10 ms·

> European countries who typically appear high up in QoL rankings despite having lower median wages. Those have low inequality in personal income, plus a stron

> European countries who typically appear high up in QoL rankings despite having lower median wages. Those have low inequality in personal income, plus a strong social security net. USA lacks both of these characteristics.

jl6 3y ago
Sure, which I think supports the idea that there are things other than wages that influence QoL. We are told here that QoL was better 50 years ago. I wonder how many people, given the choice, would choose to live in 1973 instead of today.
Turing_Machine 3y ago
And yet far more Europeans emigrate to the U.S. (on a proportional basis) than emigrate the other way. Particularly skilled Europeans, but even unskilled ones. Maybe the "QoL rankings" don't accurately reflect what people really want?
- sergiosgc 3y ago
  Quoting Scott Galloway: The US is a great country to live in if you're young. It is an extremely efficient capitalist society, at the expense of having no social safety net. If you're healthy and on your way to a Phd, you don't really need a safety net. If you're unhealthy and old, you won't pack and move to Denmark. Hence the migration stats.
  - Turing_Machine 3y ago
    First, the Department of Health and Human Services has an annual budget of > $US 1.8 trillion, or a little over $US 5,000/year on a per capita basis. Note that this doesn't take social programs administered by other departments and agencies into account (e.g., the Department of Education, the Veteran's Administration, the Social Security Administration...). Those also do a great deal of social spending (especially Social Security). While this is probably not as high as the EU on a per-capita basis, it's quite unfair to characterize it as "no" safety net. Also, I find Galloway's argument that older people are too unhealthy to move back to Denmark (or wherever)... unpersuasive. You can be pretty damned unhealthy and still get on a plane nowadays.

jl6 3y ago

Sure, which I think supports the idea that there are things other than wages that influence QoL. We are told here that QoL was better 50 years ago. I wonder how many people, given the choice, would choose to live in 1973 instead of today.

Turing_Machine 3y ago

And yet far more Europeans emigrate to the U.S. (on a proportional basis) than emigrate the other way. Particularly skilled Europeans, but even unskilled ones. Maybe the "QoL rankings" don't accurately reflect what people really want?

sergiosgc 3y ago
Quoting Scott Galloway: The US is a great country to live in if you're young. It is an extremely efficient capitalist society, at the expense of having no social safety net. If you're healthy and on your way to a Phd, you don't really need a safety net. If you're unhealthy and old, you won't pack and move to Denmark. Hence the migration stats.
- Turing_Machine 3y ago
  First, the Department of Health and Human Services has an annual budget of > $US 1.8 trillion, or a little over $US 5,000/year on a per capita basis. Note that this doesn't take social programs administered by other departments and agencies into account (e.g., the Department of Education, the Veteran's Administration, the Social Security Administration...). Those also do a great deal of social spending (especially Social Security). While this is probably not as high as the EU on a per-capita basis, it's quite unfair to characterize it as "no" safety net. Also, I find Galloway's argument that older people are too unhealthy to move back to Denmark (or wherever)... unpersuasive. You can be pretty damned unhealthy and still get on a plane nowadays.