost? A more equal society? Is that a cost? I'd argue it's a benefit. The problems the French are having is due to their mismanaging of it pension policies (retiring at 60, etc) than anything. To say that the nanny state failed, however, and to point to France as an example is misleading. The numbers suggest that all economic growth lost literally went to boosting quality of living across the board for the French. Inequality in the U.S. - specifically stagnant income gains among all outside the top 10% - has become an undeniable problem. Countries with higher tax rates dont have this problem nearly to the extent of the U.S. and they sacrifice little growth.
The U.S. nanny state reduces poverty by only 28%, compared with 54% in Canada, 61% in Britain, and 78% in Sweden. To match the level of effectiveness found in these countries we'd have to spend an addtional 2.5%(Canada), 4%(most of Europe), or as much as 9%(Sweden) more towards welfare programs. The facts are, these programs are very successful and, as the numbers point out, most of the French workforce is just as likely to work as the American workforce(although they get more vacation time and work less hours by comparison... Which allows for a higher quality of living overall despite a loss in net income). So, that kind of put a dent in the whole "the nanny state reduces the incentive to work!" argument.
These countries are able to do this because they bring in more revenue. We are in debt, so we couldn't immediately bolster the welfare state without going further in debt - but we can raise taxes and cut defense spending. The CPC's plan balances the budget by 2021 - 20 years faster than the Ryan plan and it doesn't cut the vital American programs of the New Deal - which avoids lowering the standard of living for the little guy. The U.S. takes in less revenue than most of the other developed nations and has seen no growth in wages for those outside the top 10% in several decades (wages are barely keeping pace with inflation since the 80's). Now, you give me some real evidence to suggest that we should not be raising taxes... Go ahead, I'm waiting. but I wont hold my breath.
(note: all of this information is sourced out of "The conscience of a Liberal", by Paul Krugman. Chapter 12, pages 252-256. All information found within is sourced from various organizations including but not limited to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, OECD and the Tax Policy Center... Fuck off I'm not listing the 3 pages of sources from the bibliography I'd be here all day lol)
