Re: local food cost question

jacqui{JB} wrote:
>
> "Pete C." <aux3.DOH.4@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:4373BC80.7827200A@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
> > If the waiters don't have to rely on tips, is the customary
> > tip amount lower there, or are the waiters rich from all
> > the tips?
>
> Danes don't tip. It's neither required nor expected, although it's not
> unheard of to tip after an amazing eating experience. Danish waiters are
> paid a living wage up front. This is one of the things that Danes run afoul
> of when traveling in the US -- when they *do* remember to tip, they grossly
> underestimate what's appropriate because they don't realize that waiters in
> the US don't make a living wage unless they're properly tipped.

Ah, got it, so you tip for excellent service, but "normal" service is
considered part of the regular bill. So when comparing the cost of
dinner out you have to compare US cost with tip to Danish cost without
tip. Makes the cost slightly less startling.

>
> > No garage or presumably much of a yard since you
> > didn't mention it would seem to indicate a relatively
> > cramped setting (views don't correlate with space).
>
> We live in a *flat*, an apartment. We don't have a yard, but the folks on
> the ground floor do. We also only have a street in the back of the
> building; the front is a footpath and then water. We have minimal traffic
> in the street behind, and not having a proper street in front dramatically
> cuts down on city noise.

Got it. ~1,620 sq ft is quite a good size for an apartment.

>
> > A single income family that has a budget that is
> > as you put it "tighter than we'd like" while not
> > having the expense of a car which is the norm
> > in the US would seem to indicate a lower standard
> > of living.
>
> *shrug* To you, maybe. It is not standard to have a car when you live in
> the city. We're something of an aberration in our house of six flats: the
> other couples all have cars (that's one car per family), but both spouses
> work, and I don't.

My point wasn't so much about not having a car when you don't need one,
it was more that without the cost of property taxes, maintenance and
insurance on a car, the budget shouldn't be to tight.

>
> > I think what you are really getting at is that your "quality
> > of life" is comparable based on the adjustments you have
> > made for the economics there and not really that the
> > "standard of living" is comparable.
>
> No, I generally say what I mean. The objective standard of living in
> Denmark is comparable to the standard of living in the US. I think the
> quality of life for the average citizen, a far more subjective issue, is
> higher in Denmark than in the US.

Ok, I haven't been there so I don't have any other reference.

>
> > I wouldn't consider 1,620 sq. ft. or so cramped for
> > a small family.
>
> It's just the two of us, so it's ample space ... or it would be, if we
> didn't have such an extensive book collection between us. :)

Just the one of me in about 2,000 sq ft here. Ample space, but not as
empty as it would seem.

>
> > It is a bit smaller than what is typical in much
> > of the US
>
> This is a relatively recent development in the US; prior to 1970, the
> average home was around 1400 sq ft. Thank the building boom of the 80s and
> 90s: ridiculously large homes on postage stamp-sized lots. Yeah, there's
> real quality of life for you. :P New home construction in Denmark has
> somewhat followed this trend, but sprawling suburban tract homes are
> generally not seen here.

Yes and no. Prior to 1970 the average may have been 1,400 sq ft, but in
much of the country there is/was really another 1,000 sq ft that wasn't
counted i.e. the basement and most people made extensive use of that
extra space.

I've always said I'd rather live in a tiny shack on 100 acres than in a
6,000 sq. ft. micro mansion on 1/2 an acre. When I was searching for my
current house I told my agent the minimum was 2 acres and even at that
it had to be two very nice acres for me to go that small.

>
> > and when you factor in space from a garage and yard
> > it would feel cramped to me since I am used to having
> > space for my workshop and space to hang a hammock
> > outside.
>
> If I wanted those things, I wouldn't live in the middle of the city. I'm
> quite happy with our balcony overlooking the water. And you're very much
> speaking to quality of life, not the average standard of living for people
> in the US.

If you did want those things and moved outside the city to get them, how
much more income would it require? That would be a standard of living
thing in my book. If you could get that outside the city on the same
income then that would be a comparable standard of living.

>
> > I classify most everything other than food, water
> > and air as a toy. Whether it is the full machine shop,
> > the big boat, fancy car or whatever else suits your
> > tastes, I count that into the standard of living assessment.
> > You quality of life may not appear to suffer since you
> > probably wouldn't have the space for the workshop for
> > instance, but the inability to have it if you wanted it does
> > speak to a lower standard of living.
>
> That's nonsense. As I stated above, if a workshop was important to me, I'd
> not live in the middle of the city. Instead, we have a houseful of art and
> books; excellent appliances in the kitchen; and a small, but growing, wine
> cellar, among other things. There's nothing wrong with the standard of
> living here. That I can't afford to buy a $30 chicken every week is
> immaterial. I grew up in a solidly middle-class home in the US; I don't
> know that I could *make* myself to spend $30 for a chicken every week.

Well again it's a question of options. Obviously a workshop is not
important to you and the city experience is. The question is would the
house with workshop outside the city be affordable if you were to want
it, or would it be prohibitively expensive?

It's not a question of what you want there, it's really a question of if
I were going to live there would I be able to maintain my current
standard of living there with a comparable job to my current one?

Most everyone who lives a decent amount above poverty has a good quality
of life, but gauging the actual standard of living is a bit more
difficult. What is the cost of routine items in terms of hours of work?
That seems to be the best way to gauge the standard of living. How many
hours of work does it take to buy common item X in each country.

>
> > The point is that while certainly folks like you indicate
> > can take significant vacations as you say every couple
> > of years, I could take vacations of that magnitude a
> > couple times a year if I had the ambition.
>
> The point, which perhaps I wasn't making clearly enough, is that Danes
> travel. A lot. *All* of the Danes I've met, from all walks of life, travel
> far more than any of my contemporaries in San Diego.

That does seem to be typical of a lot of countries. It seems to have
some correlation to the size of the country, the US is pretty large and
many people just vacation somewhere else within the US. With smaller
countries people are far more likely to travel and vacation out of
country.

>
> > I think that one of us may be misinterpreting
> > that information.
>
> That would be you.
>
> > In the US the amount that an employer pays towards
> > an employees benefits (health insurance, workers comp
> > insurance, unemployment insurance) is higher than Denmark
> > because the government covers those costs, with taxes out
> > of the employees income.
>
> In Denmark, the employer pays for workers' compensation insurance;
> unemployment benefits are financed through union dues; and the gov't,
> through taxes, picks up medical coverage.

So, 45-45% taxes + union dues + 25% VAT tax on everything? Still very
high.

>
> > then the workers salary is taxed by the
> > government 65%
>
> Where do you get 65%? At the average wages quoted in the charts provided in
> my last post, the income tax rate is 40-45%; if you're including 25% VAT,
> you shouldn't. VAT is roughly equivalent to sales tax.

VAT may be roughly equivalent to sales tax, but US sales tax is
significantly lower (4-8% typically) and does not apply to food.

>
> You seem intent on insisting that Danes have a lower standard of living than
> Americans. I'm telling you, based on my experience in both places, that
> your interpretation is objectively not true. I'm well-versed in employment
> law in the US, having worked for a labor law firm for seven years prior to
> moving the DK, and I've kept abreast of developments since I've left; and
> I'm becoming well-versed in European labor and work conditions and living
> standards. I'm not just talking out the side of my face.

Not intent on it, I'm trying to get an understanding of the differences
and everything I've been hearing indicated to me that the standard is a
bit lower. Clearly in a socialist country there is not the
stratification seen in the US, but those in the middle in the US as far
as I can tell the standard of living is higher. If you are at the bottom
in the US certainly you'd be better off in Denmark, and if your at the
top in the US your likely far better off in the US.

I don't think labor law experience in either country will really give
you the big picture since I believe the bulk of that work relates to the
lower end of the employment spectrum. Certainly in the US the upper ends
of the employment world are generally not union and there isn't a lot of
labor law to do. It sounds like most everything over there is union so I
guess on that side the labor law covers a more complete spectrum.

>
> That you're better off than many Americans doesn't seem to register to you.
> Probably half the people in the US don't have the *advantages* that you seem
> to consider part of your required standard of living. My standard of living
> isn't lower because we *choose* to live in a flat in one of the most
> expensive cities in the world versus a house in the suburbs where we'd have
> a yard. Copenhagen abounds with parks and green spaces, and if I want a
> walk in the forest (complete with roving herds of red deer), it's a 15
> minute train ride away. My standard of living is not lower because I don't
> have a car: this is generally the norm for people living in Copenhagen. If
> we lived further out, we'd have a car.

Absolutely I'm better off than many Americans, and many Americans are
better off than I am. I'm pretty solidly middle class here, if I had a
spouse who didn't work we'd probably slip towards lower middle class and
with a spouse that did work we'd probably hit upper middle class.

I understand that living in the city is a choice and it is also a nice
city. I understand that a car is not necessary or the norm in a city
with good public transit. My question is if you had desires like I do
for a house on a bit of land outside the city and a car, would that be
affordable on the salary from a decent job, or would it be priced out of
reach? Would I be able to afford that lifestyle on the salary of a
computer system manager for a large bank, or would I have to be a doctor
or lawyer or something?

>
> Your disdainful little comments about "socialism," both in DK and in
> California, have been duly noted. Since I don't do serious political
> discussions on Usenet (mostly because those who are interested in doing so
> have already clearly made up their minds), I'm pretty much done with this
> part of the discussion.

Well, I'm not sure how else to refer to it. Would you feel better if I
kept referring to the US as a capitalist country? I'm not sure how to
make comparisons between the two systems without referencing them. Is
there a word you prefer to socialist when referencing the political
system in Denmark or Europe? Certainly from what (little) knowledge I
have of that system, I have the impression that the capitalist system is
better. I'm not trying to bash your system, I'm trying to determine if
my impression is valid. It seems that the answer to which is better
depends on where you fall in the employment spectrum.

>
> Besides, this is discussion is starting to wander quite far afield for rfc.
> -j

Just a bit. But it's interesting to me. I was just more than a bit
shocked at the food prices you originally posted (including the non
organic chicken) and was wondering how people survived with those prices
and 25% tax on top of it. I was just at my local grocery store looking
at $1.79/lb beef brisket and $1.99/lb boneless chicken, both without
additional tax.

Pete C.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Question: ANWR, to drill, or, not? (thanks all)
    ... we're not going to lower our quality of life. ... of living you've had. ... standard of living will go down. ... smaller car and probably begin to car pool, ...
    (rec.autos.driving)
  • Re: OT: Price gouging?
    ... Buy a smaller car. ... >> with being able to do business in this country and our communities. ... >> And just how are they raising our standard of living now? ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Watch out for those trains!
    ... However - the last car I had was a 1985 Pontiac, - a great car, which ... I believe you said you live in a city area, ... sill had a daughter living at home, Living in the city meant I was ...
    (soc.senior.issues)
  • Re: A few NA car parts - taking offers
    ... Lurk mode is now on unless the topic gets too juicy. ... If I find myself living in a city where driving is enjoyable again, ... In a place with traffic as bad or worse than Austin,, a "point A to point B" car that I don't care about and that is likely to keep me safer from the millions of Texan redneck pickup truck drivers now makes more sense to me than a small 2-seater. ...
    (rec.autos.makers.mazda.miata)
  • Re: The ruble: finally a serious currency
    ... Having spent several summers in Moscow ... I would say that by now the standard of living in that city is no ...
    (soc.culture.baltics)