There’s a lot of rather ugly propaganda about Greece going around at the moment. The Greeks hardly work at all before taking early retirement, and are now lazing on their beaches waiting for a European handout to solve their problems; the best option for the Netherlands would be if Greece left the euro, or failing that we certainly need to make sure we get our loans back as soon as possible and it’s only natural to punish them a bit for the trouble they’ve caused while we’re at it. They can’t expect Henk and Ingrid’s taxes to pay for some indolent Greek’s ouzo, can they?

Thankfully some less parochial voices can also be heard, and some even prefer the facts to the stereotypes. The NRC had an opinion column1 a couple of weeks ago in which you can read the following statistics:

  • The average retirement age in Greece is almost 65.
  • A Greek schoolteacher earns on average €800 per month.
  • Greeks work the most hours per week (on average 40.6) of any EU country.
  • Unemployment is at 16%, projected to hit 22% by next year.

The column is very clearly partisan and I don’t know enough to say whether the economic analysis is reasonable or not. But it’s great to see some simple facts set against the stereotypes that have been getting far too much attention lately.2

Notes:

  1. Apparently they don’t put that sort of content online themselves, which is a shame. [↪]
  2. It’s interesting to think about why a stereotype that is demonstrably incorrect, such as the lazy Greek taking early retirement, can still be so persistent in public discourse. A major factor, I think, is that “public discourse” is only quite indirectly involved in high-level political decision-making (“Should we include harsh penalty clauses and a quick repayment schedule in this loan, or not?”). The economic factors that really go into such a decision are far too complex to be reduced to such simplistic ideas. What happens is that the simplistic ideas get marshalled to defend the decision once it is taken, or alternatively to disparage it, and thus they get their power through their effect on political careers rather than through their inherent argumentative worth. Being rationalisations, rather than reasons, they are not subjected to the careful evaluation they would get if they were genuinely being used to make decisions, rather than simply to justify them. Or at least, that’s my theory; it’s also possible that “public discourse” is entirely about catchy soundbites and the truth is simply irrelevant, but I’d rather hope that’s not yet entirely the case. [↪]