3 ms·

The fractions mentioned were of course hyperbole. My point was that giving away more of your income to your peers will create a more livable environment. For ex

by atoav 4y ago

The fractions mentioned were of course hyperbole. My point was that giving away more of your income to your peers will create a more livable environment. For example as we talk about Mississipi and Germany: - Infant mortality — Germany: 2.67 deaths per 1000 live births, Mississippi: 8.8 infant deaths per 1000 live births - Life expectancy — Germany: 80.1 years, Mississippi: 71.9 years - Homicides per 100.000 population — Germany: 0.933, Mississippi: 20.5 So the superiour disposable income in Mississippi surely does not help to keep their infants (or rather themselves) from dying more often. But okay: you pay less taxes and therefore have more disposable income as people living in Germany. But it comes at a cost. And while well educated upper class people might not be as much affected by this (if they are lucky and don't fall victim to the resulting violence), this will shape the whole environment you are living in. Nothing else was my point. If I had to choose between more money and a less livable environment, or less money and a more livable environment I'd choose the later one. Money can buy you a lot of nice things, but unless you never leave your home living in a nice environment is worth more for a live well spent. And if you never leave your home, you should maybe wonder why. By the way I live in Hamburg, Germany, where 34% of the population has a migration background, many turkish, arabian and african minorities. I never heard a single gunshot in a decade of living here. I have never seen a single person publicly using hard drugs (excluding Marihuana, Alcohol and similar things). I have once seen a used syringe and I live in one of the dirtier parts of the city. Just like living in a noisy flat will wear you down in ways you don't even notice until you finally spend a few calm nights in another place, the environment you live in affects you as well.

nradov 4y ago
There is a huge diversity between US states in our federal structure, just like there is a huge diversity between EU member countries. For better or worse, US states are sovereign entities with the right to govern their own internal affairs. It would be more sensible to compare Mississippi to Romania. (Although Mississippi does still come out worse on certain metrics.)
prottog 4y ago
You're absolutely right about everything you said, but for me the crux of it comes down to: > If I had to choose between more money and a less livable environment, or less money and a more livable environment I'd choose the later one. Some people might choose differently, and moreover, the less taxation there is, the more people are able to choose between the two at all. After all, you can freely give to charity what isn't taxed from you, should you choose to trade your money to better outcomes of those around you. I have never been to your fair city (though I always have wanted to!), but a 34% foreign-born rate is comparable to many large cities in the US, some in states with more egalitarian policies (California, New Jersey) and some in states with less egalitarian policies (Florida, Texas); so clearly that is not a big driver, at least in the US, of where immigrants choose to go. San Francisco, famously egalitarian in its local politics, is right in line with Hamburg at 34.1% foreign-born; yet it is full of people using hard drugs in public, leaving syringes and human waste behind.

by atoav 4y ago

nradov 4y ago

There is a huge diversity between US states in our federal structure, just like there is a huge diversity between EU member countries. For better or worse, US states are sovereign entities with the right to govern their own internal affairs. It would be more sensible to compare Mississippi to Romania. (Although Mississippi does still come out worse on certain metrics.)

prottog 4y ago

You're absolutely right about everything you said, but for me the crux of it comes down to: > If I had to choose between more money and a less livable environment, or less money and a more livable environment I'd choose the later one. Some people might choose differently, and moreover, the less taxation there is, the more people are able to choose between the two at all. After all, you can freely give to charity what isn't taxed from you, should you choose to trade your money to better outcomes of those around you. I have never been to your fair city (though I always have wanted to!), but a 34% foreign-born rate is comparable to many large cities in the US, some in states with more egalitarian policies (California, New Jersey) and some in states with less egalitarian policies (Florida, Texas); so clearly that is not a big driver, at least in the US, of where immigrants choose to go. San Francisco, famously egalitarian in its local politics, is right in line with Hamburg at 34.1% foreign-born; yet it is full of people using hard drugs in public, leaving syringes and human waste behind.