4 ms·

Americans are literally socially selected for that mindset. Around the world, the vast majority of people don’t want to leave their home countries: https://news

Americans are literally socially selected for that mindset. Around the world, the vast majority of people don’t want to leave their home countries: https://news.gallup.com/poll/652748/desire-migrate-remains-record-high.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/652748/desire-migrate-remains-r.... Even in sub-saharan africa, only 37% would emigrate if they had the choice. In asia it’s single digits. So a large share of America’s population is literally made up of the most antisocial 10-20% of the population that would leave, along with their descendants.

nine_k 1y ago
But this does have some upsides, it appears.
- ii41 1y ago
  Hard to say. Americas have been far less dense in population than the old world, and colonizers brought old world tech with which they immediately could start to make use of the land, so they face far less scarcity. For any group of people this is hugely beneficial to their development and helpful in solving their conflicts. Yet we still see some of world's the worst slavey and genocides there. Also today's Latin American isn't world famous for high living standards.
simonask 1y ago
I want to question the assumption here that "pioneer mindset" is an inherited trait, and generally whether we can say anything useful about people living today based on the choices of their ancestors several generations back. People emigrated from Europe to America because they were out of options. It was not a case of throwing away all of your possessions to go on an adventure. Rather, the vast majority emigrated because it was literally the only way to move up in a world where land ownership was the key to wealth, and your older brother already inherited the farm, or your family did not own any land in the first place. Or perhaps you couldn't even find an apprenticeship. Keep in mind that all of Europe existed in an extremely rigid social hierarchy with practically zero mobility. Most people in Europe lived in abject poverty. America offered some social mobility, at least to those who came there by choice.
- keiferski 1y ago
  Yes, thank you. A huge percentage of historical European immigration to the US was by groups that functionally had zero wealth or social mobility in their home countries. Working in a steel mill in the new world was hell, but it beat generational rural poverty back home. The hyper-individualism of modern America is something that has developed fairly recently, even if it had earlier roots.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - hollerith 1y ago
    You cannot read the Founding Fathers without noticing that Americans were quite individualistic (and mistrustful of governmental power) from the start of the country. Till about 1910, there was no Federal income tax because it was believed by most Americans that it would be unconstitutional (i.e., an illegal encroachment of the individual's right to keep all the money he or she earns). Ditto any Federal ban on heroin or cocaine, both big social problems.
    - keiferski 1y ago
      Individualism in the contemporary sense is not the same thing as skepticism of governmental power circa 1780. Income taxes as a concept weren't really adopted, globally, until the mid-1800s through the early 1900s. So I don't think skepticism of them is inherently an American individualist thing. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax#Timeline_of_introduction_of_income_tax_by_country https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax#Timeline_of_intro... And as I already wrote: > The hyper-individualism of modern America is something that has developed fairly recently, even if it had earlier roots. America circa 1950 or 1900 had much stronger social bonds in local communities, families, etc. The current hyper-individualism is more a consequence of the last third of the 20th century, not anything inherently American. Of course, one might make the argument that this was some kind of inevitable outcome due to a seed in the American psyche, but I don't really buy that argument.
incone123 1y ago
I wonder how Gallup framed 'leave permanently' to their interviewees. I know many Filipinos who want to work abroad but retire back home.

nine_k 1y ago

But this does have some upsides, it appears.

ii41 1y ago
Hard to say. Americas have been far less dense in population than the old world, and colonizers brought old world tech with which they immediately could start to make use of the land, so they face far less scarcity. For any group of people this is hugely beneficial to their development and helpful in solving their conflicts. Yet we still see some of world's the worst slavey and genocides there. Also today's Latin American isn't world famous for high living standards.

simonask 1y ago

I want to question the assumption here that "pioneer mindset" is an inherited trait, and generally whether we can say anything useful about people living today based on the choices of their ancestors several generations back. People emigrated from Europe to America because they were out of options. It was not a case of throwing away all of your possessions to go on an adventure. Rather, the vast majority emigrated because it was literally the only way to move up in a world where land ownership was the key to wealth, and your older brother already inherited the farm, or your family did not own any land in the first place. Or perhaps you couldn't even find an apprenticeship. Keep in mind that all of Europe existed in an extremely rigid social hierarchy with practically zero mobility. Most people in Europe lived in abject poverty. America offered some social mobility, at least to those who came there by choice.

keiferski 1y ago
Yes, thank you. A huge percentage of historical European immigration to the US was by groups that functionally had zero wealth or social mobility in their home countries. Working in a steel mill in the new world was hell, but it beat generational rural poverty back home. The hyper-individualism of modern America is something that has developed fairly recently, even if it had earlier roots.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- hollerith 1y ago
  You cannot read the Founding Fathers without noticing that Americans were quite individualistic (and mistrustful of governmental power) from the start of the country. Till about 1910, there was no Federal income tax because it was believed by most Americans that it would be unconstitutional (i.e., an illegal encroachment of the individual's right to keep all the money he or she earns). Ditto any Federal ban on heroin or cocaine, both big social problems.
  - keiferski 1y ago
    Individualism in the contemporary sense is not the same thing as skepticism of governmental power circa 1780. Income taxes as a concept weren't really adopted, globally, until the mid-1800s through the early 1900s. So I don't think skepticism of them is inherently an American individualist thing. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax#Timeline_of_introduction_of_income_tax_by_country https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax#Timeline_of_intro... And as I already wrote: > The hyper-individualism of modern America is something that has developed fairly recently, even if it had earlier roots. America circa 1950 or 1900 had much stronger social bonds in local communities, families, etc. The current hyper-individualism is more a consequence of the last third of the 20th century, not anything inherently American. Of course, one might make the argument that this was some kind of inevitable outcome due to a seed in the American psyche, but I don't really buy that argument.

incone123 1y ago

I wonder how Gallup framed 'leave permanently' to their interviewees. I know many Filipinos who want to work abroad but retire back home.