Why Don’t Americans Understand How Poor Their Lives Are?(eand.co)
eand.co
Why Don’t Americans Understand How Poor Their Lives Are?
https://eand.co/what-do-you-call-a-world-that-cant-learn-from-itself-58ae28cefd23
201 comments
> The whole line about the difference in entertainment is utter drivel. Big Brother started in the UK, there is plenty of garbage culture coming from Europe.
Started in the Netherlands FWIW, and the original Big Brother was a genuinely innovative, brave piece of television, like it or not. Garbage culture is ploughing the format into the ground with hundreds of almost-identical shows, and that was more of a US thing.
> I find it strange to mention Spain, and really all the PIIGS nations who not long ago were in financial dire straits and Greece has still not escaped.
It's vital to mention, because that can be the downside of the European approach: stagnant economies where people are comfortable but growth is low.
> The lack of a decent safety net in the US scares the crap out of me. The richest nation in the world should not have this poor a safety net. But to make Europe seem like some workers paradise is laughable.
Like you say, becoming a billionaire isn't something that seems possible in Europe; people who want to win big will prefer the US. But I do think Europe genuinely has it better for the average person.
Started in the Netherlands FWIW, and the original Big Brother was a genuinely innovative, brave piece of television, like it or not. Garbage culture is ploughing the format into the ground with hundreds of almost-identical shows, and that was more of a US thing.
> I find it strange to mention Spain, and really all the PIIGS nations who not long ago were in financial dire straits and Greece has still not escaped.
It's vital to mention, because that can be the downside of the European approach: stagnant economies where people are comfortable but growth is low.
> The lack of a decent safety net in the US scares the crap out of me. The richest nation in the world should not have this poor a safety net. But to make Europe seem like some workers paradise is laughable.
Like you say, becoming a billionaire isn't something that seems possible in Europe; people who want to win big will prefer the US. But I do think Europe genuinely has it better for the average person.
I stand corrected - I did not know Big Brother started in the Netherlands. Thanks for the heads up.
> The lack of a decent safety net in the US scares the crap out of me.
What kind of safety net? No you're not going to lose your job and draw unemployment benefits equal to your salary for years on end. This is also the land of personal responsibility. It can be scary at times. My 6 year old son has a chronic illness (type 1 diabetes) and his supplies cost an exorbitant amount of money. If somehow I was unable to find employment, drained all of our savings, etc. he wouldn't die, he just wouldn't get the absolute top of the line equipment (insulin pump / continuous glucose monitor / sensors / etc.) Medicaid would provide him insulin and needles. It's not ideal, but I don't expect everyone else to pay for my family's bad luck / misfortune.
What kind of safety net? No you're not going to lose your job and draw unemployment benefits equal to your salary for years on end. This is also the land of personal responsibility. It can be scary at times. My 6 year old son has a chronic illness (type 1 diabetes) and his supplies cost an exorbitant amount of money. If somehow I was unable to find employment, drained all of our savings, etc. he wouldn't die, he just wouldn't get the absolute top of the line equipment (insulin pump / continuous glucose monitor / sensors / etc.) Medicaid would provide him insulin and needles. It's not ideal, but I don't expect everyone else to pay for my family's bad luck / misfortune.
Medical bankruptcy isn't really a thing in the rest of the world. That's part of the safety net, and it's hard to reconcile with the notion of 'personal responsibility'.
> I don't expect everyone else to pay for my family's bad luck / misfortune
If you take out an insurance contract, that's exactly what you're doing.
> I don't expect everyone else to pay for my family's bad luck / misfortune
If you take out an insurance contract, that's exactly what you're doing.
> Medical bankruptcy isn't really a thing in the rest of the world.
Agreed, it's a problem, but for the average person with a job who elects an insurance plan (the vast majority of Americans,) it's not an issue. My sister-in-law spent 4 years being treated for cancer before passing away last year. Despite running up hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of bills between chemo, multiple surgeries, etc, it did not bankrupt her family because they had health insurance.
> If you take out an insurance contract, that's exactly what you're doing.
Except we're explicitly buying-in. Until we have universal health care, I don't expect others to pick up the tab because I prefer that my son have the absolute best current tech available.
Agreed, it's a problem, but for the average person with a job who elects an insurance plan (the vast majority of Americans,) it's not an issue. My sister-in-law spent 4 years being treated for cancer before passing away last year. Despite running up hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of bills between chemo, multiple surgeries, etc, it did not bankrupt her family because they had health insurance.
> If you take out an insurance contract, that's exactly what you're doing.
Except we're explicitly buying-in. Until we have universal health care, I don't expect others to pick up the tab because I prefer that my son have the absolute best current tech available.
It is an issue for the rest of us, though.
From: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/study-fewer-employers-offe...
>Nationwide, 83.8 percent of workers in 2015 had jobs that offered insurance
In other words, 16.2% of workers have jobs that don't offer insurance. That's 3 in 20.
From: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/study-fewer-employers-offe...
>Nationwide, 83.8 percent of workers in 2015 had jobs that offered insurance
In other words, 16.2% of workers have jobs that don't offer insurance. That's 3 in 20.
I don't say this to demean these people but I would guess that a majority of that 16% are low-skill/minimum wage jobs. When you don't have skills that are in demand, employers less likely to offer benefits. Businesses are just like people, if they can get away with paying less, they will. I'm not saying it's right.
I'm hoping the Republicans manage to screw things up enough to lose Congress in 2018. If that happens, Trump will go all-in on single-payer/universal healthcare. He has no loyalty, and in the past (prior to running for office) he was pro-single-payer. So we'll see what happens.
I'm hoping the Republicans manage to screw things up enough to lose Congress in 2018. If that happens, Trump will go all-in on single-payer/universal healthcare. He has no loyalty, and in the past (prior to running for office) he was pro-single-payer. So we'll see what happens.
> When you don't have skills that are in demand, employers less likely to offer benefits.
And there is the difference. The US is about survival of the fittest.
And there is the difference. The US is about survival of the fittest.
Edit: I originally responded to the wrong parent.
This isn't about survival of the fittest, if you have no skill, then you are going to have trouble finding a job that has good benefits. No one is stopping you from acquiring a skill (outside of cases when you're sick...obviously.) You can become a plumber, carpenter, electrician, etc. and make a decent living.
This isn't about survival of the fittest, if you have no skill, then you are going to have trouble finding a job that has good benefits. No one is stopping you from acquiring a skill (outside of cases when you're sick...obviously.) You can become a plumber, carpenter, electrician, etc. and make a decent living.
and... we'll just give a big 'fuck you' to everyone else who gets sick at some point, and can't go back to work, or has skills that get passed by in the marketplace. hey - just go back to school for a few years, juggling some low wage jobs while you get more skills! so that you can win some approval from some employer where yay you can pay extra money to have some insurance so you can afford medicine to keep yourself alive. whew! That doesn't sound like "survival of the fittest" AT ALL. not sure that the OP was thinking about.
The word "benefits" just irks the hell out of me in the first place. Maybe the entire concept of "benefits" being synonymous "things that give you access to something that keeps you alive and healthy", and tying said stuff to "employment" (something very much at the whim of people and factors often outside your control - handicaps, geography, family obligations, etc) we could think about the issue a bit differently.
Also... society needs people to be doing low-end crappy work. Are they just deserving enough to find a job that has "good benefits"?
The word "benefits" just irks the hell out of me in the first place. Maybe the entire concept of "benefits" being synonymous "things that give you access to something that keeps you alive and healthy", and tying said stuff to "employment" (something very much at the whim of people and factors often outside your control - handicaps, geography, family obligations, etc) we could think about the issue a bit differently.
Also... society needs people to be doing low-end crappy work. Are they just deserving enough to find a job that has "good benefits"?
> and... we'll just give a big 'fuck you' to everyone else who gets sick at some point, and can't go back to work, or has skills that get passed by in the marketplace.
Capitalism doesn't care if you get sick. It only cares if you have time/skill to trade. That's the cold hard reality. In this country, capitalism trumps just about everything else. It has its advantages and disadvantages for sure. By the way, I'm not saying all of this is morally "right" - it's just the way it's always been, capitalism/business comes first in the USA.
I agree that society needs people to be doing low-end crappy work, but maybe if there were fewer low-skilled laborers in the job market, there would be more competition for their services (i.e. the employers would have to offer better benefits.)
I'm all for universal-healthcare and frankly my family would be a primary beneficiary.
As far as safety nets go, how far do we go? If I got sick, I wouldn't expect you (and everyone else collectively) to pay my mortgage, grocery bills, etc. for potentially years on end. Where do we draw the line? How do we prevent people from gaming the system? I know people in Europe who have been "sick" for years.
Capitalism doesn't care if you get sick. It only cares if you have time/skill to trade. That's the cold hard reality. In this country, capitalism trumps just about everything else. It has its advantages and disadvantages for sure. By the way, I'm not saying all of this is morally "right" - it's just the way it's always been, capitalism/business comes first in the USA.
I agree that society needs people to be doing low-end crappy work, but maybe if there were fewer low-skilled laborers in the job market, there would be more competition for their services (i.e. the employers would have to offer better benefits.)
I'm all for universal-healthcare and frankly my family would be a primary beneficiary.
As far as safety nets go, how far do we go? If I got sick, I wouldn't expect you (and everyone else collectively) to pay my mortgage, grocery bills, etc. for potentially years on end. Where do we draw the line? How do we prevent people from gaming the system? I know people in Europe who have been "sick" for years.
The drain on the systems in Europe from those who are “gaming the system” and who are long term sick pales into insignificance when you consider the overall savings due to the collective bargaining power of a nationalised healthcare system.
> the average person with a job who elects an insurance plan
It also forces you to stay in a job, even if it turns sour, until you've lined up an alternative.
I can't help but think that employers like it.
It also forces you to stay in a job, even if it turns sour, until you've lined up an alternative.
I can't help but think that employers like it.
With COBRA, you can keep your health insurance (of course you have to pay for it) even if you quit/get-fired.
I don't know about you, but I've never quit my job just because a situation turned sour. There have been cases where I said "ok, it's time to look for a new job." But never "Take this job and shove it - I quit!"
I don't know about you, but I've never quit my job just because a situation turned sour. There have been cases where I said "ok, it's time to look for a new job." But never "Take this job and shove it - I quit!"
But don't you think there could be a correlation between poor family health and an inability to get a job (and hence insurance)? Caring obligations, mental health, or any number of other reasons could be a hindrance.
I honestly don't think 'get a job and you'll be fine' is a particularly good way to help to someone with health problems. It's a big hole in the US safety net.
I honestly don't think 'get a job and you'll be fine' is a particularly good way to help to someone with health problems. It's a big hole in the US safety net.
Your son having diabetes is not the same as say you getting an illness that prevents you from working. Or an illness for a child that requires more attention, maybe round the clock care.
And if you work for minimum wage AND you have a child with diabetes its a very different story. Most of the people hanging around HN are technology related, some of us have a tendency to be a little egocentric.
To compare your situation, having a child with a chronic but very manageable condition (diabetes) as opposed to say severe autism. I was just reading a story on NPR about a couple, where the husband is a programmer making 100K, and they have 2 autistic children. They don't have furniture in their house. They've declared bankruptcy. They have tons of medical bills.
https://www.npr.org/2017/12/03/567602293/what-living-on-100-...
And if you work for minimum wage AND you have a child with diabetes its a very different story. Most of the people hanging around HN are technology related, some of us have a tendency to be a little egocentric.
To compare your situation, having a child with a chronic but very manageable condition (diabetes) as opposed to say severe autism. I was just reading a story on NPR about a couple, where the husband is a programmer making 100K, and they have 2 autistic children. They don't have furniture in their house. They've declared bankruptcy. They have tons of medical bills.
https://www.npr.org/2017/12/03/567602293/what-living-on-100-...
credit card / student debt is a huge issue across the board in the US. Frankly you can live just about anywhere in the US on 100k if you have no debt. I read somewhere a while back that 67% of americans have less than $1000 in their checking account. That just blew my mind. But they're all walking around with iPhones and shiny new cars.
We've been fortunate to pay off our student loans and made the conscious decision when we first got married that if we didn't have the cash, we weren't going to borrow cash from our future selves to pay for it (with credit cards.) This by far has been the best decision we've ever made.
We have a reasonable amount of money in the bank (no matter the number it's never enough) and the only debt we owe is the mortgage on the house.
Student loans are a bigger issue for the up & coming generations. 17 year old american kids are not equipped to understand the implications of taking on $80,000+ in loans for a college education. We've put money away for the kids' college, but it won't be enough to cover their entire education unless they go to a public university. It's crazy to think that most parents don't steer their kids towards well-paying university majors. The worst case scenario happens far too often, for example: a kid majors in a generic degree like "communications" or "english" in exchange for $80,000 and their first job (if they're lucky to get one in their field!) pays them a pittance.
We've been fortunate to pay off our student loans and made the conscious decision when we first got married that if we didn't have the cash, we weren't going to borrow cash from our future selves to pay for it (with credit cards.) This by far has been the best decision we've ever made.
We have a reasonable amount of money in the bank (no matter the number it's never enough) and the only debt we owe is the mortgage on the house.
Student loans are a bigger issue for the up & coming generations. 17 year old american kids are not equipped to understand the implications of taking on $80,000+ in loans for a college education. We've put money away for the kids' college, but it won't be enough to cover their entire education unless they go to a public university. It's crazy to think that most parents don't steer their kids towards well-paying university majors. The worst case scenario happens far too often, for example: a kid majors in a generic degree like "communications" or "english" in exchange for $80,000 and their first job (if they're lucky to get one in their field!) pays them a pittance.
>We have a reasonable amount of money in the bank (no matter the number it's never enough) and the only debt we owe is the mortgage on the house.
This is an extremely unhealthy perspective.
This is an extremely unhealthy perspective.
> This is an extremely unhealthy perspective.
Well, consider that I am not what I would consider "rich" (this is not a complaint!) The number would have to be $2m+ for it to be "enough" in the event I couldn't provide for my family - enough to more or less guarantee that the kids are old enough to take care of themselves (15-20 years worth.) Given that it's highly unlikely that I will reach $2m+ in my lifetime, the number will never be enough ;)
Well, consider that I am not what I would consider "rich" (this is not a complaint!) The number would have to be $2m+ for it to be "enough" in the event I couldn't provide for my family - enough to more or less guarantee that the kids are old enough to take care of themselves (15-20 years worth.) Given that it's highly unlikely that I will reach $2m+ in my lifetime, the number will never be enough ;)
Ah, I understand. I thought you were speaking in more general terms. You want security. Everyone does, and I think everyone should have it. The idea that some people aren't good enough or haven't worked hard enough to have a place to stay, food to eat, and medical treatment they need is - to me - inhumane. America is, as a nation, inhumane.
Once someone has reached financial security, money can no longer improve his/her happiness - except in short bursts. Understanding that, I can't imagine why anyone would ever need more than 50M (which is still way more than anyone would ever need). For me, it's embarrassing to live in a country where some have tens of billions while others scrape by - and some fail to do even that.
Once someone has reached financial security, money can no longer improve his/her happiness - except in short bursts. Understanding that, I can't imagine why anyone would ever need more than 50M (which is still way more than anyone would ever need). For me, it's embarrassing to live in a country where some have tens of billions while others scrape by - and some fail to do even that.
[deleted]
The article's major flaw is lumping all "Americans" together. Life expectancy varies wildly across race and income. America has always chosen to make the desires of the rich and powerful more important than the needs of the poor and powerless. We sometimes call this the American Dream. Equality in America isn't about all people having a decent life. It is more akin to Animal Farm: "All animals are equal, but some animals (the rich, the powerful) are more equal than others."
I'm not saying this is right, but it is silly to claim that "Americans" are living poor lives, and just as equally silly not to see that America is still the sole hyperpower of the world.
This is a long debate in American history, and one still going on: is American hyperpower the result of material inequality and minority exploitation, or is America limiting its potential by letting a significant portion of its population be abused? No one really puts it in those terms, not publicly (one notable exception being 'trickle-down economics'), but this is really at the heart of American politics.
I'm not saying this is right, but it is silly to claim that "Americans" are living poor lives, and just as equally silly not to see that America is still the sole hyperpower of the world.
This is a long debate in American history, and one still going on: is American hyperpower the result of material inequality and minority exploitation, or is America limiting its potential by letting a significant portion of its population be abused? No one really puts it in those terms, not publicly (one notable exception being 'trickle-down economics'), but this is really at the heart of American politics.
> it is silly to claim that "Americans" are living poor lives
Good point. The funny thing though is that the median American leads a fairly drab life, but still fully subscribes to his own exploitation, if you will. Witness the election of a Republican president, house, and senate.
As John Steinbeck is reported to have said, "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."
Good point. The funny thing though is that the median American leads a fairly drab life, but still fully subscribes to his own exploitation, if you will. Witness the election of a Republican president, house, and senate.
As John Steinbeck is reported to have said, "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."
John Steinbeck never said that. At least not now it’s popularly quoted.
https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/comments/23ar71/tem...
https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/comments/23ar71/tem...
However, Ronald Wright reported that he had said it, see the "Disputed" box at the end of the Wikiquote article.
EDIT to add: FWIW, it's an insightful aphorism independent of who said it.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Steinbeck
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Steinbeck
Have you been in Greece or Spain? Experienced quality of life is way above statistical or expected.
Proud moment in most of the Europe is being able to take relaxed coffee and think, which is possible in most countries. I am always puzzled when somebody proudly tries to explain to me how having two jobs is great.
Proud moment in most of the Europe is being able to take relaxed coffee and think, which is possible in most countries. I am always puzzled when somebody proudly tries to explain to me how having two jobs is great.
Greece? The country where the population no longer dreams about their future due to total economic implosion?
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/08/after-nearly-a-decade-of-eco...
"We don't dream. We are fine, we continue our lives, we know that we don't live in extreme poverty. But if you want to learn a second language, if you want to do something for yourself, improving your skills, you can't or you are very limited," Eva Pavlopoulo, a 29-year-old student, told CNBC in the tourist-friendly neighborhood of Plaka in central Athens.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/08/after-nearly-a-decade-of-eco...
"We don't dream. We are fine, we continue our lives, we know that we don't live in extreme poverty. But if you want to learn a second language, if you want to do something for yourself, improving your skills, you can't or you are very limited," Eva Pavlopoulo, a 29-year-old student, told CNBC in the tourist-friendly neighborhood of Plaka in central Athens.
I spend at least one month in Greece every year, they are _almost_ as relaxed as 20 years ago.
Is there a chance that mass media tries to push one specific narrative, which does not reflect actual state?
Is there a chance that mass media tries to push one specific narrative, which does not reflect actual state?
Both you and your parent comment can be true. The economy may be doing terribly relative to other European countries, but if Greece values quality of life over economic development, then this wouldn't be terribly surprising.
Big brother started in the Netherlands [0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Brother_(franchise)#Histor...
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Brother_(franchise)#Histor...
The author's basic problem is he does not understand the United States is comprised of over 3,000 counties. The differences among them are vast, and most of the country is sparsely populated. To understand America, you'd have to spend time in places outside the big cities, like Appalachia, much like Great Britain is not just London.
The lack of safety net is exactly why the opportunities for profit in the US are greater. In the US you can consume people’s lives to build your fortune, while in Europe you have to take care of your employees.
Do they ever qualify or quantify what is meant by “more opportunity”?
Keep in mind everything I'm about to tell you refers to those in the corporate world, where many people have college educations, etc. This is not finding or losing a minimum wage job in retail. If you are of lower education or working a low wage job you might have less stress in a place like Europe. Take everything I say with a grain of salt, just like you should with the author of this article.
The most recent conversations about that issue was with a Frenchman who told me that seniority and hierarchy is very inflexible in Europe. There are a lot of people who are bad at their jobs but have a good position and will hold on to it for quite some time. No one ever loses their job for being terrible at it. And it makes it difficult for young people to move up the ladder where that ladder is.
And I found it very interesting that I read an article about the making of the American version of the Office versus the UK version. Ricky Gervais said specifically that the character of Michael had to be good at his job. This was due to the fact that in the US if you were as bad at your job in the US as Ricky was in the UK Version of the Office you'd be fired. It seems to be a common theme of the handful of French people I've met - there are a lot of laggards with high level positions in France.
I knew another French woman who was a consultant for a company that had a US office and spent a year here in Chicago. She did a lot of 'change management'. This refers to a few things, but one of those changes is 'layoffs'. And she walked me thru the whole process of when people lose their jobs in France and how different it is in the US.
In France if you are the victim of corporate downsizing you get a year of pay. You get job training. You get services to find a new job. And she told me how demoralized most of the French people were, how'd they'd feel sorry for themselves or be lazy. Some of them would not look for jobs at all.
Meanwhile when she had the experience in the US typically the layoff transition period some of these people only got 3 months of pay. However most of them had some hope, at least some of them had found another position before that period of time had run out.
Keep in mind this is mostly information based on France, the UK and Germany. I can't speak to other nations. I've heard nothing but good things from Norway and Sweden, and I've heard terrible stories in Spain, Portugal, Greece, Italy, Ireland, etc. In all honesty I wish we had some sort of federalized health care. The lack of security scares the crap out of me. If I were to die quickly my family would have some life insurance that would keep them afloat for a time. But I'm also a cancer survivor, it was only stage one. The US is filled with stories of people getting sick and hanging on for years and suffering and then losing their job. In that situation my family would probably be better off if we lived in the UK with the NHA. I just hate to empty drive about crossiants and better entertainment in Europe makes it a utopia.
The most recent conversations about that issue was with a Frenchman who told me that seniority and hierarchy is very inflexible in Europe. There are a lot of people who are bad at their jobs but have a good position and will hold on to it for quite some time. No one ever loses their job for being terrible at it. And it makes it difficult for young people to move up the ladder where that ladder is.
And I found it very interesting that I read an article about the making of the American version of the Office versus the UK version. Ricky Gervais said specifically that the character of Michael had to be good at his job. This was due to the fact that in the US if you were as bad at your job in the US as Ricky was in the UK Version of the Office you'd be fired. It seems to be a common theme of the handful of French people I've met - there are a lot of laggards with high level positions in France.
I knew another French woman who was a consultant for a company that had a US office and spent a year here in Chicago. She did a lot of 'change management'. This refers to a few things, but one of those changes is 'layoffs'. And she walked me thru the whole process of when people lose their jobs in France and how different it is in the US.
In France if you are the victim of corporate downsizing you get a year of pay. You get job training. You get services to find a new job. And she told me how demoralized most of the French people were, how'd they'd feel sorry for themselves or be lazy. Some of them would not look for jobs at all.
Meanwhile when she had the experience in the US typically the layoff transition period some of these people only got 3 months of pay. However most of them had some hope, at least some of them had found another position before that period of time had run out.
Keep in mind this is mostly information based on France, the UK and Germany. I can't speak to other nations. I've heard nothing but good things from Norway and Sweden, and I've heard terrible stories in Spain, Portugal, Greece, Italy, Ireland, etc. In all honesty I wish we had some sort of federalized health care. The lack of security scares the crap out of me. If I were to die quickly my family would have some life insurance that would keep them afloat for a time. But I'm also a cancer survivor, it was only stage one. The US is filled with stories of people getting sick and hanging on for years and suffering and then losing their job. In that situation my family would probably be better off if we lived in the UK with the NHA. I just hate to empty drive about crossiants and better entertainment in Europe makes it a utopia.
These are excellent points, and I think they highlight a lot of the things that are "good" about how the American labour market works, and the deficiencies of the "social utopia" of Europe.
I think you can take it too far in either directions and I am relieved that you point out the deficiencies of this approach when it comes to healthcare.
I think France in particular often comes in for a lot of fire with regards to having these big slow expensive bureaucratic structures.
But then at the same time, along with the US, France is one of the top exporting economies in the world? They can't be doing too badly.
I think you can take it too far in either directions and I am relieved that you point out the deficiencies of this approach when it comes to healthcare.
I think France in particular often comes in for a lot of fire with regards to having these big slow expensive bureaucratic structures.
But then at the same time, along with the US, France is one of the top exporting economies in the world? They can't be doing too badly.
> Everything I consume in the States is of a vastly, abysmally lower quality. Every single thing. The food,
You're going to the wrong restaurants, friend
You're going to the wrong restaurants, friend
Bread and circuses worked for the Romans.
The article makes a passing mention to the British NHS which is universally loved by everyone in the UK.
Why do so many Americans object to universal health care yet complain about insurance premiums? Its something I've never understood as an outside observer.
Why do so many Americans object to universal health care yet complain about insurance premiums? Its something I've never understood as an outside observer.
« More people are unhappy with the NHS than satisfied for the first time in a poll of the public run by Britain’s doctors, and 70% say they think the health service is going in the wrong direction. »
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jun/26/uk-public-ar...
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jun/26/uk-public-ar...
As the other reply sources, the "wrong direction" the public thinks the service is going in is increased privatisation as a result of austerity measures, typically. This is also why dissatisfaction is happening "for the first time" - up until now, the standard of national healthcare has been high, to an internationally-recognised extent.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/aug/15/creeping-pri...
> Department of Health (DH) figures show that the amount of its funding that has gone to “independent sector providers” more than doubled from £4.1bn in 2009-10, Labour’s last year in power, to £8.7bn in 2015-16.
> Slow-release privatisation has also seen the percentage of the DH budget finding its way into private hands rising from 4% in 2009-10 to 8% in the last financial year.
That "wrong direction" poll may well reflect concern over the slow privatization of the NHS described here.
> Department of Health (DH) figures show that the amount of its funding that has gone to “independent sector providers” more than doubled from £4.1bn in 2009-10, Labour’s last year in power, to £8.7bn in 2015-16.
> Slow-release privatisation has also seen the percentage of the DH budget finding its way into private hands rising from 4% in 2009-10 to 8% in the last financial year.
That "wrong direction" poll may well reflect concern over the slow privatization of the NHS described here.
I presume because they are under the impression that universal healthcare would be worse.
Often Canadian health care is cited in America as an example of a crappy system because some Canadians will travel to the US for surgeries.
Most of it is unfounded, takes anecdotes, and paints broad strokes. As opposed to looking at it as a whole, and doesn't consider the underlying costs. It would be nice if we could have a pragmatic conversation about it.
The GDP portion that the US spends on public health care (Medicaid, medicare) is already comparable to the total portion other nations spend on universal healthcare. So insurance is just systemic robbery, its private yet mandatory spending. Costs are high as a result of paying for useless insurance infrastructure.
Finally Americans are vey independent, as in I'll make my own keep and provide for my family, I don't want to rely on the state.
Often Canadian health care is cited in America as an example of a crappy system because some Canadians will travel to the US for surgeries.
Most of it is unfounded, takes anecdotes, and paints broad strokes. As opposed to looking at it as a whole, and doesn't consider the underlying costs. It would be nice if we could have a pragmatic conversation about it.
The GDP portion that the US spends on public health care (Medicaid, medicare) is already comparable to the total portion other nations spend on universal healthcare. So insurance is just systemic robbery, its private yet mandatory spending. Costs are high as a result of paying for useless insurance infrastructure.
Finally Americans are vey independent, as in I'll make my own keep and provide for my family, I don't want to rely on the state.
Correct. I work in healthcare finance, and can guarantee you that a "Medicare for all" system would bankrupt all US Healthcare providers almost instantly.
The real question is: why don't Americans understand how much they are already paying for other people's healthcare? If you get treatment at a provider that receives DSP reimbursements, you are not only paying for medicare but paying again out of pocket to subsidize that hospital for providing financially unsustainable medicare treatments.
We're all waiting for California to prove that Universal Healthcare is possible at scale in the US. Smart money isn't holding their breath though- lawmakers know it would be career suicide to give them what they wish for.
The real question is: why don't Americans understand how much they are already paying for other people's healthcare? If you get treatment at a provider that receives DSP reimbursements, you are not only paying for medicare but paying again out of pocket to subsidize that hospital for providing financially unsustainable medicare treatments.
We're all waiting for California to prove that Universal Healthcare is possible at scale in the US. Smart money isn't holding their breath though- lawmakers know it would be career suicide to give them what they wish for.
Many Americans are insulated from the actual cost of their healthcare via employer-provided insurance. I used to pay like $30/month when working for a major organization, but purchasing directly on the exchanges runs my family $2,000/month. The underlying costs are likely pretty similar, and the difference was likely factored into my salary, but it results in sticker shock that people often blame on "Obamacare".
This is a two part answer.
1) The historical answer until Obama's administration:
They hear that it is called Socialized Healthcare. Socialized is a derivative of "Socialism". Not taking into account the myths about American Exceptionalism mentioned in the article (which are very valid), for many, many Americans Socialism = Stalinism.
Then they turn on the TV, and see health industry funded politicians selectively pointing out the worst aspects of socialized healthcare, and the best parts of the capitalist model (and if you can afford access, the American model has some great aspects). That's usually enough for most people to think that ultimately socialized healthcare doesn't actually work, even if it wasn't associated with a tyrant who's successors threatened most of the living population with nuclear annihilation.
So, given the proposition of a "non-working" healthcare system that is associated with mass murder, Americans see no other choice than in the healthcare system that they have. Whereupon they take a strong pride in the fact that they were able to achieve their own level of care. An: I worked hard to get my healthcare, it is part of my status, and now you want to devalue what I had to work for by giving it to everybody for free?, mentality takes hold.
And if all of that doesn't work to block the idea, the health insurance lobby simply ensures that media and politicans talk as IF the above was all true. Because the second half of this question is that since Obama's administration, 60% of Americans DO believe it is the responsibility of the federal government to provide healthcare to Americans. But if you watch Republican aligned media, they will simply act as if the majority of the populace is still opposed to healthcare because of the old story above. The vast majority of Americans don't have access to polling data, and naively and incorrectly assume that the average of their friends and media sources is representative of the viewpoints of the rest of the country.
1) The historical answer until Obama's administration:
They hear that it is called Socialized Healthcare. Socialized is a derivative of "Socialism". Not taking into account the myths about American Exceptionalism mentioned in the article (which are very valid), for many, many Americans Socialism = Stalinism.
Then they turn on the TV, and see health industry funded politicians selectively pointing out the worst aspects of socialized healthcare, and the best parts of the capitalist model (and if you can afford access, the American model has some great aspects). That's usually enough for most people to think that ultimately socialized healthcare doesn't actually work, even if it wasn't associated with a tyrant who's successors threatened most of the living population with nuclear annihilation.
So, given the proposition of a "non-working" healthcare system that is associated with mass murder, Americans see no other choice than in the healthcare system that they have. Whereupon they take a strong pride in the fact that they were able to achieve their own level of care. An: I worked hard to get my healthcare, it is part of my status, and now you want to devalue what I had to work for by giving it to everybody for free?, mentality takes hold.
And if all of that doesn't work to block the idea, the health insurance lobby simply ensures that media and politicans talk as IF the above was all true. Because the second half of this question is that since Obama's administration, 60% of Americans DO believe it is the responsibility of the federal government to provide healthcare to Americans. But if you watch Republican aligned media, they will simply act as if the majority of the populace is still opposed to healthcare because of the old story above. The vast majority of Americans don't have access to polling data, and naively and incorrectly assume that the average of their friends and media sources is representative of the viewpoints of the rest of the country.
>universally loved by everyone
I don't think something can be universally loved. There are many stories of long waiting times and people going overseas for private healthcare.
People like private healthcare because it aligns with America's love of freedom - which includes the freedom to fail.
I don't think something can be universally loved. There are many stories of long waiting times and people going overseas for private healthcare.
People like private healthcare because it aligns with America's love of freedom - which includes the freedom to fail.
Yeah gotta love having the freedom to die because your health insurance doesn't actually cover the health care you need.
American's have a very perverse idea of what 'freedom' is.
American's have a very perverse idea of what 'freedom' is.
>universally loved by everyone
Maybe a little strong on my part.
Asked "would you scrap the NHS?" to randoms on the street i bet you would get a very strong no vote.
Maybe a little strong on my part.
Asked "would you scrap the NHS?" to randoms on the street i bet you would get a very strong no vote.
Is such a system sustainable though? Isn't England in a massive hole of debt? And if that debt comes due, what would happen to the quality of the NHS?
Almost Every western country is in a massive hole of debt, the us included.
I think it is more sustainable than other systems, especially the one practiced in the US.
Also, please note than in the US, public spending on health is already huge, and there’s a huge private spending as well - iirc about 20% of us GDP is spent on healthcare, which is double any other western country, and with worse results to boot. It is already unsustainable.
I think it is more sustainable than other systems, especially the one practiced in the US.
Also, please note than in the US, public spending on health is already huge, and there’s a huge private spending as well - iirc about 20% of us GDP is spent on healthcare, which is double any other western country, and with worse results to boot. It is already unsustainable.
> Isn't England in a massive hole of debt?
The UK has a lower debt-to-GDP ratio than the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_de...
Their debt ratio is predicted to slightly lower by 2022, while ours is expected to continue to increase.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_future_gr...
The UK has a lower debt-to-GDP ratio than the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_de...
Their debt ratio is predicted to slightly lower by 2022, while ours is expected to continue to increase.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_future_gr...
Don't forget that the US spends by far the most per capita on health care world wide. The NHS saves money.
I have had a chance to speak with quite a few people who spent some time living in a country with universal healthcare, and not a single one would give it up or think that the American system is better. Or even acceptable, for that matter. Public healthcare does not mean lack of private healthcare.
I’ve heard Canadians complain about the lack of private options awhile back, but I think even that is solved now.
I’ve heard Canadians complain about the lack of private options awhile back, but I think even that is solved now.
Yes, I have never met anybody who has actually lived in a country with universal healthcare and in the US who didn't believe that the US system is an insane nightmare. There maybe be problems with individual systems but the US is by far the worst.
i think lots of people in america view politics as a sport and root for their team, irrespective of its policies. and the republicans have been steered against single payer or other healtcare reforms, so their fans all follow their lead, simple as that.
[deleted]
I think it has to do with how easy it is to think about. I really believe there are a lot of people on the right whose implicit preference is to pay $10000/yr for healthcare to a private entity rather than $5000/yr to the government. When I get a tax bill the numbers are right there in black, this is how much was stolen from me. When I get any other sort of bill how much was 'stolen' is a portion but I have no idea how much so I basically write off the whole amount as necessary. It's probably the result of cold-war propaganda that seems to have never died off.
One thing to consider is that it’s very unlikely America could actually cut half of all costs by simply going universal. We’d have to ration care and implement price controls. Who knows if that is even politically viable.
And even we could reduce it by half, the only politically viable method of funding is a highly progressive tax.
People on hacker news would likely pay 20k a year and the average person would pay 2,500 or less.
And even we could reduce it by half, the only politically viable method of funding is a highly progressive tax.
People on hacker news would likely pay 20k a year and the average person would pay 2,500 or less.
>One thing to consider is that it’s very unlikely America could actually cut half of all costs by simply going universal.
It was just an example, but it's pretty clear that costs would be cut.
>We’d have to ration care and implement price controls. Who knows if that is even politically viable.
We already ration care, we just do it by how much money you have. Price controls? Pretty politically viable, just march some affected people up on stage. Hell you don't even need price controls, just make overseas drug importing legal. Right now we're a totally captive market, that's why they charge so much.
>And even we could reduce it by half, the only politically viable method of funding is a highly progressive tax.
Okay? Sounds fine to me.
>People on hacker news would likely pay 20k a year and the average person would pay 2,500 or less.
I mean that's how progressive taxes work and I don't have a problem with it, although your numbers are obviously pulled straight from your ass.
It was just an example, but it's pretty clear that costs would be cut.
>We’d have to ration care and implement price controls. Who knows if that is even politically viable.
We already ration care, we just do it by how much money you have. Price controls? Pretty politically viable, just march some affected people up on stage. Hell you don't even need price controls, just make overseas drug importing legal. Right now we're a totally captive market, that's why they charge so much.
>And even we could reduce it by half, the only politically viable method of funding is a highly progressive tax.
Okay? Sounds fine to me.
>People on hacker news would likely pay 20k a year and the average person would pay 2,500 or less.
I mean that's how progressive taxes work and I don't have a problem with it, although your numbers are obviously pulled straight from your ass.
Yes, go tell physicians that you’ll cut their income to less than half of what they are getting now. Why wouldn’t they like the plan? The US healthcare system is very bad, but not easy to fix.
The most common belief is that universal health care is a 'hand out' to others taken from their own pockets.
Well, it is.
I'm happy paying for schools despite having no children because it benefit society as a whole.
Can we not apply the same thinking here?
Can we not apply the same thinking here?
That was not the point. The point is that universal healthcare is taking money from my pocket and giving it to someone else.
If you ever have a serious illness or an accident money will be taken out of someone's pocket and given to you. Unless you don't have insurance and refuse treatment.
You can qualify everything as a "handout" then. Like private car insurance, which is taking money from you and paying to a driver who had an accident.
Maybe I'm missing the point too, but can't that description be applied to insurance itself? So what's your point?
It's not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:OECD_health_expenditure_p...
We spend about the same as other OECD countries in public healthcare funding, plus we spend a bunch more privately, for an overall healthcare spend that's the highest per-capita in the world, and outcomes that aren't as good.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:OECD_health_expenditure_p...
We spend about the same as other OECD countries in public healthcare funding, plus we spend a bunch more privately, for an overall healthcare spend that's the highest per-capita in the world, and outcomes that aren't as good.
the tyranny of 'freedom'
Try tyranny of socialism is far, far worse. Nothing is perfect and imagining it can be will get people killed (Russia, Venezuela, China, Cuba, etc.).
Individual rights are what makes the West successful compared to the rest of the world.
Individual rights are what makes the West successful compared to the rest of the world.
> Individual rights are what makes the West successful compared to the rest of the world.
We're talking about Western-style democratic socialism, as found in Sweden, Norway, Germany, England, etc. here. Terrifying totalitarian hellholes they're not.
We're talking about Western-style democratic socialism, as found in Sweden, Norway, Germany, England, etc. here. Terrifying totalitarian hellholes they're not.
I agree with what you wrote, but why does the US have be the same as those countries? Why can't there be a variety of implementations of government such that different humans can choose different situations for their own needs? I'd still like to see Cuba change to a fully democratic communist state, for example.
It shouldn’t and it doesn’t.
But when you discover that a system has way better objective outcomes, e.g. in the case of drug policy or healthcare policy, it’s a shame not to upgrade to a similar system.
Really, the US has a lot of good systems, but healthcare isn’t one of them.
But when you discover that a system has way better objective outcomes, e.g. in the case of drug policy or healthcare policy, it’s a shame not to upgrade to a similar system.
Really, the US has a lot of good systems, but healthcare isn’t one of them.
> democratic communist state
I wonder if this is not an oxymoron. In my view, democracy means (a lot of) politics, while communism means no or very little politics (in a true sense of the word).
I wonder if this is not an oxymoron. In my view, democracy means (a lot of) politics, while communism means no or very little politics (in a true sense of the word).
To be fair, totalitarian regimes are not always socialist, especially the outright fascist ones.
What are some examples?
What do you think will happen when these countries massive debts come due? I don't think they'll be peaceful then. They are living on the backs of their unborn children right now.
These debts come due all the time.
The US has one of the highest debt-to-GDP ratios of the OECD. All of the countries I mentioned have lower debt than we do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_de...
The US has one of the highest debt-to-GDP ratios of the OECD. All of the countries I mentioned have lower debt than we do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_de...
Why are we pretending its a binary choice?
The socialism in Sweden has not killed anyone.
Capitalism + welfare does not equal socialism.
Well, then "state capitalism" shouldn't, either.
johndevor(1)
They have no point of reference for comparison.
Indeed, and they travel more domestically than abroad [1]. There isn't enough difference between states to broad those horizons.
[1] https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-whose-citizens...
[1] https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-whose-citizens...
A large part of that is because traveling abroad is prohibitively expensive for a lot of people (which the article touches on). Especially if you don't live on one of the coasts. California to London is over 10 hours of flight time. I don't think Europeans fully appreciate how huge the United States is. Texas alone is bigger than every country in Europe, save Turkey.
The U.S. is a huge country and most people have little desire to sit in a cattle-car (airplane) for 8-12 hours. A 12 hour drive to Florida is much more palatable for most people than a 12 hour plane ride to a country where they don't speak the language (typically.)
They do - other countries.
Which I guess begs a follow-up question: why aren't they more outward-looking? This is the question the article asks halfway through, but it still ends without much of an answer.
As someone living in Ireland, where many things are of similar low quality (e.g. healthcare), we are outward-looking but only in one specific way: we look toward the US for a lot of things. I've often asked this question in a different way: why do we look to the US and not elsewhere (e.g. the UK, France, other EU states, where healthcare is actually ok). The two answers I've come up with are anglophone bias and anti-English sentiment arising out of our history, only one of which applies to the US, and yet they definitely don't look too us, to Canada, to other anglophone countries. So I suspect I'm wrong on this explanation in both cases...
It's likely a very multifaceted answer.
Which I guess begs a follow-up question: why aren't they more outward-looking? This is the question the article asks halfway through, but it still ends without much of an answer.
As someone living in Ireland, where many things are of similar low quality (e.g. healthcare), we are outward-looking but only in one specific way: we look toward the US for a lot of things. I've often asked this question in a different way: why do we look to the US and not elsewhere (e.g. the UK, France, other EU states, where healthcare is actually ok). The two answers I've come up with are anglophone bias and anti-English sentiment arising out of our history, only one of which applies to the US, and yet they definitely don't look too us, to Canada, to other anglophone countries. So I suspect I'm wrong on this explanation in both cases...
It's likely a very multifaceted answer.
Yes, of course other countries, but most Americans have limited understanding of the way of life of people in other countries. Points of reference exist but the majority of Americans aren't familiar enough with those points of reference to make a comparison.
Maybe it's because personal experience is usually not enough to make such sweeping generalizations? All we know is this person liked the places they lived in Europe better than the places they lived in the US. But what about the places they haven't lived yet?
European cities are not all the same. Similarly for US cities.
European cities are not all the same. Similarly for US cities.
I have been in most capitals in Europe, and in quite a few cities of USA, and totally agree with the story. Of course there are some individual exceptions, but he is talking about the feeling from different cities, the state of public transportation or healthcare, which IMHO is fairly generalizable.
You are doing it too.
Our lives are not random samples.
Our lives are not random samples.
But is it fair to say that observers with more samples have a better vantage point than observers with fewer?
Yes, of course experience can be very valuable! However, it's rather tricky to share with people you don't know. You can't just make a bare assertion:
"Life is much better in Europe than in the US."
"How do you know?"
"Someone said so on the Internet."
You see? It doesn't transfer.
I think it makes more sense to tell stories of specific things that happened to you, and let people make their own generalizations.
"Life is much better in Europe than in the US."
"How do you know?"
"Someone said so on the Internet."
You see? It doesn't transfer.
I think it makes more sense to tell stories of specific things that happened to you, and let people make their own generalizations.
This is the ultimate question -- which is superior: individualism or collectivism? Personally I think collectivism is far superior -- however the forces that be want people to believe individualism is superior, especially in America.
This results in people, individuals, denying their fellow peers access to things. As for the question the title poses, there's no answer, because it depends on who you ask.
I don't think Americans will ever be convinced collectivism is superior until there's some organization or company created within the States that ends up being far superior to everything else. Only then will people see the overwhelming advantage that comes with the "spread", which is the main advantage of collectivism (meaning the spread of burden and the spread of fortune).
The Musketeers said it best:
All for one and one for all.
This results in people, individuals, denying their fellow peers access to things. As for the question the title poses, there's no answer, because it depends on who you ask.
I don't think Americans will ever be convinced collectivism is superior until there's some organization or company created within the States that ends up being far superior to everything else. Only then will people see the overwhelming advantage that comes with the "spread", which is the main advantage of collectivism (meaning the spread of burden and the spread of fortune).
The Musketeers said it best:
All for one and one for all.
Considering the entire premise of the founding of the US was based on individual liberty, and throwing the yoke of power off from the centralized power of a monarchy across the ocean, I don't see why we need to be convinced.
Why does the whole world need to be homogeneous? Why can't some places on the earth (with ~7B people) value individualism and some value collectivism. Maybe neither one is superior, just different?
Why does the whole world need to be homogeneous? Why can't some places on the earth (with ~7B people) value individualism and some value collectivism. Maybe neither one is superior, just different?
There are genuine tradeoffs to be had, and space for cultures to take different positions on the Pareto frontier, sure. But there are also deadweight losses, unforced errors where one culture's approach is just worse by every metric, and those would seem to be cases where we could learn. E.g. US healthcare seems to somehow manage to be uniquely bad - more expensive on average, while excluding or bankrupting people, without offering patients a meaningful kind of choice in most cases. Things like a patient not being able to afford non-emergency treatment until their condition develops into something that needs more expensive emergency treatment (which hospitals aren't allowed to refuse) seem lose-lose.
You're conflating things -- collectivism and individualism are not necessarily defined by the system of government.
I'd argue, that collectivism is inherently superior for most albeit with a lower magnitude of quality for most and individualism is the inverse, with a higher magnitude of quality for some and is inherently superior for some.
However I'd also say that individualism is more resilient as it is inherently decentralized. You're right in that one cannot necessarily be better in all ways, but for the traits the article speaks to, I'd argue collectivism is superior.
I'd argue, that collectivism is inherently superior for most albeit with a lower magnitude of quality for most and individualism is the inverse, with a higher magnitude of quality for some and is inherently superior for some.
However I'd also say that individualism is more resilient as it is inherently decentralized. You're right in that one cannot necessarily be better in all ways, but for the traits the article speaks to, I'd argue collectivism is superior.
Individuals don't have a choice of where they are born; neither do most people have a real choice of migrating to the other side of the ocean. If the thought even occurs to them. Cultural blindness is a thing, and especially troublesome in the case of American exceptionalism and general disinterest in other cultures.
Depends whether that collectivism is forced or not. Because the forced one has been tried - and it's horrifying.
Funny thing about individualists: they just want to be left alone and don't care if you are collectivist or individualists. Kinda like that about them.
Funny thing about individualists: they just want to be left alone and don't care if you are collectivist or individualists. Kinda like that about them.
What you say about individualists could just as well be said about collectivists.
Collectivists just want to be left alone? How does that work?
It's pretty simple, they just go about their lives. How exactly do you imagine collectivists live? People in a collectivist culture or society aren't attached to each other by the belly; as long as their culture/society is functioning they probably would want to be left alone like any regular person, collectivist or not.
Yeah in fact, from my experience you're more likely to be harassed walking down the street in the USA where the poor are forced to take to the street as hawkers than in Germany where you can still carry some dignity.
I'm a huge fan of collectivism, but it doesn't scale. It has never scaled, and never will, unless some future technology allows for a true hive mind where humans are able to have deep, trusting relationships with orders of magnitude more people than our brains are able to with current technology.
At one point in my life, I lived in a communual eco-village that relied on collectivism. We had to kick people out ALL THE TIME for not pulling their weight. This was around 100 people.
The fact of the matter is that the technologies that are routinely developed in the individualistic USA are then adopted by the more collectivist countries, where they end up being much more available to the public than in the nation they were invented in.
Pharmaceuticals and medical technologies are an example of this.
Collectivism on a small scale is natural for humans. On a large scale, it ends up, almost always, having to be forced upon by men with guns.
At one point in my life, I lived in a communual eco-village that relied on collectivism. We had to kick people out ALL THE TIME for not pulling their weight. This was around 100 people.
The fact of the matter is that the technologies that are routinely developed in the individualistic USA are then adopted by the more collectivist countries, where they end up being much more available to the public than in the nation they were invented in.
Pharmaceuticals and medical technologies are an example of this.
Collectivism on a small scale is natural for humans. On a large scale, it ends up, almost always, having to be forced upon by men with guns.
Except you don't have to buy into one exclusively for everything. Which approach is superior, which is to say, which approach is more efficient is a factual, empirical question that can be answered by science.
In the 20th century, the political implementation of collectivism involved the deliberate murder-- often through starvation-- of at least 100 million people.
Authoritarians hiding as collectivists has given a bad name to the latter, but let's be sure to not conflate or causally link the two.
How can you have state-wide collectivism without authoritarian control?
There's always going to be a few people who want to be independent - and you can only squish that at the point of a gun.
There's always going to be a few people who want to be independent - and you can only squish that at the point of a gun.
This is a great question -- I think the jury is still out on this one. Someone will eventually figure out the right set of incentives, in the right quantities, targeted to the right groups that'll make it work, though.
Calling EU collectivist is a stretch.
Who mentioned EU? There's a broad mixture of different political approaches right across the EU. Some of the wealthier states do appear to have a strong social-democratic leaning but maybe that's just 'cause they can afford it?
A comprehensive socioeconomic fabric costs a lot to maintain. You have to have a base of taxpayers who are willing to pay it and who feel they get the value for their money.
A comprehensive socioeconomic fabric costs a lot to maintain. You have to have a base of taxpayers who are willing to pay it and who feel they get the value for their money.
The article. Also, those European countries don't have tax rates much larger (if at all) than the US. It's just that in the US, it gets wasted.
Oh but they do. You'll pay up to 2/3 of your income in taxes in Germany for instance.
Isn't the maximum percentage for singles with no kids in tax category 0, which is around 40%?
income tax yeah but there's a whole heap of levies and surcharges on top of that
Highest rate in Germany seems to be 45%.
Where'd you read that Wikipedia? My payslips from working in Germany beg to differ ...
I didn't mention the EU once in my comment, so I'm a bit confused.
It's a comment in response to an article comparing Europe and US?
So? I still didn't say the EU is collectivist or mention it at all. Both EU and the US have collectivist and individualist policies.
"I don't think Americans will ever be convinced collectivism is superior until there's some organization or company created within the States that ends up being far superior to everything else."
Not following you -- even in your quote I don't mention the EU.
The article does. I don't have time for this.
Well you should have made your comment at the top-level then instead of trying to piggy-back.
Exactly. Not sure why you replied to my original comment with "calling EU collectivist is a stretch" when I didn't mention the EU. You should reply to the top most post, not me, it sounds like. It's really not a big deal, :).
> I don't think Americans will ever be convinced collectivism is superior until there's some organization or company created within the States that ends up being far superior to everything else.
We used to know.
/United we stand, divided we fall.
We used to know.
/United we stand, divided we fall.
Reminds me of this:
>What’s the most egregious thing the boomers have done in your opinion?
>I'll give you something abstract and something concrete. On an abstract level, I think the worst thing they’ve done is destroy a sense of social solidarity, a sense of commitment to fellow citizens. That ethos is gone and it’s been replaced by a cult of individualism. It’s hard to overstate how damaging this is.
https://www.vox.com/2017/12/20/16772670/baby-boomers-millenn...
>What’s the most egregious thing the boomers have done in your opinion?
>I'll give you something abstract and something concrete. On an abstract level, I think the worst thing they’ve done is destroy a sense of social solidarity, a sense of commitment to fellow citizens. That ethos is gone and it’s been replaced by a cult of individualism. It’s hard to overstate how damaging this is.
https://www.vox.com/2017/12/20/16772670/baby-boomers-millenn...
It’s funny to me that that article talks about everyone loving to bash Millenials, on an article bashing boomers, which you can throw on the massive pile of other media that bashes boomers.
Why?
You need both. We need that tension between individuals and collectives to both innovate and regulate.
Collectivism doesn't necessarily imply a collective, but I agree with your sentiment. All collectivism means in my view is that in a group of people each member gives priority to the survivial of the group and its other members more than themself.
America has always been a country of self reliant individuals. What you're forgetting (and what todays "progressivists" want to erase from history) is that America was (and still is somewhat) a country with convictions, particularly because of the Christian religion which a majority of Americans in the 19th and 20th century identified with. Charities, church hospitals, philanthropic efforts by the wealthy, and a sense of taken care of your local community knitted our country together far better than government mandated collectivsm ever could have.
A lot of money is spent keeping American attitudes this way.
We do, but what are we gonna do about it? We don't really have any ability to effect these kinds of changes as a common man. Our opinions have literally 0 effect on the legislative process. Our country is bought and paid for by corporate interests. Multiple studies have shown that our opinions count for nothing, and that lobbyists control legislation and policy.
We have now descended into the hyper-atomization of the individual as a series of micro-collectives, for whom we must fight among ourselves against others with different series of collectives. We now care not for whether our lives are good, merely that we see the other having a bad time.
Mourn for us, and learn from us - do not follow in our footsteps.
We have now descended into the hyper-atomization of the individual as a series of micro-collectives, for whom we must fight among ourselves against others with different series of collectives. We now care not for whether our lives are good, merely that we see the other having a bad time.
Mourn for us, and learn from us - do not follow in our footsteps.
>Multiple studies have shown that our opinions count for nothing, and that lobbyists control legislation and policy.
And yet Donald Trump was basically memed into office.
And yet Donald Trump was basically memed into office.
And? Like 2/5 of the people that voted for him regret it because he isn't doing what they thought he would. He campaigned for the common man, and is now fucking him over hardcore.
I think this only provides evidence for my point.
I think this only provides evidence for my point.
Trump's election provides a counterexample to the claim that the opinions of voters count for nothing, otherwise we'd be looking at Hillary Clinton's second term or first after Mitt Romney.
Many of the promises Trump made were absurd, irrational and couldn't reasonably be delivered on, and Trump himself was the easiest candidate to read in recent American political history. Voters being unwilling to exercise their power judiciously isn't the same as them having no real power to exercise.
Many of the promises Trump made were absurd, irrational and couldn't reasonably be delivered on, and Trump himself was the easiest candidate to read in recent American political history. Voters being unwilling to exercise their power judiciously isn't the same as them having no real power to exercise.
This really, really depends on where you live. If you live in New York, you can get amazing food everywhere. We have things like paid family leave, free college, universal pre-k, etc that most Americans don't have. Also if you're working at a high pressure finance job, of course you will work long hours. But those are the exception. Working from 10 - 6 is pretty common for most people I know.
> Also if you're working at a high pressure finance job
If you're working that type of job, you're almost certainly getting very well-paid for your efforts; more than you would be paid in London or elsewhere
If you're working that type of job, you're almost certainly getting very well-paid for your efforts; more than you would be paid in London or elsewhere
i wouldn't call new york an example of a "high quality of living." Subways that barely work? Terrifyingly chaotic traffic? A "me-first" attitude that is visible everywhere from the people complaining about citi-bikes to the advertisements literally EVERYWHERE.
Going from coast-to-coast is like walking into a time machine.
Going from coast-to-coast is like walking into a time machine.
Yes NY subways are in a state of disrepair at the moment, but that misses the forest for the trees. Public outcry is already starting to force bureaucrats to address this. I hope people remain outraged here.
But 99% of the time you can get from A->B in NY without much stress. You hardly ever need a car. You have almost literally the best of anything in the world within that hour-or-less subway ride.
You may not be able to afford all the best-of-everything, but the best X is there as an option if you decide you'd prefer X instead of rent (or paying medical bills). Almost always you can turn sweat into $ to buy X without anybody saying no. Nobody forces you to live in NY, and nobody forces you to buy X. But it's there if you want it.
(Of course you can argue that X is too expensive or that the sweat-to-$ ratio is wildly unbalanced but that doesn't change the facts.)
But 99% of the time you can get from A->B in NY without much stress. You hardly ever need a car. You have almost literally the best of anything in the world within that hour-or-less subway ride.
You may not be able to afford all the best-of-everything, but the best X is there as an option if you decide you'd prefer X instead of rent (or paying medical bills). Almost always you can turn sweat into $ to buy X without anybody saying no. Nobody forces you to live in NY, and nobody forces you to buy X. But it's there if you want it.
(Of course you can argue that X is too expensive or that the sweat-to-$ ratio is wildly unbalanced but that doesn't change the facts.)
They will never be able to address the issues in New York. The whole place is polluted to hell -- the beaches are gross and dirty. I mean for fucks sake you have to ASK to not get a plastic bag (usually two). What year is it, 2002? The place literally smells like hot garbage and piss. The people have no respect for the land (ever go into prospect park on a summer weekend?). People working in business al
> You have almost literally the best of anything in the world within that hour-or-less subway ride.
Bullshit, You can take a 10 minute Bike/Light rail ride in portland and get to straight up farm-land or forest. In an hour you can get to the coast, desert, or mountains. In San Diego you can bike to the beach from anywhere in 10-20 minutes (that arent crowded and over trashed).
> You have almost literally the best of anything in the world within that hour-or-less subway ride.
Bullshit, You can take a 10 minute Bike/Light rail ride in portland and get to straight up farm-land or forest. In an hour you can get to the coast, desert, or mountains. In San Diego you can bike to the beach from anywhere in 10-20 minutes (that arent crowded and over trashed).
The clear explanation here is that different people value different things. I lived in NYC and didn't enjoy it for two out of the three reasons you mention (I didn't really detect the "me-first attitude," although it's certainly a common NYC stereotype). But there are clearly a lot of other redeeming qualities such as the food, cultural opportunities, and general sense (accurate or not) or being at the center of the world.
(And come on. The Subways don't "barely work." They work. I took the subway to work virtually every day with few problems. They're just dirty and don't keep an extremely precise schedule.)
Of course, one's experience will also vary by neighborhood, income level, etc.
(And come on. The Subways don't "barely work." They work. I took the subway to work virtually every day with few problems. They're just dirty and don't keep an extremely precise schedule.)
Of course, one's experience will also vary by neighborhood, income level, etc.
You lost me at "toxins".
This seems oversimplified to me. I think it's fairer to say the graph of quality of life vs. income in Europe has a lower slope than America. Meaning, quality of life in America can be much higher for the wealthy, somewhat higher for upper middle income, lower for middle income, and much worse for low income.
Maybe this is because, as someone once put it, Americans don't see themselves as worse off. Rather, they see themselves as "temporarily embarrassed millionaires"?
This is true of every nation, just the premise changes. In India it's how bad the corruption is. In many countries it's how their religious leaders are screwing them.
The cause it seems is propaganda.
The cause it seems is propaganda.
Because the money we put into Defense, Europe puts into the comunal programs that boost said quality-of-life indicators. Perks of being a superpower I guess. Love it or hate it, the argument could be made that without America choosing that path, Europe would not be able to enjoy the quality-of-life they have now.
I think part of your argument is true: Europe benefits from being in the American sphere of defence, but, I also think this is a red herring as the USA is more than rich enough to have both a strong military and look after its population.
The defense spending isn't necessarily the issue, it's the meteoric rise of allocation in the budget year after year to defense spending. We are overspending, and it only gets worse for the citizens.
I think this is a result of never truly leaving a wartime economy. We had WWII, then the Korean War, then the Cold War (with Vietnam in the middle) all on top of each other and justifying the expense for almost 50 years. I don't think America knows how to cut defense without losing military dominance. As te_chris said, Defense spending might be a red herring, but I would say it is almost certainly the foundation of the problem.
The other major budget problem is welfare/comunal programs. These have been hyperinflated over the last 20-30 years or so. I personally believe one of the reasons it works so much better in Europe is the fact that any given program is orders of magnitude smaller than American attempts. To improve quality-of-life to the level the article wants, I think America need to trim (trim, not cut) military spending and stop welfare spending entirely and let the states handle it (with parameters of course, but it would be a far less unwieldy beast for them handle).
The other major budget problem is welfare/comunal programs. These have been hyperinflated over the last 20-30 years or so. I personally believe one of the reasons it works so much better in Europe is the fact that any given program is orders of magnitude smaller than American attempts. To improve quality-of-life to the level the article wants, I think America need to trim (trim, not cut) military spending and stop welfare spending entirely and let the states handle it (with parameters of course, but it would be a far less unwieldy beast for them handle).
Cutting military spending would also hurt the American economy massively. There are over two million soldiers in the military, with an unbelievable number of nonsoldiers building equipment that they use. If we scale back, all of that money injected into our economy would be lost.
> There is a myth of exceptionalism in America that prevents it from looking outward, and learning from the world
In my experience, this is not exclusive to America. It seems to be a feature of very large and diverse countries. I’m an immigrant from Brazil and I saw the exact same thing there. When a country is large and diverse enough, people seem to think that all that there is to be seen is in their own land, and nothing outside can be much different from that. I had friends that refused to accept that life in other nations was objectively better. They claimed it was just “different”, but that quality of life was the same everywhere. Evidently, they had never traveled abroad.
In my experience, this is not exclusive to America. It seems to be a feature of very large and diverse countries. I’m an immigrant from Brazil and I saw the exact same thing there. When a country is large and diverse enough, people seem to think that all that there is to be seen is in their own land, and nothing outside can be much different from that. I had friends that refused to accept that life in other nations was objectively better. They claimed it was just “different”, but that quality of life was the same everywhere. Evidently, they had never traveled abroad.
I wonder if religion, particularly evangelical Christianity, has anything to do with this?
America is deeply enthralled in it; in fact, atheists are considered "lowest of the low" in certain polls (like whether one would vote or elect such a person, for instance).
Brazil - correct me if I am wrong - has a similar enthrallment, but more of the "evangelical Catholicism" variety. It is (like many "south of the border" countries, if you will) is highly religious and Christianity is on display.
I tend to wonder how these similar trends play into the disparity, as Europe (as a whole) is known to not be as religious, and what religion there is, is relatively downplayed...?
America is deeply enthralled in it; in fact, atheists are considered "lowest of the low" in certain polls (like whether one would vote or elect such a person, for instance).
Brazil - correct me if I am wrong - has a similar enthrallment, but more of the "evangelical Catholicism" variety. It is (like many "south of the border" countries, if you will) is highly religious and Christianity is on display.
I tend to wonder how these similar trends play into the disparity, as Europe (as a whole) is known to not be as religious, and what religion there is, is relatively downplayed...?
Except hapiness statistics are superior in the US than in EU [1] while suicide rates are higher in the EU than in the US [2].
1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report
2: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/suiciderate.html
Maybe we shouldn’t use vacation anedoctes to try to find what the best political system is?
1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report
2: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/suiciderate.html
Maybe we shouldn’t use vacation anedoctes to try to find what the best political system is?
Happy people tend to not choose demagogues as their leaders.
Please read the actual report with its casual analysis rather than look just at the numbers. Aspirations play a huge part here. perceptions of stability and social net too. (As opposed to actual quality thereof.) Input data for numbers is additionally flawed by taking averages, which is unfortunate.
As for suicides, take a peek at all cause mortality instead and you will find a less interesting though much more informative picture. (Homicide rate in the US for one.)
Please read the actual report with its casual analysis rather than look just at the numbers. Aspirations play a huge part here. perceptions of stability and social net too. (As opposed to actual quality thereof.) Input data for numbers is additionally flawed by taking averages, which is unfortunate.
As for suicides, take a peek at all cause mortality instead and you will find a less interesting though much more informative picture. (Homicide rate in the US for one.)
Completely unnecessary stab at GMOs
Europe is still to some extent enjoying the fruit of capitalism, but probably not for too long. There is always a day when roman does not have free bread to hand out any more.
Why don't Europeans understand how little we care what they think? Their rights have been systematically eroded and their countries stolen right out from underneath them. That condescending, undeserved attitude of faux superiority means absolutely nothing to red-blooded Americans. They can keep their baguettes, I'll be just fine with my 30.06 and my F-250.
I absolutely like how comments like this one confirm most of this article.
Many comments have this delusion of things being free. Free college, free healthcare, free this/that, etc. In this world of limited resources nothing is free. Either your tax money, someone else's tax money, or your govt through debt is paying for these "free" things.
The UK has healthcare free at the point of delivery. The UK government spends considerably less per capita on healthcare than the US governemnt.
"Free" healthcare is cheaper to provide than non-free.
"Free" healthcare is cheaper to provide than non-free.
This isn't the whole story, though. Part of the reasons US healthcare costs are so high is that the majority of all medical research is done in the US.
America needs to do a hell of a lot better on this front - universal healthcare should be a basic human right! - but it doesn't immediately solve the issue.
America needs to do a hell of a lot better on this front - universal healthcare should be a basic human right! - but it doesn't immediately solve the issue.
The author must live in an alternate universe. I'm a dual-citizen (US/France) due to my mother being born in France.
"so they already look half-dead — order coffee and a croissant, both of which are fairly tasteless"
Sorry, but there are plenty of places where croissants don't suck (give Wegmans a try) - and I'd be hard-pressed to believe that those major US cities don't have bakeries run/owned by real frenchmen.
"Everything I consume in the States is of a vastly, abysmally lower quality. Every single thing. The food,"
Really? Everytime I go to europe, the meat tastes like crap in comparison to US-raised meat, it's tough as a shoe-sole and it's overpriced.
"So my quality of life — despite all my privileges..."
There you have it, this guy has homes in London AND New York. Ask the average EU citizen (I'm not talking about techies, I'm talking about the blue-collar workers) how good they have it.
I compare my upbringing in the States (we lived in France for a year when I was young and it just wasn't for me) and life is far easier on the blue-collar worker in the US if you could find a decent job.
An uncle of mine spent 4 years out of work (machinist) before he found a new job in France. My father worked in a factory in the US for 37 years. This is obviously too small a sample to be significant, but other family have had similar outcomes and difficulties. My mom (who still barely speaks english) wouldn't go back to live in France.
This is still the land of opportunity for those who are willing to work their butts off and take risks. The only thing I wish we had in the US is universal healthcare. It's coming, when the republicans manage to lose congress in 2018.
So yeah, if you're rich a rich hipster, Europe might be "better."
I'll keep my guns, my F150, and my 4,000 square foot (372 sq. meter) house, merci beaucoup.
"so they already look half-dead — order coffee and a croissant, both of which are fairly tasteless"
Sorry, but there are plenty of places where croissants don't suck (give Wegmans a try) - and I'd be hard-pressed to believe that those major US cities don't have bakeries run/owned by real frenchmen.
"Everything I consume in the States is of a vastly, abysmally lower quality. Every single thing. The food,"
Really? Everytime I go to europe, the meat tastes like crap in comparison to US-raised meat, it's tough as a shoe-sole and it's overpriced.
"So my quality of life — despite all my privileges..."
There you have it, this guy has homes in London AND New York. Ask the average EU citizen (I'm not talking about techies, I'm talking about the blue-collar workers) how good they have it.
I compare my upbringing in the States (we lived in France for a year when I was young and it just wasn't for me) and life is far easier on the blue-collar worker in the US if you could find a decent job.
An uncle of mine spent 4 years out of work (machinist) before he found a new job in France. My father worked in a factory in the US for 37 years. This is obviously too small a sample to be significant, but other family have had similar outcomes and difficulties. My mom (who still barely speaks english) wouldn't go back to live in France.
This is still the land of opportunity for those who are willing to work their butts off and take risks. The only thing I wish we had in the US is universal healthcare. It's coming, when the republicans manage to lose congress in 2018.
So yeah, if you're rich a rich hipster, Europe might be "better."
I'll keep my guns, my F150, and my 4,000 square foot (372 sq. meter) house, merci beaucoup.
Thanks for this comment.
The arrogance of this rich yuppie with homes in New York and London (my god, can you be any more of a stereotype?) comparing a densely populated continent to a mostly rural, sparsely populated nation is astounding.
I love Europe, and I collaborate with the devs out of our office in Prague all the time. I love visiting, and like the people. Half of our team would love to move here. Why?
They have kids, and they'd love to live in a place where the food (yes, even quality food) is half the price, the land is less than half the price, the culture isn't antagonistic to ambitious people, and where they can affordably run a business.
The US sucks if you're not fortunate enough to possess valuable skills. But it's pretty great for those of us who are fortunate in that sense. Not saying Europe isn't, but certain countries in the EU have policies that are outright cruel to small businesses, particularly NEW small businesses.
The arrogance of this rich yuppie with homes in New York and London (my god, can you be any more of a stereotype?) comparing a densely populated continent to a mostly rural, sparsely populated nation is astounding.
I love Europe, and I collaborate with the devs out of our office in Prague all the time. I love visiting, and like the people. Half of our team would love to move here. Why?
They have kids, and they'd love to live in a place where the food (yes, even quality food) is half the price, the land is less than half the price, the culture isn't antagonistic to ambitious people, and where they can affordably run a business.
The US sucks if you're not fortunate enough to possess valuable skills. But it's pretty great for those of us who are fortunate in that sense. Not saying Europe isn't, but certain countries in the EU have policies that are outright cruel to small businesses, particularly NEW small businesses.
Having spent extensive time in NYC and London, I don't understand how someone with the money to eat out all the time (like someone with homes in both obviously would) can say that the US loses out on quality of food. Having been all over the world, without hesitation, I would say that New York City is the best city in the world for food. It doesn't have the most Michelin stars, but the everyday options for people eating out are phenomenal, and the diversity is unmatched. Nowhere else in the world can you go and get so many different types of food that are well prepared. You can't do it in London. You can't do it in Berlin. You can't do it in Tokyo. You can't do it in Hong Kong. You can't do it in Paris. Hell, food diversity in Houston is better than all of those other cities. Why? Because America is a lot more diverse than Europe in general. In absolution population, the US has more minorities than Europe on the whole, despite having half the population - the relative amount is double!
And that's also why I immediately am so skeptical on the claims about things like art, etc, as well. There's far fewer cultures having an input on them, and things like art are elevated by having a diversity of influences and influxes of ideas.
And that's also why I immediately am so skeptical on the claims about things like art, etc, as well. There's far fewer cultures having an input on them, and things like art are elevated by having a diversity of influences and influxes of ideas.
I posted this comment but this does echo what I've heard from other European expats. Certain industrial nations in Europe have more security (health care, welfare) than the US, but the US has opportunity.
I can't say Im one the same page about availability of guns and all the gas guzzling vehicles, but otherwise making Europe into some workers utopia is utterly ridiculous.
The most recent conversations about that issue was with a Frenchman who told me that seniority and hierarchy is very inflexible in Europe. There are a lot of people who are bad at their jobs but have a good position and will hold on to it for quite some time. No one ever loses their job for being terrible at it. And it makes it difficult for young people to move up the ladder where that ladder is.
And I found it very interesting that I read an article about the making of the American version of the Office versus the UK version. Ricky Gervais said specifically that the character of Michael had to be good at his job. This was due to the fact that in the US if you were as bad at your job in the US as Ricky was in the UK Version of the Office you'd be fired. It seems to be a common theme of the handful of French people I've met - there are a lot of laggards with high level positions in France.
I can't say Im one the same page about availability of guns and all the gas guzzling vehicles, but otherwise making Europe into some workers utopia is utterly ridiculous.
The most recent conversations about that issue was with a Frenchman who told me that seniority and hierarchy is very inflexible in Europe. There are a lot of people who are bad at their jobs but have a good position and will hold on to it for quite some time. No one ever loses their job for being terrible at it. And it makes it difficult for young people to move up the ladder where that ladder is.
And I found it very interesting that I read an article about the making of the American version of the Office versus the UK version. Ricky Gervais said specifically that the character of Michael had to be good at his job. This was due to the fact that in the US if you were as bad at your job in the US as Ricky was in the UK Version of the Office you'd be fired. It seems to be a common theme of the handful of French people I've met - there are a lot of laggards with high level positions in France.
> I can't say Im one the same page about availability of guns and all the gas guzzling vehicles
I work from home, so I consume far less gasoline than the neighbor across the street that has a Chevy Volt ;)
As for firearms, to each his own. I've lived in places in the US where they're very restrictive and now I live in a place where it's quite the opposite. I'd much rather have the choice, than have it made for me.
All I've ever heard from family in France/Italy is that it's basically impossible to get fired for incompetence.
I work from home, so I consume far less gasoline than the neighbor across the street that has a Chevy Volt ;)
As for firearms, to each his own. I've lived in places in the US where they're very restrictive and now I live in a place where it's quite the opposite. I'd much rather have the choice, than have it made for me.
All I've ever heard from family in France/Italy is that it's basically impossible to get fired for incompetence.
My understanding is that it's easier to get a culturally homogenous population to buy into economic collectivism, vs. a culturally diverse population. E.g. the migrant "problem" that the EU is dealing with--last I checked, most of Europe wasn't stumbling over themselves to provide social services to all of their recent arrivals...
I'm not sure how that's relevant. The US is remarkably homogeneous for its size
Ameericans do realize how unhappy they are. There's an epidemic of opiate addiction.
That unhappiness is the result of many things: major changes in the job market leaving millions without opportunities, the collapse of hundreds of small towns and communities, the disintegration of the nuclear family, etc.
Ironically, materially, Americans are much better off than they were decades ago, but all that material prosperity has left people unsatisfied.
In my opinion the problem goes much deeper than this, as Augustine said:
> You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it rests in you.
But the inadequacy of consumerism is maybe more clear.
That unhappiness is the result of many things: major changes in the job market leaving millions without opportunities, the collapse of hundreds of small towns and communities, the disintegration of the nuclear family, etc.
Ironically, materially, Americans are much better off than they were decades ago, but all that material prosperity has left people unsatisfied.
In my opinion the problem goes much deeper than this, as Augustine said:
> You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it rests in you.
But the inadequacy of consumerism is maybe more clear.
Non-medical opiate use is up double digits in Europe as well. The opiate epidemic is coming to Europe. There's more to it than "life is hard".
I think you refer to this article: The Opioid Epidemic Hits The European Union [1]. Note that the title of that article contradicts the contents though. There is a big difference between the current opioid epidemic in the US, and an 'increase in non-medical drug use for prescription painkillers'.. One of the researchers is even quoted to say: "We can learn much from the E.U. in terms of how to prescribe opioids in the context of a national healthcare system"
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/cjarlotta/2016/08/09/high-rates...
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/cjarlotta/2016/08/09/high-rates...
>pick up some mass-produced groceries, full of toxins and colourings and GMOs
Seriously? This is an absurd exaggeration. For one thing, GMOs are safe, and EU policy on them is utterly backwards. For another, this is some transparent application of the "natural food is safer" fallacy. Food here isn't "full of toxins", that's mythology invented to support the bottom line of "organic" grocers -- there are occasional issues, but those also happen in Europe. And food colorings are much less dangerous than, say, sugar. But Europe has fake olive oil and the infamous practice of dumping substandard products in Hungary and other poor countries and probably some other problems I'm not aware of because I'm not a propagandist.
Should we have a better healthcare system? Absolutely. Everything else in this article is mostly an issue of lifestyle preference and ideology.
Seriously? This is an absurd exaggeration. For one thing, GMOs are safe, and EU policy on them is utterly backwards. For another, this is some transparent application of the "natural food is safer" fallacy. Food here isn't "full of toxins", that's mythology invented to support the bottom line of "organic" grocers -- there are occasional issues, but those also happen in Europe. And food colorings are much less dangerous than, say, sugar. But Europe has fake olive oil and the infamous practice of dumping substandard products in Hungary and other poor countries and probably some other problems I'm not aware of because I'm not a propagandist.
Should we have a better healthcare system? Absolutely. Everything else in this article is mostly an issue of lifestyle preference and ideology.
The author's bland food, bland commute, bland coffee and bland entertainment options can easily be fixed by money.
America's got the choices, they are expensive because they are not subsidized the same ways or at all.
America's got the choices, they are expensive because they are not subsidized the same ways or at all.
I think this is an indeed an unfair jeremiad (despite its disclaimer) yet it does make a correct point.
The overall objectives in the US are different. So in most countries, for example, a transportation system is designed to move people around. So a train line can run to an airport,for example. In most US cities its goals are seemingly different (spend as little as possible, regardless of externalities? Punish people who can't afford a car? Make a political point? It's never clear).
The transaction costs (both in time as well as actual $) of the most routine things are higher. So yes the taxes are lower but overall costs (the difference between total and disposable income) usually end up higher.
I do love working in the USA, and have done so for the majority of my (35+y) working life. The people are friendly (as they typically are most places). But day to day life in the US is a drag compared to life in other wealthy countries (I have lived and worked for years in Australia, Asia and Europe).
Part of my objection to that article is that things are more alike than they are different. Cartels can exert control to maintain rents (taxi unions, for example -- my train example isn't quite as cut and dried as I made out).
And in in the US when there's a difficult political dispute both sides typically battle it out, and amp it up, making resolution harder and fostering public cynicism and apathy. In Europe when there's a difficult political dispute both sides typically make a muddle, kicking the ball down the street and hoping the problem will go away, making resolution harder and fostering public cynicism and apathy. In the parts of Asia where I lived, when there's a difficult political dispute nothing really happens unless someone is strong enough to simply make a decision (a strongman perhaps, or the bureaucracy) which isn't particularly democratic and fosters, at best, public cynicism and apathy.
The overall objectives in the US are different. So in most countries, for example, a transportation system is designed to move people around. So a train line can run to an airport,for example. In most US cities its goals are seemingly different (spend as little as possible, regardless of externalities? Punish people who can't afford a car? Make a political point? It's never clear).
The transaction costs (both in time as well as actual $) of the most routine things are higher. So yes the taxes are lower but overall costs (the difference between total and disposable income) usually end up higher.
I do love working in the USA, and have done so for the majority of my (35+y) working life. The people are friendly (as they typically are most places). But day to day life in the US is a drag compared to life in other wealthy countries (I have lived and worked for years in Australia, Asia and Europe).
Part of my objection to that article is that things are more alike than they are different. Cartels can exert control to maintain rents (taxi unions, for example -- my train example isn't quite as cut and dried as I made out).
And in in the US when there's a difficult political dispute both sides typically battle it out, and amp it up, making resolution harder and fostering public cynicism and apathy. In Europe when there's a difficult political dispute both sides typically make a muddle, kicking the ball down the street and hoping the problem will go away, making resolution harder and fostering public cynicism and apathy. In the parts of Asia where I lived, when there's a difficult political dispute nothing really happens unless someone is strong enough to simply make a decision (a strongman perhaps, or the bureaucracy) which isn't particularly democratic and fosters, at best, public cynicism and apathy.
I've moved between countries with different work habits and cultures a few years ago. In the old country, I arrived in the office in the morning and routinely stayed there until 10 or 11; in the new, work shuttle made sure that I never stayed in the office longer than 8 hours. Instead of weekends of crunch time, I got labour laws. Instead of everybody around me constantly talking about work, I got relaxed people going to the beach every day, discussing art, just "living the life".
For a couple of years, it was a great, relaxing experience. But on the third year I travelled back for a few days to realize that I miss it like hell - and moved back a month later.
As I'm typing this, I have worked two weeks of crunch time without weekend, in the office late in the evening. For the holidays (which are government mandated off-days), everybody's going on away on vacation, while I'll be coming back to office to finally work on a new thing in silence. I'm full of energy drinks, coffee and sleep deprivation.
I chose this. Not everybody wants a relaxed life. I will die in about 50 years, and I have even less productive ones - I want to spend them making something, not waste them relaxing, lying around. I'm happy like this.
May be that's what's special about America, too?
For a couple of years, it was a great, relaxing experience. But on the third year I travelled back for a few days to realize that I miss it like hell - and moved back a month later.
As I'm typing this, I have worked two weeks of crunch time without weekend, in the office late in the evening. For the holidays (which are government mandated off-days), everybody's going on away on vacation, while I'll be coming back to office to finally work on a new thing in silence. I'm full of energy drinks, coffee and sleep deprivation.
I chose this. Not everybody wants a relaxed life. I will die in about 50 years, and I have even less productive ones - I want to spend them making something, not waste them relaxing, lying around. I'm happy like this.
May be that's what's special about America, too?
Sure, it's a great place for workaholics in just the way you describe.
I have only been in US for two weeks in my life, so I don't really know much about this. But different countries are different, people living in them value different things, and they optimize their lives for different values.
So, may be it's a national character of people living in this country, and an attempt to make it more like other counties with other cultures may be a little misplaced?
So, may be it's a national character of people living in this country, and an attempt to make it more like other counties with other cultures may be a little misplaced?
Okay, I travel a lot between the US and Europe (primarily Berlin, Frankfurt and London) and also between the US and Asia (primarily Japan, India and Bangkok). I have had my choice in where to live, and I would live in the USA every time.
American exceptionalism isn't a myth, it's a thing. But it has both positive and negative side effects. The positive side effects are a big reason why America still dominates the computer science world - empowering individuals results in innovation, freedom to experiment, freedom to fail (this in particular is lacking in the rest of the world) and freedom to chart your own path. Obviously, this is a range, it's not a binary switch, but over and over, I consistantly see American engineers take risks and try things that their foreign counterparts don't often do. Of course, as with everything, individuals differ, but opportunity exists here. This matters - Americans routinely identify as happier, less prone to suicide, and have higher productivity.
The second factor that this author seems blind to is that the rest of the world has become more and more American - not just western, but American. This is often sad, the difference between walking down Sukhumvit in Bangkok even five years ago - with the tuk-tuks and ethnic celebrations and baht's in the pocket - versus listening to rap, catching a uber from the airport, and using your US credit card is pronounced. But in general, Americanization (under the name globalization) has resulted world wide in a world that is kinder, more inclusive, more humane, less people dying of war & starvation etc. There is a result of the post-war strategy that American embraced and led the world on (and is now turning it's back on with Trump). The fact that Europe can focus on it's own prosperity and not the never-ending regional conflicts is built on Winston Churchill's call for "A united states of Europe" and the security of NATO.
Now are there things that should be much better then they are? Obviously yes. Health care is a obvious one. But again, that also ignores the fact that Americans are basically fronting the R&D cost for almost all of the world right now. We have to improve this. We have to improve income disparity, but without going through the devesation that collectivist systems can impose. We have to relearn how to compromise, and return to the first principles of democracy. But this article is mostly the typical European-exceptionalism ;-)
American exceptionalism isn't a myth, it's a thing. But it has both positive and negative side effects. The positive side effects are a big reason why America still dominates the computer science world - empowering individuals results in innovation, freedom to experiment, freedom to fail (this in particular is lacking in the rest of the world) and freedom to chart your own path. Obviously, this is a range, it's not a binary switch, but over and over, I consistantly see American engineers take risks and try things that their foreign counterparts don't often do. Of course, as with everything, individuals differ, but opportunity exists here. This matters - Americans routinely identify as happier, less prone to suicide, and have higher productivity.
The second factor that this author seems blind to is that the rest of the world has become more and more American - not just western, but American. This is often sad, the difference between walking down Sukhumvit in Bangkok even five years ago - with the tuk-tuks and ethnic celebrations and baht's in the pocket - versus listening to rap, catching a uber from the airport, and using your US credit card is pronounced. But in general, Americanization (under the name globalization) has resulted world wide in a world that is kinder, more inclusive, more humane, less people dying of war & starvation etc. There is a result of the post-war strategy that American embraced and led the world on (and is now turning it's back on with Trump). The fact that Europe can focus on it's own prosperity and not the never-ending regional conflicts is built on Winston Churchill's call for "A united states of Europe" and the security of NATO.
Now are there things that should be much better then they are? Obviously yes. Health care is a obvious one. But again, that also ignores the fact that Americans are basically fronting the R&D cost for almost all of the world right now. We have to improve this. We have to improve income disparity, but without going through the devesation that collectivist systems can impose. We have to relearn how to compromise, and return to the first principles of democracy. But this article is mostly the typical European-exceptionalism ;-)
Another one of these, "Europe is sooooooo much better than the US." articles.
I love how he compares the some of the worst US cities to some the best European cities. All the while ignoring the issues those European cities are currently facing (mounting debt, exit from the European Union, mass immigration) while highlighting all the bad things in the US cities he cherry picks to prove his points.
I wonder if the author has ever been the Northwest. Has he ever been to Washington? Oregon, Idaho, or Colorado? I have and they're all amazing states with many, many cities with their own little cultures and laid back lifestyles. The scenery is second to none, the air clean, the people incredibly hospitable.
I won't dissect the entire article, but when you're cherry picking statistics to prove your points (most of which are subjective and not even factual) it's easy to say how much more awesome Europe is.
I love how he compares the some of the worst US cities to some the best European cities. All the while ignoring the issues those European cities are currently facing (mounting debt, exit from the European Union, mass immigration) while highlighting all the bad things in the US cities he cherry picks to prove his points.
I wonder if the author has ever been the Northwest. Has he ever been to Washington? Oregon, Idaho, or Colorado? I have and they're all amazing states with many, many cities with their own little cultures and laid back lifestyles. The scenery is second to none, the air clean, the people incredibly hospitable.
I won't dissect the entire article, but when you're cherry picking statistics to prove your points (most of which are subjective and not even factual) it's easy to say how much more awesome Europe is.
I'm sure the baker who made your croissant didn't go into work until 9am....
Did this post get flagged? It currently has 83 points in 53 minutes, yet it is on page 4 at rank 112. Just curious. It currently does not have [flagged] next to it.
For some context, I travel about 20% of the time for work. While the amount of that that is international varies from year to ear, it's usually the majority of said travel. I've been to every continent on the planet, except for Antartica. My opinion here is not formed by lack of exposure.
While I generally try to avoid talking like this on HN, I don't see how to avoid it here:
The author of this piece is a pretentious asshole. Basically every premise he argues is wrong or purely opinion based. Taking a quick look at his Medium post history, this sort of article seems to be his bread and butter of writing subjects, as well.
Some people have to work earlier than 9 or 10am in these countries. (Who does he think is making the trains run and brewing the coffee he drinks? Do they not count as people working?) Plenty of people in the US don't have to work until 9 or 10. Plenty of people go home at 5 in the US.
US food tastes worse? Man, I've been to London. I've been to Berlin. Two of his examples. I've had a variety of food at each. Were their non-chain cafes and restaurants better than some of the US chains? Sure. Were they better than non-chain cafes and restaurants in the US? No. And the US has EVERYWHERE else beat on food diversity. Not a single city in Europe can hold a candle to the food diversity you get in New York City, Los Angeles, or even Houston. With average quality being similar at non-chains, and the absolute diversity being significantly better in the US compared to anywhere else in the world, the American diner that wants to eat more than Chile's or Applebee's or whatever is in a better position than the average diner in the UK. On the top end, in the Michelin world, I don't think there's a clear winner, but having eaten at a variety of 3 star places in the US and abroad, I can say it's comparable.
You can't watch documentaries on US TV? Completely false. You can't watch Swedish crime noir? Well, probably true. But we're also living in a post-cable world. Things like Netflix and other streaming services open up much more global access to media. And the idea that America is incapable of producing quality and interesting media is insane.
Fashion, art, etc? All somehow objectively worse in America? The suppositions here are just blatantly influenced by personal opinion.
I don't think America is the best at everything in the world. Basically everywhere I've spent time internationally - and some of that is a lot of time! - there are specific things that I think are done better than their American counterpart. But I can also point at things that are done worse. Even things that people laud a country for. People act like Germany has the best beer in the world - yet from an objective standpoint they have been largely at a creative standstill for more than a century. America is clearly at the forefront of craft beer, experimenting more, creating more, doing more and better than anywhere else. And beer might seem like a silly thing to measure anything by, but this whole article kicked off by talking about coffee, so whatever.
He pulls out one statistic that he can prove - life expectancy - and then lists a string of others stating that they are the same. Some of them are so vague as to be meaningless - America is statistically worse at "stress" - what does that mean? Others, you look, and sure enough, America isn't on top. But then you look at something else. Japan is #1 in Life Expectancy - but then press freedom, another one of the things the author is championing as an important measurement, Japan is significantly worse than the US. Or the UK is ranked basically the equivalent. Quality of democracy? The US ranks higher than portions of the EU, lower than some, but the absolute quality is so similar that the first 30 points in ranking are largely indistinguishable.
There are things wrong with America. There are very few things I can say that I think America is best at - though there are some!
But it's a pretty good place to live. And if you look at the balance of all of these important rankings, the US averages out pretty well, because while it isn't topping any of them, it'w consistently good to okay at worst, whereas some other countries that are exemplary of some of what he claims as important have crazy swings on their rankings and are terrible at others. The US ranks higher in happiness than the majority of the EU. It ranks lower in suicide rates. If we're going to look at specific sets of statistics, are these not important too?
If this article was "Why don't Americans understand that they're not the world leaders on every single aspect of life", it would make sense. The US could do with understanding that it is a world leader in very few things. That there is a lot of room for improvement. But the idea that life on average is so much worse in America than it is in the rest of the world is stupid.
While I generally try to avoid talking like this on HN, I don't see how to avoid it here:
The author of this piece is a pretentious asshole. Basically every premise he argues is wrong or purely opinion based. Taking a quick look at his Medium post history, this sort of article seems to be his bread and butter of writing subjects, as well.
Some people have to work earlier than 9 or 10am in these countries. (Who does he think is making the trains run and brewing the coffee he drinks? Do they not count as people working?) Plenty of people in the US don't have to work until 9 or 10. Plenty of people go home at 5 in the US.
US food tastes worse? Man, I've been to London. I've been to Berlin. Two of his examples. I've had a variety of food at each. Were their non-chain cafes and restaurants better than some of the US chains? Sure. Were they better than non-chain cafes and restaurants in the US? No. And the US has EVERYWHERE else beat on food diversity. Not a single city in Europe can hold a candle to the food diversity you get in New York City, Los Angeles, or even Houston. With average quality being similar at non-chains, and the absolute diversity being significantly better in the US compared to anywhere else in the world, the American diner that wants to eat more than Chile's or Applebee's or whatever is in a better position than the average diner in the UK. On the top end, in the Michelin world, I don't think there's a clear winner, but having eaten at a variety of 3 star places in the US and abroad, I can say it's comparable.
You can't watch documentaries on US TV? Completely false. You can't watch Swedish crime noir? Well, probably true. But we're also living in a post-cable world. Things like Netflix and other streaming services open up much more global access to media. And the idea that America is incapable of producing quality and interesting media is insane.
Fashion, art, etc? All somehow objectively worse in America? The suppositions here are just blatantly influenced by personal opinion.
I don't think America is the best at everything in the world. Basically everywhere I've spent time internationally - and some of that is a lot of time! - there are specific things that I think are done better than their American counterpart. But I can also point at things that are done worse. Even things that people laud a country for. People act like Germany has the best beer in the world - yet from an objective standpoint they have been largely at a creative standstill for more than a century. America is clearly at the forefront of craft beer, experimenting more, creating more, doing more and better than anywhere else. And beer might seem like a silly thing to measure anything by, but this whole article kicked off by talking about coffee, so whatever.
He pulls out one statistic that he can prove - life expectancy - and then lists a string of others stating that they are the same. Some of them are so vague as to be meaningless - America is statistically worse at "stress" - what does that mean? Others, you look, and sure enough, America isn't on top. But then you look at something else. Japan is #1 in Life Expectancy - but then press freedom, another one of the things the author is championing as an important measurement, Japan is significantly worse than the US. Or the UK is ranked basically the equivalent. Quality of democracy? The US ranks higher than portions of the EU, lower than some, but the absolute quality is so similar that the first 30 points in ranking are largely indistinguishable.
There are things wrong with America. There are very few things I can say that I think America is best at - though there are some!
But it's a pretty good place to live. And if you look at the balance of all of these important rankings, the US averages out pretty well, because while it isn't topping any of them, it'w consistently good to okay at worst, whereas some other countries that are exemplary of some of what he claims as important have crazy swings on their rankings and are terrible at others. The US ranks higher in happiness than the majority of the EU. It ranks lower in suicide rates. If we're going to look at specific sets of statistics, are these not important too?
If this article was "Why don't Americans understand that they're not the world leaders on every single aspect of life", it would make sense. The US could do with understanding that it is a world leader in very few things. That there is a lot of room for improvement. But the idea that life on average is so much worse in America than it is in the rest of the world is stupid.
As a German living in the US, I wholeheartedly agree with this article, especially the bit about everything being somewhat lower quality.
And despite the lower quality, things usually are considerably more expensive anyway. If I might just add one more example: housing. Rent prices in the U.S. are generally about twice what they are in Germany for comparable units, and yet the houses here are incredibly flimsy (walls made out of plywood and windows without proper insulation - you just don't see that in Germany) for anyone but the upper class.
And if the comments here are any indicator, the article is also right about the fact that Americans are never even going to realize how poor the quality of life is in comparison to Europe. Instead, they just placate themselves with myths about collectivism, socialism or communism in Europe (none of those are even remotely a thing).
Which is all the more heartbreaking because there are some things about the US that I absolutely love.
And despite the lower quality, things usually are considerably more expensive anyway. If I might just add one more example: housing. Rent prices in the U.S. are generally about twice what they are in Germany for comparable units, and yet the houses here are incredibly flimsy (walls made out of plywood and windows without proper insulation - you just don't see that in Germany) for anyone but the upper class.
And if the comments here are any indicator, the article is also right about the fact that Americans are never even going to realize how poor the quality of life is in comparison to Europe. Instead, they just placate themselves with myths about collectivism, socialism or communism in Europe (none of those are even remotely a thing).
Which is all the more heartbreaking because there are some things about the US that I absolutely love.
Your claims are not backed by reality.
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Germany/Uni...
You can dive into each individual metric, but the purchasing power is probably the single best one to look at for determining how economically empowered people are, and the US is significantly better than Germany - 2nd in the world, in fact, beaten only by Switzerland.
Looking at housing in particular, "Double" is flat out incorrect for rent prices. In the US it is a bit higher, but only about 10%. Double IS correct for purchasing housing... but in the opposite direction of what you're claiming.
If you went from living outside of the city in Germany to living inside a major city in the US, then yeah, I could see things being more expensive, but comparing the two countries against each other, it's just completely incorrect.
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Germany/Uni...
You can dive into each individual metric, but the purchasing power is probably the single best one to look at for determining how economically empowered people are, and the US is significantly better than Germany - 2nd in the world, in fact, beaten only by Switzerland.
Looking at housing in particular, "Double" is flat out incorrect for rent prices. In the US it is a bit higher, but only about 10%. Double IS correct for purchasing housing... but in the opposite direction of what you're claiming.
If you went from living outside of the city in Germany to living inside a major city in the US, then yeah, I could see things being more expensive, but comparing the two countries against each other, it's just completely incorrect.
I will concede that you make some good points, however:
These statistics simplify things a little because they rely on measures of central tendency - mostly the mean, from what I can tell. Purchasing power is the best example of that. Yes, salaries in the U.S. are on average higher than in Europe, even Germany. However, as we all know, the mean is heavily influenced by extreme values, which occur far more often in the US due to greater inequality. So yes, you can buy more with the average salary, but there are less people who have an average salary.
As for the housing stuff: Yes, 'double' was probably an exaggeration (it just happened to be true in my case - although I'm not living anywhere near a major city). However, depending on the size of the apartment, the stats you posted show that the difference can be up to 35%, and as I said, the SIZE of the apartment doesn't necessarily correlate with quality. Apartments and houses can more easily be bigger in the US because there is more space.
You are correct that some things are more expensive in Europe. Buying houses, definitely (although it also depends on the country, Germany is a particularly extreme example in that regard (so is the US, though)). However, it doesn't always work out that way. For example, the metrics you posted show that power is 40% more expensive in Germany. That does reflect my own experience. HOWEVER, appliances etc. here in the US are often so crappy (i.e. power hungry), that in the end, you somehow end up paying more anyway.
On paper, the US compares pretty well against Europe in terms of standards of living, but my experience is that in practice, this is only true for people from the upper middle class onward.
These statistics simplify things a little because they rely on measures of central tendency - mostly the mean, from what I can tell. Purchasing power is the best example of that. Yes, salaries in the U.S. are on average higher than in Europe, even Germany. However, as we all know, the mean is heavily influenced by extreme values, which occur far more often in the US due to greater inequality. So yes, you can buy more with the average salary, but there are less people who have an average salary.
As for the housing stuff: Yes, 'double' was probably an exaggeration (it just happened to be true in my case - although I'm not living anywhere near a major city). However, depending on the size of the apartment, the stats you posted show that the difference can be up to 35%, and as I said, the SIZE of the apartment doesn't necessarily correlate with quality. Apartments and houses can more easily be bigger in the US because there is more space.
You are correct that some things are more expensive in Europe. Buying houses, definitely (although it also depends on the country, Germany is a particularly extreme example in that regard (so is the US, though)). However, it doesn't always work out that way. For example, the metrics you posted show that power is 40% more expensive in Germany. That does reflect my own experience. HOWEVER, appliances etc. here in the US are often so crappy (i.e. power hungry), that in the end, you somehow end up paying more anyway.
On paper, the US compares pretty well against Europe in terms of standards of living, but my experience is that in practice, this is only true for people from the upper middle class onward.
For the record I've met quite a few Europeans (French and Germans) and I've asked them about what compelled them to come to the US. At times it does seem like Europe is a less stressful place to live. And the answer I get typically amounts to this;
"In France (or Germany or UK) security is much better than the US. But the opportunity in the US is much better."
I find it strange to mention Spain, and really all the PIIGS nations who not long ago were in financial dire straits and Greece has still not escaped.
The lack of a decent safety net in the US scares the crap out of me. The richest nation in the world should not have this poor a safety net. But to make Europe seem like some workers paradise is laughable.