3 ms·

Yep, inequality sucks in the US but it's still one of the best places to live in the world. Why risk your middle class lifestyle by rioting and protesting when

Yep, inequality sucks in the US but it's still one of the best places to live in the world. Why risk your middle class lifestyle by rioting and protesting when you have enough to get by? Until we become a despot I don't see things changing very much.

josho 12y ago
A 2014 UN study on the happiest populations* doesn't even include the US in the top 10 (it scored #17). All of the countries in the list have some form of a mixed economy (ie. not full on socialism, but a much stronger social support system in place than the US). So, there isn't even that much experimentation required to get a better system in the US. Rather, I'd say American's have thoroughly been indoctrinated against social support constructs that you only have yourselves to blame (you only need to look at how underfunded the public school systems, police, college are). *http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/20/travel/happiest-countries-to-visit/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/20/travel/happiest-countries-to-v...
- kasey_junk 12y ago
  I'm not arguing against the idea of mixed economies, but I don't find the argument that a bunch of countries produce happy citizens and the same countries have mixed economies very compelling. For instance, you don't mention the inverse. How do mixed economies due on the unhappiness scale? Is there some bare standard of mixed economy (for instance the US does have a mixed economy with a social support system at many levels)? Is there something else that is more related than their economic model for happiness? I personally look at that data set and find it telling that those are all small countries by population size, wealthy and have lots of mineral resources per capita. For instance, are people in Iceland more happy than people in Corpus Cristi, Tx (which gets routinely rated as a happy US city and is bigger than Iceland).
  - josho 12y ago
    You are right, my conclusion was linking happiness with mixed economies, that was not from the report--the link is intuitively obvious to me, but likely hard to prove. I've seen a study in the past showing the relationship between happiness and financial income. It showed that happiness largely peaked when you had enough money to support your basic needs and do a few extra fun things. Any additional income didn't do much to help people feel happier. So, my conclusion based on that was that a mixed economy where everyone's basic needs are largely met seems like a good way to keep it's population basically happy. The study seemed to validate that somewhat. In contrast in the US where the growing bottom percent of the population faces stress over basic needs, and many in the middle class are one health care diagnosis away from bankruptcy seemed like a good indicator that the current American economic system is not ideal, and has a clear direction that it could take to solve these issues.
- xrange 12y ago
  From the looks of it, it seems like the amount of racial homogeneity appears to be well correlated to the happiness quotient. Maybe that is the bigger factor in happiness. And a more homogeneous society might be one that tolerates more socialism. Another interesting question is what is cause and what is effect here. Does the amount of happiness of a society determine what kind of economic structures the members prefer? Or does the nature of the economic structures drive happiness? And how close are they coupled? And what makes happiness the right metric to optimize for, compared to say contentedness, or equality? And in what sense are US schools underfunded? http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-education-spending-tops-global-list-study-shows/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-education-spending-tops-globa...
  - josho 12y ago
    If you look at the numbers closely we see that 12% less is put into the public system in the US than the OECD average. This pattern is true of most things in America, you put more dollars into health care and education than other countries, but most of that ends up in private systems. So, if you have money you get the best education or healthcare in the world. If, you however you don't fit into that bucket what you get is far less. My experience from those that I know in the US (middle class) either have their children in private schools, or they choose where to live based on which neighbourhoods have a good public school. This behaviour, as far as I am aware, is unheard of in those countries in the top 10. Regarding the questions you raise, some can be answered if you follow the link to the original report. What bothers me the most about your response is to completely discount a well researched report because it doesn't answer all possible questions. Sure, maybe race plays a role. But, if you want to answer that you need to ask different questions than this report did. What you need to do is look at the report as a whole and reflect on it. Sure the US may have the greatest GDP, but in so many other factors lags behind other countries, is optimizing for financial return really what we as a nation need to strive for?--That is the takeaway that you should contemplate, not nitpicking over answers that the report didn't set out to address.
    - xrange 12y ago
      I guess I'm old-school. Asking questions doesn't discount anything. If people can't ask questions, it seems like conversations become boring one-sided monologues. Your mileage apparently varies.
madaxe_again 12y ago
The folks who think that the US is one of the best places to live in the world are usually folks who've never stepped outside of the US. I've lived in several US states, a variety of European and Asian countries, and have travelled broadly - and the US, I put on a par with post-soviet Russia in terms of standards of living - and in terms of cultural attitudes. It's amazing how similar the two are, to someone external to both worlds.
- Igglyboo 12y ago
  Really depends on where you live I guess, the US is huge compared to european countries. I live in a pretty progressive area in the Midwest and have a pretty high standard of living.
- pyre 12y ago
  The US is a big place and it really depends on the regions that you lived in. Much like you can't judge all of China based on Beijing or Shanghai. For example, there are regions in China that are predominantly Muslim. That said, it also depends on what you view as downsides to living in a place. For example, South Korean isn't considered backwards by any means, but you do have mandatory military service, which the US does not have (to the point that even a Korean born & raised in another country might be forced into service when going back to Korea to visit relatives).
  - madaxe_again 12y ago
    In the US, I lived in (in descending order of time spent there) Illinois, Chicago and rural. Virginia, several locations. New Jersey. New York. LA, Norcal. Ohio New Mexico Which I'll grant isn't "everywhere", but is a decent sample of East, West, Midwest, and various shades such as "mountain man" and "rust belt" between. Fully aware, I've been to Xi'an and parts of China most folks don't even know exist - driving across large swathes of the planet is one of my favourite hobbies. Driving west to east across Russia is great, as you barely notice the change as you go, as it's HUGE, but you couldn't mistake, say, Ulan Ude for Novosibirsk in a million years. Conscription is a potential downside, yes, but I look more at things like "do the people seem fundamentally happy, or neurotic and really messed up?". In the US and Russia, the latter applies. In the US, they all take prescription meds. In Russia, they drink until they don't care any more. Not symptoms of healthy, happy societies. I don't know where I actually would say is "better" - most of the places I've been to where I've gone "this is nice" have been devoid of humans. We have a knack for turning things to shit.
acjohnson55 12y ago
Middle class people generally aren't risking their status by rioting. I'd have to imagine that the sort of people firebombing random businesses and police cars probably don't feel like they have that much at stake. As far as risking status by protesting, by that logic, no one should have boycotted segregated institutions. "Separate and unequal, but adequate", would have been the mantra.

josho 12y ago

A 2014 UN study on the happiest populations* doesn't even include the US in the top 10 (it scored #17). All of the countries in the list have some form of a mixed economy (ie. not full on socialism, but a much stronger social support system in place than the US). So, there isn't even that much experimentation required to get a better system in the US. Rather, I'd say American's have thoroughly been indoctrinated against social support constructs that you only have yourselves to blame (you only need to look at how underfunded the public school systems, police, college are). *http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/20/travel/happiest-countries-to-visit/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/20/travel/happiest-countries-to-v...

kasey_junk 12y ago
I'm not arguing against the idea of mixed economies, but I don't find the argument that a bunch of countries produce happy citizens and the same countries have mixed economies very compelling. For instance, you don't mention the inverse. How do mixed economies due on the unhappiness scale? Is there some bare standard of mixed economy (for instance the US does have a mixed economy with a social support system at many levels)? Is there something else that is more related than their economic model for happiness? I personally look at that data set and find it telling that those are all small countries by population size, wealthy and have lots of mineral resources per capita. For instance, are people in Iceland more happy than people in Corpus Cristi, Tx (which gets routinely rated as a happy US city and is bigger than Iceland).
- josho 12y ago
  You are right, my conclusion was linking happiness with mixed economies, that was not from the report--the link is intuitively obvious to me, but likely hard to prove. I've seen a study in the past showing the relationship between happiness and financial income. It showed that happiness largely peaked when you had enough money to support your basic needs and do a few extra fun things. Any additional income didn't do much to help people feel happier. So, my conclusion based on that was that a mixed economy where everyone's basic needs are largely met seems like a good way to keep it's population basically happy. The study seemed to validate that somewhat. In contrast in the US where the growing bottom percent of the population faces stress over basic needs, and many in the middle class are one health care diagnosis away from bankruptcy seemed like a good indicator that the current American economic system is not ideal, and has a clear direction that it could take to solve these issues.
xrange 12y ago
From the looks of it, it seems like the amount of racial homogeneity appears to be well correlated to the happiness quotient. Maybe that is the bigger factor in happiness. And a more homogeneous society might be one that tolerates more socialism. Another interesting question is what is cause and what is effect here. Does the amount of happiness of a society determine what kind of economic structures the members prefer? Or does the nature of the economic structures drive happiness? And how close are they coupled? And what makes happiness the right metric to optimize for, compared to say contentedness, or equality? And in what sense are US schools underfunded? http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-education-spending-tops-global-list-study-shows/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-education-spending-tops-globa...
- josho 12y ago
  If you look at the numbers closely we see that 12% less is put into the public system in the US than the OECD average. This pattern is true of most things in America, you put more dollars into health care and education than other countries, but most of that ends up in private systems. So, if you have money you get the best education or healthcare in the world. If, you however you don't fit into that bucket what you get is far less. My experience from those that I know in the US (middle class) either have their children in private schools, or they choose where to live based on which neighbourhoods have a good public school. This behaviour, as far as I am aware, is unheard of in those countries in the top 10. Regarding the questions you raise, some can be answered if you follow the link to the original report. What bothers me the most about your response is to completely discount a well researched report because it doesn't answer all possible questions. Sure, maybe race plays a role. But, if you want to answer that you need to ask different questions than this report did. What you need to do is look at the report as a whole and reflect on it. Sure the US may have the greatest GDP, but in so many other factors lags behind other countries, is optimizing for financial return really what we as a nation need to strive for?--That is the takeaway that you should contemplate, not nitpicking over answers that the report didn't set out to address.
  - xrange 12y ago
    I guess I'm old-school. Asking questions doesn't discount anything. If people can't ask questions, it seems like conversations become boring one-sided monologues. Your mileage apparently varies.

madaxe_again 12y ago

The folks who think that the US is one of the best places to live in the world are usually folks who've never stepped outside of the US. I've lived in several US states, a variety of European and Asian countries, and have travelled broadly - and the US, I put on a par with post-soviet Russia in terms of standards of living - and in terms of cultural attitudes. It's amazing how similar the two are, to someone external to both worlds.

Igglyboo 12y ago
Really depends on where you live I guess, the US is huge compared to european countries. I live in a pretty progressive area in the Midwest and have a pretty high standard of living.
pyre 12y ago
The US is a big place and it really depends on the regions that you lived in. Much like you can't judge all of China based on Beijing or Shanghai. For example, there are regions in China that are predominantly Muslim. That said, it also depends on what you view as downsides to living in a place. For example, South Korean isn't considered backwards by any means, but you do have mandatory military service, which the US does not have (to the point that even a Korean born & raised in another country might be forced into service when going back to Korea to visit relatives).
- madaxe_again 12y ago
  In the US, I lived in (in descending order of time spent there) Illinois, Chicago and rural. Virginia, several locations. New Jersey. New York. LA, Norcal. Ohio New Mexico Which I'll grant isn't "everywhere", but is a decent sample of East, West, Midwest, and various shades such as "mountain man" and "rust belt" between. Fully aware, I've been to Xi'an and parts of China most folks don't even know exist - driving across large swathes of the planet is one of my favourite hobbies. Driving west to east across Russia is great, as you barely notice the change as you go, as it's HUGE, but you couldn't mistake, say, Ulan Ude for Novosibirsk in a million years. Conscription is a potential downside, yes, but I look more at things like "do the people seem fundamentally happy, or neurotic and really messed up?". In the US and Russia, the latter applies. In the US, they all take prescription meds. In Russia, they drink until they don't care any more. Not symptoms of healthy, happy societies. I don't know where I actually would say is "better" - most of the places I've been to where I've gone "this is nice" have been devoid of humans. We have a knack for turning things to shit.

acjohnson55 12y ago

Middle class people generally aren't risking their status by rioting. I'd have to imagine that the sort of people firebombing random businesses and police cars probably don't feel like they have that much at stake. As far as risking status by protesting, by that logic, no one should have boycotted segregated institutions. "Separate and unequal, but adequate", would have been the mantra.