Throughout this year I've appreciated the students's insights on various aspects of their culture and this article sums up a lot of the issues we have discussed.
Please read this article:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/13/america-v-europe/?ex=1279602000&en=2a109bc94ea08378&ei=5087&WT.mc_id=OP-D-I-NYT-MOD-MOD-M133-ROS-0110-HDR&WT.mc_ev=click
Some questions that you might consider:
1. Why does David Brooks consider the American model better?
2. What is the real advantage of job security according to Gail Collins?
3. If you were to enter into this debate that Brooks qualifies as "unreal" because we aren't really given a choice on which model we prefer, which economy would you choose and why?
4. Is Brooks right that it is an "unreal" debate because we can't really choose? It seems to me that America is in many ways becoming more of a socialist country and that France is embracing many of the capitalist models that have been in practice in the U.S. for awhile now.
5. Finally, (for those in the literature class) what would Benjamin Franklin think? Is it a good idea to have a country where you might do the same job from age 25-65?
6. Conversely, is having the risk that you might suddenly find yourself unemployed or without health insurance worth the benefits that come with the American drive to always spur innovation, to always work harder and to constantly update your skills?
As you know I will be in Paris on Thursday and my husband Xavier Tourneux will be holding class. Mme Bonvoisin asked that the Spanish class be held in the foyer from 9-11 instead of my class and that the cours de presse d'anglais will be held in your usual Spanish classroom from 12-2. I hope you will be kind if you find my lost husband roaming batiment 7 and that you will impress him with your amazing English as much as you did Alex. :) I am extremely grateful to everyone for their cooperation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think this article is very interesting because it highlights economic and cultural differences between America and Europe.David Brooks considers the American model better because it allows people to have exciting lives.But Gail Collin thinks people would feel more free if they didn't have to worry about Health Insurance when they have to choose a job.I don't agree with David Brooks because I think people can't have "exciting lives" knowing that they won't be able to afford for their medical bills if they get sick one day, or if they are made to choose a job only because of Health Insurance.I think that on the contrary American people would want to work more and would be even more dynamic if they had guaranteed Health Care and therefore their lives would be exciting.
ReplyDeleteIf I were to enterinto the the debate that Brooks qualifies as unreal I would choose the European model.I agree, that there should be adventure in life but I think that in a country the gouvernment should guarantee a minimum of health protection so that people can be happy and that instability is the cause of a lot of stress and danger.It's hard to lose your job at any time.
I think that in Europe things are not as calm as Brooks suggests.Europe is in a great crisis , for instance in France the rate of unemployment keeps on rising ,companies are closed down and it's more and more difficult to find a job.
I agree that America is becoming more of a socialist country because the many reforms are planned such as the Health Care System to decrease the inequality among citizens.But I think that in France less and less efforts are made to help poorer people, for example the gouvernment wanTs to reform the Health System in a way that doesn't advantage poor people a lot.
Benjamin Franklin was a very industrious man.The adventure of his personality makes me think that he would rather a dynamic country like America where things change all the time in other to have new experiences all throughout his life.I think it's borig to have the same job from 25 to 65 is boring but the idea of having a job that you can lose at any time scares me.But I like the American because I think you can never know all what you're capable of doing if you don't try to and don't take risks.
Comparing two different point of vue is always interesting, that's why the choice of this article is a good one. Indeed, it allows you understanding the difference between two cultures, which is to say the American one and the European one, so that you can be aware of two different ways of life. As Nisha has pointed, in David Brooks's opinion, the American model is better than the European one because of its allowing to lead exciting lives. Indeed, he wanted to underline the fact that thanks to that model, American people have the possibility of changing if they want to. Consequently, if they feel bored by their work in a period of their life, it will be really easy for them to do another job. And that is a source ofr pleasure and adventure!
ReplyDeleteBut Gail Collins shows the advantages of the European model saying that it allows security. And after all, it's very important for anyone to wake up everyday knowing that he has a job that brings him money to provide for his family and benefit from health care without any problems. These are for him the guarantees of the European model.
Forming a part of the European model, as Nisha, I prefer this one. Indeed, I was born in a society which teach you that you have to work in order to have money, a nice house and to be able to provide for your family. And indeed, these are what I really want to do in order to be happy [just a wink at the previous article :)], I just expect from life security to not wake up with problems which will bring me stress and so on... However, that kind of model has its pernicious side. Indeed, that's really true when David Brooks says that the European model encourages people to work less. I totally agree, of course, I won't bring this idea into general use, but a lot of people don't make efforts to do their best but just content themselves with the minimum because they know that no matter what happens, they will benefit from different aids from the government (I'm talking about the French one because I know that we are lucky to have various aids on the contrary to the American one). Moreover,when I see our teacher Mrs Owens who has always this energy to teach, even to learn things everyday,to work again and again, I realize, I don't know if it's the case the others, but I realize that inside of me, I don't have this passion. And I'm sure that it's a cultural one, but I don't want to say that we are lazy, but just that I don't feel this leitmotiv of working hard day after day, and not specificly concerning our studies. Maybe I'm wrong....
Benjamin Franklin, as to him, would have certainly standed for the American model. Indeed, keeping the same job from 25 to 65 was totally in contradiction with what he did in his life. Indeed, he changed so of jobs so much that in fact, you can wonder what he didin't do! When he was young, he learnt the bases to become a bricklayer,a cooper, a boilermaker and worked for his father in his candle and soap business. Then, he was a politician,a scientist, an inventor, a printer and a writer. As a result, we can easily suppose that having taking so different careers, he had a very exciting life and that it wasn't for him conceivable to do the same job for all his lifetime!
So to conclude, I chose the European model because of its advantages and the way that I see my life in the future, but I admit that the American one has also its qualities. So I finish saying that, finally, like the end of the article: VIVE LA DIFFERENCE!!!
David Brooks argues that the American model is better because it allows people to do what they like and to be dynamic but also to fulfil their dreams I think. Because they're not compelled to stay in a office while they don't like their jobs. If it's the case, they just go back to school, have a degree and then do a job in which they will be able to bloom.
ReplyDeleteThe other point is about Gail Collins and the advantage of job security in Europe. And I think it most has to do with healthcare and retirement. Because when you work in France for example, you're hardly sure you will be able to have a decent retirement due to La sécurité sociale, and that you will be able to go to the doctor whenever you need it. Therefore I think that what makes the difference with America, because even if you're not always doing what you wished, you don't really care if you collected enough money for your retirement.
If I had to enter into this "unreal" debate, I think I would choose the European model, but I would also try my best to work in a job that I like. Because I think what the European society lacks of is Dreaming and Passions and just think about how am I gonna do when I would get old?Would I have enough money? Would I be able to send my children abroad to make their studies? And I also think that these questions are fair because you don't really like to wonder about your children's future as soon as they were born. Therefore, even if I admire the American Society by promoting people's blooming and acheiving of their goals I think I would choose the European society and do what I really love as far as possible of course. But for example, loving english and loving to speak I think that if I succeed in becoming a teacher I would got both advantages the two "worlds" propose.
And concerning Ben Franklin, I think he would disagree with me because as a Founding Father, we saw that he was ready to work hard and acheive his goals. Because he started as a poor and mistreated boy, and ended up in this rich man we're now reading the Autobiography. So I think he would prefer the world which allows you to spread your possibilities even if (like always), this worls has its own flaws.
He consideres that America is a better model because it excites lives because maybe it allows people to live their dream and have a fullfiled life but I wouldn't say like that.
ReplyDeleteI think that this article is linked with the one we saw last week in the way of considering happiness.
I have the impression that for David the American style is the one which allows you to climb in the society but i totally disagree with him because when you are looking for a job the first reason is not for your wages but first according to you abilities and your taste.
As Gay says it only comfort then to know that they'll have a good rent and they could pay for medical cares but you have to take risks.
After thought I have the impression that American don't take the time to live , I have the impression that working is only ristricting for them they don't have any pleasure in working , they work a lot only to know that at the end of the month their bank acount will be more important.
I come to the conclusion that I would adapt my way of living according the country where I live because each one has his advantages and drawbacks that's why I agreee when he says taht it's unreal.
I would say that Benjamin Franklin would be bored because has we saw at an early age he learned to read by his own , he was constantly innoving and that's why I would say made his life rich but the only problem is that he had nobody to share this great life even if he was married.
Finally I just want to say that i'm not criticizing the American way of life because everyone wants to succeed in life but I think that too much work spoil the pleasure of life because you don't have the time to enjoy the simple things
As Naisha said i find the article pretty interesting because it allows to highlight the differences between Europe (and France in particular )and United States Of America in terms of economy but also in terms of state of mind.
ReplyDeleteDavid Brooks considers the American model better because it's more flexible, and allows employees to devellop their ideas and skills. It also allows them to feel really important, whereas in the European model people can spend many hours sitting at their desk without really feel useful in what they do , in other words he thinks that the American model is better in terms of develloping your personality but also blooming in what you do.
I Disagree with what he says because i think he can't be so radical. Indeed, people choose they way of working in relation with their personality even in Europe you have people who prefer to bloom in their job , do what they really love and not be sure to have a good salary at the end of the month and who have a deep sense of adventure.
if i had to enter in their debate it's sure that i would choose the European debate because it's the one that i know better but also because i think that nowadays with the economic crisis it's really important to do everything possible to have a financial security and healthcare guarantee however as Elodie said just before me it's sure that i will do my best to have a job that i love, but i do think it's possible to combine both a financial security/Healthcare and a job you really love.
I also think that david brooks is wrong when he speaks of "European model" because in Europe you have different countries with sometimes very different economic system what happens in France it's not what happens in England or in Italy for instance, besides as Madame Owens said, in some ways America is becoming socialist and want to change some part of its economy and in some ways France which is a European country adopts some aspects of american capitalism, so we can really speak of "models" things are just changing ,things are just moving.
About Benjamin Franklin , i don't think he would agree with the idea of having the same job from 25 to 65 years because he had himself different activities from printing, to wrtiting and he even planned to give swimming lessons he was a very flexible person about what he did, that's why he really fit the American system.
I find this subject interesting because it allows us to compare two great models namely the american model and the european model .
ReplyDeleteAccording to David Brooks, the american model is better because it leads to more exciting lives .
I don't totally agree with him because even if with the american model you may change your job when you want, even if you have easiness to do it, I'm not sure you will be able to benefit from your life with peace because to do it you need some security namely security of job. That's why I more agree with Gail Collins who highlights the security of job.
I think it is important because the question of job is an essential question in someone's life I and even would say in everybody's life. In fact since our childhood our teachers , family and friends are used to ask us what we want to do of our life, what we want to become ... what shows that the question of the job takes an important place in both societies .
If I had to make a choice between the two systems I would choose,( but not without difficulties) , the European system because the european system protects producers more than the american system .
However the choice is difficult because on the one hand the american model encourages hard work ,what is in my opinion a very good thing because if you want to succeed in life you have to work very hard , and I benefit from this opportunity to say that I generally admire american people who don't hesitate to sacrifice some of their activities to work , because they have already understood that life is difficult and that the only key which leads to the success is the hard job ,for instance when I went to Boston in a family the woman who looked after us had three jobs per day , what is very hard for a single people , whereas the european model encourages to work less .
I don't totally agree with this point of view because to make function a society all the citizens have to work hardly and make a lot of efforts , so I don't think encourage people to work less would be a good thing .
I think Brooks isn't totally wrong when he speaks about 'an unreal " debate , because it is very hard , nearly impossible to choose between both models because we have to examine the pros and cons of each model, and because a model for instance presents something interesting whereas the other proposes another thing more interesting ....
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Nysha, a Health Insurance is necessary as a guarantee. As regards the debate, it is indeed impossible to choose given the gap between the two mentalities. It is well known that Americans love competition whereas in Europe is marked by a past in which people have struggled so much to get what they have now that they are really afraid to lose anything. I think that a sort of instability was created then: the History of Europe displayed so many fragile situations that we now look for stability and guarantees. And as Nysha said, it's more and more difficult to find a job and the unemployment rate is really high in France. Therefore, people have only a wish: find a job and keep it to survive. European are not really known for being very ambitious.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, if I consider Sophie's opinion I would conclude that a compromise between the two models would be very interesting since indeed, the European model offers security whereas the American one generates wealth and incites every one to be motivated and eager to work in a passionate way. And maybe life would be "exciting".
Then, I'd also like to say that David Brooks' point about immigration was very interesting for it is true that in a system such as the American one, anyone can rise if he is ambitious and industrious. Thus the melting pot brought a positive cultural diversity. On the contrary, in France, the diversity is a matter. And the climax of it is displayed with the "Identity question". The decision to defend a nationality involves the country in a "never-changing" perspective which prevents from being open-minded toward immigrants. If the nationalisms are so strong in Europe, the continent will remain as old as many pretend it is in a way. Moreover, I believe that Europe is being more and more capitalist in order to have an important status in the globalized world so that the old continent will be "up-to-date" and not lost in the constantly mutating economical world.
At last, I will conclude saying that if we truly believe that Benjamin Franklin could definitely not have this tendancy to praise his own ideas and put his "ego" forward, we cannot believe that he would be happy in this American capitalist world in which you have to struggle to keep your job and maybe hit down others to succeed. This cannot be related to his principles. We know how he wanted every one to benefit of the same thing. Thus we know that he wanted equality. He wouldn't have tolerated the Health Care matter for instance.
This article which points at the differences between both societies , namely the american model and the european model shows us how we are different .
ReplyDeleteIn fact according to David Brooks the american model would be the best because it would offer exciting lives , would allow to have more choices concerning our professional career but also more possibilities .
Moreover , the american model protects more producers and encourages hard work at the cost of instability.
Contrary to the points underlined by David Brooks, Gail Collins, the european model would be more profitable because it guarantees the social stability and insurance .Indeed, benefiting from a professional stability or a job security , is to be very lucky in this world more and more affected by the unemployment because it is very hard to find a job nowadays . To me the european model seems to be the best because in my opinion a capitalist society is more able to find solutions and laws in order to reduce the rate of unemployment than a socialist society .
But I share both opinions because the two societies propose advantages . In fact I find it is necessary to fulfill our dream, realize our projects and do what we really like and want as the american model allows it .
In my opinion Benjamin Franklin is a model of the american society because becoming a scientist, a philosoph, an inventor, and a writter , he shows us that all is possible, we can fulfill our dreams and lead extraordinary and passionating lives. And to me ,the fact of having kept the same job from 25 to 65 is a sign of determination and love for the work . I think to keep the same job is above all a sign of passion .
As a conclusion , I think each model has its own particularities and advantages and that is what does the wealth of this world, that is why I can't choose .
David Brooks's opinion is that the American model gives people more flexibility with changing jobs. However during this time of financial crisis and increasing rates of unemployment, I would rather live by the European model, since there is a higher job security and more health benefits under this system. Economies are always changing, so each economic system isn’t definite, which shows that Brooks is right when he says it is an “unreal” debate to choose between the two models. I believe that the system that would be desired by all people is one that is able to provide social stability and economic prosperity to the citizens of a nation.
ReplyDeleteBrooks considers the American model better because it makes working more exciting and creates a more competitive work environment which allows for maximum efficiency. On the other hand Collins argues that with a very small impact on the profit margin people would be more inclined to take the risk and change their situation, to change their job into something they can enjoy.
ReplyDeleteBetween the two economic systems I would prefer the American system because without anything really pushing I would get very bored. Also I think i would enjoy keeping up to date with the new information and techniques associated with my field.
I dont think that this is an "unreal" debate because with the combination of a global economy and a global recession there will be a mixture of ideas and we will experience some aspects from European economics and vice versa
1. Why does David Brooks consider the American model better?
ReplyDeleteDavid Brooks considers the American model better than the continental one because the American model offers more adventure. In the American model, people are able to shift from job to job more easily. In the same regard, American workers can lose their jobs just as easily they can get them. In the American model, there is risk, and to some, this risk is very appealing. Additionally, the European model is boring because it is repetitive. A person in the European model will most likely have the same job that they start at age 25 at age 65.
2. What is the real advantage of job security according to Gail Collins?
Gail Collins is an advocate of the European model. The European model, unlike its American counterpart, offers job security. If someone commits to a job, it is highly unlikely that he or she will lose that job. Additionally, with that commitment comes benefits like health insurance.
3. If you were to enter into this debate that Brooks qualifies as "unreal" because we aren't really given a choice on which model we prefer, which economy would you choose and why?
I would choose the European one. I see the European economy as one that facilitates the ability of someone to keep a job. This idea is very reassuring to me. Though, the American model offers more variety or excitement, I would definitely pick the European model.
4. Is Brooks right that it is an "unreal" debate because we can't really choose? It seems to me that America is in many ways becoming more of a socialist country and that France is embracing many of the capitalist models that have been in practice in the U.S. for awhile now.
In truth, Brooks is wrong when he says that we can only choose one economy discussed in the article. I have heard of instances in America where benefits have been given to a company’s workers. Additionally, there are companies in America where people have worked there for many years. The main evidence of the American economy becoming more socialist or government run is the bailout that the government passed to help floundering businesses.
5. Finally, (for those in the literature class) what would Benjamin Franklin think? Is it a good idea to have a country where you might do the same job from age 25-65?
Benjamin Franklin would not think that having the same job is not a good idea. I say this simply because he has had a lot of jobs throughout his lifetime. After all, Franklin was a leading author and printer, satirist, political theorist, politician, scientist, inventor, civic activist, statesman, soldier, and diplomat
6. Conversely, is having the risk that you might suddenly find yourself unemployed or without health insurance worth the benefits that come with the American drive to always spur innovation, to always work harder and to constantly update your skills?
Yes! The sky is the limit in an American economy. One pro of the American model is that because we are not limited to one job until we retire, we are able to change jobs and thus, broaden the amount of things we can achieve.
Richard C. Economics Period 2
Brooks considers that the American model of economy to be more dynamic. It is centered on a flexible workforce that can instantly increase or decrease depending on either the needs of the consumer or the company itself. It allows for more innovation rather than the gradual change promoted by the continental economic model.
ReplyDeleteHowever a commonality between both arguments is that the American model removes security. Within the continental model health and other benefits are secured because of the job you work, whether or not you enjoy it is your problem.
Personally I prefer the American model for it pushes everyone to try and move ahead in live to ensure your own happiness. Unfortunately, this involves stepping over others to make yourself succeed. But all in all this provides a perfect economic guide to a country which upholds self preservation/motivation/success.
Brooks implies that the American model is dynamic and allows more excitement. In America, we “work hard for the money.” You never know when the company you work for may fail or if you might get fired, and it’s this unpredictability that keeps Americans’ eyes open for new opportunities; better jobs, promotions, higher salaries. However, the job security here is lacking.
ReplyDeleteGail makes a good point in saying that there is better job security in the EU model. They have universal healthcare and the workers are pretty much guaranteed good pensions. According to Gail, if America had better job security, perhaps more people would be willing to take greater risks because they wouldn’t feel tied down to a particular job in order to have that employer’s health benefits and to accumulate pension.
I like the European model better; Universal healthcare, less work hours, more vacation (six weeks of vacation whereas most Americans get up to 10 DAYS of vacation). Who cares if it’s less exciting, or boring. They have security. While, we are fearful of the future in part due to our instable economy. According to an article on de Spiegel, “more Americans will file for bankruptcy than divorce.”
I think we should re-evaluate our economic system , and look at Europe as an example. They have less poverty, less crime, less infant mortality, more doctors per capita, better primary and secondary schools, they live longer…they must be doing something right.
1. He considers this model better because it has higher adaptability and encourages you to work harder to secure the job you hold. With this model, he argues that we can easily adapt to changes in business situations and most faster towards innovation.
ReplyDelete2. According to her, the benefit of job security is knowing that when times get tough you'll be able to keep stability with a job, health insurance, and at the very least, a modest pension.
3. I'd personally prefer the European model because I prefer being secure and stable in my job so that when times get though, I'll still be able to make it out in 1 piece. The American model has its advantages but is too unstable for my liking. A little boredom sounds better than stress and tension of the instability of the American system.
4. I don't agree that we shouldn't debate this but I do agree that we don't have much of choice. They are correct when they say that its our society and the kind of people that live in it that determine which model we use. I don't think we could function with the European model because we would probably be unable to get used to it.
6. In this respect I disagree with the American system. Loss of financial stability can send your life tumbling downhill. Even though the rewards of the American system like innovation can be great, I don't think its worth the stress that financial instability can place upon you.
I see no major differences in the American System and the European System. The basics of the system are the same: the government is democratic and the economy is mixed. I think the difference lies in the execution of government policies. It's not so much the system that needs re-evaluating but the way in which our country implements its economic programs on its citizens.
ReplyDeleteIf I had to choose, I would have to go with the European model. I think the "excitement" is just a misnomer for insecurity. The European model has results to back up the effectiveness of the way they handle their economy. Clearly, the American system has many problems that need to be addressed.
oops I forgot!
ReplyDeleteAmie - pd. 8
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe American system and the European system are based from the past and current situations of the country. I find that there are benefits from both systems, but it is not possible to combine the systems. I prefer the European System a bit more because it gives health care to everyone within that country and health care doesn't put a big spot on where a person may need to find a job. The American system gives more job opportunities because people work to make money, but it also has less job security. One day you could be working and the next day without notice you could be laid off or fired. We can't choose the the economy we would live by because that choice isn't given to us. Brooks worked in Brussels in the 1990's, but it has been about a decade and a lot changes in a couple of years. The American system used to be the better model, but now it has changed to the European model. I would choose the European system of economy because at least you have job security and health care that you don't have to worry about, unlike in America where health care and job security is a big issue at the moment. The argument I didn't like about the debate was that the American system has more risk and it is adventurous. Why put risk on a job when you can have job security with the bonus of health care, not to mention less working hours.
ReplyDeleteLindsey - per 1
David Brook's point of view IS quite interesting. One thing that stood out to me was when he said "I think that encourages people to maximize their capacities.". America has always been a country with gambles and excitement. Thats why immigrants came here in the first place - to look for the streets paved with gold. We've always been competitive, trying to get rich or die trying. It offers opportunities to people, which is why they left Europe. Our "laisser faire" concept and all. However, I agree with Lindsey, when she says that things have changed because of the economic problems.
ReplyDeleteOne quote I couldn't ignore was
"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."
I disagree with him, but at the same time I agree. Because the US has so many different cultures and races, the situation is different. The United States is far more diverse than Europe, and each racial group faces their own problems. An example could be the government's support of affirmative action for certain ethnic groups that are struggling. One health care bill passed won't help us all - our system and people are far more complex. Different groups have different needs, economically and socially.
I think it's unfair to compare the two. America has had its good moments, and Europe as well. But clearly neither of them is the best and most efficient. Instead of arguing which one is best, we should be finding the best qualities in each one and figuring out what we can do to solve our economic and social problems.
1. Brooks consider the American way better because it promotes hard work and thinking outside of the box since you need to take risks and become creative to protect your job. Also since America has a lot of immigrants, we need a system that fits that need too.
ReplyDelete2. Collins believes that having a protected job gives people more confidence to take risks at work.
3. I would want the European model because i rather have a job for life and being bored then taking the risk of losing my job.
4. I believe that people can choose which model, but not slowly or without a war, these kind of changes usually takes place after a war and a new government. Both America and France have laws that seems the opposite way, but that is all how far it is going to go.
5.
6. No, I rather be stuck in a boring world than go on without health insurance.
Brooks considers the American model of economy to be dynamic in the sense that it's constantly changing, from times of "prosperity" to economic "recessions." The unprecedented mystery of the economy in America provides for unknown opportunities or lower financial security.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, Gail provides a balanced arguement by stating that European job security in addition to more secured benefits, not to mention a better deal of benefits.
In my opinion, the American system gives the sense that life is just a "dog eat dog" world, meaning that people do whatever is necessary in order to step above others. I prefer the European system because it provides a greater deal of flexibility among the people. Health benefits and such aren't as serious a concern because they have universal healthcare and aren't confined to one job or career path because of the potential benefits. This reason can allow the people to change jobs depending on preference or changing economic times, and still retain a sense of security on the job market.
At first, i slightly prefered the American system of economics because of the first reason Mr. David Brooks stated in his piece, because it "leads to more exciting lives". One of my greatest fears is getting stuck in monotony, stuck in the same boring, safe job, going the same places each day, toiling away at something I don't truly love.
ReplyDeleteBut I now believe that this argument in itself is weak. Essentially, he seems to admit that the European system is more secure, but that it is the american system that is better because insecurity means excitement. This argument seems silly to me, because as I understand it, as long as you're invested into a career that is interesting and fulfilling to you, you can never find yourself uninterested. If living a life on the edge is better than security, why don't we go back to hunting as a society, and scouring the land for food? The argument just seems silly, that's all.
-Phyll
-It seems to me, that David Brooks is the type of person that is always chasing after the next thrill in life. He lives in the moment, and wants his economic system to be one of that also. He considers the American model better because it emphasizes excitement in his opinion. Change occurs with little expectation in the American model and because of this excitement is always involved with the American model.
ReplyDelete-According to Gail Collins, the real advantage of job security is that you get health insurance and you know in the long run in you will be able to retire with a pretty good pension.
-I would probably choose to live in a mixed economy because I think the idea of it works better. The perfect mixed economy would be a balance of everything and not just involve all of the aspects but lean heavily to one part of the different economies.
-I do not agree with Brooks saying that it is an "unreal" debate. With America being a democracy the people really have had a say in what they want over the years. I have hope in my democratic system, and believe that if the majority of the United States wanted a change and voted for that change then strides would be made toward choosing which economic system was implemented in the United States.
-In my opinion, having the same job from age 25-65 might be ideal because of job stability but it wouldn't be idealistic. In my opinion, people should always set goals for themselves so that they have something to aspire to and work on achieving throughout their lives. The whole point of human life really is to evolve and reach different stages in life. If your going to have the same position at 65 that you had at 25, then what did you really have to work towards. Nothing has changed about your life and you don't need to work toward making changes. Furthermore, it is my opinion that a 25 year old isn't as mental prepared or experience for the type of work that you could be doing at 65. As you gain experience the whole point is that you get promoted and move up on the corporate ladder, having that you stay at the same job and position just makes life stagnant. For instance,if you wanted to become a doctor but had to start as a nurses aid, you would try to work your way up gaining experience as you went along so that you are fully prepared when you start your dream profession of a doctor. I just think that jobs and life is much about making money as it is about your growth as a person throughout life.
-When you start anything you should always put in 110% effort. If your at your new job and at the same level as the others then something wrong. There is always someone wanting to take your place so your always have to make sure that your better than anyone else and an asset to whatever you do. If your not constantly renovating yourself then you will get replaced and left with nothing. You have to have a drive to get things accomplished. I wouldn't go as far as to say that having that risk constantly hanging over your shoulder is worth the payoff but its an added motivator factor.
Indeed the constant threat of job security does drive many to constantly update their skills and work harder. Although I do agree it makes for an "exciting" life, I can see how it would also be nice to have a more secure lifestyle. It would allow people to try riskier moves without as much repercussion if failure is met. On the other hand, there is little incentive to do so when there is job security.
ReplyDeleteWeighing the constant threat of unemployment against the benefits of the american drive, I can not say that I am completely against or for it. The constant push for innovation and bettering of oneself allows for a very flexible workforce and thus outweighs the possibility of unemployment. However, the do or die situation many face is troubling. It may be too much for some individuals to stay marketable to businesses and as such they would inevitably become unemployed and uninsured, a very dangerous situation.
The european model on the other hand may lack the constant drive for innovation and marketability, but it makes up for it with a stable work force that innovates at a steady pace. It also offers much security that would allow many to pursue other interests out of their career - they would not have to devote as much time as an american worker may have to.
Given a choice to live under either, although I would much prefer to live with the volatility of the american model coupled with some securities of the european model,I would live in the American. The constant motivation to do better, innovate, and keep up would push me to obtain a high level of expertise , education, and skill. Unfortunately, I would also have to deal with the constant threat of umemployment that may cause me to hold onto an uinspiring job so I can be financially safe. Ideally I would want to live under a model of a volatile job market and a safe lowest level.
christine y pd 8
ReplyDelete1) david brooks like the american way because he thinks that change and hard work are the keys to sucess. honestly, i think that systems should go both ways. the american model encourages hard work at the cost of instability and that is good because it pushes people to do their best. it tells people to do what they are passionate for , not for something they know they will get bored with.
david is saying that we, americans, lead more exciting lives. do we really? i dont believe so. but definetely, he is right when he says that we have both stumbled towards models that fit our personalities. basically, we shouldnt take each others system but we are allowed to take bits and parts of it to assimiliate into our own system.
in my opinion, the risk of being unemployed is not worth the risk. creativity and inspiration is in everyone. the skills to make the money is not. obviously, our world is based on money right now. so if, we are unemployed, how will be survive ? creavity is just not going to cut it.
David brooks considers the American model better because it allows a sense of flexibility and adventure. it encourages hard work at the cost of instability. It makes progress more likely to occur due to the competitive nature that this model reinforces. But Gail Collins argues that in an American model, there will be a tendency of people working jobs they hate just to make sure they will be guaranteed health care benefits, this seems to be a major flaw. The continental model is more ideal in this sense that people can be free to pursue their dreams without having to worry about whether they're going to be financially covered during emergency health situations. i think it's true what David Brooks addressed as how the different economic systems work to fit the different "personalities" of the societies. I think the capitalistic economic system does suit the needs of our ever changing society better, however if i had a choice, i would choose to be in a continental model because it would offer more security insurance wise and i would be more free to pursue whatever it is that i love without having to constantly worrying about health insurance on the back of my mind. I think having socialist elements in our economic system is not necessarily a bad thing, because from a socialist's point of view, the society's priority is to protect everyone's right to access certain benefits instead of making the biggest economic profits. The capitalist point of view is a bit more selfish in this respect, but that does not mean capitalism is brutal and no good.
ReplyDeletebut ultimately, the American culture is more fit for a Capitalistic economy. The concept of Social Darwinism has always prevailed within Americans, and even though we tend to be competitive and always strive for the best, it feels good to have a sense of security at times too.
Ms. Aucoin's Pd.1 class (Esther S.)
ReplyDelete1. Why does David Brooks consider the American model better?
-David Brooks consider the American model better because there is more excitement in flexibility and less commitment to one job, which allows people to have innovative mind. Whereas, on the other hand, European model allows everyone to have stability and stronger trust in jobs and insurance, but does not maximize the capacity of people to try new things.
2. What is the real advantage of job security according to Gail Collins?
Real advantage of job security, according to Gail Collins, is that there is no need to worry about becoming unemployed. Job garranteed until retired, and unexpiring family health insurance.
3. If you were to enter into this debate that Brooks qualifies as "unreal" because we aren't really given a choice on which model we prefer, which economy would you choose and why?
I would choose the American economy. Life should be full of excitement. Though not everyone is granted with health insurance and security for the jobs, we are able to explore more things in life. This actually allows us to taste both failure and sucess, whereas in European system, once you are seated in a job, that would be it. No achievements or failure. I think if everyone just tries hard in American system, they will be granted with both health care, though one may have to pay for, and job fitted to one's dream.
4. Is Brooks right that it is an "unreal" debate because we can't really choose? It seems to me that America is in many ways becoming more of a socialist country and that France is embracing many of the capitalist models that have been in practice in the U.S. for awhile now.
It is "unreal" thing to debate because American system has been there for a long time and it is almost impossible to change it. I mean it could be changed but it's not our choice for the system to change. It's the current events that allow us to go to ether capitalist or socialist direction. For example, the reason why American is becoming more of a socialist country is because our economy has gone bad and government's help is needed immediately at the moment. I guess a person who would like to live in different model of economic system could emigrate to different country.
6. Conversely, is having the risk that you might suddenly find yourself unemployed or without health insurance worth the benefits that come with the American drive to always spur innovation, to always work harder and to constantly update your skills?
I believe it does contrbute a lot in many ways. When people are in danger of poverty, many try to look for something they could do to earn money and change their lives. The innovation and creative mind comes in hard times.
Imari pd. 1
ReplyDeleteDavid Books considers the American model better because it allows for greater freedoms that people might be lacking in other parts of their lives. It allows people to be a little more independent than the European system, which does not leave room for much freedom.
According to Gail Simmons the importance of job security is knowing that you are stable. It is good for people to know that they are able to provide for their families and that they are able to care for their families with health care.
I see the benefits of both economies: American economy allows for adventure and personal freedoms and exploration while the European economy allows for stability and long term care. I think that I would prefer to live in an European economy because I have an easy mind knowing that my job is secure and that that my children will not have to suffer. The European economy is more about the future and sacrificing for the greater good of society and not pursuing personal dreams. American enterprise is too reliant on dreams and the idea of owning your own business and people looking for a quick way to become rich. This allows only for a certain percentage of people becoming wealthy while the majority of Americans are struggling to survive.
Brooks considers the American model to be better because it allows people to have more dynamic lives. If they are not satisfied with their job or they are bored they can easily change their profession and do something different. It makes their lives more exciting.
ReplyDeleteGale believes that if if there was job security, people would be able to take more risks and feel free to change something in their life because they would not have to fear that they might not have a job to provide for their families. This would help them feel more free and it would make their lives more exciting.
I would choose the European model because even though it would be nice to experience changes once in a while Europeans have less fear of losing a job and it is more important to feel a satisfaction that you will have a job and make money than to fear that you may lose it. That satisfaction is more important than relieving boredom.
I don't think Brooks is right to say this is an unreal debate because America is not completely capitalist and Europe is not complete socialist. They each have elements of both capitalism and socialism. For example, we have food stamps and other health care programs. An economical example would be the bailout bill America has passed.
While it is important to work harder and improve yourself as a person people have to be sensible and realize that without a job or health insurance life is very tough and we improve ourselves to find success. If we don't have a job then we can't have success. As I said earlier, it is better to have satisfaction that you have a job and that you will have a decent living than to just want to have change.
-Nushra Paracha Pd 2
First off: one must realize that both systems are mixed economic systems and they are both run my a democratic government. So here the issue cannot be blamed on the type of systems that are preventing and/or allowing this reform take shape. The key point to acknowledge is the execution and the will that the people and corporations have to allow a reform such as universal healthcare without abusing from it. In a heated discussion about health care reform with my family, it was mentioned that a reform such as universal free healthcare is impossible to accomplish in such a short period of time because competition would have to be eliminated and corporations don't want to let go of their company profits. In a way it is true that we should stick to the "model which fits out personality,"... for now at least.
ReplyDeletesayra prd 1
1. Why does David Brooks consider the American model better?
ReplyDeleteBrook s feels that the American model brings more competition into the work environment that allows people to work harder.
2. What is the real advantage of job security according to Gail Collins?
The advantage of that is that people don’t need to worry that they will lose their job, health insurance. Also it allows people to take more risks for possible benefits.
3. If you were to enter into this debate that Brooks qualifies as "unreal" because we aren't really given a choice on which model we prefer, which economy would you choose and why?
I would use the American model because to reach new innovations we need competitions and it’s useless to protect someone’s job if he can’t do the job properly. IT helps students to strive for more successful jobs as well.
4. Is Brooks right that it is an "unreal" debate because we can't really choose? It seems to me that America is in many ways becoming more of a socialist country and that France is embracing many of the capitalist models that have been in practice in the U.S. for awhile now.
This is an unreal debate because different methods work depends on the time and events. Some models work better depending on the situation. One might be better 100 years ago or 1 year later, so we can’t pick the better one.
6. Conversely, is having the risk that you might suddenly find yourself unemployed or without health insurance worth the benefits that come with the American drive to always spur innovation, to always work harder and to constantly update your skills?
The risk will make me study hard to get a job of high degree with strong security like a doctor. Some simple jobs can be lost because the job isn’t dependent on your high level of skills. As a student of today, we may need to continue to update our knowledge to compete against the world for jobs.
Kazi pd 8
The "American model" allows for flexibility, and greater innovation. Brooks points out that because of our changeablility, and how new people with new ideas are easily hired, more ideas are generated by the American system than the European system. Europeans have greater job security, and thus are not as movivated to work, while Americans must work to keep their job--this causes a rift in the atmospheres and work ethics of the two different regions.
ReplyDeleteIf I were someone working in Europe under these conditions, I'd be pretty bored to. There wouldn't be much to look forward too, other than retirement. In the United States, however, jobs are unstable and it's exciting! What'll be your next job? Where will you be in 10 years? It's all a tossup, and you're the one to control it. Though, this merely makes jobs interesting. What about the hours that Europeans work, or the benefits that they have? We may seem to have better work ethic (rather, Americans are more risktakers), according to Brooks, but they're probably having more fun outside of work.
Collins, however, argues that job security brings other securities, such as healthcare and a decent pension. With the stability of their jobs, Europeans seem to have more stable lives (and will probably have stability further into their lives). Americans don't have free, universal healthcare, nor does everyone have pension plans--this gives us more of a tossup for our own futures.
It seems that in the United States, we truly are a more capitalistic system. This "flexible" system of instability brings stability, greater innovation, and greater profits to the companies--we seem to not benefit as much. On the other hand, Europeans have stable jobs, stable lives, and stable futures. Personally, I would prefer the American system, but that's only because I enjoy having a certain degree of uncertainty in my life. People who would want easier lives would definitely go for the European system.
I think this is an exciting article, just like American capitalism. On the one hand, the "risk" factor in American capitalism creates drive and motivation- the McDonald's employee that can take three orders, flip patties, heat fries, and tell his boss that everything is under control gets to keep his job. At the same time, the other employee who happened to run a few minutes late on the day of an employee inspection got fired. Unfortunately for him, he lived on a check-to-check basis, and he lost his home as well.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Gail Collins when he asserts that the American drive will only increase if one has a net. In other words, the employee that knows that he can afford to lose a job won't be afraid to try a impress-the-boss-or-get-fired idea. Deal or no Deal contestants never cave if they still have the million dollar box on the board. I do side with healthcare and limited socialism in the idea that there's nothing wrong with getting fired, but only on the basis that you shouldn't have to live in a box afterwards.
Is the debate unreal? Yes. It doesn't really matter what I think when Republicans can threaten philibusters on every other bill. While America may be becoming more socialist, that is not to say that bankers will be stopped from loaning ridiculous amounts to people who obviously can't return the money (recession anyone).
I personally like the American version but only when the net has been accounted for. We should have to compete and work hard but know that we won't fall to a point where we can't get back up. It's not a fight if you're not afraid of getting hit. It's not a gamble without the stakes. It's not life without the risk. It's not capitalism without the risk of living in a box...?
--Manjinder
Because I have only lived in the US, it is hard for me to imagine living under any other country's economy. My family lives off better than most Americans do; therefore, I do think that capitalism is great. We are fortunate enough to have the money to afford private health insurance and many other things that we take for granted. In addition, this makes it hard for me to believe in the recession. Since I have always lived like this, the only manifestation of an economic depression I see is in the raising of the cost of a slice of pizza from $1.50 to $2.50. Even though it hasn't completely affected my family, I do see the negative results of a capitilist economy. My stepdad's unemployment may have been avoided if we lived in Europe where jobs are more secured.
ReplyDeleteIn America there is more room for diligence and adventure as opposed to Europe where it's more laid back. Although working in Europe would be "safer," it wouldn't compare to working in America where you have more opportunities to advance in different fields. It may be true that in American one can become wealthy pursuing the American dream, but at the same time, one may also never achieve it. It's about taking chances and hard work. In Europe one would be at ease knowing that s/he has a stable job, healthcare, and a secure feeling for their children. It's obvious both countries have ups and downs. However, I would prefer to live in Europe because it's a good feeling to know that my life wouldn't be so stressful. I will have long term health care, a stable job, and a more stress free life. This is the total opposite of people living in America.
ReplyDeleteAnesh G. Pd.2
ReplyDeleteDavid Brooks believes 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.It allows for flexibility, and greater innovation.
Gail collins believes that people are assured that whatever happens, they’ll still have health care and the guarantee of a modest pension when they get old.
I would choose the European one beacuse it ensures the ability of someone to keep a job. This is reassuring in my mind because i don't want to live like i might lose my job one day. With job security, I have assurance that I will be able to provide for me and my family.
I think this is an unreal debate because we don't have a choice. We have to deal with the economy of the country we live in. This debate is as trivial as debating looks between you and another person. You have to deal with what you have. you can't just take the good aspects. You have to take the good and the bad and make it work.
I like the way that Brooks views it. It’s all about the excitement. I don’t want to be working somewhere that I don’t like. I like changes. We all like this system because it’s like living a dream. However, we all have to grow up and realize that it may not just be about fun. The feeling of security is something that should be in everyone’s life. It could go either way because if you life your job and you are good at it, then that’s perfect. The American system pushes people to fight for what they want and be unhappy if they don’t try. I think that’s the way life should be lived. We have the power to change things ourselves; people are just lazy.
ReplyDelete--AJ Pd 2