Hacker News Reader

Comment by TallGuyShort | Hacker News Reader

It's refreshing to click on a headline in the form of a question and have the article explain why it's the right question to be asking, and not just following Betteridge's Law. I lived in New Zealand for about 5 or 6 years, and I saw huge numbers of people just living on welfare because they could - that's probably got a lot to do with low GDP. Normally, I would see that as a bad thing, but I think New Zealand's relative lack of corruption and the friendly disposition of almost everyone illustrates there is more to life than productivity, and the results of the atmosphere and culture speak for themselves. As fiscally conservative as I may be, I had to admire that. Additionally, I hate frivolous lawsuits, and having the government compensate you so readily for injuries really seemed to reduce the way people would resort to "just sue them". Perhaps there's moral hazard and I'm not smart enough to know how one would quantify that, but again - I had to admire that.

View on HN

A good friend of mine studied abroad in Australia, and then met and moved in with a Kiwi and then lived in New Zealand with him for a while.

He has now moved to the US with her. Her brother is a good friend of mine, and is incredibly irritated with his lack of drive and motivation. I've hiked with the guy, and I don't think he's lazy at all. He just doesn't value money, and his view on life is that he's going to teach school, and do whatever it takes to make his lifestyle match his income, rather than the other way around.

He told me that this is a cultural thing in New Zealand. Nobody pressures you to achieve a certain level of material success. The view is that if you are self-sufficient, then you've arrived. Nobody judges you for not being a "good provider."

Me, as an American, I envy this. I have tremendous pressure from my extended family to make money, so I do. (Plus, in this country, you can't have a decent school system and/or health insurance unless you have a good job)

There's also the related phenomenon that in the US, the rich are in the spotlight of society and the poor are decidedly disliked.

...and those who realize they have enough ignore the rich and are out living how they want to be (camping, hiking, taking photos, etc.)

I think what you're describing is generally just known as "the middle class"

and those who realize they have enough ignore the rich

If you only could. The problem is that in the US a great portion of taxes are locally raised and spent, and the way of dealing with poverty is to price the poor out of areas where they aren't wanted.

To get access to halfway decent schools you need to move to the suburbs, and what's available there in housing is hugely outsized. You cannot save on heating, cooling, cleaning and enclosed space, nevermind the commute, because that economic option does not exist. So you bite the bullet with everyone else and you cannot choose not to play the game.

I'm not sure you can't get halfway decent public schools in the cities, but they tend to be local to wealthier neighborhoods. And suburbs in the area I'm from tend to at least have apartments and townhomes, which are a nice middle ground (at least as far as saving on heating, cooling, cleaning, space, cost). The commute still sucks, of course.

In NYC at least, you don't have to live in a pricey neighborhood in order to get your kid into a good public high school. Your kid will, however, have to do well on a standardized test.

"Locally raised and spent"

If only. That would be a great form of funding community governance. Where local communities help themselves up, instead of practically begging for scraps from a wealthy government that really doesn't care until it gets them votes.

Change has to come from within. And it won't come so long as people think like you. i.e. "Change can come when funding comes from better places" Which completely ignores the real problems and real difficulties facing real people in those places you seem to not want to live in. Ask yourself why you don't want to live there.

Local funding means wealthy neighborhoods are lavished with infrastructure, and can provide top of the line schooling and opportunities for their precious offspring.

Meanwhile any child unlucky enough to grow up poor is greated with decay and dysfunction at every turn, is never given the education nor the opportunities to succeed, or have interests much above basic survival. Upward mobility is basically zero. Welcome to feudal America.

Property taxes are very regressive in the sense that rich people typically live with other rich people. Ghettos and shanty towns are a direct result of thinking such as yours.

Ah yes, so it's my fault that groups of individuals decided to not take care of their neighborhood, right. Sorry, no, but people need to take responsibility for their own actions. And I will in no way share blame for a second generation further ruining their kids' futures because they're too short-sighted and expect the rest of us to do it for them.

We as a society can only share blame for one generation. The next one is on the parents.

Wow, so its poor people fault they and their children and their children's children remain poor. That is very libercrazian of you.

Downvote for name-calling. HN doesn't need that.

No, I'm saying it's the parents' fault for their children remaining poor. Or did you not read anything I wrote and just blatantly jumped to conclusions?

As someone who has come from a poor family, I know full well what sacrifice and hard work can do to uplift your children's prospects in the world. Even if that means drastic life changes. And as a consequence of that, I will not accept peoples' excuses for remaining in poverty. Nor will I share the blame for their failings.

> If you only could

I, and many people I know are doing it. Of course, like anything worth doing, it takes hard work and dedication, but it certainly can be done.

I would disagree that "poor are decidedly disliked" here as a rule. There are plenty of "poor" that are accepted, liked and even esteemed. Think of the starving artists, musicians, olympic athletes, working class poor, the startup set, etc. There is dislike for the poor that resort to crime, thuggery, drugs etc. At least this is how I see it from my middle class perspective.

> Think of the starving artists, musicians, olympic athletes, working class poor, the startup set, etc

Maybe you are right and I am just cynical. But I have felt that some of these groups (with the exception of working class poor) are tolerated because of their success potential than for their status as individuals. And even with that a large number of people appear to disdainful of unsuccessful people in these fields.

And about the only people who seem to like the working class poor are politicians who see them as a voting bloc of sorts.

the other person is wrong, the poor are definitely hated in america. they are villianized as lazy welfare queens. remember the 47 percent thing with Romney? turn on fox news for 10 minutes, John Stossel even villianizes the homeless. they also try to get rid of school lunches/food assistance for the poor.

Fox News does not represent America.

Not all of it, but not none of it either.

Be careful with the dissonance between the television narrative and reality.

Be careful with the dissonance between your social circle and "everyone".

(In this case for instance - living in the midwest puts me into contact with a very large number of people who's beliefs align nearly perfectly with the television narrative).

Meh, you lost me. Completely.

One thing you have to remember is that in general, Americans are culturally one of the most generous nations in the world. Broadly speaking, that includes foreign aid and domestic welfare as well as voluntary charity. But at that same time, the US is an industrious nation that prizes hard work. It's a fine line to walk and people fall through the cracks in the system.

Nevertheless, it's extremely uncharitable IMO to suggest that the poor are "hated" in America.

You mean the same country where the word "social" is used as a slur? Or where if somebody receives welfare they are looked down upon and called lazy?[0]

Broadly speaking, no, foreign aid given by the US is barely top 30 per capita.

[0] http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2002/AmericanAttitu...

As a % of GDP it's not actually that high.

US ranks #21 in Foreign aid and is 1/5 Sweden.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/countries-that-give-the-most-i...

Welfare # GDP US: 14.8 Sweden: 28.9

Giving we are #1 in monitary donations but it's only 1.85% of GDP in the US. http://www.forbes.com/2008/12/24/america-philanthropy-income... "Based on volunteerism alone, the Netherlands comes first, followed by Sweden and then the U.S."

Still doesn't mean the poor are "hated", and it's still a vast amount of aid money.

Fox News is the most watched cable news channel, so surely their views align with some portion of America. Even if its not the majority view, its still a powerful force.

I see a lot of people, including plenty in SV, who believe the "47%" narrative and plenty more who have nothing good to say about "the poors".

I don't disagree, the dissonance comes from conflating source to truth. It was once expressed in the adage, "It must be true, I read it in the newspaper!" which of course has no such authority. And more importantly how it is true is important as well. My philosopher friends go on and on about this. Critical thinking is really helpful here, and yes there are many folks who are not critical thinkers.

what’s your point? everyone knows this. Who said I dismissed them because they were from those sources? use logic just for one second. The original person that the poor aren't looked down upon, and i responded by listing people/shows that look down on poor people. What the hell does that have to do with judging a point by its source? its a totally different subject. I agree with you, judge the logic, not the source. That's why I disagree that only women or minorities can have an opinion about issues concerning them.

That's the media for you, and not necessarily "Fox" or whatever x-wing group you seem to dislike. Fox news is only seen as "bad" because it doesn't exaggerate reality to the side that the majority like. The other news media outlets do the exact same thing, just towards the other side of the narrative.

Both sides of the media play on peoples' emotions. The real question is: are you intellectually honest enough to entertain views and thoughts for their own merit without dismissing them flatly just because "they're from Fox", "John Stossel", or "Romney".

Since the days of our founding fathers we have valued hard work and initiative and I'm glad that many of us still do. Personally I respect the working class poor and I feel that most of my peers do also, it gets sticky when efforts are made to artificially raise their positions with handouts rather than hands up. I don't think that the others are tolerated for their potential, rather esteemed for their initiative and dedication.

> Maybe you are right and I am just cynical.

IMHO it's just a bit of cynicism.

Even those who "hate the poor" here don't hate the poor, they hate the lazy. They simply equate being lazy with being poor. But if you're poor and working (or even poor but not imposing on society) then even the right-wingers I'd know of would have tons of respect.

If anything the desire for status seems to be reviled more and more in America too.

Nonsense. Starving artists and athletes like who? The esteemed poor? like the people who get lambasted for buying red bull with food stamps? Americans idolize thugs who make money (biggie smalls, chris brown, dick cheney)

I think your perspective may be out of focus.

The starving artists, musicians, olympic athletes, and startup founders are temporarily not-yet-rich.

Not having won isn't the problem, it's being satisfied and not playing the game which society shuns.

For most of those folks, temporary is going to prove to be a very long time.

I'm reminded of "Fiddler on a Roof": "It's no great shame to be poor, but it's no great honor, either."

Outside of a few possible sports, running, soccer, etc. I doubt there are more than a handful of poor athletes that are able to compete. Most Olympic activities require intensive training and use of facilities that doesn't come cheap. Hours spent training are hours not spent earning enough for food and housing, and I don't think caloric and nutritional intake from a soup kitchen would be enough to sustain an athlete.

The startup set are almost all wealthy, if not in assets then definitely in schooling, parenting, confidence. Where did all the most successful entrepreneurs grow up, go to school, what professions are their parents in. It's a pretty homogenous group really.

The poor are treated like shit in the US (and in most of the world), and their concerns and opinions mean nothing to those in power.

The fact that you characterise the artists as starving pretty much suggests that people dislike their work. That it isn't valued.

If America liked the poor it would give them money.

"Nobody pressures you to achieve a certain level of material success."

I live here in New Zealand and thats quiet true. There are 3 billionaires in NZ and almost no one knows who they are. The only guy that is living a noticeable extravagant lifestyle is Kimdotcom, but that guy's german.

Didn't James Cameron build himself a luxurious eco ranch out in wine country?

he's not a kiwi though

What about Lorde?

If someone is a bit more ambitious but still wants a mix of the aforementioned lifestyle I would recommend Australia. Much bigger population and resources and better opportunities than NZ with a good safety net that doesn't cost the government much and doesn't suffer rampant abuse. I wouldn't recommend NZ for an American, except for perhaps retirement; it would just be too tough, the isolation and small pop. would be crushing for someone used to living in a giant country of 330M consumers.

I don't know if I'd go that far. As an American who lived in NZ for a few years I got a very pacific northwest vibe from the NZ cities. If you like Portland or Seattle, Wellington is sweet as.

props for the phrase "sweet as". Made my day.

Former resident of Wellington and Auckland checking in to confirm that Seattle feels very much like a big Auckland.

Hah .. I spent the first 25 years of my life in NZ (10 years in Wellington) and have lived just outside of Seattle since 2007. I tell people that the PNW is the closest to NZ that I've seen in America, both culturally and landscape.

Portland to me feels like a smaller Melbourne. So maybe we've come full circle.

I lived in NZ (mostly Christchurch) for about a year, and I think your characterization is way too general. NZ has a similar population to Colorado (where I now live) and a similar land area. It is far away from where my family lives (and hence I am not still there), but "crushing" "isolation" it is not.

Kiwis are some of the warmest folks I have ever met. When my wife and I arrived at the airport our friends had forgotten which day we were arriving and had a 3 hour drive to get to us. The random woman who's phone we borrowed proceeded to argue with our friends over the phone about who's house we would stay at that night.

We saw similar hospitality everywhere we went. Its a stark contrast to the US.

You're selling the US short. When I was there last year, I was passing through Gettysburg, and stopped to get something to eat. You might expect a town like Gettysburg to be really over tourists, but whilst I was trying to figure out how to make a parking meter work, the first random stranger walking past offered first to give me done change, because he thought that was the problem, and then once I had explained that I was a clueless Aussie who couldn't figure out how to make the damn thing work, showed me what I was doing wrong.

Or when I was in a small town in Virginia with a friend, we were in a shop, and discussing whether the museum there would be open the next day. The shop assistant overheard and offered to call them for us. Even people in DC were wonderfully polite and friendly! So much so that I'm heading back for another holiday in a couple of weeks time.

We don't all live in crowded cities or sprawling suburbs. My neighbor has a 1/4 mile drive from his house to the road. On my street, there are only 5 houses. And this is only 10 miles outside town! A couple minutes south and the density trends towards one house per mile.

Just in case people aren't aware, this advice presumably doesn't apply to New Zealanders. We have specifically been targeted over there so that many benefits don't apply. It's rather sad - Australians qualify for benefits in New Zealand.

Fuck your family. Make money for your own reasons, or don't. It has to come from you or you'll never feel successful.

If your family invested tremendous amount to raise you and send you to a good school, is it bad that they want you to be successful[0]?

[0] I think part of the issue is that in U.S. success is judged by how much money you have.

> If your family invested tremendous amount to raise you and send you to a good school, is it bad that they want you to be successful?

I have trouble here with the word "invested". There's nothing wrong with giving your children a good education, and there's nothing wrong with wanting them to be successful for themselves and on their own terms. But an "investment" is exactly the wrong way to look at it. An "investment" is something people expect a return on. Having your child do well in life is not a return to you on your "investment".

Look again at what JPKab wrote:

>> I envy [the lack of pressure in NZ]. I have tremendous pressure from my extended family to make money, so I do.

Someone who feels this way is not living their own life.

I work hard to make money and be successful too. But I don't do it because someone else wants me to. I do it because I want to, and I do it the way I want to do it. So I don't envy the bucolic New Zealand lifestyle. It's right for some people, I'm sure, but it would bore me to tears in a matter of days. (I'm not saying I couldn't live in NZ, but I would still want to do the kind of work I'm doing.)

I used strong language quite intentionally. JPKab needs to figure out what he/she really wants to do in life, and that's going to require putting an emotional wall up to block out all that pressure. It won't be easy, but the reward will be an authentic life.

furthermore we don't know if by family he means his parents, or his wife's parents, or even his wife.

example of why I wouldn't want to live in the US

It's like that where I am in eastern Canada people go out smoke weed and drink every weekend if not every night!

Most have menial jobs just enough to get by with government assistance.

Yet everyone goes to Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Mexico every year and they make nothing. I can see how all-inclusive vacations became so popular.

I work with 20-year-olds who laugh if they are sent home at work for doing something wrong or if sent home due to some issue at work. A few have travelled all over Europe, Australia, South America yet make nothing as a salary I probably make four times what they do but can't see how they can afford it let alone me.

People are OK with you if you pay your bills nobody freaks out or looks down on you if you aren't super successful or even if you don't work full-time.

Oh god, that was the most hilarious (yet accurate) description of Quebec I have ever heard... Thanks!

> I probably make four times what they do but can't see how they can afford it let alone me.

I'm sorry to break it to you but you are paying for it through taxes. Ok, that's an over-generalisation but there is some truth to it. It's very easy to get by without a salary in Quebec due to the multitude of governmental services (I recall reading that over 50% of Quebec's economy is driven by the public sector). I have a friend who is on welfare and still manages to go to Cuba every year.

Personally, I'm a fan of the attitude (not caring too much about work/money) on an individual level. For a while, I was living the 3 months freelancing / 3 months vacation lifestyle and it was great. That being said, I'm not a fan of the governmental policies which promote it at the expense of other equally admirable attitudes (e.g. entrepreneurship/hard work). It's not all fun and roses. The economy of Quebec has been suffering a lot from those "big government" policies and Quebec has now become one of the poorest province in Canada despite its abundance of natural resources and highly educated population. Of course, I implied here that there is a cause and effect between those policies and the economy but not everyone would agree with me on this. In fact, a sizeable fraction of the population (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_solidaire) actually advocates for economic degrowth... Ok, I'm definitely going off topic now.

I'm a bit farther east.

I had not heard of Betteridge's Law, so I had to look it up [0]. Given I only just became aware of it due to your comment (thank you, by the way: good comment) it feels strange to be pedantic about it, but the question in the headline is not a yes/no question and therefore seems immune to Betteridge's Law. :)

[0] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines

I went through the same exercise and came to the conclusion that the commenter just name-dropped Betteridge to sound smart. (At least that is what I would have done.)

Right - Betteridge's Law does not apply very well. My point was more that an article that presents an open question is interesting food for thought - as opposed to articles devoid of substance that seek to answer everything in their headline. Now that you know the term, look in the comments every time you see a '?' on the front page, and you'll see the law mentioned. It is not a claim to be smart, as the peer claims, it is an indication that I spend too much time on HN.

So what you're saying basically is that although the avg income is low, the quality of life is generally (way?) higher than the OECD?

I would say yes, from my experience.

I genuinely think it's time for an overhaul of how we rate standard of living. Consumption is not a good measure, and it's too closely tied to "more money means better"

Not necessarily higher but at least equal to the best. According to its HDI[1] New Zealand is ranked 6th, bellow the USA but above Japan, Switzerland and South Korea.

This is similar to the way that European countries seem to lose out to the US in wages yet when you take into account the time spend on holidays and lack of overtime you see that the gap essentially disappears.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index

Right. I used to criticize New Zealand a lot because it doesn't jive with my mind's ideas of how government should work, until a friend pointed out how much New Zealand was #1 in many areas that are considered signs of an ideal society. Makes me question my ideas :)

> I saw huge numbers of people just living on welfare because they could

Where were you living? The hardcore 'bludgers' are a minority of our welfare claimants.

Your portrayal of NZ strikes me as lopsided, considering we're working longer and longer hours : http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/7841749/No-rest-for-th...

Reminds me of the nordic countries.

Edit: Huh? Why the down vote?

because the nordic countries has showed being capable of excelebt inovation and entreprenourahip

In what sense?

The nordic countries are known for high taxes, excellent social welfare benefits, free healthcare, free education, low crime, low corruption, high quality of life and so on.

Sure they have some big companies but with a few exceptions they aren't build on innovation nor entrepreneurship. Most large companies in the nordic countries are quite old and the new ones that start there quickly move to the US, England or Asia if they want to scale.

Pretty much sounds like NZ.

Because you are so off-base

The point of the post is that NZL has 20% below OECD average GDP per capita, when it would be predicted for them to be 20% above.

The key figure is Figure 3 from http://www.productivity.govt.nz/sites/default/files/internat...

In that, you can see NZL at the far bottom right.

On the other hand, Norway, Sweden, and Finland are all above the line, meaning they have higher GDP per capita than predicted. The only nordic country below the line is Denmark, and they are barely below the line.

So, you are saying that the nordic countries are similar, but the very paper this blog post is based on shows they are not at all economically similar.

I was saying that NZ sounds like the Nordic countries. With that I meant the way it's structured.

Oil revenues make such comparisons tricky at best. You would need to consider the hypothetical case of a New Zealand with lots of oil to sell, or a Norway without any.

How exactly Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Iceland benefit anything from oil? It's only Norway that has significant oil reserves, and all other have none.

Well, there's Ikea, Nokia, and... hmm, I'm not sure what economic factors are important in Denmark and Iceland. But I'll bet they're very different than those prevailing in New Zealand, whatever they are.

Being European Union members certainly helps.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/18/how-do-you-say-n...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com