This article starts off terribly. It does not get contain enough real substance till it gets to the point about the differential in life expectancy and discusses the point about 'the myth of exceptionalism in America'. The whole line about the difference in entertainment is utter drivel. Big Brother started in the UK, there is plenty of garbage culture coming from Europe.
For the record I've met quite a few Europeans (French and Germans) and I've asked them about what compelled them to come to the US. At times it does seem like Europe is a less stressful place to live. And the answer I get typically amounts to this;
"In France (or Germany or UK) security is much better than the US. But the opportunity in the US is much better."
I find it strange to mention Spain, and really all the PIIGS nations who not long ago were in financial dire straits and Greece has still not escaped.
The lack of a decent safety net in the US scares the crap out of me. The richest nation in the world should not have this poor a safety net. But to make Europe seem like some workers paradise is laughable.
> The whole line about the difference in entertainment is utter drivel. Big Brother started in the UK, there is plenty of garbage culture coming from Europe.
Started in the Netherlands FWIW, and the original Big Brother was a genuinely innovative, brave piece of television, like it or not. Garbage culture is ploughing the format into the ground with hundreds of almost-identical shows, and that was more of a US thing.
> I find it strange to mention Spain, and really all the PIIGS nations who not long ago were in financial dire straits and Greece has still not escaped.
It's vital to mention, because that can be the downside of the European approach: stagnant economies where people are comfortable but growth is low.
> The lack of a decent safety net in the US scares the crap out of me. The richest nation in the world should not have this poor a safety net. But to make Europe seem like some workers paradise is laughable.
Like you say, becoming a billionaire isn't something that seems possible in Europe; people who want to win big will prefer the US. But I do think Europe genuinely has it better for the average person.
> The lack of a decent safety net in the US scares the crap out of me.
What kind of safety net? No you're not going to lose your job and draw unemployment benefits equal to your salary for years on end. This is also the land of personal responsibility. It can be scary at times. My 6 year old son has a chronic illness (type 1 diabetes) and his supplies cost an exorbitant amount of money. If somehow I was unable to find employment, drained all of our savings, etc. he wouldn't die, he just wouldn't get the absolute top of the line equipment (insulin pump / continuous glucose monitor / sensors / etc.) Medicaid would provide him insulin and needles. It's not ideal, but I don't expect everyone else to pay for my family's bad luck / misfortune.
Medical bankruptcy isn't really a thing in the rest of the world. That's part of the safety net, and it's hard to reconcile with the notion of 'personal responsibility'.
> I don't expect everyone else to pay for my family's bad luck / misfortune
If you take out an insurance contract, that's exactly what you're doing.
> Medical bankruptcy isn't really a thing in the rest of the world.
Agreed, it's a problem, but for the average person with a job who elects an insurance plan (the vast majority of Americans,) it's not an issue. My sister-in-law spent 4 years being treated for cancer before passing away last year. Despite running up hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of bills between chemo, multiple surgeries, etc, it did not bankrupt her family because they had health insurance.
> If you take out an insurance contract, that's exactly what you're doing.
Except we're explicitly buying-in. Until we have universal health care, I don't expect others to pick up the tab because I prefer that my son have the absolute best current tech available.
I don't say this to demean these people but I would guess that a majority of that 16% are low-skill/minimum wage jobs. When you don't have skills that are in demand, employers less likely to offer benefits. Businesses are just like people, if they can get away with paying less, they will. I'm not saying it's right.
I'm hoping the Republicans manage to screw things up enough to lose Congress in 2018. If that happens, Trump will go all-in on single-payer/universal healthcare. He has no loyalty, and in the past (prior to running for office) he was pro-single-payer. So we'll see what happens.
This isn't about survival of the fittest, if you have no skill, then you are going to have trouble finding a job that has good benefits. No one is stopping you from acquiring a skill (outside of cases when you're sick...obviously.) You can become a plumber, carpenter, electrician, etc. and make a decent living.
and... we'll just give a big 'fuck you' to everyone else who gets sick at some point, and can't go back to work, or has skills that get passed by in the marketplace. hey - just go back to school for a few years, juggling some low wage jobs while you get more skills! so that you can win some approval from some employer where yay you can pay extra money to have some insurance so you can afford medicine to keep yourself alive. whew! That doesn't sound like "survival of the fittest" AT ALL. not sure that the OP was thinking about.
The word "benefits" just irks the hell out of me in the first place. Maybe the entire concept of "benefits" being synonymous "things that give you access to something that keeps you alive and healthy", and tying said stuff to "employment" (something very much at the whim of people and factors often outside your control - handicaps, geography, family obligations, etc) we could think about the issue a bit differently.
Also... society needs people to be doing low-end crappy work. Are they just deserving enough to find a job that has "good benefits"?
> and... we'll just give a big 'fuck you' to everyone else who gets sick at some point, and can't go back to work, or has skills that get passed by in the marketplace.
Capitalism doesn't care if you get sick. It only cares if you have time/skill to trade. That's the cold hard reality. In this country, capitalism trumps just about everything else. It has its advantages and disadvantages for sure. By the way, I'm not saying all of this is morally "right" - it's just the way it's always been, capitalism/business comes first in the USA.
I agree that society needs people to be doing low-end crappy work, but maybe if there were fewer low-skilled laborers in the job market, there would be more competition for their services (i.e. the employers would have to offer better benefits.)
I'm all for universal-healthcare and frankly my family would be a primary beneficiary.
As far as safety nets go, how far do we go? If I got sick, I wouldn't expect you (and everyone else collectively) to pay my mortgage, grocery bills, etc. for potentially years on end. Where do we draw the line? How do we prevent people from gaming the system? I know people in Europe who have been "sick" for years.
The drain on the systems in Europe from those who are “gaming the system” and who are long term sick pales into insignificance when you consider the overall savings due to the collective bargaining power of a nationalised healthcare system.
With COBRA, you can keep your health insurance (of course you have to pay for it) even if you quit/get-fired.
I don't know about you, but I've never quit my job just because a situation turned sour. There have been cases where I said "ok, it's time to look for a new job." But never "Take this job and shove it - I quit!"
But don't you think there could be a correlation between poor family health and an inability to get a job (and hence insurance)? Caring obligations, mental health, or any number of other reasons could be a hindrance.
I honestly don't think 'get a job and you'll be fine' is a particularly good way to help to someone with health problems. It's a big hole in the US safety net.
Your son having diabetes is not the same as say you getting an illness that prevents you from working. Or an illness for a child that requires more attention, maybe round the clock care.
And if you work for minimum wage AND you have a child with diabetes its a very different story. Most of the people hanging around HN are technology related, some of us have a tendency to be a little egocentric.
To compare your situation, having a child with a chronic but very manageable condition (diabetes) as opposed to say severe autism. I was just reading a story on NPR about a couple, where the husband is a programmer making 100K, and they have 2 autistic children. They don't have furniture in their house. They've declared bankruptcy. They have tons of medical bills.
credit card / student debt is a huge issue across the board in the US. Frankly you can live just about anywhere in the US on 100k if you have no debt. I read somewhere a while back that 67% of americans have less than $1000 in their checking account. That just blew my mind. But they're all walking around with iPhones and shiny new cars.
We've been fortunate to pay off our student loans and made the conscious decision when we first got married that if we didn't have the cash, we weren't going to borrow cash from our future selves to pay for it (with credit cards.) This by far has been the best decision we've ever made.
We have a reasonable amount of money in the bank (no matter the number it's never enough) and the only debt we owe is the mortgage on the house.
Student loans are a bigger issue for the up & coming generations. 17 year old american kids are not equipped to understand the implications of taking on $80,000+ in loans for a college education. We've put money away for the kids' college, but it won't be enough to cover their entire education unless they go to a public university. It's crazy to think that most parents don't steer their kids towards well-paying university majors. The worst case scenario happens far too often, for example: a kid majors in a generic degree like "communications" or "english" in exchange for $80,000 and their first job (if they're lucky to get one in their field!) pays them a pittance.
Well, consider that I am not what I would consider "rich" (this is not a complaint!) The number would have to be $2m+ for it to be "enough" in the event I couldn't provide for my family - enough to more or less guarantee that the kids are old enough to take care of themselves (15-20 years worth.) Given that it's highly unlikely that I will reach $2m+ in my lifetime, the number will never be enough ;)
Ah, I understand. I thought you were speaking in more general terms. You want security. Everyone does, and I think everyone should have it. The idea that some people aren't good enough or haven't worked hard enough to have a place to stay, food to eat, and medical treatment they need is - to me - inhumane. America is, as a nation, inhumane.
Once someone has reached financial security, money can no longer improve his/her happiness - except in short bursts. Understanding that, I can't imagine why anyone would ever need more than 50M (which is still way more than anyone would ever need). For me, it's embarrassing to live in a country where some have tens of billions while others scrape by - and some fail to do even that.
The article's major flaw is lumping all "Americans" together. Life expectancy varies wildly across race and income. America has always chosen to make the desires of the rich and powerful more important than the needs of the poor and powerless. We sometimes call this the American Dream. Equality in America isn't about all people having a decent life. It is more akin to Animal Farm: "All animals are equal, but some animals (the rich, the powerful) are more equal than others."
I'm not saying this is right, but it is silly to claim that "Americans" are living poor lives, and just as equally silly not to see that America is still the sole hyperpower of the world.
This is a long debate in American history, and one still going on: is American hyperpower the result of material inequality and minority exploitation, or is America limiting its potential by letting a significant portion of its population be abused? No one really puts it in those terms, not publicly (one notable exception being 'trickle-down economics'), but this is really at the heart of American politics.
> it is silly to claim that "Americans" are living poor lives
Good point. The funny thing though is that the median American leads a fairly drab life, but still fully subscribes to his own exploitation, if you will. Witness the election of a Republican president, house, and senate.
As John Steinbeck is reported to have said, "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."
However, Ronald Wright reported that he had said it, see the "Disputed" box at the end of the Wikiquote article.
EDIT to add: FWIW, it's an insightful aphorism independent of who said it.
Have you been in Greece or Spain? Experienced quality of life is way above statistical or expected.
Proud moment in most of the Europe is being able to take relaxed coffee and think, which is possible in most countries. I am always puzzled when somebody proudly tries to explain to me how having two jobs is great.
"We don't dream. We are fine, we continue our lives, we know that we don't live in extreme poverty. But if you want to learn a second language, if you want to do something for yourself, improving your skills, you can't or you are very limited," Eva Pavlopoulo, a 29-year-old student, told CNBC in the tourist-friendly neighborhood of Plaka in central Athens.
Both you and your parent comment can be true. The economy may be doing terribly relative to other European countries, but if Greece values quality of life over economic development, then this wouldn't be terribly surprising.
The author's basic problem is he does not understand the United States is comprised of over 3,000 counties. The differences among them are vast, and most of the country is sparsely populated. To understand America, you'd have to spend time in places outside the big cities, like Appalachia, much like Great Britain is not just London.
The lack of safety net is exactly why the opportunities for profit in the US are greater. In the US you can consume people’s lives to build your fortune, while in Europe you have to take care of your employees.
Keep in mind everything I'm about to tell you refers to those in the corporate world, where many people have college educations, etc. This is not finding or losing a minimum wage job in retail. If you are of lower education or working a low wage job you might have less stress in a place like Europe. Take everything I say with a grain of salt, just like you should with the author of this article.
The most recent conversations about that issue was with a Frenchman who told me that seniority and hierarchy is very inflexible in Europe. There are a lot of people who are bad at their jobs but have a good position and will hold on to it for quite some time. No one ever loses their job for being terrible at it. And it makes it difficult for young people to move up the ladder where that ladder is.
And I found it very interesting that I read an article about the making of the American version of the Office versus the UK version. Ricky Gervais said specifically that the character of Michael had to be good at his job. This was due to the fact that in the US if you were as bad at your job in the US as Ricky was in the UK Version of the Office you'd be fired. It seems to be a common theme of the handful of French people I've met - there are a lot of laggards with high level positions in France.
I knew another French woman who was a consultant for a company that had a US office and spent a year here in Chicago. She did a lot of 'change management'. This refers to a few things, but one of those changes is 'layoffs'. And she walked me thru the whole process of when people lose their jobs in France and how different it is in the US.
In France if you are the victim of corporate downsizing you get a year of pay. You get job training. You get services to find a new job. And she told me how demoralized most of the French people were, how'd they'd feel sorry for themselves or be lazy. Some of them would not look for jobs at all.
Meanwhile when she had the experience in the US typically the layoff transition period some of these people only got 3 months of pay. However most of them had some hope, at least some of them had found another position before that period of time had run out.
Keep in mind this is mostly information based on France, the UK and Germany. I can't speak to other nations. I've heard nothing but good things from Norway and Sweden, and I've heard terrible stories in Spain, Portugal, Greece, Italy, Ireland, etc. In all honesty I wish we had some sort of federalized health care. The lack of security scares the crap out of me. If I were to die quickly my family would have some life insurance that would keep them afloat for a time. But I'm also a cancer survivor, it was only stage one. The US is filled with stories of people getting sick and hanging on for years and suffering and then losing their job. In that situation my family would probably be better off if we lived in the UK with the NHA. I just hate to empty drive about crossiants and better entertainment in Europe makes it a utopia.
These are excellent points, and I think they highlight a lot of the things that are "good" about how the American labour market works, and the deficiencies of the "social utopia" of Europe.
I think you can take it too far in either directions and I am relieved that you point out the deficiencies of this approach when it comes to healthcare.
I think France in particular often comes in for a lot of fire with regards to having these big slow expensive bureaucratic structures.
But then at the same time, along with the US, France is one of the top exporting economies in the world? They can't be doing too badly.
For the record I've met quite a few Europeans (French and Germans) and I've asked them about what compelled them to come to the US. At times it does seem like Europe is a less stressful place to live. And the answer I get typically amounts to this;
"In France (or Germany or UK) security is much better than the US. But the opportunity in the US is much better."
I find it strange to mention Spain, and really all the PIIGS nations who not long ago were in financial dire straits and Greece has still not escaped.
The lack of a decent safety net in the US scares the crap out of me. The richest nation in the world should not have this poor a safety net. But to make Europe seem like some workers paradise is laughable.