The Differences Between Germany and the United States

http://math-www.uni-paderborn.de/~axel/us-d.html

by kumarski • 14 years ago

167 158 14 years ago

tweiss• 14 years ago

tl;dr but I guess his point is that if you're a kickass German scientist, you don't have to use CSS and make your posts more readable. <3 the attitude!

rb2k_• 14 years ago

I think that's a problem in academia in general.

yaix2• 14 years ago

The fact that he's not using CSS is what makes the article more readable.

gcp• 14 years ago

The post contains proper HTML markup. Why would he need to add CSS given that it's just a plain article? It should render perfectly - and in fact it's much more readable than many websites here.

sch1zo• 14 years ago

just glanced though it but most of the stuff regarding Germany is pretty outdated

sgift• 14 years ago

"By Axel Boldt, 1995-2010." - most of it seems to be from 1995. The section about "communism and socialism" (not really major topics these days) also suggests that this is rather old.

onli• 14 years ago

It is/was a major topic in Germany when talking about the political party "Die Linke".

maebert2• 14 years ago

Then again, others are not (e.g. he references the abolishment of compulsory military service in 2011). I think the article is still under constant editing, it's just not possible to catch up with everything at once.

sdoering3• 14 years ago

This might be true. But a lot of info is clearly biased toward a negative image on Germany, when it comes to the outdated information.

So for example regarding privacy and data that is kept by you ISP - nothing on recent developement to abolish the 6-month periode in germany, as well as nothing on the recent developement in the US.

Just an example, but a lot of this comparison makes Germany look worse than it actually is.

disclaimer: I am from Germany and I really do not like a lot of things, that do go totally wrong here (imho).

davidbrent• 14 years ago

I feel like people are giving the impression that because some of the material is dated it is worth less. This is simply not true. I found the first two sections very interesting.

hexagonal• 14 years ago

The section on American internet access is pretty old. (ISDN?)

SeanLuke2• 14 years ago

Apparently all cell phones in the US are analog too.

protomyth2• 14 years ago

That section has parts that are half-off the rails. The windows and insulation comments struck me as particularly bad.

Once again, for the folks commenting on trains: the US train system is very, very good at hauling cargo. It was designed to do that. It sucks at hauling people because they are on the cargo train tracks and don't have tracks of their own.

brazzy3• 14 years ago

That's probably a misunderstanding based on most US carriers using CDMA rather than GSM (like most of the rest of the world).

activepeanut• 14 years ago

  Americans living abroad are not even allowed to give up
  citizenship to avoid paying U.S. taxes.

That's wrong, along with many other facts in this article.

tobias3• 14 years ago

I guess you cannot avoid a few misses in that much information. I found most of it to be true.

That said, I think it glosses over the fact that US states have huge differences and he has only experienced a subset of them.

randallsquared• 14 years ago

It depends on what "allowed" means. The penalty for doing so exceeds that for many minor crimes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expatriation_tax#United_States

vacri3• 14 years ago

Was expatriation a serious problem for the US? It seems a bit of a severe step to take for someone who is already wealthy.

Not to mention it raises the question - if someone renounces their citizenship, what right does the country have to tax them? Doesn't tax come with the right of representation?

darkestkhan• 14 years ago

Author probably never went to Poland - there is much more drunk people in than in Germany. And I never experienced problems with Germans in Germany. And untaxed work in Germany was quite prevalent prior to last year May. And some other things that should be corrected.

stupandaus• 14 years ago

I think he meant that if you want to avoid paying U.S. taxes, you have to give up citizenship, which is true to my understanding.

arjunnarayan• 14 years ago

No, you have to pay taxes for 7 years post loss of citizenship.

woodpanel2• 14 years ago

On charity:

I see two reasons for these different approaches to charity: first, Americans distrust big organizations and third world governments; they fear that money they donate to global causes will trickle away in bureaucracies somewhere. Second, Germans intuitively don't feel much of a need to help local organizations or schools: "that's the government's job, that's what I pay taxes for."

I think the main driver for these different approaches is that the German state basically says "in the end we'll help you" while the US says "in the end you're on your own".

The German approach in my opinion does more to alleviate outcast-scale poverty. However, the quality of helping loses because:

a) those who would help mostly help people from other continents since they think that their countrymen are well off anyway

b) those who do help, are put there to help in form of public officers

But even with a strong social-net as in Germany there are still poor people. What happens when a)-people don't care and b)-people just follow orders is that our poors usually never get on their own feet and out of their dependency because their is no one telling them how to help themselves. That's what I mean with quality of helping.

And yes, this article seems very outdated, but to me the subject would still make a promising headline. One thing I observed is that both countries got less different over the years: If you look at the policies regarding the social-net, Europe has tried to become more american (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartz_concept) while the US has tried to become more european (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_Health_Care_for_Amer...).

yardie3• 14 years ago

One thing I observed is that both countries got less different over the years: If you look at the policies regarding the social-net, Europe has tried to become more american (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartz_concept) while the US has tried to become more european (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_Health_Care_for_Amer...).

Countries in the EU have a mandate to bring down public debt and the easiest place to do that is the welfare system (depending on the economy, most voters think it's too generous in some cases). Since social welfare is so large in Europe there are many places you can "trim".

In the US this is not the case at all. The welfare system has gotten aggressively more meager since the 80s. The AHCAA also isn't about more benefits but cutting public expenditure on healthcare in the long run. It's ridiculously expensive to treat someone in the ER for an infection rather than them having regular doctor visits. The same for birth control, pap smears, and breast exams. Treating early saves the government money. Don't confuse this act with the European welfare system, it is absolutely about saving money for the govt, your health is side benefit.

yummyfajitas6• 14 years ago

It's ridiculously expensive to treat someone in the ER for an infection rather than them having regular doctor visits.

No, it's billed at ridiculously high rates. That's not the same thing.

ER docs are not paid that much more than primary care docs. The cost of treating an infection in the ER is 1 hour of a doctor's time + drugs. The cost of a regular doctor visit is also 1 hour of the doctor's time + drugs. The hospital might bill at some ridiculous rate, but that doesn't mean it costs a lot.

Breast exams are actually well known not to be cost effective (or even beneficial) for women under 50 (though oddly, congress demands they be provided).

The idea that early action is always better is silly.

yummyfajitas6• 14 years ago

The German approach in my opinion does more to alleviate outcast-scale poverty.

I'd be curious how this actually plays out in practice.

In the US, we have a great document called the American Housing Survey. It breaks down what percentage of poor people (and non-poor people) own various goods - e.g., 75% of poor people own a car, 65% own a washing machine and 45% own their home.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/h150-07.pdf

Do you know of a similar German document? It would provide some facts to support/dispute your opinion.

r3m6• 14 years ago

The key is that the basics are covered (like in most of Europe)

100% of poor people in Germany own a health insurance

0% own a house (you have to use up your own money first)

100% own a washing machine (paid for by the government)

50& own a car (my guess, but you dont really need it in big cities)

woodpanel2• 14 years ago

Do you know of a similar German document?

http://dip21.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/16/099/1609915.pdf (German)

It's the best that I know of that is somewhat comparable. In there poverty is defined as proportion to the average income.

Listing what poor people own is propably meant as a measure of quality of life in the US-Census document. I think that is a valid measurement.

The German document measures this quality of life different: It uses social participation as factor.

From Wikipedia (2004):

I. Member of a political party

people underneath poverty-risk-line: 1.9 %

people above poverty-risk-line: 3.8 %

II. Member of union

people underneath poverty-risk-line: 5.3 %

people above poverty-risk-line: 14.2 %

III. Takes part in signature-collections

people underneath poverty-risk-line: 10.7 %

people above poverty-risk-line: 23.4 %

IV. Takes part in demonstrations

people underneath poverty-risk-line: 1.2 %

people above poverty-risk-line: 6.2 %

and in the document

There we might have another difference between our two countries? I think both approaches to measure quality of life are valid. I would go on an say, combined they would provide a much better result.

For instance, goods in Germany are often much more expensive. And in my opinion, this is due to heavier regulations that drive up costs. I already delay purchases of certain goods to my umpcoming US trips, because I know the low prices in the US will knock me out of my socks.

I should've elaborated on what I mean by "outcast-scale poverty" - that you're endangered by your poorness.

BvS• 14 years ago

One thing he didn't mention (directly) is that the average US citizen donates about 6 times more money to non-religious charities than the average German citizen, even if you adjust for GDP/capita.

luisfer• 14 years ago

I hate to sound trivial and to deviate from the conversation, but I would like to draw attention to Finland for a moment and say that the US government should follow suit (for the most part I agree that people in the US have learned to tolerate substandard quality when it comes to many technology services). In Finland, legislation dictates that it is the right of every citizen to have free access to at least a 1Mbps internet connection and by 2015 every household will have a 100Mbps connection. Food for thought: Perhaps if the US followed suit other mobile, banking (and network-reliant fields) would evolve accordingly?

zxcdw• 14 years ago

But who'd pay for it? We Finns are more than used to paying taxes for everything we do. Even candies(and other sweets, such as soft drinks) have additional taxing.

It's just a matter of different welfare system(if you could say so, it applies well to the cultural differences between European countries - might be a bit of a stretch to compare it to the States... :))

HeyLaughingBoy2• 14 years ago

Interesting, but the cost would be insane.

I live about 8 miles or so outside the closest incorporated town. I have 1Mbps DSL that costs me, along with basic landline phone, about $90/month. I think the fastest connection I can get is about 7Mbps. 2015 is only 3 years away, I very much doubt that I will have 100Mbps available by that time.

Now consider the very large number of Americans who live much farther from a town or city than I do: the people who do monthly grocery shopping trips rather than drive 80 miles round trip to the store every week. The costs associated with providing them with high speed internet are going to be even higher.

sfall2• 14 years ago

Seems interesting but with a notable number of mistakes on the US, how much can I trust what is said about Germany? and how much has changed since he moved to the US?

maebert2• 14 years ago

Mistakes yes, but I think he got most of the core motifs right (on both the US and German side (I grew up in the latter)). With which points (concerning the US) to you disagree / which points to you find questionable (BRD)?

sfall2• 14 years ago

Well writing about high speed trains or lack there of, we have one of the best freight systems in the world, but it makes high speed rail difficult, Europe has gone the other way they have high speed rail focus

ref: http://www.economist.com/node/16636101

and this is only one point.

eru4• 14 years ago

I read that document a few years ago. The stuff on Germany is basically right, but of course there are some differences in opinion, and some things have changed by now.

If you want to talk about different culture, email me. I'm a German living in the UK, working for a multinational American company. I also spent some time studying in Turkey.

cschwarm• 14 years ago

The description of Germans and German behavior seems to be mostly correct, in my opinion. Some points I disagree with:

- I never heard someone discuss the environmental impact of microwave ovens.

- I have some doubts if the public TV stations are still the biggest.

- Unions appear to have lost some power in the last twenty or thirty years here in Germany. At least, the amount of serious strikes seems to have decreased.

- The requirement to be a "Meister" to be able to open a shop have been dropped in recent years, for almost all trades as far as I know.

I disagree mostly with the German description of aggression and violence. Sometimes, I wish he'd expressed a point a little bit more nuanced.

Indyan2• 14 years ago

"Many extension cords still come without a third hole for grounding in the US. When you plug things into electrical outlets, you'll often observe cute little sparks. That never happens in Germany."

So in Germany there is no concept of grounding? Why? Also, is there any scientific explanation behind no sparking in Gemany?

vacri3• 14 years ago

I think you have it backwards - he's saying that all German extension cords have a third pin for ground.

Indyan2• 14 years ago

Oh yeah..I got it wrong. So, US doesn't have the concept of grounding? Surprising, but I suppose that does explain the sparks.

sdoering3• 14 years ago

Well grounding is built in (and required) into every socket. We have to main pins and secondary pins for grounding on most of the plugs. There are hovever some plugs for electronic devices, that do not have the grounding-pins.

brazzy3• 14 years ago

That's not true, there are lots of extension cords with smaller sockets for Europlugs ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europlug ) that don't have the ground pins.

However, I've never seen those on a wall socket, so I guess building codes say those must be full Schuko sockets ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schuko ).

dccnl• 14 years ago

German history and resulting 'cough' freedom gets in the way here. Why not compare USA to Sweden, Holland of France :D

sdoering3• 14 years ago

Maybe, because he is German, lived here a long time and moved to the US? Maybe, because he has no direct knowledge of Sweden?

Your voice and words, dear gentleman, make you a troll.

subpixel• 14 years ago

I've lived in Germany for 5+ years and believe humor to be one of the widest cultural gaps between Germany and the US.

To wit: http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/02/what-makes-germ...

gegenschall2• 14 years ago

Disclaimer: I am German and I actually saw and liked 30 Rock (in English) ;-) As for 30 Rock: The problem with English shows on German television is that they are all dubbed. I won't say that they are doing a bad job (c.f. eastern european countries) but sometimes they are missing out puns and jokes which "can't be translated" without losing meaning. In the end this can make a funny TV show unwatchable. On the other hand you will never (as in never ever) see an undubbed show on German television. People are used to watch it in German, so most of them might just never watch it again in either language.

edit: s/Disclaimer/FYI/

eru4• 14 years ago

Nitpick: Arte has undubbed shows. And there's the ever popular Dinner for One.

NameNickHN• 14 years ago

> I won't say that they are doing a bad job

I do. I watch American shows and films exclusively in their original version because of the really bad job they do with the translation. From time to time I catch the dubbed version by accident. Mostly I just cringe and make it go away.

rustynails• 14 years ago

I'm from OZ, and to be honest, I need the canned laughter when watching US comedy - because the humor is not obvious (eg. Will and Grace- canned laughter when a dog walks across the screen ... Ahh, Americans find that funny... Ok) Now British humor? I get that without canned laughter.

38leinad• 14 years ago

seinfeld is a really good example for this. a hilarious show; someone watching the dubbed german version would never understand what's funny about it...

tubbo• 14 years ago

"What are they afraid of?"

Have you not been paying attention in the last 50 years? We've made a hell of a lot of enemies, and before that it was communism, and before that it was world wars. Our military is strong because if it wasn't we would be getting attacked constantly. I'm pretty sure that a major reason why there haven't been any substantial terrorist attacks on the US since 9/11 is because our military will FUCK UP ENTIRE COUNTRIES if that happens again. Shit, we got launched into a 6-year war with 2 countries after an independent terrorist group blew up our building. If the KKK went to another country and bombed a building, would that country then attack and occupy us? Absolutely not! Because they can't.

ucee054• 14 years ago

> Our military is strong because if it wasn't we would be

> getting attacked constantly

Which is why Sweden, Cabo Verde, Malaysia and Trinidad are getting attacked constantly.

Or maybe the USA gets attacked because it routinely decides to "FUCK UP ENTIRE COUNTRIES" ?

Or even better, why not leave your foreign policy ideology out of a thread about a cultural/sociological article?

I was enjoying it until you ruined it

yaix2• 14 years ago

Bluetooth headset? Microwaved food debate?

Parts of the text seem to be ten or more years old, while other parts have been updated.

Still, a good read.

gyardley2• 14 years ago

Good article, but it always bothers me a bit when people talk about Americans generically.

Yes, you can make some generalizations, but the country is huge and there are many distinct cultural zones. Attitudes and behavior vary widely between them.

Argorak4• 14 years ago

Germany also has a diverse culture, especially because it wasn't a unified state until the end of the 19th century. So the generalization is on both sides.

anamax5• 14 years ago

> Germany also has a diverse culture

Compared to what?

Compared to Madison Wisconsin, maybe, compared to all of Wisconsin, probably not, compared to Texas or CA, not a chance. Heck, South San Jose is more diverse.

wahsd2• 14 years ago

Sorry, but you apparently have no understanding for the topic or you would not say that it is a good article. As much as you are bothered that people "talk about Americans generically", it should provide you a slight understanding for how poor this "article" is.

gyardley2• 14 years ago

Was that comment truly necessary?

Did leaping, in a hostile fashion, on two words used as a preamble to the point I was making add anything to this discussion not already added by the other comment you made on the thread?

wahsd2• 14 years ago

What a bunch of lazy, biased nonsense. There is absolutely nothing of value in that accumulation of words. I am neither for or against either the USA or Germany, but I am for unbiased and accurate assessment.

Tooluka• 14 years ago

Before and during reading I was pretty sure that it is a little biased for one of the countries. The end effect was completely reverse - I can't really choose one country as better right now. So I'd call this article a success.

Jelly donuts rant was a nice touch in the end :) .

zalew2• 14 years ago

Some stuff from what he describes and I know about is either wrong, too subjective, lacks context or very outdated; so I'd rather take it with a grain of salt.

tseabrooks• 14 years ago

The article is interesting even if bits and pieces are out of date. It's nice to see other's viewpoints.

My one complaint about this article, and a lot of articles of the same ilk, is the part where Americans get criticized for not "traveling abroad" and not "seeing foreign countries".

I suspect most american's will travel more MILES than the average european without ever seeing another country. It's far far more expensive for an American to visit other western countries than it is for the average European. We'd absolutely LOVE to be able to fly to France for the price of train ticket from London to Paris. Sadly, the price of oversees airfare is pretty damned high.

I know visiting different states isn't the same as visiting countries but I think people living outside of the U.S. don't understand just how different various U.S. regions are from each other. Really, you might say it's a bit silly to go visiting foreign countries when you haven't even experienced all of the diversity in your own country yet.

maratd3• 14 years ago

> It's far far more expensive for an American to visit other western countries than it is for the average European.

Well, yes. Then there's the enjoyment factor. Personally, I've been to Europe multiple times. Hell, I was born there. And frankly, I enjoy going to the Caribbean, Bermuda, and Mexico much more.

> I know visiting different states isn't the same as visiting countries but I think people living outside of the U.S. don't understand just how different various U.S. regions are from each other.

Also spot on. If you live in NYC, going to NOLA is plenty exotic. Vice versa as well. Air fare is almost nothing compared to going to other continents.

The only people who might truly be able to relate would be from China and India. Both countries are large and diverse enough that traveling inside of their borders becomes a rewarding experience.

soperj5• 14 years ago

really... just india and china? what about australia? canada? Russia?

soperj5• 14 years ago

The more I think about it, the more out of touch you really seem. The people you label as plenty exotic from NOLA were actually deported from eastern Canada(your "tundra") and St.Petersburg(what they've been calling Leningrad for the last 20 years) is pretty well on the Arctic circle, and yet is not part of your "tundra". (and Yes I realise that St.Petersburg isn't tundra, neither is the vast majority of Russia or Canada)

DirtyCalvinist• 14 years ago

I once had a conversation with a Frenchman (in France) about how he had berated some poor American girl (also in France) for not knowing that Zurich was in Switzerland. I promptly quizzed him on which states 5 American cities were in, all larger than Zurich. He failed miserably.

The United States is geographically almost as large as the whole of Europe. The closest foreign border to me is Niagara Falls just over 400mi away, and even if I go there, they still speak my native tongue with pretty much the same accent. I don't think there exists any point in Germany that far from another country.

tjoff6• 14 years ago

I promptly quizzed him on which states 5 American cities were in, all larger than Zurich.

Who cares about states in a foreign country? In this context the size of the city or state is not of any interest.

rogerbinns• 14 years ago

The US state of Montana is slightly larger than Germany. I can't name more than one city there and many airlines don't even fly to the state. The US is really big!

sciurus• 14 years ago

If you like this, you may be interested in these comparisons of the US and Germany.

http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2011/united...

http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2011/german...

http://www.heritage.org/index/country/unitedstates

http://www.heritage.org/index/country/germany

gbog• 14 years ago

Read half of it. 70% applies to France vs US as well.

mshron• 14 years ago

I'd like to suggest another reason for large military expenditures that have nothing to do with corruption. The US has the only two-ocean navy, and a very extensive one at that. A lot of the burden of protecting shipping lanes for members of the "global system" is covered by the States. That's really, really expensive.

Of course, that means that countries that don't want to play by US rules (North Korea, Iran, Cuba) get shafted, but it's still a better explanation of the crazy military costs than either fear or corruption.

chimi2• 14 years ago

For the record, there are other multi-ocean navies: russia, south africa, australia, canada, and argentina among them. I think that's a pretty small factor compared to the influence of the military industrial complex.

The size of the US navy dwarfs every other country considerably, even when factoring in oceanic boundaries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_warships_in_service_w...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_bordering_on_...

afterburner2• 14 years ago

The US has about half the world's aircraft carriers. Each aircraft carrier basically needs a battle group to protect it. The approach is indicative of the US's strategy: be able to have a few aircraft carriers anywhere important in the world, ready to quickly react to a crisis without sacrificing protection elsewhere. Since no other nation with aircraft carriers has more than 2 (and most have only one), that basically guarantees significant air and naval power anywhere.

greedo2• 14 years ago

The parent post doesn't mean the same thing you mean. The USN patrols every major seaway in the world; I sure don't see South Africa doing the same, nor Canada, Australia, The Russian Federation, and definitely not Argentina.

temphn• 14 years ago

http://math-www.uni-paderborn.de/~axel/us-d.html#communism

  It is not very well known however that Germany saw a much 
  more vigilant communism hunt at about the same time. While 
  in the US only about a dozen people ever went to prison 
  for being Communists, that same number runs in the 
  thousands in Germany. The communist party was forbidden by 
  the German high court, and party members who continued 
  their activities were arrested and sent to prison.

Need we forget that the Stasi of the hostile East German state were right next door?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi

  The Stasi was headquartered in East Berlin, with an 
  extensive complex in Berlin-Lichtenberg and several 
  smaller facilities throughout the city. It was widely 
  regarded as one of the most effective and repressive 
  intelligence and secret police agencies in the world. The 
  Stasi motto was "Schild und Schwert der Partei" (Shield 
  and Sword of the Party), that is the ruling Socialist 
  Unity Party of Germany (SED). Now considered a criminal 
  organisation, several Stasi officials were prosecuted for 
  their crimes after 1990.

Lest we forget, the GDR was also a vassal of the nuclear-armed Soviet Union, and the KGB was not an imaginary entity. Communism was no joke. See "The Lives of Others" if you want to see what East Germany was like when this guy grew up:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0405094/

Incredibly, not a single mention of East Germany or the GDR in this entire document.

zalew2• 14 years ago

yeah, reading him feels like he's been totally disconnected from reality or managed to forget the circumstances of that era in Europe, where fighting communism was real not just a propaganda witchhunt. hence my comment before, many of his observations are totally out of context.

esrauch• 14 years ago

Hm can you elaborate on that? In the US they teach that McCarthyism was an absurd witchhunt, but it seems to me that the Soviet Union and the US were pretty much just as much enemies as West Germany. Why is it so much different?

pureyang• 14 years ago

One of the areas where Germany has and always will be different from the US is in their motoring culture.

Drivers license Cost

15 $

1400 EU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4itwh8C4kn8

National Max Highway speed

US 65

GERMANY none*

*I know, its not everywhere or all the time, but go once, and its pure bliss, cruising around ~100mph just feels right. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_autobahns#Speed_limits

brazzy3• 14 years ago

Don't forget minimum age to get a license: 16 vs. 18, and possibly related, minimum drinking age 21 vs. 16...

dahotre• 14 years ago

Try explaining the conservatives that NYT is the best news paper in the US.

The Differences Between Germany and the United States

Related Stories