Why Don’t Americans Understand How Poor Their Lives Are?
eand.co
eand.co
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.
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.
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.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Brother_(franchise)#Histor...
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.
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.
Is there a chance that mass media tries to push one specific narrative, which does not reflect actual state?
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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!"
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'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.
And there is the difference. The US is about survival of the fittest.
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.
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"?
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.
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-...
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.
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 ;)
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.
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.
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."
https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/comments/23ar71/tem...
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.
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.
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?
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.
>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...
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.
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.
We used to know.
/United we stand, divided we fall.
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.
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?
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.)
"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.
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 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.
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.
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.
European cities are not all the same. Similarly for US cities.
Our lives are not random samples.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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...?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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).
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.
Just scroll down.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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...
American's have a very perverse idea of what 'freedom' is.
I’ve heard Canadians complain about the lack of private options awhile back, but I think even that is solved now.
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.
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.
Can we not apply the same thinking here?
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://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jun/26/uk-public-ar...
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ;-)
Going from coast-to-coast is like walking into a time machine.
(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.
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.)
> 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).
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
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.
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/cjarlotta/2016/08/09/high-rates...
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.
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.
[1] https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-whose-citizens...
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.
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.
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.
And yet Donald Trump was basically memed into office.
I think this only provides evidence for my point.
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.
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.
America's got the choices, they are expensive because they are not subsidized the same ways or at all.
The cause it seems is propaganda.
You're going to the wrong restaurants, friend
"Free" healthcare is cheaper to provide than non-free.
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.