6 ms·

Nonsensical article. They are a homogeneous xenophobic population with high social cohesion and safety nets. In usa we have chosen to have high immigration and

Nonsensical article. They are a homogeneous xenophobic population with high social cohesion and safety nets. In usa we have chosen to have high immigration and sacrifice social cohesion. eg: >40% of current child poverty comes from illegal immigration. [1] I would absolutely choose to live in a society with high immigration than a xenophobic one. 1. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/06/us/politics/child-poverty-immigrants.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/06/us/politics/child-poverty...

insane_dreamer 4y ago
> >40% of current child poverty comes from illegal immigration. [1] That's incorrect. Re-read the article you linked to. > In usa we have chosen to have high immigration and sacrifice social cohesion. The US started as a country of immigrants, one of this country's virtues, but there have been many attempts by a large portion of Americans to stamp it out. Thankfully it has survived. However, being a much more heterogenous society has nothing to do with the lack of high social nets. These are not mutually exclusive. The US is a "sink or swim" country where the quest for individual wealth is our predominant cultural "feature". That leaves you with a small cadre of extremely wealthy winners, and a large number of poor losers. By the way, Finland has 7.5% percent of its population is foreign born - that's half than the 15% in the U.S. but not an order of magnitude less. > I would absolutely choose to live in a society with high immigration than a xenophobic one. Racism is basically xenophobia, and in the U.S. we have that in spades.
- gruez 4y ago
  >However, being a much more heterogenous society has nothing to do with the lack of high social nets. These are not mutually exclusive. It's easier to roll out a generous social safety net when society is homogeneous, because you don't have people worrying about their tax dollars being used to fund The Others' lifestyle.
  - insane_dreamer 4y ago
    > It's easier to roll out a generous social safety net when society is homogeneous, because you don't have people worrying about their tax dollars being used to fund The Others' lifestyle. That's as much a function of class as it is race. In fact, one need look no further than highly homogenous states like Montana, Wyoming or W.Virginia (which have significantly less immigrants than Finland) to find a population highly opposed to taxation and social safety nets. Take a look at the 10 states with the smallest percentage of foreign born population (which we can use as a measure of homogeneity): 8 of 10 are highly conservative/Republican with arguably the smallest safety nets at the state level. https://www.statista.com/statistics/312701/percentage-of-population-foreign-born-in-the-us-by-state/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/312701/percentage-of-pop... Perhaps the fact that Europe and Japan were destroyed in WW2 while the U.S. got a huge economic boost from it, contributed to their populations' desire for strong social nets at the expense of individual wealth.
- dangwhy 4y ago
  > By the way, Finland has 7.5% percent of its population is foreign born - that's half than the 15% in the U.S. but not an order of magnitude less. immigration is not just foreign born population. immigrants and their children now account for one in five U.S. residents (65 million). 150k people immigrate to USA every month. These stats are just known immigration which doesn't account for unknown( or poorly accounted) number of illegal immigrants. This has been going on for a LONG time making USA one of the most diverse populations in the world. Most dominant group in usa is 56% of the population. 95% of finland is white, by comparison. Do you really think it only takes less than a decade of immigration for country to fall apart from immigration? Even with this tiny immigration they have virulent anti immigrant sentiments with majority of people highly in favor of restricting immigration.
paddim8 4y ago
Why is Sweden so happy then? Sweden has more foreign born people than the US
- insane_dreamer 4y ago
  Everyone knows that socialists aren't actually happy /s
- dangwhy 4y ago
  because that phenomenon is not even a decade old. You can already see far right gain tremendous ground in this short span. Check again 50 yrs down the line.
fulafel 4y ago
For anyone else curious after the above comment about xenophobia by country, here's one piece of (old) data on map: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/15/a-fascinating-map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-racially-tolerant-countries/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/15... (though I wonder if the poll accounts for country differences in how many people prefer to have any neighbours at all...) here's another list: https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/best-countries-for-racial-equality https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/best-countries-fo...
- insane_dreamer 4y ago
  Yeah I question some of those results. Japan is highly homogeneous and quite xenophobic (despite being otherwise a great place to live). Even if you’re born there to foreign parents (or even just one foreign parent) you’re always be “gaijin”.

insane_dreamer 4y ago

> >40% of current child poverty comes from illegal immigration. [1] That's incorrect. Re-read the article you linked to. > In usa we have chosen to have high immigration and sacrifice social cohesion. The US started as a country of immigrants, one of this country's virtues, but there have been many attempts by a large portion of Americans to stamp it out. Thankfully it has survived. However, being a much more heterogenous society has nothing to do with the lack of high social nets. These are not mutually exclusive. The US is a "sink or swim" country where the quest for individual wealth is our predominant cultural "feature". That leaves you with a small cadre of extremely wealthy winners, and a large number of poor losers. By the way, Finland has 7.5% percent of its population is foreign born - that's half than the 15% in the U.S. but not an order of magnitude less. > I would absolutely choose to live in a society with high immigration than a xenophobic one. Racism is basically xenophobia, and in the U.S. we have that in spades.

gruez 4y ago
>However, being a much more heterogenous society has nothing to do with the lack of high social nets. These are not mutually exclusive. It's easier to roll out a generous social safety net when society is homogeneous, because you don't have people worrying about their tax dollars being used to fund The Others' lifestyle.
- insane_dreamer 4y ago
  > It's easier to roll out a generous social safety net when society is homogeneous, because you don't have people worrying about their tax dollars being used to fund The Others' lifestyle. That's as much a function of class as it is race. In fact, one need look no further than highly homogenous states like Montana, Wyoming or W.Virginia (which have significantly less immigrants than Finland) to find a population highly opposed to taxation and social safety nets. Take a look at the 10 states with the smallest percentage of foreign born population (which we can use as a measure of homogeneity): 8 of 10 are highly conservative/Republican with arguably the smallest safety nets at the state level. https://www.statista.com/statistics/312701/percentage-of-population-foreign-born-in-the-us-by-state/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/312701/percentage-of-pop... Perhaps the fact that Europe and Japan were destroyed in WW2 while the U.S. got a huge economic boost from it, contributed to their populations' desire for strong social nets at the expense of individual wealth.
dangwhy 4y ago
> By the way, Finland has 7.5% percent of its population is foreign born - that's half than the 15% in the U.S. but not an order of magnitude less. immigration is not just foreign born population. immigrants and their children now account for one in five U.S. residents (65 million). 150k people immigrate to USA every month. These stats are just known immigration which doesn't account for unknown( or poorly accounted) number of illegal immigrants. This has been going on for a LONG time making USA one of the most diverse populations in the world. Most dominant group in usa is 56% of the population. 95% of finland is white, by comparison. Do you really think it only takes less than a decade of immigration for country to fall apart from immigration? Even with this tiny immigration they have virulent anti immigrant sentiments with majority of people highly in favor of restricting immigration.

paddim8 4y ago

Why is Sweden so happy then? Sweden has more foreign born people than the US

insane_dreamer 4y ago
Everyone knows that socialists aren't actually happy /s
dangwhy 4y ago
because that phenomenon is not even a decade old. You can already see far right gain tremendous ground in this short span. Check again 50 yrs down the line.

fulafel 4y ago

For anyone else curious after the above comment about xenophobia by country, here's one piece of (old) data on map: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/15/a-fascinating-map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-racially-tolerant-countries/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/15... (though I wonder if the poll accounts for country differences in how many people prefer to have any neighbours at all...) here's another list: https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/best-countries-for-racial-equality https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/best-countries-fo...

insane_dreamer 4y ago
Yeah I question some of those results. Japan is highly homogeneous and quite xenophobic (despite being otherwise a great place to live). Even if you’re born there to foreign parents (or even just one foreign parent) you’re always be “gaijin”.