4 ms·

Why should we care to be "at the top"? The average person gets no benefit from this; on the contrary, they would do a lot better if underperforming countries in

Why should we care to be "at the top"? The average person gets no benefit from this; on the contrary, they would do a lot better if underperforming countries in Europe's neighborhood raised their standards of living.

ernst_klim 7mo ago
> The average person gets no benefit from this You are proving the point. The avg. person gets an enormous benefit from it, even in countries like USA, Japan or Korea with far less generous welfare. The gap in standards of living of somebody in the US and somebody in Georgia or Vietnam are ridiculous.
- vinaigrette 7mo ago
  Poverty levels are roughly the same between Vietnam and the US from a quick search. Mean standard of living is a poor way to calculate inequality. If you have a link to a median one it would help to compare.
  - ernst_klim 7mo ago
    > Poverty levels Poverty levels are measured relative to median. Poverty in US and poverty in Bangladesh, Russia or Vietnam are completely different things. In the US poverty line is about $16k, while in Russia for example it is $2300. Even considering the PPP it's like 4 times the difference in living standards. I guess Vietnam or Bangladesh are far worse. Upd: downvotes with no counterargument. Orange site is becomming more and more a reddit.
  - joe_mamba 7mo ago
    >Poverty levels are roughly the same between Vietnam and the US from a quick search. How is this an argument? A poor person in the US has a massively better standard of living than a poor person in Vietnam. Poverty is relative. If you have a small apartment in a city of McMansions, you're poor, but if you have a goat in a village of no goats, you're rich.
    - TeMPOraL 7mo ago
      > Poverty is relative. If you have a small apartment in a city of McMansions, you're poor, but if you have a goat in a village of no goats, you're rich. That worked before globalization. Nowadays, having a small apartment in a city of McMansions means you're upper middle class. Poor people in the west have no apartments and no goats.
    - nisegami 7mo ago
      I always found it interesting that homeless folks in the US seem to live in tents a lot of the time, but in my country they rarely have more than a piece of cardboard. I don't know if my perception is incorrect, or if I'm ready too much into this, but my conclusion has been basically what you said: at every socio-economic level, the people at that level have higher standards of living in developed countries than in developing countries.
      - bombcar 7mo ago
        It’s really hard to compare when you get down to it, even if you ignore “homeless” as a category. Using money as a proxy doesn’t work perfectly because things can be more expensive, and trying to normalize with things like “living sq ft” doesn’t calculate externalities. The best I’ve found is to track relative migration pressure - where do people want to go?
        nisegami 7mo ago
        Excellent points. In my small island country, prices mostly come down to being labor-dominant or material-dominant. The former is cheaper* than the developed world, whereas the latter is more expensive* than the developed world. *compared using nominal exchange >The best I’ve found is to track relative migration pressure - where do people want to go? I like this approach. It's much more holistic and captures stuff that really cannot be quantified with prices and numbers, like freedoms and rights.
    - thaumasiotes 7mo ago
      > but if you have a goat in a village of no goats, you're rich No, you need more than one goat if you want to be rich, regardless of what other people have. Really, you need a few dozen. One goat can't do anything but age and die.
graemep 7mo ago
I agree with you about "at the top" in terms of being a global power. It does people little good. The problems are security, sovereignty and economic stagnation. Being dependent on super powers and vulnerable to their whims is not good. Weak supply chains are not good. Neither are worsening standards of living.
jiriknesl 7mo ago
"The average person gets no benefit from this" this is a very bad take. In Europe, innovation in the end help everyone. Better healthcare starts with the rich, and ends distributed to everyone. The same is true for everything else.
- bregma 7mo ago
  Ah, the good old "trickle down" theory of Thatcher and Reagan. Remember how much better off we became when we gave more to the wealthy?
  - marcosdumay 7mo ago
    Do you have any evidence that new products don't start expensive and become accessible when they mature?

ernst_klim 7mo ago

> The average person gets no benefit from this You are proving the point. The avg. person gets an enormous benefit from it, even in countries like USA, Japan or Korea with far less generous welfare. The gap in standards of living of somebody in the US and somebody in Georgia or Vietnam are ridiculous.

vinaigrette 7mo ago
Poverty levels are roughly the same between Vietnam and the US from a quick search. Mean standard of living is a poor way to calculate inequality. If you have a link to a median one it would help to compare.
- ernst_klim 7mo ago
  > Poverty levels Poverty levels are measured relative to median. Poverty in US and poverty in Bangladesh, Russia or Vietnam are completely different things. In the US poverty line is about $16k, while in Russia for example it is $2300. Even considering the PPP it's like 4 times the difference in living standards. I guess Vietnam or Bangladesh are far worse. Upd: downvotes with no counterargument. Orange site is becomming more and more a reddit.
- joe_mamba 7mo ago
  >Poverty levels are roughly the same between Vietnam and the US from a quick search. How is this an argument? A poor person in the US has a massively better standard of living than a poor person in Vietnam. Poverty is relative. If you have a small apartment in a city of McMansions, you're poor, but if you have a goat in a village of no goats, you're rich.
  - TeMPOraL 7mo ago
    > Poverty is relative. If you have a small apartment in a city of McMansions, you're poor, but if you have a goat in a village of no goats, you're rich. That worked before globalization. Nowadays, having a small apartment in a city of McMansions means you're upper middle class. Poor people in the west have no apartments and no goats.
  - nisegami 7mo ago
    I always found it interesting that homeless folks in the US seem to live in tents a lot of the time, but in my country they rarely have more than a piece of cardboard. I don't know if my perception is incorrect, or if I'm ready too much into this, but my conclusion has been basically what you said: at every socio-economic level, the people at that level have higher standards of living in developed countries than in developing countries.
    - bombcar 7mo ago
      It’s really hard to compare when you get down to it, even if you ignore “homeless” as a category. Using money as a proxy doesn’t work perfectly because things can be more expensive, and trying to normalize with things like “living sq ft” doesn’t calculate externalities. The best I’ve found is to track relative migration pressure - where do people want to go?
      - nisegami 7mo ago
        Excellent points. In my small island country, prices mostly come down to being labor-dominant or material-dominant. The former is cheaper* than the developed world, whereas the latter is more expensive* than the developed world. *compared using nominal exchange >The best I’ve found is to track relative migration pressure - where do people want to go? I like this approach. It's much more holistic and captures stuff that really cannot be quantified with prices and numbers, like freedoms and rights.
  - thaumasiotes 7mo ago
    > but if you have a goat in a village of no goats, you're rich No, you need more than one goat if you want to be rich, regardless of what other people have. Really, you need a few dozen. One goat can't do anything but age and die.

graemep 7mo ago

I agree with you about "at the top" in terms of being a global power. It does people little good. The problems are security, sovereignty and economic stagnation. Being dependent on super powers and vulnerable to their whims is not good. Weak supply chains are not good. Neither are worsening standards of living.

jiriknesl 7mo ago

"The average person gets no benefit from this" this is a very bad take. In Europe, innovation in the end help everyone. Better healthcare starts with the rich, and ends distributed to everyone. The same is true for everything else.

bregma 7mo ago
Ah, the good old "trickle down" theory of Thatcher and Reagan. Remember how much better off we became when we gave more to the wealthy?
- marcosdumay 7mo ago
  Do you have any evidence that new products don't start expensive and become accessible when they mature?