5 ms·

As someone who was born in Australia and now lives in Amsterdam I feel like he's the most sane politician in America. I still don't understand why Americans are

As someone who was born in Australia and now lives in Amsterdam I feel like he's the most sane politician in America. I still don't understand why Americans are so insistent on keeping their "Bad for the people, good for business" policies. If you're in the 1% sure that makes sense, but for everyone else life is so much nicer with free healthcare, good vacation time, maternity leave, good public transport, proper prisoner rehabilitation, and strong welfare safety nets. Having a high GDP country is cool and all but wouldn't you want a much nicer life instead?

slg 11y ago
It all comes down to our "freedom" fetish. Why should the government force me to take 4 weeks of vacation when I can make due with 2? Why would I want to build my day around a train schedule when I could just get in my car and drive? And so on.
- grecy 11y ago
  You missed the point entirely. Just because those things are available, you are not forced to use them. You would have the best of both worlds, because you would have more choices, not less like you have now.
  - slg 11y ago
    You are asking me to defend a point that I disagree with, but as the argument goes, you pay for them regardless. Because these type of things are provided for the government, it means they are funded by tax dollars. I am therefore in a way participating in them because I have to pay for them. If I don't want 4 weeks of vacation, why should I pay for everyone else to get 4 weeks of vacation?
    - grecy 11y ago
      > If I don't want 4 weeks of vacation, why should I pay for everyone else to get 4 weeks of vacation? You want to pay for things like that because it makes your society stronger and healthier overall. You already pay for everyone to use the police, jails, firemen, roads, sidewalks, parks, libraries, courts, etc. etc. even though you probably don't use them, or use them frequently. Why do you pay for other people to use police, courts and jails? Have you ever wondered why the crime rate in the US is so high compared to developed countries? One of the reasons is because people are very desperate. They have low education, no healthcare, so safety net, so they have nothing to lose. If you had "paid" for them to have those things, those people would be happier, healthier, and you wouldn't be 10 times more likely to be murdered than I am. After 10 years in the US I went back to Australia for a few weeks and it slapped me in the face - there are very few desperate people in Australia. Even the lowest paid people have healthcare, education, own their own home and have toys like project cars. That's just one example, but you need to stop thinking about "me, me, me" and think "us, us, us"
      - slg 11y ago
        I don't disagree with you, I am just providing the general reasoning for these things.
      - Urbanxassassin 11y ago
        Good man
      - kbenson 11y ago
        > That's just one example, but you need to stop thinking about "me, me, me" and think "us, us, us" I like how that can work to further your point whether you read is as "us" or "U.S."
  - unfamiliar 11y ago
    To play devils advocate: allowing 4 weeks of paid vacation, no questions asked, will eventually be reflected in the salary as a result of economic forces. Then someone who can make do with 2 days vacation will not be able to get paid for those extra 4 weeks, even if they are willing to work them.
- xeromal 11y ago
  You are kind of simplifying it to make it seem more stupid than it already is. My dad would be annoyed that he has to pay for all this "extra" stuff in order to grow his business. Simple as that. He believes that the big companies already provide some semblance of benefits so really the only people hurt are the people with small businesses. You can go get another job if you don't like it.
  - slg 11y ago
    I wrote it somewhat tongue in check from the employee's perspective. No one would refuse being offered more vacation. However, like you said people don't want to be forced to offer and/or pay for that vacation. The belief is if people really want the vacation, the free market will force employers to give that vacation and therefore any government requirement is either not needed or overly onerous. It is a simplification, but when combined with Cold War fallout of Capitalism v. Socialism (which is often just a softer term for Communism in this country) it explains most of the things described in the original post.
- microcolonel 11y ago
  If this would prevent my employer from rewarding me for only taking two weeks of vacation, I would argue that it'd be unconstitutional.
  - gjm11 11y ago
    What part of the constitution would it be contrary to?
alwaysAttending 11y ago
Part of it has to do with xenophobia and racism. Social Safety Net policy was more popular back when blacks were excluded. Throw in minorities, and people start singing a different tune. It's not like Europe is immune from this either. This is basically the platform of UKIP and the National Front. USA is much more diverse and has to deal with these issues up front. Except in Vermont, where the populace is 95% white. They're much more supportive of socialism. Coincidence?
- hackuser 11y ago
  A counter-example: Cities are much more diverse and much more liberal than rural areas.
  - gjm11 11y ago
    The slightly bigger picture: People become less liberal when they are aware of the existence of other people Not Like Them with whom they're sharing a country, but become more liberal when they actually interact with those people. (This is conjecture, but it seems awfully plausible and explains both the observations here.)
    - kbenson 11y ago
      I think that makes sense. When another group with (possibly) different norms has no affect on you, it's easy to ignore them. When that group can exert some effect on you, but the effect is unknown, people get scared, and act accordingly. This is exacerbated by people that like attention and/or power that will stoke these fears to further their own agenda. When that group is finally encountered, often there's understanding, a willingness to compromise where needed from both parties, and as the unknown subsides, so does much of the fear (and the power that grants those that use fear).
    - rch 11y ago
      The population density effect works against Democrats too... "This demonstrates the level of gerrymandering that republicans have accomplished, maximizing the number of districts that are republican, even if just slightly, while shoving all democrats in their states into a few districts that are heavily democratic." http://forrestry.blogspot.com/2013/09/population-density-compared-to-partisan.html http://forrestry.blogspot.com/2013/09/population-density-com...
malkia 11y ago
A lot of my bulgarian friends, and others, living here in America are thinking that taxes, free schools, even police, firefighting, etc. are just things that should go away. Essentially you have to pay, and be a "share-holder" in everything. You should be on top of things everywhere, etc. etc. And someone recently posted this on his fb page: "If a businessman makes a mistake, he suffers the consequences. If a bureaucrat makes a mistake, you suffer the consequences." - Ayn Rand. In essence the above is correct, but it does not tell the whole picture. While the businessman most likely would suffer, nothing is being said about lots of innocent people that would suffer too (and being on Hacker News, the recent story of security breaches leaking lots of personal information). Also it's not always the case that people would suffer the consequences due to a bureaucrat (assuming public office of sorts), and even if they do, it'll be less painful (distributed over all the population of the country, state or city), rather than people directly being affected by certain business. To my friends, it's really painful that they have to pay taxes - some of them don't have kids, and they don't think they should pay for school. I fuckin don't get this, since not having good education is the road to ruin...
- microcolonel 11y ago
  That's my main gripe with this inclusion of every service and charity under the sun in government. Sure, most people consider these things important, and sometimes many people could stand to benefit if it all goes well; but ultimately the problem is that everyone is expected to simultaneously have opinions on every policy in every sector at once, and come to some voting decision based on that, furthermore that their preferences should affect their entire jurisdiction or riding. This is just unrealistic.
  - hackuser 11y ago
    > ultimately the problem is that everyone is expected to simultaneously have opinions on every policy in every sector at once That's why people elect representatives, to do that for them. The U.S. is not a direct democracy. Regardless, the problems are there and must be dealt with, however difficult that is. Ignoring problems because they are difficult would be a willful negligence. It would also be irresponsible to let people suffer, and also harm our entire community, because the problems are difficult and mechanisms imperfect.
andrewfong 11y ago
Thomas Frank took a stab at this question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What%27s_the_Matter_with_Kansas%3F https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What%27s_the_Matter_with_Kansa... Worth a read. From my perspective, there's no one answer, but I've noticed a handful of things: * Race - Most democratic socialist countries tend to have more homogeneous populations. The U.S. has sizable African-American and Latino-American minorities, often segregated into their own neighborhoods, and that often informs how the white majority votes -- i.e. things like welfare and prison reform are viewed as handouts to people not like themselves. You might say it's comparable to how perceptions of Greek laziness inform German attitudes towards debt cancellation. * Geography - The U.S.'s political system grants a disproportionate power to sparsely populated states (e.g. a state like Wyoming has more electoral votes per person than California, and states like Iowa and New Hampshire have a large say in how the presidential primaries turn out). This matters with respect to policies that might be considered urban-centric -- e.g. public transportation. * Militarism - The U.S. is the only country that regularly projects force halfway around the globe, and it's super expensive. Every dollar spent on bombs is a dollar not spent on healthcare. It's a good question as to why American voters constantly favor military might, but it's not necessarily an irrational choice. Or rather, you could argue that it wasn't an irrational choice during WW2 and the Cold War, but that the development of a military-industrial complex has had lasting effects on American politics.
- mikeash 11y ago
  Regarding your last point, if proper health care reform brought us in line with other first-world countries, it would dramatically reduce health care spending, freeing up even more money for blowing up brown people if that's what we wanted to do with the savings.
- Apocryphon 11y ago
  Isn't the problem of a military industrial complex is that the industry ends up being a huge employer, and so it's not simply matters of jingoism or foreign policy, but to cut the military would be to cut jobs? The military itself is a huge employer as well, and a way to provide additional social services (tuition for veterans, etc.) because Americans are unwilling to provide that in other ways.
caffeinewriter 11y ago
It might be interesting to you to watch John Oliver's video on the wealth gap in America. He covers why people consistently protect the 1%, even if it's not in their current best interests. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfgSEwjAeno http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfgSEwjAeno
rogerbinns 11y ago
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” ― John Steinbeck Also remember you are seeing a media/attention filter on everything. Nobody reports or passes on the mundane things. Instead controversies have to be found that outrage some people, all the better to get eyeballs on the TV/site and go viral on Facebook. I do recommend following Scott Adams' blog (creator of Dilbert). He has an mba, is a trained hypnotist, and various other skills unrelated to comics. He has been writing about the various techniques Donald Trump is using, and why they are so successful. (Note not endorsing Trump, but rather observing.) http://blog.dilbert.com/ http://blog.dilbert.com/
spectrum1234 11y ago
But incentives are not aligned so therefore in the long run GDP and life are both worse off.
cynoclast 11y ago
Because we average citizens have no voice in public policy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig

slg 11y ago

It all comes down to our "freedom" fetish. Why should the government force me to take 4 weeks of vacation when I can make due with 2? Why would I want to build my day around a train schedule when I could just get in my car and drive? And so on.

grecy 11y ago
You missed the point entirely. Just because those things are available, you are not forced to use them. You would have the best of both worlds, because you would have more choices, not less like you have now.
- slg 11y ago
  You are asking me to defend a point that I disagree with, but as the argument goes, you pay for them regardless. Because these type of things are provided for the government, it means they are funded by tax dollars. I am therefore in a way participating in them because I have to pay for them. If I don't want 4 weeks of vacation, why should I pay for everyone else to get 4 weeks of vacation?
  - grecy 11y ago
    > If I don't want 4 weeks of vacation, why should I pay for everyone else to get 4 weeks of vacation? You want to pay for things like that because it makes your society stronger and healthier overall. You already pay for everyone to use the police, jails, firemen, roads, sidewalks, parks, libraries, courts, etc. etc. even though you probably don't use them, or use them frequently. Why do you pay for other people to use police, courts and jails? Have you ever wondered why the crime rate in the US is so high compared to developed countries? One of the reasons is because people are very desperate. They have low education, no healthcare, so safety net, so they have nothing to lose. If you had "paid" for them to have those things, those people would be happier, healthier, and you wouldn't be 10 times more likely to be murdered than I am. After 10 years in the US I went back to Australia for a few weeks and it slapped me in the face - there are very few desperate people in Australia. Even the lowest paid people have healthcare, education, own their own home and have toys like project cars. That's just one example, but you need to stop thinking about "me, me, me" and think "us, us, us"
    - slg 11y ago
      I don't disagree with you, I am just providing the general reasoning for these things.
    - Urbanxassassin 11y ago
      Good man
    - kbenson 11y ago
      > That's just one example, but you need to stop thinking about "me, me, me" and think "us, us, us" I like how that can work to further your point whether you read is as "us" or "U.S."
- unfamiliar 11y ago
  To play devils advocate: allowing 4 weeks of paid vacation, no questions asked, will eventually be reflected in the salary as a result of economic forces. Then someone who can make do with 2 days vacation will not be able to get paid for those extra 4 weeks, even if they are willing to work them.
xeromal 11y ago
You are kind of simplifying it to make it seem more stupid than it already is. My dad would be annoyed that he has to pay for all this "extra" stuff in order to grow his business. Simple as that. He believes that the big companies already provide some semblance of benefits so really the only people hurt are the people with small businesses. You can go get another job if you don't like it.
- slg 11y ago
  I wrote it somewhat tongue in check from the employee's perspective. No one would refuse being offered more vacation. However, like you said people don't want to be forced to offer and/or pay for that vacation. The belief is if people really want the vacation, the free market will force employers to give that vacation and therefore any government requirement is either not needed or overly onerous. It is a simplification, but when combined with Cold War fallout of Capitalism v. Socialism (which is often just a softer term for Communism in this country) it explains most of the things described in the original post.
microcolonel 11y ago
If this would prevent my employer from rewarding me for only taking two weeks of vacation, I would argue that it'd be unconstitutional.
- gjm11 11y ago
  What part of the constitution would it be contrary to?

alwaysAttending 11y ago

Part of it has to do with xenophobia and racism. Social Safety Net policy was more popular back when blacks were excluded. Throw in minorities, and people start singing a different tune. It's not like Europe is immune from this either. This is basically the platform of UKIP and the National Front. USA is much more diverse and has to deal with these issues up front. Except in Vermont, where the populace is 95% white. They're much more supportive of socialism. Coincidence?

hackuser 11y ago
A counter-example: Cities are much more diverse and much more liberal than rural areas.
- gjm11 11y ago
  The slightly bigger picture: People become less liberal when they are aware of the existence of other people Not Like Them with whom they're sharing a country, but become more liberal when they actually interact with those people. (This is conjecture, but it seems awfully plausible and explains both the observations here.)
  - kbenson 11y ago
    I think that makes sense. When another group with (possibly) different norms has no affect on you, it's easy to ignore them. When that group can exert some effect on you, but the effect is unknown, people get scared, and act accordingly. This is exacerbated by people that like attention and/or power that will stoke these fears to further their own agenda. When that group is finally encountered, often there's understanding, a willingness to compromise where needed from both parties, and as the unknown subsides, so does much of the fear (and the power that grants those that use fear).
  - rch 11y ago
    The population density effect works against Democrats too... "This demonstrates the level of gerrymandering that republicans have accomplished, maximizing the number of districts that are republican, even if just slightly, while shoving all democrats in their states into a few districts that are heavily democratic." http://forrestry.blogspot.com/2013/09/population-density-compared-to-partisan.html http://forrestry.blogspot.com/2013/09/population-density-com...

malkia 11y ago

A lot of my bulgarian friends, and others, living here in America are thinking that taxes, free schools, even police, firefighting, etc. are just things that should go away. Essentially you have to pay, and be a "share-holder" in everything. You should be on top of things everywhere, etc. etc. And someone recently posted this on his fb page: "If a businessman makes a mistake, he suffers the consequences. If a bureaucrat makes a mistake, you suffer the consequences." - Ayn Rand. In essence the above is correct, but it does not tell the whole picture. While the businessman most likely would suffer, nothing is being said about lots of innocent people that would suffer too (and being on Hacker News, the recent story of security breaches leaking lots of personal information). Also it's not always the case that people would suffer the consequences due to a bureaucrat (assuming public office of sorts), and even if they do, it'll be less painful (distributed over all the population of the country, state or city), rather than people directly being affected by certain business. To my friends, it's really painful that they have to pay taxes - some of them don't have kids, and they don't think they should pay for school. I fuckin don't get this, since not having good education is the road to ruin...

microcolonel 11y ago
That's my main gripe with this inclusion of every service and charity under the sun in government. Sure, most people consider these things important, and sometimes many people could stand to benefit if it all goes well; but ultimately the problem is that everyone is expected to simultaneously have opinions on every policy in every sector at once, and come to some voting decision based on that, furthermore that their preferences should affect their entire jurisdiction or riding. This is just unrealistic.
- hackuser 11y ago
  > ultimately the problem is that everyone is expected to simultaneously have opinions on every policy in every sector at once That's why people elect representatives, to do that for them. The U.S. is not a direct democracy. Regardless, the problems are there and must be dealt with, however difficult that is. Ignoring problems because they are difficult would be a willful negligence. It would also be irresponsible to let people suffer, and also harm our entire community, because the problems are difficult and mechanisms imperfect.

andrewfong 11y ago

Thomas Frank took a stab at this question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What%27s_the_Matter_with_Kansas%3F https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What%27s_the_Matter_with_Kansa... Worth a read. From my perspective, there's no one answer, but I've noticed a handful of things: * Race - Most democratic socialist countries tend to have more homogeneous populations. The U.S. has sizable African-American and Latino-American minorities, often segregated into their own neighborhoods, and that often informs how the white majority votes -- i.e. things like welfare and prison reform are viewed as handouts to people not like themselves. You might say it's comparable to how perceptions of Greek laziness inform German attitudes towards debt cancellation. * Geography - The U.S.'s political system grants a disproportionate power to sparsely populated states (e.g. a state like Wyoming has more electoral votes per person than California, and states like Iowa and New Hampshire have a large say in how the presidential primaries turn out). This matters with respect to policies that might be considered urban-centric -- e.g. public transportation. * Militarism - The U.S. is the only country that regularly projects force halfway around the globe, and it's super expensive. Every dollar spent on bombs is a dollar not spent on healthcare. It's a good question as to why American voters constantly favor military might, but it's not necessarily an irrational choice. Or rather, you could argue that it wasn't an irrational choice during WW2 and the Cold War, but that the development of a military-industrial complex has had lasting effects on American politics.

mikeash 11y ago
Regarding your last point, if proper health care reform brought us in line with other first-world countries, it would dramatically reduce health care spending, freeing up even more money for blowing up brown people if that's what we wanted to do with the savings.
Apocryphon 11y ago
Isn't the problem of a military industrial complex is that the industry ends up being a huge employer, and so it's not simply matters of jingoism or foreign policy, but to cut the military would be to cut jobs? The military itself is a huge employer as well, and a way to provide additional social services (tuition for veterans, etc.) because Americans are unwilling to provide that in other ways.

caffeinewriter 11y ago

It might be interesting to you to watch John Oliver's video on the wealth gap in America. He covers why people consistently protect the 1%, even if it's not in their current best interests. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfgSEwjAeno http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfgSEwjAeno

rogerbinns 11y ago

“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” ― John Steinbeck Also remember you are seeing a media/attention filter on everything. Nobody reports or passes on the mundane things. Instead controversies have to be found that outrage some people, all the better to get eyeballs on the TV/site and go viral on Facebook. I do recommend following Scott Adams' blog (creator of Dilbert). He has an mba, is a trained hypnotist, and various other skills unrelated to comics. He has been writing about the various techniques Donald Trump is using, and why they are so successful. (Note not endorsing Trump, but rather observing.) http://blog.dilbert.com/ http://blog.dilbert.com/

spectrum1234 11y ago

But incentives are not aligned so therefore in the long run GDP and life are both worse off.

cynoclast 11y ago

Because we average citizens have no voice in public policy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig