I don't disagree with you that it's a factor in US economic growth, I'm just not remotely convinced that it's worth the suffering caused by it.
By which measure? Also, how is ireland any better in that regard, especially w.r.t infrastructure? Europe in general wouldn't necessarily have a better public infrastructure either, it's just that there is a lot more discussion about America and its issues (even in Europe). And I'm saying that as someone who is neither american nor European.
(Not to mention that ireland was almost a third world country until it started attracting capital with shady loopholes and lack of regulations compared to the US and Europe, which makes the comparison even weirder.)
> (Not to mention that ireland was almost a third world country until it started attracting capital with shady loopholes and lack of regulations compared to the US and Europe, which makes the comparison even weirder.)
It's significantly more nuanced than that (and the US is equally as guilty of aiding corporate tax evasion thanks to Delaware—if the US actually wanted to tax income that is currently being routed through Ireland, it could just pass a law to do so). We're definitely a tax haven, no denying that, but our infrastructure started improving well before that became the case. But that's not really relevant to the discussion, which is about employment rights.
I hear you, but I don't know where I fall on this. I think my conclusion is that the US is largely imposing this diet onto itself in a self-sacrificial way, as the price to pay to be the world's leading power, which in turn enables world peace (mostly, so far).
I have the intuition that comfortable countries (European, Canada where I'm from) only manage to have those social services because they follow in the wake of the US. And they're also much less economically dynamic.
Also I do think that the worst of US suffering is really much less worse than the suffering seen in the rest of the world, by miles. As such I think it's hard for me to conclude whether it's all worth it or not. If the US wasn't how it is, another power would rule. Would that other power be as benign and cooperative as the US has been? In current days, the alternative powers would be China, and I don't think a Chinese world power system would be better for everyone.
What improvement could the US do to its system so that it would remain dominant while also being a bit more humane? That would be a worthy goal.
I think some immediate policies that the US could introduce is universal healthcare by expanding medicaid, and work toward the elimination of student loan debt (leading to greater social mobility).
From this European’s perspective, I welcome the US’s benign power, now and historically (the Marshall plan), and agree the alternatives have always been terrible (unless, say, Canada were to step up in the event of US decline).
However, I’m not sure I would share this perspective if I were living in one of the South American countries where the US has overturned elections, or Iraq or Vietnam. US power is benign as long as you’re on their side.
We have the worlds richest rich by a mile. But we have some of the least developed infrastructure out of all the developed nations.
By what measure?