5 ms·

The way I try to understand it is that the US is about the same size as the EU, has the same magnitude of population, and generally has less interest in equalit

by evmar 11y ago

The way I try to understand it is that the US is about the same size as the EU, has the same magnitude of population, and generally has less interest in equality of its citizens than EU countries. So there are parts of the US comparable to all the parts of the EU -- rich countries and poor ones.

maratd 11y ago
> generally has less interest in equality of its citizens than EU countries. Based on what? > So there are parts of the US comparable to all the parts of the EU -- rich countries and poor ones. The US is far more diverse and mixed than the EU, in every respect. You have those that are poor living blocks away from the wealthiest people in the world. My own state of New Jersey is one of the most affluent, but also has one of the most dangerous cities in the whole country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camden,_New_Jersey#Crime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camden,_New_Jersey#Crime
- ionised 11y ago
  > Based on what? It's fundamentalist opposition to welfare and social programs and universal healthcare even when people are struggling and suffering can give that impression. > The US is far more diverse and mixed than the EU What are you basing that on? The EU is over 50 countries with their own languages and customs and politics.
  - kbenson 11y ago
    > It's fundamentalist opposition to welfare and social programs and universal healthcare even when people are struggling and suffering can give that impression. You seem to be mistaking our inability to come to a consensus on multiple aspects of these issues with a "fundamentalist opposition. It's unfortunate, but one of the defining aspects of American culture which has served us well over the years, our reliance on self determination and belief that hard work is rewarded, also* yields attitudes that if you aren't doing well then you aren't working hard enough or trying hard enough. Obviously neither of these views are entirely true, but confronting one affects the other, and getting people to reexamine their core beliefs is never easy.
  - hueving 11y ago
    >It's fundamentalist opposition to welfare and social programs Except for the welfare and social programs it has though. >What are you basing that on? The EU is over 50 countries with their own languages and customs and politics. Poster was implying about the mix of classes. It's easy for a rich country like Norway or Sweden to look down upon the poor sections of the US and scoff because the poorer parts of Europe are segregated into countries (e.g. Bulgaria). In the US every state has rich and poor sections (and even cities are that way).
  - maratd 11y ago
    > It's fundamentalist opposition to welfare and social programs and universal healthcare We have welfare and a multitude of social programs design to assist those who need help. You can walk into any emergency room in the country and receive whatever care you need even without insurance or payment on-hand. Mind you, the government provides insurance to the poor and elderly. It has been this way for a very long time. A full 66% of our federal budget is devoted to exactly these types of programs. That's over 2 trillion dollars. Every year. http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/budget-entitlement-programs http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/budget-entitlement-pro... Where are you getting your silly notions? > What are you basing that on? The EU is over 50 countries with their own languages and customs and politics. I wasn't talking about the country-level. Read what I wrote. The US is highly diverse on a street level. Rich live with the poor, side by side. This is not the case in Europe. In Europe, the classes are highly segregated. In the US, there is a very real attempt at having diverse neighborhoods with people of different backgrounds living side by side. Can you point to the same in the EU? And you want to talk about equality?
    - mavrc 11y ago
      > You can walk into any emergency room in the country and receive whatever care you need even without insurance or payment on-hand. While this is a benefit of sorts (you won't actually be allowed to die due to lack of funds), it's not like the work you receive is free. You'll end up paying it back to someone. Where I live, for example, the county tends to pay off debt like this to the hospital for a significantly smaller portion of the cost. They will allow you to finance it for a very long time, but you will still pay for it. Until it's paid for, even if it takes a very long time. If the county decides not to help you (maybe, for example, you're not a taxpaying resident of the place you ended up going to the emergency room in) then the hospital will bill you for it. They might, after hounding you for a while, charge you only pennies on the dollar to pay it. Or they might be convinced to write it off - which they do occasionally, but only occasionally. The only sure way to avoid paying debt accrued through emergency medical services is to have no assets.
    - MAGZine 11y ago
      So the millions of students with massive amounts of student debt or people losing their homes due to injury or disease don't need help? Anyhow, the point about rich and poor living side by side happens anywhere where there is gentrification. Some communities, too. I promise you that in some islands in greece there are beggars living side by side to people loading 50" plasmas onto donkeys
- CM30 11y ago
  There are plenty of places in Europe where rich people and poor people live mere blocks away. Heck, in the UK alone, I've seen some of the most expensive streets in the country sit fairly close to council estates and places not at all too far away from the type of areas shown in the pictures above. Quite a few places in the North and East of London can be like this.
ustherowapp 11y ago
The US is significantly bigger than the EU, actually. http://www.whereisbobl.com/2015/2015-06-alps/lrg/phpRprQU3.jpeg http://www.whereisbobl.com/2015/2015-06-alps/lrg/phpRprQU3.j... (doesn't include Alaska, which is another 1/3 or so the size of the continental US.)
kbenson 11y ago
Twice the area, 65% of the population. There are vast swathes of land that are relatively sparsely populated, and also areas that have historically specialized in one industry or another. As those industries wax and wane, so too do the fortunes of many who live in those areas. This is an example of that, where there was a lot of manufacturing (primarily cars) in this area, and as those jobs have moved the populace is hit hard. That said, my understanding is that the area is brutally cold and wet, and that buildings and infrastructure there quickly goes to shit because of that unless it had regular thorough upkeep.
- cylinder 11y ago
  Yes, the failure is not that a town decayed post-industrialization, it's that the federal government doesn't believe in supporting the people who are left behind after these busts. No re-training funds, no relocation support, housing placement, etc.
  - yawgmoth 11y ago
    It's pretty crazy to think that this will only be a more common occurrence in the future as jobs are eliminated. We should be figuring out how to solve that problem now, not the day after we've suddenly eliminated ten million careers. It's my opinion that we shouldn't try to retrain these people, but begin creating a society that can support lifestyles outside of the labor force. Unfortunately, the how of it is extraordinarily difficult to even consider.
  - thephyber 11y ago
    > No re-training funds Not exactly truthful. Most "free trade" recent agreements (past ~30 years or so) come with some sort of TAA support [1][2]. Why is it the federal government's responsibility to do these things? These are implied powers which the states have responsibility for. The Constitution does not reserve any of these for the federal government. You can't ignore human ego, denial, and the power of convention. All one-industry towns wane when their one industry either falls or moves. People complain, panic, and some even try to move to find better luck elsewhere. Ultimately, the largest anchor tends to be housing/property, which in the US tends to be paid for by long term debt. When a town loses its economic engine, demand to move there drops to near zero and the housing values fall underwater at the same time when people need to leave. I fail to see why the federal government should be on the hook for something like this. It would be subsidizing failure in a large way. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_Adjustment_Assistance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_Adjustment_Assistance [2] https://www.doleta.gov/programs/factsht/nafta.cfm https://www.doleta.gov/programs/factsht/nafta.cfm

by evmar 11y ago

maratd 11y ago

> generally has less interest in equality of its citizens than EU countries. Based on what? > So there are parts of the US comparable to all the parts of the EU -- rich countries and poor ones. The US is far more diverse and mixed than the EU, in every respect. You have those that are poor living blocks away from the wealthiest people in the world. My own state of New Jersey is one of the most affluent, but also has one of the most dangerous cities in the whole country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camden,_New_Jersey#Crime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camden,_New_Jersey#Crime

ionised 11y ago
> Based on what? It's fundamentalist opposition to welfare and social programs and universal healthcare even when people are struggling and suffering can give that impression. > The US is far more diverse and mixed than the EU What are you basing that on? The EU is over 50 countries with their own languages and customs and politics.
- kbenson 11y ago
  > It's fundamentalist opposition to welfare and social programs and universal healthcare even when people are struggling and suffering can give that impression. You seem to be mistaking our inability to come to a consensus on multiple aspects of these issues with a "fundamentalist opposition. It's unfortunate, but one of the defining aspects of American culture which has served us well over the years, our reliance on self determination and belief that hard work is rewarded, also* yields attitudes that if you aren't doing well then you aren't working hard enough or trying hard enough. Obviously neither of these views are entirely true, but confronting one affects the other, and getting people to reexamine their core beliefs is never easy.
- hueving 11y ago
  >It's fundamentalist opposition to welfare and social programs Except for the welfare and social programs it has though. >What are you basing that on? The EU is over 50 countries with their own languages and customs and politics. Poster was implying about the mix of classes. It's easy for a rich country like Norway or Sweden to look down upon the poor sections of the US and scoff because the poorer parts of Europe are segregated into countries (e.g. Bulgaria). In the US every state has rich and poor sections (and even cities are that way).
- maratd 11y ago
  > It's fundamentalist opposition to welfare and social programs and universal healthcare We have welfare and a multitude of social programs design to assist those who need help. You can walk into any emergency room in the country and receive whatever care you need even without insurance or payment on-hand. Mind you, the government provides insurance to the poor and elderly. It has been this way for a very long time. A full 66% of our federal budget is devoted to exactly these types of programs. That's over 2 trillion dollars. Every year. http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/budget-entitlement-programs http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/budget-entitlement-pro... Where are you getting your silly notions? > What are you basing that on? The EU is over 50 countries with their own languages and customs and politics. I wasn't talking about the country-level. Read what I wrote. The US is highly diverse on a street level. Rich live with the poor, side by side. This is not the case in Europe. In Europe, the classes are highly segregated. In the US, there is a very real attempt at having diverse neighborhoods with people of different backgrounds living side by side. Can you point to the same in the EU? And you want to talk about equality?
  - mavrc 11y ago
    > You can walk into any emergency room in the country and receive whatever care you need even without insurance or payment on-hand. While this is a benefit of sorts (you won't actually be allowed to die due to lack of funds), it's not like the work you receive is free. You'll end up paying it back to someone. Where I live, for example, the county tends to pay off debt like this to the hospital for a significantly smaller portion of the cost. They will allow you to finance it for a very long time, but you will still pay for it. Until it's paid for, even if it takes a very long time. If the county decides not to help you (maybe, for example, you're not a taxpaying resident of the place you ended up going to the emergency room in) then the hospital will bill you for it. They might, after hounding you for a while, charge you only pennies on the dollar to pay it. Or they might be convinced to write it off - which they do occasionally, but only occasionally. The only sure way to avoid paying debt accrued through emergency medical services is to have no assets.
  - MAGZine 11y ago
    So the millions of students with massive amounts of student debt or people losing their homes due to injury or disease don't need help? Anyhow, the point about rich and poor living side by side happens anywhere where there is gentrification. Some communities, too. I promise you that in some islands in greece there are beggars living side by side to people loading 50" plasmas onto donkeys
CM30 11y ago
There are plenty of places in Europe where rich people and poor people live mere blocks away. Heck, in the UK alone, I've seen some of the most expensive streets in the country sit fairly close to council estates and places not at all too far away from the type of areas shown in the pictures above. Quite a few places in the North and East of London can be like this.

ustherowapp 11y ago

The US is significantly bigger than the EU, actually. http://www.whereisbobl.com/2015/2015-06-alps/lrg/phpRprQU3.jpeg http://www.whereisbobl.com/2015/2015-06-alps/lrg/phpRprQU3.j... (doesn't include Alaska, which is another 1/3 or so the size of the continental US.)

kbenson 11y ago

Twice the area, 65% of the population. There are vast swathes of land that are relatively sparsely populated, and also areas that have historically specialized in one industry or another. As those industries wax and wane, so too do the fortunes of many who live in those areas. This is an example of that, where there was a lot of manufacturing (primarily cars) in this area, and as those jobs have moved the populace is hit hard. That said, my understanding is that the area is brutally cold and wet, and that buildings and infrastructure there quickly goes to shit because of that unless it had regular thorough upkeep.

cylinder 11y ago
Yes, the failure is not that a town decayed post-industrialization, it's that the federal government doesn't believe in supporting the people who are left behind after these busts. No re-training funds, no relocation support, housing placement, etc.
- yawgmoth 11y ago
  It's pretty crazy to think that this will only be a more common occurrence in the future as jobs are eliminated. We should be figuring out how to solve that problem now, not the day after we've suddenly eliminated ten million careers. It's my opinion that we shouldn't try to retrain these people, but begin creating a society that can support lifestyles outside of the labor force. Unfortunately, the how of it is extraordinarily difficult to even consider.
- thephyber 11y ago
  > No re-training funds Not exactly truthful. Most "free trade" recent agreements (past ~30 years or so) come with some sort of TAA support [1][2]. Why is it the federal government's responsibility to do these things? These are implied powers which the states have responsibility for. The Constitution does not reserve any of these for the federal government. You can't ignore human ego, denial, and the power of convention. All one-industry towns wane when their one industry either falls or moves. People complain, panic, and some even try to move to find better luck elsewhere. Ultimately, the largest anchor tends to be housing/property, which in the US tends to be paid for by long term debt. When a town loses its economic engine, demand to move there drops to near zero and the housing values fall underwater at the same time when people need to leave. I fail to see why the federal government should be on the hook for something like this. It would be subsidizing failure in a large way. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_Adjustment_Assistance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_Adjustment_Assistance [2] https://www.doleta.gov/programs/factsht/nafta.cfm https://www.doleta.gov/programs/factsht/nafta.cfm