Hacker News Reader

Comment by hnthrow0287345 | Hacker News Reader

>They’re failing to save because the world is rough, and their institutions don’t do enough to help them weather it.

Well, America is rough. It turned on hardcore capitalism mode for itself because a significant portion of its population wants to try and solo socioeconomic hardships and hates any one who doesn't want the same challenge.

But not to just blame the voter, lots of money is spent for setting up systems to be amenable to acquiring more money. The very richest have correctly made a bet that uprisings to displace the wealthy and politicians just don't occur here these days, and therefore there is no real threat or need to change the way things have been going for the last 25 years or so.

View on HN

Isn't it more a cultural issue though? As a European, I think many Americans take pride and love to succeed "on their own" and accept they could "die trying" (exaggerating a bit, hence the quotes, but the feeling holds).

Yes, the systems are amenable to acquiring more money, but I would claim that all that the richest need to do is to push the idea that "anyone can make it" - which was probably (more) true 50 years ago, but is probably an illusion today (some comments at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socioeconomic_mobility_in_the_...).

Edit: I do not claim one model is better than the other; just that the culture influences the outcome more than other aspects.

Most Americans I know in my middling years are counting on the government to support them in their old age, quite the opposite that you’re exposed to via online manipulation hitpeices.

I was talking mostly about Americans I met. What might be true though is that probably I met the well off ones and between 30 and 40, which might like the idea of "we are great because we made it". But they all seemed (to me) that they were extremely focused on work (like: no particular hobbies, no knowledge of fields outside their work).

Some of my impression seems to be confirmed by data, for example (did not check in detail but I have seen similar ideas): "Even so, the average 40-hour-per-week employee in the U.S. is working 400 more hours annually — the equivalent of 10 more weeks — than employees in Germany." https://money.com/americans-work-hours-vs-europe-china/

Depends on which cohort of Americans you're talking about, but it's less that they see it as the government supporting them and more that they see it as the government "giving back what they owe." Social Security and Medicare have always been framed as something you pay into now and get back later in life, like you're lending money to the government. That's why most Americans don't view it as government support in the way Europeans do, and why they see no hypocrisy in spitting venom at "government handouts" while cashing their Social Security check and Medicare coverage.

And the government will - sortof. It is enough to eat and keep the heat on. However if you want anything other than a basic simple life (travel, hobbies...) it is easy to run out of money.

if by "culture" you mean rampant corporate propagandized media then yes. the US has historically been pretty close to europe over the last 100 years on many aspects. In the 70s there was legitimate debate about college being free. Now the debate is how much debt someone should take on. The overton window has shifted significantly since the 80s. We're now more like Russia with an entrenched oligarchy.

> Isn't it more a cultural issue though?

No. Culture is downstream of institutions.

A large part of it is originally rooted in racism if you look how the US implemented its welfare state. Many benefits were skewed towards white americans (GI Bill, right to claim land, redlining and social security). I'm sure most Americans aren't nearly as racist right now as back then but the being 'on their own' is linked to the 'don't want 'lazy' african americans to get benefits'.

How were Social Security and the GI Bill skewed towards white Americans, exactly? I haven't heard that before.

Social security had exceptions for farmworkers as well as domestic workers (which was the majority of black people at the time of creation). GI Bill had far more benefits for white Americans as they used it to join great universities in emerging fields. Black Americans mostly used it to go into trades school or underfunded black universities. Access to mortgages through the GI bill was far greater for white people.

Although most these things are better now these things have long lasting consequences for the wealth distribution in the US.

Like half of our budget goes to welfare (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Income Security, etc). https://www.usaspending.gov/explorer/budget_function

Yes, the US spends by far the most on healthcare per capita, and still gets the worst outcomes. It's not about throwing money at problems. You have to actually solve them (and want to solve them).

Instead of fixing the leaks in the plumbing we're just increasing flow rate at the top of the system. Right now the medical-industrial complex is a business that happens to provide medical services as a byproduct.

Fee for service encourages more medical intervention. It makes break-fix work more profitable than trying to address root causes. Each layer and sub-sector is for-profit. The supply of physicians is capped. Vertical integration can reduce the double margin problem. Specialists are paid more than general practitioners. Surgeries make more money than non-surgical treatment.

People expect someone else (their employer, the government, the rich) to eat the cost of healthcare. Third party payment makes patients price-insensitive. People unironically expect a cure for death. Drugs and medical devices are expected to be perfectly safe. Americans lead unhealthy lifestyles. Soda is the default drink in cafeterias and at parties. Car culture and car only infrastructure promotes physical inactivity. Kids are not allowed to roam. When there was a push to promote healthier school meals there was immense pushback.

What annoys me the most about this is I'm like 80% sure none of those programs will exist by the time I retire.

The programs will exist, the purchasing power (or quantity/quality of the benefits) will not.

https://www.whitecoatinvestor.com/social-security-is-not-goi...

This article basically says “yeah social security is not solvent and we probably won’t have a solution any time soon, and if we do have a solution it will be bad, but just don’t worry about it bro.”

I came to a different conclusion. That you should expect a 25% haircut through a combination of benefit cuts, tax increases, and not keeping up with inflation. That's bad, but Social Security is not going to entirely implode.

That’s the recommendation in the conclusion, and probably the advice I’ll follow because I don’t really have a better idea. Need to strike a balance between optimism and pessimism.

Social Security is a separate tax in a separate fund (invested in T-bonds). If you split that out of the budget, the budget looks even worse. The boomers retiring is just going to be bonds maturing without the holder (social security) reinvesting the money.

Boomers are getting way more than they ever put in.

And yet that GINI keeps rising and cost of living outpaces inflation over the past 40 years in housing, healthcare, and education. If you are bottom quintile, maybe bottom 2, you are poorer now than 40 years ago on average. Recent policy changes seek to drop the third quintile as well.

America is designed for rich people

The bottom quintile gets everything handed to them and it's still not enough. We all live at the mercy of them and their dysfunction.

Seeing an actual "Lucky Ducky!" in the wild is always a trip.

How are you at the mercy of a group with no money or power? Genuinely curious how you logic-ed your way into this tenuous and seemingly ludicrous position

They have money. It’s taken from the rest of us and given to them. The rules you follow in life will be based on the behavior of the bottom quintile, the taxes you pay are to support the bottom quintile, the greatest risks to your life and property will come from the bottom quintile, the dearth of comfortable public spaces is because you have to allow the bottom quintile to be there, our zoning laws are developed for fear of the bottom quintile.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com