Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Sigh. Repeating for the people who think they are discovering something novel. The US is a terrible place to be poor but ok if you are rich (though that is getting to be debatable). Europe is a good place to be if you are middle income or poor. The rich try to shelter.
Europe still sucks to be poor, it’s just that more people are poor so you don’t feel as bad because everyone else is in the same boat. And it’s harder to become not poor. Reduced class mobility, more entrenched aristocratic wealth over there. They tax labor like crazy but barely touch capital generated income.
Wrong. You can get sick and not become homeless or die. You can retire! Your kids can go to university and not have to put 50% of their paycheck into repaying their debt. You can still have days off. Their lower class lifestyle is a middle class lifestyle here without the constant undercurrent of terror that medical debt will take you down or your kids will get shot at school.
Anonymous wrote:I love how DCUM always looks to Western Europe as somehow representative of all Europe. It’s like everything east of Berlin doesn’t exist or isn’t worthy of consideration.
OP — why do say Europe in the subject but wax on only about Western Europe?
Anonymous wrote:Easy to tell 90% of the posters on this thread have never lived in Europe and get their entire perspective of life in Europe from a tik tok clip showing progressive liberal people in hip neighborhoods in Paris or Berlin.
As someone who's actually lived in Europe long enough and still spends plenty of time in Europe in various countries, it's indisputable that incomes are higher - substantially higher - in the United States. Average income in the entire UK is lower than the average income in Mississippi, the poorest state in the US. At the same time cost of living in the popular key European cities where the better jobs are isn't necessarily low either. Anyone looked at the cost of housing in London (or most of Britain in general?). Or Paris? Very expensive. Pretty much only rich people and poor people in subsidized housing live in most central European capital cities. Middle class and everyday people live in suburbs and outer neighborhoods, with long commutes on public transportation. Many Europeans somehow end up coming to the US for work and completely fall in love with the ease of suburban American life. And there's no shortage of poor neighborhoods in Europe too, the banlieues of Paris, the housing estates of Britain, the crowded tenements of migrants living off generous doles that is causing enormous cultural strife across Europe. And there's small dying towns and villages (speaking to the person complaining about small town America).
Europe does have a large enough affluent upper middle class but most Europeans are not in this category. And there's widespread fears across Western Europe over economic insecurity and decline in standards of living and mass migration. Few people are taking things for granted or thinking the future is rosy.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Sigh. Repeating for the people who think they are discovering something novel. The US is a terrible place to be poor but ok if you are rich (though that is getting to be debatable). Europe is a good place to be if you are middle income or poor. The rich try to shelter.
Europe still sucks to be poor, it’s just that more people are poor so you don’t feel as bad because everyone else is in the same boat. And it’s harder to become not poor. Reduced class mobility, more entrenched aristocratic wealth over there. They tax labor like crazy but barely touch capital generated income.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Sigh. Repeating for the people who think they are discovering something novel. The US is a terrible place to be poor but ok if you are rich (though that is getting to be debatable). Europe is a good place to be if you are middle income or poor. The rich try to shelter.
Europe still sucks to be poor, it’s just that more people are poor so you don’t feel as bad because everyone else is in the same boat. And it’s harder to become not poor. Reduced class mobility, more entrenched aristocratic wealth over there. They tax labor like crazy but barely touch capital generated income.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Flip side, even cashiers can have a nice life.
They have smaller houses, smaller cars, excellent weather compare to most of US. Cheap vacations across many countries and settings.
They don’t worry about being laid off at 50 and having to become a cashier who makes so little she is eligible for snap benefits.
Rewarding mediocrity doesn’t lead to prosperity in the long term. To an extent, an effective government needs to light a fire under people’s asses to achieve things in life. Coddling and enablement makes everyone poorer eventually
What is mediocrity? Public servants such as a teacher, fire fighter, service member or police officer? How about line men at the local energy company or a plumber or nurse. Hell, most Americans could be “mediocre” but they live a good life. Not everyone can or wants to be in the top 10%. The majority of Americans work to live, not live to work.
do you know any linemen, teachers, postal workers police officers? there counterparts in the rest of the developing world have a much higher standard of living and most of these working class popped in etc USA are no longer making good incomes. The bottom 50% of Americans are all incapable of living within their means- as in they do not earn enough to put a roof over there heads and food in their bellies and the lights one, they choose to forego a bill every month and that ends up costing them debt so they have to service debt. look at a sociology textbook- its all there. plumbers and electricians who own their own business make a good living as do contractors but not in any way comparable to their European counterparts.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Flip side, even cashiers can have a nice life.
They have smaller houses, smaller cars, excellent weather compare to most of US. Cheap vacations across many countries and settings.
They don’t worry about being laid off at 50 and having to become a cashier who makes so little she is eligible for snap benefits.
Rewarding mediocrity doesn’t lead to prosperity in the long term. To an extent, an effective government needs to light a fire under people’s asses to achieve things in life. Coddling and enablement makes everyone poorer eventually
What is mediocrity? Public servants such as a teacher, fire fighter, service member or police officer? How about line men at the local energy company or a plumber or nurse. Hell, most Americans could be “mediocre” but they live a good life. Not everyone can or wants to be in the top 10%. The majority of Americans work to live, not live to work.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:You obviously feel strongly about what you wrote. Your comment is practically hysterical. Despite your claims, American women are having more babies than Europeans. It’s not a tiny wealthy minority.
My guess is you live in a blue urban liberal bubble and don’t get out there often. Your beliefs are shaped by wealthy liberals and the poor minorities living around you.
I'm not PP, but are you disputing that the U.S. has the highest infant mortality rate in the developed world?
I think if you remove one minority group with terrible health, high obesity rates, low education and high out of wedlock births then the situation in America looks very different.
It’s tragic but simply doesn’t apply to your average white woman who graduated college and got married before having kids.
What you fail to understand is that Europe also has poor immigrants. Chile has poor people. There are minority groups in Europe with terrible health and low education and out of wedlock births — as you so delicately put it.
And yet, the United States is the only developed country with a maternal and infant mortality rate that Latvia would be ashamed of.
There is no denying that the United States has horrible outcomes for women and babies. But sure keep putting your head in the sand.
The CIA estimates the US' infant mortality rate at a 5.1 per 1000 vs Latvia's 4.7. Meanwhile Afghanistan is a 101.3. You're stretching.
Stop and think about what you’re saying:
You’re celebrating because the US has better health outcomes than Afghanistan! And you’re accepting that the United States is worse than Latvia. But maybe if we work hard we can finally meet Latvia’s numbers.
THAT is winning?
I'm suggesting that you're pretending the US is so awful when it's very slightly worse than major European countries, which largely have socialized medicine. The US doesn't have horrible outcomes, it has slightly worse outcomes, largely due to a single population group that has an outsized impact on the numbers.
Hold up. The US is not slightly worse than major European countries. The US is slightly worse than one of the poorest countries in the Europe — Latvia.
The US has completely fallen behind major European countries like the UK, Germany and France. And all of those countries have poor African migrants, war refugees and asylum seekers included in their data.
Germany 3.1, 3.1, and UK 3.8. The US has all of those people too. Keep on stretching.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I have relatives in both northern and Southern Europe and none of them are complaining about their standard of living, even the ones whose incomes your would consider extremely low.
If you measure success or a good standard of living by large homes, large cars, and large portion sizes when eating out, then yes, Europeans are "poorer." But most Europeans don't have 4-5 bedroom houses filled with endless stuff from Costco and Target "runs" or big-ass fuel-guzzling cars. They take (much) longer vacations, can retire earlier in some countries, don't go into debt for higher education, and don't have to declare bankruptcy due to medical debt. They all take vacations, even those with lower incomes, and have full lives--except with a lot less of the store-bought crap that Americans spend their lives working for.
[b]Living in a nice, large home and driving a large, comfortable car IS something most people want, including Europeans. They buy the nicest home they can, just like we do.
sounds like you think all Americans care about is buying stuff at Target, which is so sad. It’s a big country out there and you should get out there and discover it.
I’m an American and I hate having huge cars. It’s something that’s a necessity to live in the US and is an expensive externality that I do not want.
Unfortunately, walkable neighborhoods and adequate public transportation are a pipe dream. I HATE having to spend tens of thousands of stupid cats simply because there’s no other way to transport kids.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Sigh. Repeating for the people who think they are discovering something novel. The US is a terrible place to be poor but ok if you are rich (though that is getting to be debatable). Europe is a good place to be if you are middle income or poor. The rich try to shelter.
Europe still sucks to be poor, it’s just that more people are poor so you don’t feel as bad because everyone else is in the same boat. And it’s harder to become not poor. Reduced class mobility, more entrenched aristocratic wealth over there. They tax labor like crazy but barely touch capital generated income.
Estonia has more social mobility than the US.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/social-mobility-by-country
Some European countries are lower than the US, but most are well above it.
I have a very difficult time believing social mobility in the UK is at or more than in the US - at least socially, once you are working class (or whatever) You are ALWAYS that class.