14 ms·

The American dream mantra as it is currently being regurgitated in America is little more than a cheap slogan at best and calculated lie at worst. What it is s

The American dream mantra as it is currently being regurgitated in America is little more than a cheap slogan at best and calculated lie at worst. What it is said to represent are qualities like social mobility in which America ranks amongst the very worst of the other 48 developed nations.

chrischen 10y ago
Yea but if you are coming from a developing or third world country it is not a lie.
- ori_b 10y ago
  It might be worth striving for more than "America: It's better than a tin pot dictatorship"
  - adventured 10y ago
    How about: America: one of the highest median household disposable incomes on earth. 25% higher than Norway, 30% higher than Germany and 50% higher than Sweden. America: owner of 45% of all global private wealth. America: half the unemployment rate of the EU and Eurozone. America: a higher median income than Finland, with half the unemployment rate. Finland I'll note has been in a soft-depression for nearly a decade, with net negative growth over that time. Their economy is a disaster. America: median house two to three times larger than what's typical in Scandinavia, at a much lower median cost as well. America: drastically lower household debt to income ratio than Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Netherlands. America: where more people have moved up and out of the middle class, than have moved down out of it, for 40 years running. So much so, that it's contracting the middle class, and the majority of those people are moving upwards. America: nearly twice the GDP per capita of the Eurozone. America: adding an economy the size of Germany in the time - eight years - that Europe's economy has had zero growth. America: household poverty line nearly twice as high as the EU and Eurozone. A line so high, that 70% of all UK households would fall short of the US household poverty line (per the guardian).
    - jazzyk 10y ago
      >America: one of the highest median household disposable incomes on earth. 25% higher than Norway, 30% higher than Germany and 50% higher than Sweden. Careful here... You need to subtract: - cost of health care (even if you are a W-2 employee, you still have to pay, typically 30% of the cost, self-employed people may end up $25K/year for a family of 4) - cost of higher education - $250K/child for private college, $!20K/child state college - additional taxes, like real-estate, excise taxes - hidden taxes: telecom, airport/FAA (sometimes half of the price of the ticket), etc. - absurd real-estate prices (on the coasts) While the US is probably still ahead, the difference is not as big as you stated.
      - adventured 10y ago
        > cost of higher education - $250K/child for private college, $!20K/child state college US households have better balance sheets than most highly developed European nations. So that's obviously not making the impact that people would like to claim it is. The median student loan for all people with student loans, is a mere $13,000. > cost of health care I agree, that's why the US has such low taxes on the middle class compared to most of Europe. However, the median US household has $15,000 more in disposable income than for example Sweden. That's a dramatic sum, that can easily cover health insurance - and in fact enables the US to be the vast consumer engine that it is. Simultaneously the median household net worth is higher in the US than Sweden or Germany. As a significant counter point, a vast number of Americans are receiving compensation at their jobs in the way of health insurance coverage. That isn't counted at all in the US disposable income numbers and it's an extremely large number financially. > additional taxes, like real-estate, excise taxes That's a rather ridiculous inclusion. Most of Europe is overflowing with similar taxes, including very high VAT taxes. > hidden taxes: telecom, airport/FAA (sometimes half of the price of the ticket) Those referenced costs are comically trivial compared to the extreme disposable income gap in question between the US and most European nations. > absurd real-estate prices (on the coasts That's a pretty narrow example. Real estate costs are not absurd along most of the US coast in fact. South Carolina, Oregon, Georgia, Florida, Maine, Virginia, North Carolina, half of California, most of Washington - all of those are perfectly reasonable for the most part (most of Florida for example is not absurdly priced). Unlike in Europe, you can possess an extremely high standard of living in the majority of the country by just avoiding half a dozen cities. Want to move to Boise Idaho? You can have a household disposable income higher than Sweden, with real estate costs 25% that of Sweden. In Europe, you can't just choose to move to Portugal, much less Czech, much less Bulgaria, and expect to have an income as high as in Germany or Sweden, in order to take advantage of lower cost real estate.
jomamaxx 10y ago
False. 'Social Mobility' cannot be compared between USA and small Euro nations. 'Social Mobility' within Denmark, a country smaller than Los Angeles, is pretty good. What if you compared 'Social Mobility' across the EU. Do you think that poor people in Croatia, Sicily and Greece are 'mobilizing' up past the Swedish middle class? No. Also - America has large ethnic groups. America is really 5 nations: Europeans, Asians, Latinos, Blacks, and 'everyone else'. By almost every measure, America is different for these people, it's tough to compare. I'm not saying it's right, rather alluding to what it is. Finally - I would say having lived in the US and Europe - that there is without a doubt more opportunity in America than in Europe overall. No question about that. The elite in most European nations come from pretty good families. They go to the top schools and have their careers guaranteed. Anyone in America can be successful. Obviously, that's not a pragmatic statement, as poor kids from the ghetto often have no appreciation of this and simply don't work towards great outcomes - but this is the reality. Anyhow - the gini coefficient for 'all of Europe' I suggest is definitely lower than the US, and this is because it's nary impossible for poor Spaniards/Greeks/Sicilians to rise to higher than the European upper middle class.
- jomamaxx 10y ago
  "as poor kids from the ghetto often have no appreciation of this and simply don't work towards great outcomes" FYI I'm not blaming them, rather indicating that for whatever reason, opportunity is not grasped.
- aleksei 10y ago
  > Anyone in America can be successful. As can anyone in Europe, no? EDIT: must have read too fast, above point stands.
- dilann 10y ago
  US is more like Russia by the gini. Multi-nationality is not unique to the US.
  - adventured 10y ago
    And the reason the gini is a bad joke: the median US standard of living is four to five times that of Russia.
jandrewrogers 10y ago
Social mobility measures based on income (PPP) percentiles are misleading because they don't account for the hugely different income variances between countries. In countries with low income variances like Denmark, a small change in your absolute income will be deemed "socially mobile" whereas a much larger increase absolute income in countries with high income variances like the US will be deemed as not "socially mobile" even when it is vastly better for the average individual in absolute income terms. Individuals don't care about their ability to change their percentile, they care about their ability to change their total income. I think most individuals would prefer a "non-mobile" $60k increase in income versus a "mobile" $40k increase in income. You can't spend percentiles.
- voodoomagicman 10y ago
  This is a good point, but I think individuals care a lot more about their percentile than you would expect - their benchmark for whether their income is 'a lot' or 'a little' is how much they see the people around them making.
- Trombone12 10y ago
  Of course, you can't have very much social mobility in high income variance countries anyway if you want to preserve those precious income inequalities.
- lumberjack 10y ago
  >Individuals don't care about their ability to change their percentile, they care about their ability to change their total income. I think most individuals would prefer a "non-mobile" $60k increase in income versus a "mobile" $40k increase in income. You can't spend percentiles. I highly dispute this. Take it as a completely different world view but I think if people were given a choice: 1 >a nominal income of $100k for you and a nominal income of $200k for all your neighbours 2 >a nominal income of $75k for you and a nominal income of $60k for all your neighbours A lot of people would opt for choice 2. I myself am not sure whether I'd go for 1 or 2.
  - sanoli 10y ago
mc32 10y ago
Hmmm. I think if the dream were killed, then there would be nothing for people to lodge a complaint against. Nothing to look forward to and so people might grow comfortable in their poverty, for example. Imagine, there is no dream. You get what you have. There is no chance for anyone who has not achieved. Don't even try, there is no chance. I think we'd be worse off with that mindset. I imagine Russia, Venezuela, etc. feel a bit like this. You're there to eek out a living with little chance of thinking things could change for you.
- jolux 10y ago
  What makes you think that it's not already like that for certain classes? Income mobility is historically low. Also why would people grow comfortable in their poverty? What exactly does that mean? That they've made peace with the fact that they have to choose between being dead or being broke? As long as there is poverty there will always be complaints.
  - mc32 10y ago
    Go to a poor country. See how people go about the days. It's as if there is a "place" and people "know" their place. If you don't believe in having a stationary "place" you seek more, you tell your progeny there is more, if only they try. Go, don't be like your father or mother, go make something of yourself.
    - jolux 10y ago
      Just because you don't believe in a stationary place doesn't mean you don't have one. Plenty of people may believe in the American Dream but that doesn't mean it's real. Plus even if you don't believe in upward mobility it still doesn't mean you're happy where you are. Shitty conditions are shitty conditions regardless of whether or not you think you can get out of them if that's even possible.
- drabiega 10y ago
  I've seen plenty of this mindset in America already and honestly they're not wrong.

chrischen 10y ago

Yea but if you are coming from a developing or third world country it is not a lie.

ori_b 10y ago
It might be worth striving for more than "America: It's better than a tin pot dictatorship"
- adventured 10y ago
  How about: America: one of the highest median household disposable incomes on earth. 25% higher than Norway, 30% higher than Germany and 50% higher than Sweden. America: owner of 45% of all global private wealth. America: half the unemployment rate of the EU and Eurozone. America: a higher median income than Finland, with half the unemployment rate. Finland I'll note has been in a soft-depression for nearly a decade, with net negative growth over that time. Their economy is a disaster. America: median house two to three times larger than what's typical in Scandinavia, at a much lower median cost as well. America: drastically lower household debt to income ratio than Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Netherlands. America: where more people have moved up and out of the middle class, than have moved down out of it, for 40 years running. So much so, that it's contracting the middle class, and the majority of those people are moving upwards. America: nearly twice the GDP per capita of the Eurozone. America: adding an economy the size of Germany in the time - eight years - that Europe's economy has had zero growth. America: household poverty line nearly twice as high as the EU and Eurozone. A line so high, that 70% of all UK households would fall short of the US household poverty line (per the guardian).
  - jazzyk 10y ago
    >America: one of the highest median household disposable incomes on earth. 25% higher than Norway, 30% higher than Germany and 50% higher than Sweden. Careful here... You need to subtract: - cost of health care (even if you are a W-2 employee, you still have to pay, typically 30% of the cost, self-employed people may end up $25K/year for a family of 4) - cost of higher education - $250K/child for private college, $!20K/child state college - additional taxes, like real-estate, excise taxes - hidden taxes: telecom, airport/FAA (sometimes half of the price of the ticket), etc. - absurd real-estate prices (on the coasts) While the US is probably still ahead, the difference is not as big as you stated.
    - adventured 10y ago
      > cost of higher education - $250K/child for private college, $!20K/child state college US households have better balance sheets than most highly developed European nations. So that's obviously not making the impact that people would like to claim it is. The median student loan for all people with student loans, is a mere $13,000. > cost of health care I agree, that's why the US has such low taxes on the middle class compared to most of Europe. However, the median US household has $15,000 more in disposable income than for example Sweden. That's a dramatic sum, that can easily cover health insurance - and in fact enables the US to be the vast consumer engine that it is. Simultaneously the median household net worth is higher in the US than Sweden or Germany. As a significant counter point, a vast number of Americans are receiving compensation at their jobs in the way of health insurance coverage. That isn't counted at all in the US disposable income numbers and it's an extremely large number financially. > additional taxes, like real-estate, excise taxes That's a rather ridiculous inclusion. Most of Europe is overflowing with similar taxes, including very high VAT taxes. > hidden taxes: telecom, airport/FAA (sometimes half of the price of the ticket) Those referenced costs are comically trivial compared to the extreme disposable income gap in question between the US and most European nations. > absurd real-estate prices (on the coasts That's a pretty narrow example. Real estate costs are not absurd along most of the US coast in fact. South Carolina, Oregon, Georgia, Florida, Maine, Virginia, North Carolina, half of California, most of Washington - all of those are perfectly reasonable for the most part (most of Florida for example is not absurdly priced). Unlike in Europe, you can possess an extremely high standard of living in the majority of the country by just avoiding half a dozen cities. Want to move to Boise Idaho? You can have a household disposable income higher than Sweden, with real estate costs 25% that of Sweden. In Europe, you can't just choose to move to Portugal, much less Czech, much less Bulgaria, and expect to have an income as high as in Germany or Sweden, in order to take advantage of lower cost real estate.

jomamaxx 10y ago

False. 'Social Mobility' cannot be compared between USA and small Euro nations. 'Social Mobility' within Denmark, a country smaller than Los Angeles, is pretty good. What if you compared 'Social Mobility' across the EU. Do you think that poor people in Croatia, Sicily and Greece are 'mobilizing' up past the Swedish middle class? No. Also - America has large ethnic groups. America is really 5 nations: Europeans, Asians, Latinos, Blacks, and 'everyone else'. By almost every measure, America is different for these people, it's tough to compare. I'm not saying it's right, rather alluding to what it is. Finally - I would say having lived in the US and Europe - that there is without a doubt more opportunity in America than in Europe overall. No question about that. The elite in most European nations come from pretty good families. They go to the top schools and have their careers guaranteed. Anyone in America can be successful. Obviously, that's not a pragmatic statement, as poor kids from the ghetto often have no appreciation of this and simply don't work towards great outcomes - but this is the reality. Anyhow - the gini coefficient for 'all of Europe' I suggest is definitely lower than the US, and this is because it's nary impossible for poor Spaniards/Greeks/Sicilians to rise to higher than the European upper middle class.

jomamaxx 10y ago
"as poor kids from the ghetto often have no appreciation of this and simply don't work towards great outcomes" FYI I'm not blaming them, rather indicating that for whatever reason, opportunity is not grasped.
aleksei 10y ago
> Anyone in America can be successful. As can anyone in Europe, no? EDIT: must have read too fast, above point stands.
dilann 10y ago
US is more like Russia by the gini. Multi-nationality is not unique to the US.
- adventured 10y ago
  And the reason the gini is a bad joke: the median US standard of living is four to five times that of Russia.

jandrewrogers 10y ago

Social mobility measures based on income (PPP) percentiles are misleading because they don't account for the hugely different income variances between countries. In countries with low income variances like Denmark, a small change in your absolute income will be deemed "socially mobile" whereas a much larger increase absolute income in countries with high income variances like the US will be deemed as not "socially mobile" even when it is vastly better for the average individual in absolute income terms. Individuals don't care about their ability to change their percentile, they care about their ability to change their total income. I think most individuals would prefer a "non-mobile" $60k increase in income versus a "mobile" $40k increase in income. You can't spend percentiles.

voodoomagicman 10y ago
This is a good point, but I think individuals care a lot more about their percentile than you would expect - their benchmark for whether their income is 'a lot' or 'a little' is how much they see the people around them making.
Trombone12 10y ago
Of course, you can't have very much social mobility in high income variance countries anyway if you want to preserve those precious income inequalities.
lumberjack 10y ago
>Individuals don't care about their ability to change their percentile, they care about their ability to change their total income. I think most individuals would prefer a "non-mobile" $60k increase in income versus a "mobile" $40k increase in income. You can't spend percentiles. I highly dispute this. Take it as a completely different world view but I think if people were given a choice: 1 >a nominal income of $100k for you and a nominal income of $200k for all your neighbours 2 >a nominal income of $75k for you and a nominal income of $60k for all your neighbours A lot of people would opt for choice 2. I myself am not sure whether I'd go for 1 or 2.
- sanoli 10y ago

mc32 10y ago

Hmmm. I think if the dream were killed, then there would be nothing for people to lodge a complaint against. Nothing to look forward to and so people might grow comfortable in their poverty, for example. Imagine, there is no dream. You get what you have. There is no chance for anyone who has not achieved. Don't even try, there is no chance. I think we'd be worse off with that mindset. I imagine Russia, Venezuela, etc. feel a bit like this. You're there to eek out a living with little chance of thinking things could change for you.

jolux 10y ago
What makes you think that it's not already like that for certain classes? Income mobility is historically low. Also why would people grow comfortable in their poverty? What exactly does that mean? That they've made peace with the fact that they have to choose between being dead or being broke? As long as there is poverty there will always be complaints.
- mc32 10y ago
  Go to a poor country. See how people go about the days. It's as if there is a "place" and people "know" their place. If you don't believe in having a stationary "place" you seek more, you tell your progeny there is more, if only they try. Go, don't be like your father or mother, go make something of yourself.
  - jolux 10y ago
    Just because you don't believe in a stationary place doesn't mean you don't have one. Plenty of people may believe in the American Dream but that doesn't mean it's real. Plus even if you don't believe in upward mobility it still doesn't mean you're happy where you are. Shitty conditions are shitty conditions regardless of whether or not you think you can get out of them if that's even possible.
drabiega 10y ago
I've seen plenty of this mindset in America already and honestly they're not wrong.