6 ms·

// while Europe able to create a higher quality of life for a higher fraction of its population. As a dual eu / us citizen that's not my observation. What do y

// while Europe able to create a higher quality of life for a higher fraction of its population. As a dual eu / us citizen that's not my observation. What do you base this on? An average American feels wealthier than an average European to me even comparing to just western Europe.

Scarblac 3y ago
Quality of life isn't the same as wealth though.
- 3seashells 3y ago
  It is, I pay for social security, must not fear for my life, you pay for private security, fearing for your life caged in a gated community. On paper you are more wealthy but in the real world you are poorer in every aspect of life that matters.
  - willcipriano 3y ago
    Americans are allowed to own the tools they need to defend themselves so they don't need to hire anyone.
    - hnbad 3y ago
      Arguably the fact that you think owning a gun makes a practical difference in your own safety although a gun can not defend you against health issues or financial hardship (e.g. losing your job, interest/rent hikes) is a point against you.
      - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
        Health wasn't the (immediate) topic. Financial ruin wasn't the topic. So you're criticizing them for not replying to a point that wasn't the point under discussion, which seems rather unfair.
        hnbad 3y ago
        The topic was quality of life and they expanded this to "security" which includes the ability to maintain that quality of life to a reasonable degree. There are ways to lose your quality of life against which guns are useful. There are many more ways against which guns are not useful. More of the latter apply in the US than e.g. Germany (which has very strict gun laws). Does this mean gun laws in Germany are better? Personally I don't think so. But it does mean the preference for guns over thse other benefits has more to do with ideology than realistic risk assessment. If you want to complain about derailment, arguably OP derailed the conversation already by bringing gun control into a quality of life discussion and I merely recontextualized that. Especially because they were arguing for a practical necessity of gun ownership rather than merely for gun ownership simply being something they see as a quality of life improvement (like having an 8K TV or the newest generation of gaming consoles).
        AnimalMuppet 3y ago
        I said the immediate topic. The immediate topic was physical safety. Also, that topic was raised by 3seashells. willcipriano was replying to that point. Then you said: > Arguably the fact that you think owning a gun makes a practical difference in your own safety although a gun can not defend you against health issues or financial hardship (e.g. losing your job, interest/rent hikes) is a point against you. You're using against willcipriano that he was addressing a narrower context. But the narrower context was defined by 3seashells. So your criticism is unfair. (Or, perhaps, mis-aimed.)
      - Der_Einzige 3y ago
        Having a gun instantly increases your earning potential and does protect against financial hardship. Armed security guards are actually paid quite a bit.
    - ben_w 3y ago
      I'm glad I don't live somewhere so unsafe that I feel the need to buy arms or armour.
      - willcipriano 3y ago
        I don't feel unsafe at all because I have the means to ensure the safety of my family and myself. For your sake let's hope this historically aberrant period of political stability holds forever.
        ben_w 3y ago
        > I don't feel unsafe at all because I have the means to ensure the safety of my family and myself. You don't have any such means, even if you own an actual M1 Abrams tank and suitable ammunition: you aren't awake 24/7; you aren't hovering around your family 24/7; and if a criminal planning to attack you already has a gun pointed at you, your reactions aren't going to be fast enough to take them down before you yourself are shot. The way to be safe is to be in a society which minimises the degree to which criminals have access to guns, and where criminals know that killing someone is going to result in other people hunting them. > For your sake let's hope this historically aberrant period of political stability holds forever. I'm also pessimistic about it lasting, but I will consider it a sad day when I need to defend myself against bandits rather than letting the state do it for me. Think about it this way: bandits and cops are doing it professionally, most of us (I don't know if you're a vet) are just amateurs.
        willcipriano 3y ago
        > own an actual M1 Abrams tank Tell that to the Taliban or the Vietcong. > consider it a sad day when I need to defend myself against bandits Personally I'd feel shame if other men died in my defence.
        ben_w 3y ago
        > Tell that to the Taliban or the Vietcong. That's my line. Those two kicked the USA's backside despite the superior firepower that the USA brought. Took a while, and they lost a lot of their own in the process, but they won. > Personally I'd feel shame if other men died in my defence. Why do you think that's a necessary, or even likely, outcome? First: well trained forces are much less likely to die in any given encounter than random people in the same encounter. This is also part of why I asked if you're a vet: without that training, you're not really defending you and yours even a tenth as much as you think you are. (And even with: there's a reason the unit size isn't single soldiers). Second: if you have a society worthy of the name, you can coordinate against bandits, making it harder for them to threaten the lives of anyone including those doing the groundwork of taking down criminal gangs. By way of comparison, the UK is sufficiently safe that even cops are not routinely armed — because they don't need to be.
    - Scarblac 3y ago
      As a result lots of people around you do own them, which increases the chance you'll see one used some day. Which is an example of having low quality of life.
  - dkqmduems 3y ago
    You are probably picking and choosing how to estimate expected value.
  - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
    I'm American. I don't live in a gated community, I don't pay for private security, and I don't fear for my life. So maybe your basing your position on stereotypes rather than reality?
  - tapland 3y ago
    What does it cost to live within a 10 minute walking distance of your job in the city center and with grocery stores, doctor's offices, the proper hostpital and the university either between or nor more than another 5-10 minutes away? A decent EU quality of living feels unattainable in the larger US cities and is available in the EU for most of the population.
- Frost1x 3y ago
  This is true although a significant portion of increased quality of life can be purchased using wealth. Just like "money can't buy happiness" which is true, it can certainly drastically increase the opportunity of happiness. A significant amount of quality of life improvement has happened as I've grown wealthier over the years. In the form of time alone, I have more personal time to do things I want to do rather than being forced to work for someone else to meet basic needs. I have a fairly large yard and used to maintain it, it took a lot of time and wasn't something I enjoyed (just the final aspect of it). I now pay people to maintain it, I enjoy having a well kept yard by simply paying for it. When I had less wealth, a significant amount of brain cycles was spent looking for ways to reduce or optimize some cost around something. Now, unless I see a big price difference to where it may impact other aspects of my life, I don't fret a few dollars here and there. When I had less wealth, even with healthcare, I'd probably push through work vs taking a day off because the risk of not having enough sick + PTO days off should I get more sick. Now, if I feel sick, I don't hesitate to use sick leave. Wealth also affords me more overall bargaining power in employment negotiations. Having enough "FU" money let's me dictates my terms with more authority leading to more enjoyable work environments. Overall wealth allows me to pay a lot of things away I'd otherwise have to do. It also affords me opportunity to do things I want I might otherwise not. I take more international vacations since I became more wealthy and it's been great, just returned from a nice vacation. Part of that trip involved splurging on some nice dining options, paying for luggage delivery/management, and having more comfort in my transit options. With my new found increased time wealth bought my, I exercise frequently and my health has improved or at the very least, my overall feeling throughout the day. There are a lot of things people get diminishing returns of in terms of quality of life vs wealth where it doesn't matter. My bed is just as comfy, I've been fortunate enough to never be short on food, and so on. If you're single, it can make you more attractive especially to women but it's not everything, physical looks and personality are still more important to most people (at least the people I'd want to meet). So while wealth isn't a direct indicator of quality of life, it's certainly correlated and I'd argue for many, a strong correlate. It won't get you everything, some things wealth won't help you with (I still have to exercise my own body, I can't pay that effort away but at least it enables me to do that more readily and on my own terms, for example).
  - 3y ago
throw_pm23 3y ago
Yes, I elaborated in a side-comment, your feeling is likely correct, but still Europe may be able to better translate wealth into quality of life.
- J_Shelby_J 3y ago
  Car dependency is awfully expensive for the average American (30% of average salary), awful for your health (walking is the gold standard), and can tends to create isolated societies lacking 3rd places (suburbs). Americans like to measure quality of life is square foot, but I think that’s more a measure of wealth than happiness.
stefs 3y ago
for me, a higher quality of life and higher income aren't necessarily the exact same. as a european, i've got a lot of paid vacation, peace of mind when it comes to medical costs (i.e. an accident wont necessarily mean financial ruin), we've got a lot of paternity protection and parental leave, workplace safety, affordable education, things like that. most likely i earn a bit less than what i'd earn if i had an identical doppelganger twin in the u.s. - i mean, i earn a lot less right here than i could if money was the ultimate objective. i just value other things more, mostly time with my family and hobbies, peace of mind when it comes to external factors where the expensive social safety net comes in. also, as a middle class earner i much prefer my lower class neighbors having a good social safety net and other guarantees because i really don't want my neighbors kids go hungry. not only because that's bad in itself, but the wealth and security disparity would also create a worse local environment (crime, drugs).
- xyzelement 3y ago
  // also, as a middle class earner i much prefer my lower class neighbors having a good social safety net and other guarantees because i really don't want my neighbors kids go hungry. In the US kids don't go hungry. The truly poor have food stamps and other aid so I don't get this comparison.
  - ryanwaggoner 3y ago
    The USDA classifies nine million American kids as “food insecure”, some of them quite desperately so. https://apnews.com/article/free-school-lunch-child-hunger-7d38b5a84e533129f507d76cc05c622f https://apnews.com/article/free-school-lunch-child-hunger-7d... It may not be any better for European kids, but it’s inaccurate to say that US kids don’t go hungry.
    - RestlessMind 3y ago
      US death rate from malnutrition is 0.9/100K compared to France's 2.1/100. Other European countries are <1.0 while subsaharan Africa or Centra/South America is generally >3. Ref: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rate-from-malnutrition-ghe?tab=table https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rate-from-malnutrit...
deaddodo 3y ago
> As a dual eu / us citizen that's not my observation. I'm in the same boat. Have lived and worked in both and definitely don't see this drastic difference that's always espoused on here between the US and EU QoL. They're both pretty good places to live, with some differences in how you manage things (less taxes in the US, more things you have to buy for yourself). You're obviously going to do better in a nation/state with more social services if you're in a very low-income manual labor/blue-collar field. People here pretend that that's 100% of the American/European populations in their weird ego-flexing comparisons. Either way, it's not worth arguing the point with people on the internet. If Europe is so great, go live there. And vice versa.
- red-iron-pine 3y ago
  > If Europe is so great, go live there. And vice versa. it ain't that easy bro. even with money and 133t programming skills.
  - deaddodo 3y ago
    It actually is. But if skills are your only option, get one less easy to attain than programming, of which they have plenty of.
hef19898 3y ago
Of your metric is "feeling wealthy", as oppossed to be objectively wealthy, you might rethink your scale. Also, just looking at wealth is quite limited in scope. I found the last WP stories on life expectency and cronic illnesses very enlightening, in a non-pleasant way but still.

Scarblac 3y ago

Quality of life isn't the same as wealth though.

3seashells 3y ago
It is, I pay for social security, must not fear for my life, you pay for private security, fearing for your life caged in a gated community. On paper you are more wealthy but in the real world you are poorer in every aspect of life that matters.
- willcipriano 3y ago
  Americans are allowed to own the tools they need to defend themselves so they don't need to hire anyone.
  - hnbad 3y ago
    Arguably the fact that you think owning a gun makes a practical difference in your own safety although a gun can not defend you against health issues or financial hardship (e.g. losing your job, interest/rent hikes) is a point against you.
    - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
      Health wasn't the (immediate) topic. Financial ruin wasn't the topic. So you're criticizing them for not replying to a point that wasn't the point under discussion, which seems rather unfair.
      - hnbad 3y ago
        The topic was quality of life and they expanded this to "security" which includes the ability to maintain that quality of life to a reasonable degree. There are ways to lose your quality of life against which guns are useful. There are many more ways against which guns are not useful. More of the latter apply in the US than e.g. Germany (which has very strict gun laws). Does this mean gun laws in Germany are better? Personally I don't think so. But it does mean the preference for guns over thse other benefits has more to do with ideology than realistic risk assessment. If you want to complain about derailment, arguably OP derailed the conversation already by bringing gun control into a quality of life discussion and I merely recontextualized that. Especially because they were arguing for a practical necessity of gun ownership rather than merely for gun ownership simply being something they see as a quality of life improvement (like having an 8K TV or the newest generation of gaming consoles).
        AnimalMuppet 3y ago
        I said the immediate topic. The immediate topic was physical safety. Also, that topic was raised by 3seashells. willcipriano was replying to that point. Then you said: > Arguably the fact that you think owning a gun makes a practical difference in your own safety although a gun can not defend you against health issues or financial hardship (e.g. losing your job, interest/rent hikes) is a point against you. You're using against willcipriano that he was addressing a narrower context. But the narrower context was defined by 3seashells. So your criticism is unfair. (Or, perhaps, mis-aimed.)
    - Der_Einzige 3y ago
      Having a gun instantly increases your earning potential and does protect against financial hardship. Armed security guards are actually paid quite a bit.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    I'm glad I don't live somewhere so unsafe that I feel the need to buy arms or armour.
    - willcipriano 3y ago
      I don't feel unsafe at all because I have the means to ensure the safety of my family and myself. For your sake let's hope this historically aberrant period of political stability holds forever.
      - ben_w 3y ago
        > I don't feel unsafe at all because I have the means to ensure the safety of my family and myself. You don't have any such means, even if you own an actual M1 Abrams tank and suitable ammunition: you aren't awake 24/7; you aren't hovering around your family 24/7; and if a criminal planning to attack you already has a gun pointed at you, your reactions aren't going to be fast enough to take them down before you yourself are shot. The way to be safe is to be in a society which minimises the degree to which criminals have access to guns, and where criminals know that killing someone is going to result in other people hunting them. > For your sake let's hope this historically aberrant period of political stability holds forever. I'm also pessimistic about it lasting, but I will consider it a sad day when I need to defend myself against bandits rather than letting the state do it for me. Think about it this way: bandits and cops are doing it professionally, most of us (I don't know if you're a vet) are just amateurs.
        willcipriano 3y ago
        > own an actual M1 Abrams tank Tell that to the Taliban or the Vietcong. > consider it a sad day when I need to defend myself against bandits Personally I'd feel shame if other men died in my defence.
        ben_w 3y ago
        > Tell that to the Taliban or the Vietcong. That's my line. Those two kicked the USA's backside despite the superior firepower that the USA brought. Took a while, and they lost a lot of their own in the process, but they won. > Personally I'd feel shame if other men died in my defence. Why do you think that's a necessary, or even likely, outcome? First: well trained forces are much less likely to die in any given encounter than random people in the same encounter. This is also part of why I asked if you're a vet: without that training, you're not really defending you and yours even a tenth as much as you think you are. (And even with: there's a reason the unit size isn't single soldiers). Second: if you have a society worthy of the name, you can coordinate against bandits, making it harder for them to threaten the lives of anyone including those doing the groundwork of taking down criminal gangs. By way of comparison, the UK is sufficiently safe that even cops are not routinely armed — because they don't need to be.
  - Scarblac 3y ago
    As a result lots of people around you do own them, which increases the chance you'll see one used some day. Which is an example of having low quality of life.
- dkqmduems 3y ago
  You are probably picking and choosing how to estimate expected value.
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  I'm American. I don't live in a gated community, I don't pay for private security, and I don't fear for my life. So maybe your basing your position on stereotypes rather than reality?
- tapland 3y ago
  What does it cost to live within a 10 minute walking distance of your job in the city center and with grocery stores, doctor's offices, the proper hostpital and the university either between or nor more than another 5-10 minutes away? A decent EU quality of living feels unattainable in the larger US cities and is available in the EU for most of the population.
Frost1x 3y ago
This is true although a significant portion of increased quality of life can be purchased using wealth. Just like "money can't buy happiness" which is true, it can certainly drastically increase the opportunity of happiness. A significant amount of quality of life improvement has happened as I've grown wealthier over the years. In the form of time alone, I have more personal time to do things I want to do rather than being forced to work for someone else to meet basic needs. I have a fairly large yard and used to maintain it, it took a lot of time and wasn't something I enjoyed (just the final aspect of it). I now pay people to maintain it, I enjoy having a well kept yard by simply paying for it. When I had less wealth, a significant amount of brain cycles was spent looking for ways to reduce or optimize some cost around something. Now, unless I see a big price difference to where it may impact other aspects of my life, I don't fret a few dollars here and there. When I had less wealth, even with healthcare, I'd probably push through work vs taking a day off because the risk of not having enough sick + PTO days off should I get more sick. Now, if I feel sick, I don't hesitate to use sick leave. Wealth also affords me more overall bargaining power in employment negotiations. Having enough "FU" money let's me dictates my terms with more authority leading to more enjoyable work environments. Overall wealth allows me to pay a lot of things away I'd otherwise have to do. It also affords me opportunity to do things I want I might otherwise not. I take more international vacations since I became more wealthy and it's been great, just returned from a nice vacation. Part of that trip involved splurging on some nice dining options, paying for luggage delivery/management, and having more comfort in my transit options. With my new found increased time wealth bought my, I exercise frequently and my health has improved or at the very least, my overall feeling throughout the day. There are a lot of things people get diminishing returns of in terms of quality of life vs wealth where it doesn't matter. My bed is just as comfy, I've been fortunate enough to never be short on food, and so on. If you're single, it can make you more attractive especially to women but it's not everything, physical looks and personality are still more important to most people (at least the people I'd want to meet). So while wealth isn't a direct indicator of quality of life, it's certainly correlated and I'd argue for many, a strong correlate. It won't get you everything, some things wealth won't help you with (I still have to exercise my own body, I can't pay that effort away but at least it enables me to do that more readily and on my own terms, for example).
- 3y ago

throw_pm23 3y ago

Yes, I elaborated in a side-comment, your feeling is likely correct, but still Europe may be able to better translate wealth into quality of life.

J_Shelby_J 3y ago
Car dependency is awfully expensive for the average American (30% of average salary), awful for your health (walking is the gold standard), and can tends to create isolated societies lacking 3rd places (suburbs). Americans like to measure quality of life is square foot, but I think that’s more a measure of wealth than happiness.

stefs 3y ago

for me, a higher quality of life and higher income aren't necessarily the exact same. as a european, i've got a lot of paid vacation, peace of mind when it comes to medical costs (i.e. an accident wont necessarily mean financial ruin), we've got a lot of paternity protection and parental leave, workplace safety, affordable education, things like that. most likely i earn a bit less than what i'd earn if i had an identical doppelganger twin in the u.s. - i mean, i earn a lot less right here than i could if money was the ultimate objective. i just value other things more, mostly time with my family and hobbies, peace of mind when it comes to external factors where the expensive social safety net comes in. also, as a middle class earner i much prefer my lower class neighbors having a good social safety net and other guarantees because i really don't want my neighbors kids go hungry. not only because that's bad in itself, but the wealth and security disparity would also create a worse local environment (crime, drugs).

xyzelement 3y ago
// also, as a middle class earner i much prefer my lower class neighbors having a good social safety net and other guarantees because i really don't want my neighbors kids go hungry. In the US kids don't go hungry. The truly poor have food stamps and other aid so I don't get this comparison.
- ryanwaggoner 3y ago
  The USDA classifies nine million American kids as “food insecure”, some of them quite desperately so. https://apnews.com/article/free-school-lunch-child-hunger-7d38b5a84e533129f507d76cc05c622f https://apnews.com/article/free-school-lunch-child-hunger-7d... It may not be any better for European kids, but it’s inaccurate to say that US kids don’t go hungry.
  - RestlessMind 3y ago
    US death rate from malnutrition is 0.9/100K compared to France's 2.1/100. Other European countries are <1.0 while subsaharan Africa or Centra/South America is generally >3. Ref: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rate-from-malnutrition-ghe?tab=table https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rate-from-malnutrit...

deaddodo 3y ago

> As a dual eu / us citizen that's not my observation. I'm in the same boat. Have lived and worked in both and definitely don't see this drastic difference that's always espoused on here between the US and EU QoL. They're both pretty good places to live, with some differences in how you manage things (less taxes in the US, more things you have to buy for yourself). You're obviously going to do better in a nation/state with more social services if you're in a very low-income manual labor/blue-collar field. People here pretend that that's 100% of the American/European populations in their weird ego-flexing comparisons. Either way, it's not worth arguing the point with people on the internet. If Europe is so great, go live there. And vice versa.

red-iron-pine 3y ago
> If Europe is so great, go live there. And vice versa. it ain't that easy bro. even with money and 133t programming skills.
- deaddodo 3y ago
  It actually is. But if skills are your only option, get one less easy to attain than programming, of which they have plenty of.

hef19898 3y ago

Of your metric is "feeling wealthy", as oppossed to be objectively wealthy, you might rethink your scale. Also, just looking at wealth is quite limited in scope. I found the last WP stories on life expectency and cronic illnesses very enlightening, in a non-pleasant way but still.