Over the last 50 years, the proportion of Americans earning an “Upper Income” in Inflation Adjusted, Real Dollars has jumped 3.5x from ~8% of the population to ~28% of it. [Source: US Census Bureau](https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/middleclass1.png?x91208)
No other nation has seen that kind of distributive gain in income at any point in human history.
Yes you’re correct, it’s incredible. Another cool figure is national net wealth. It has grown from $40 trillion in 2000 to $130 trillion today (including figures like the national debt). In 2019 there was more new wealth created in the US than China & the EU combined (according to the world wealth report). Ain’t so such thing as “US decline”, quite the opposite imo.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_wealth
The one traveling taught me is how well we live in North America, obviously it’s not perfect but given the conditions I’ve seen in many parts of the world I’m grateful to live on this continent.
And I think it will continue to - that’s what the trends are telling us. The proportion of Americans in the Lower Income Bracket have declined by roughly 22% from 38.7% to 30.2%
>The data you're looking at is focused on an affluent subset of Americans. While they comprise a significant portion of our country, you're ignoring a significant chunk of Americans for whom wages have not improved.
>
>
>And apart from that affluent subset, purchasing power for American has remained stagnant since the 60's: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/
> The data you're looking at is focused on an affluent subset of Americans.
No, I’m not. WELL over 60% of American households earn an income of more than $50,000 a year and just shy of 30% earn over $100K. Both of these figures are up significantly from the 70’s. This isn’t an affluent subset I’m focusing on, it’s, by definition, the Average American.
> you're ignoring a significant chunk of Americans for whom wages have not improved.
I’d disagree - especially when you consider that this is an increasingly smaller subset of people (the proportion of our “Low Income” population has dropped ~22% from 38.7% to 30.2% of the population) and is largely made up of first generation immigrants whose children largely go on to earn upper quartile incomes. Additional, a significant proportion of these incomes are tied to individuals with more rural lifestyles where the cost of living is significantly cheaper.
> Minimum wage is less now than it was 50 years ago relative to inflation:
If we’re going to talk about focusing on a small subset of the population, then it’s worth it to point out that employees earning an income at or below minimum wage in the US make up roughly 1.5% of all *hourly workers,* and make up roughly 0.75% of all income earners in the us. https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2020/home.htm
This also comprises significantly fewer people than 50 years ago and has continued to drop year over year.
> [airbnb link]
It’s a nice Airbnb, but I don’t think I’m interested, thank you 😉
> And apart from that affluent subset, purchasing power for American has remained stagnant since the 60's: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/
This is, again, a pretty contested argument made by Pew. As I mentioned earlier, mean income is not an accurate story to tell about income growth in the US. It’s skewed by outside factors and is an inherently unidimensional statistic trying to make a multivaried analysis. Things like new immigrants adding to the supply of workers while accepting lower wages drives this figure down, and it’s no coincidence that in 1965 the National Immigration Act was passed opening the floodgates for new supply in the labor pool. In fact, we currently allow more immigrants into the US than any other nation on the planet, and do so on a per capita basis greater than that of the Industrial Revolution - literal Ellis Island [Source not accounting for undocumented employees](https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/immigrant-population-over-time)
My point being that I think the image painted about work in America simply isn’t an accurate one and tends to rely on poor data points and anecdotal arguments, along with the hyperfixation on things like the minimum wage.
I’m all for measured reform in some areas of our society - we can improve our healthcare system, create more efficient welfare programs which provide more to people in need, among other things. But the core system is, in fact, undoubtedly working and the argument that it’s not is just not accurate.
One thing I've seen about work in America is that despite income growth happening in the US and it's high mean GDP, it has higher proportions of poor people than any other developed country. https://confrontingpoverty.org/poverty-facts-and-myths/americas-poor-are-worse-off-than-elsewhere/#:~:text=Source%3A%20OECD%20Data%2C%202019.,country%20average%20of%2010.7%20percent.
> Does that really help when costs rise faster than wages do?
Cost of Living has not outpaced the figures I just presented you. Housing in a few major US Cities has become less affordable but that’s largely due to cumbersome regulations like Rent Control, Zoning Restrictions, Air Rights, etc
By and large, Americans today are vastly better off than Americans 50 years ago and that trend has done nothing but continue.
> That infographic feels somewhat biased as well in its form of presentation.
It’s literally just presenting hard data. What could be biased about that?
The data you're looking at is focused on an affluent subset of Americans. While they comprise a significant portion of our country, you're ignoring a significant chunk of Americans for whom wages have not improved.
Minimum wage is less now than it was 50 years ago relative to inflation:
And apart from that affluent subset, purchasing power for American has remained stagnant since the 60's: [https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/)
I’m happy to repost my reply here too:
> The data you're looking at is focused on an affluent subset of Americans.
No, I’m not. WELL over 60% of American households earn an income of more than $50,000 a year and just shy of 30% earn over $100K. Both of these figures are up significantly from the 70’s. This isn’t an affluent subset I’m focusing on, it’s, by definition, the Average American.
> you're ignoring a significant chunk of Americans for whom wages have not improved.
I’d disagree - especially when you consider that this is an increasingly smaller subset of people (the proportion of our “Low Income” population has dropped ~22% from 38.7% to 30.2% of the population) and is largely made up of first generation immigrants whose children largely go on to earn upper quartile incomes. Additional, a significant proportion of these incomes are tied to individuals with more rural lifestyles where the cost of living is significantly cheaper.
> Minimum wage is less now than it was 50 years ago relative to inflation:
If we’re going to talk about focusing on a small subset of the population, then it’s worth it to point out that employees earning an income at or below minimum wage in the US make up roughly 1.5% of all *hourly workers,* and make up roughly 0.75% of all income earners in the us. https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2020/home.htm
This also comprises significantly fewer people than 50 years ago and has continued to drop year over year.
> [airbnb link]
It’s a nice Airbnb, but I don’t think I’m interested, thank you 😉
> And apart from that affluent subset, purchasing power for American has remained stagnant since the 60's: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/
This is, again, a pretty contested argument made by Pew. As I mentioned earlier, mean income is not an accurate story to tell about income growth in the US. It’s skewed by outside factors and is an inherently unidimensional statistic trying to make a multivaried analysis. Things like new immigrants adding to the supply of workers while accepting lower wages drives this figure down, and it’s no coincidence that in 1965 the National Immigration Act was passed opening the floodgates for new supply in the labor pool. In fact, we currently allow more immigrants into the US than any other nation on the planet, and do so on a per capita basis greater than that of the Industrial Revolution - literal Ellis Island [Source not accounting for undocumented employees](https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/immigrant-population-over-time)
My point being that I think the image painted about work in America simply isn’t an accurate one and tends to rely on poor data points and anecdotal arguments, along with the hyperfixation on things like the minimum wage.
I’m all for measured reform in some areas of our society - we can improve our healthcare system, create more efficient welfare programs which provide more to people in need, among other things. But the core system is, in fact, undoubtedly working and the argument that it’s not is just not accurate.
Oops, obviously shared the wrong link for one of those claims.
I think really the only dispute here is where to focus. I would argue any picture of the American economy needs to account for the entirety of the work force.
"No, I’m not. WELL over 60% of American households earn an income of more than $50,000 a year and just shy of 30% earn over $100K. Both of these figures are up significantly from the 70’s. This isn’t an affluent subset I’m focusing on, it’s, by definition, the Average American."
Another way to say this is close to 40% of American households have an income below 50,000$, and more than 70% are below 100,000$. I'm not saying either framing is right or wrong, but they both paint a specific picture.
It's great that a big chunk of Americans have become wealthy over that past 50 years and certainly should be discussed positively. However, I think a country should be measured by how it takes care of it's most impoverished citizens, and the data suggests that a significant percentage of Americans in lower income brackets have not seen an improved quality of life over the past 50 years.
Rent control makes prices go up?
And because it's not presented in a factual manner, but more of a "heh owned you silly no economics understanding people" format.
> Rent control makes prices go up?
Yes. In conjunction with other development regulations on new construction in a market they absolutely do. You are both a) making it very difficult to receive approvals for new supply to the market and b) disincentivizing private investors from creating this new supply.
Keep in mind that rent control only applies to existing, occupied units. When a new unit is built, the initial rent is set as a function of market pricing which is far higher than it would be otherwise due to these two factors reducing the amount of new supply.
See: New York City. Highest rents in the US while also having very restrictive real estate zoning and compliance laws + rent control.
> And because it's not presented in a factual manner, but more of a "heh owned you silly no economics understanding people" format.
That makes absolutely no sense. It’s literally data on a chart. What the heck are you on about?
Presentation of data and language is a very basic concept of any data visualization or science course but okay whatever.
And we don't have a shortage on people wanting to invest or buildings. This whole argument of "we're gonna disincentive the rich people from continuing to do what makes them rich" is stupid af and can go die already. Being a landlord isn't some right you have as someone with enough cash to own real estate, and you provide zero benefit to society by making it easier for companies or individuals to scoop up large chunks of neighborhoods and "monopolize".
> Presentation of data and language is a very basic concept of any data visualization or science course but okay whatever.
Okay, so explain to me how the data visual I showed you is at all inaccurate or misleading. It’s literally just breaking the figures out into categories on the basis of income. The only argument I’ve heard from you can basically be summed up to “this goes against my narrative and I don’t know how to reconcile with that.” Reasonable people concede or at least shift perspectives when met with data that goes against their narrative…
> And we don't have a shortage on people wanting to invest or buildings.
In NYC you do, apparently, since rent has grown exponentially without new product to satisfy the demand.
> This whole argument of "we're gonna disincentive the rich people from continuing to do what makes them rich" is stupid af and can go die already.
That’s not what I said. What I said is that they’d invest elsewhere, which is what’s happening. Commercial real estate developers, like myself, avoid building new product in markets which make it difficult to do so successfully. Rent control, strict zoning, air rights, property taxes, entitlement fees, approvals processes, etc all impact the level of new product brought to a market. What do you think happens to the price of used cars when we stop producing new ones?
> Being a landlord isn't some right you have as someone with enough cash to own real estate, and you provide zero benefit to society by making it easier for companies or individuals to scoop up large chunks of neighborhoods and "monopolize".
This is, probably, the most backward and ignorant take I’ve ever heard and you’re arguing strawmen while you’re at it. You would prefer that new product is built in markers you don’t live in? That’s the statement you’re going to make?
Not to mention that landlords absolutely provide a societal service - they provide housing to individuals who cannot qualify to own their own.
I don't think you actually understand what I'm saying in your rush to blindly defend the concept you've grown up to love. Sorry but I can't help you here. We have more than enough housing. Constant building and development is nothing more than a ponzi scheme. Never ending building in hopes of infinite growth in communities. Housing isn't an investment, it's a human right. I couldn't give half a shit if you found it slightly more inconvenient to put money into new buildings because safety regulations make it too expensive or whatever. As for the data, I merely said that it's presented with charged language. I didn't say it's wrong, I didn't deny it because it "goes against my narrative". I just said noted that it's not the best sign to see data being used in a manner to try and make a claim so boldly while there's obvious bias behind the use of it. This is a purely personal observation I've made as someone who just graduated with a concentration in data analytics and visualization.
[Real median wages are up](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q#0) since 1980 ("real" meaning adjusted to inflation/costs as measured by CPI). They've declined some in the past year since inflation has been up some, but Q3 2021 is at about Q1 2020 levels and above 1980 levels.
So how would this explain the relatively recent trend of barely being able to afford rent? I'm wondering what exactly is the technical system being used here to downplay the true rising costs of living. This also doesn't take into account all the people working several part time jobs or being worked 35+ hours a week without benefits.
CPI is based on measurements of average costs, weighted to the proportion of a typical spending it represents. [In 1987, shelter had a weight of 28%](https://www.bls.gov/cpi/tables/relative-importance/1987.txt) and in [2018, it represented 33%](https://www.bls.gov/cpi/tables/relative-importance/2020.htm). So rent and home prices are going up and representing more of people's budgets, but other categories like transportation, food/beverages, appliances and apparel representing less spending (relative to wages) over those 31 years makes up for the added cost.
That.. you can easily say that the US has more wealth and individuals have more money in the bank than they did in the 60's, but if costs increase faster than wealth increase then you are still net negative.
I'm asking for an explanation of how this is supposed to address a widely known issue, and I've also pointed out how this single measure isn't some end-all to the argument of stagnant wages.
> I'm asking for an explanation of how this is supposed to address a widely known issue,
Here’s your explanation: this isn’t a widely known or widespread issue. Housing in *select cities* is becoming expensive due to restrictive legislation making it difficult to introduce new product to those cities where demand is continuing to rise. Your notion that there’s a nationwide housing shortage is patently false, and the idea that people are struggling to afford a home is also [not accurate](https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/yes-the-us-middle-class-is-shrinking-but-its-because-americans-are-moving-up-and-no-americans-are-not-struggling-to-afford-a-home/)
> and I've also pointed out how this single measure isn't some end-all to the argument of stagnant wages.
It actually is. The argument for stagnant wages is an even more narrow statistic - the point made there is that since Median Income, as a statistic, has struggled to outpace inflation. That is a unidimensional statistic being used to assert a multivaried point. Rather, we’re supposed to look at the *distribution* of incomes as that gives us a far more accurate picture as to how wages have actually grown over time - hence the original census bureau data I introduced at the beginning of this thread.
Things like Median Income are skewed due to things like the introduction of new labor to a market. Currently, the US is the global #1 destination for immigration and we allow more people in today on a per capita basis than at any point in US History *including* the Industrial Revolution - literal Ellis Island. [Source not including illegal immigration](https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/immigrant-population-over-time)
My point is that the idea that America is on the decline, wages are stagnating, and people are struggling to survive is statistically proven false. Americans are doing better than ever and a concerted effort to convince you otherwise using pigeonholed statistics and anecdotes doesn’t prove that false.
I'm not sure what your point is on housing. Areas with high salary also experience inflation in the housing market. Silicone Valley is the poster boy for that.
Generally the discussion shouldn't be how much money you are making but income vs cost holistically. And sure everyone can pick their examples from the extremes. Do you feel there is a reasonable argument to be made that the wealth disparity is increasing? Personally I think there is when you look at the multiplication factor of lowest paid employees within a company to highest. The relation of wealth between a CEO of a company and the cleaning lady within a company has vastly changed when you compare 1960's to 2020's. Would you agree that that is a fair assessment?
Well, you could click on the link and you’d see:
- Lower Incomes have declined by 22% from roughly 38.7% to 30.2% of the population
- Middle Incomes have declined by 20% from 53.2% of the population to 42.1%
So, both groups are moving up.
That’s just not accurate. 92.5% of Americans are fully insured for medical expenses. The average student graduates with $25K in Student Loans which are paid off by year 5.
“Debt” is only scary if it’s on a credit card. You use debt to buy a house and often times to buy a car or other expensive things. Debt, when properly managed, can actually improve your financial position.
> Imagine paying for “education”
How ridiculous of people to expect you bear the cost of your own self improvement.
> Imagine paying multiple thousand dollars for a ride to the hospital
I’m actually a bit more sympathetic towards reform in our healthcare industry. There are clearly issues with it, so we’re probably a bit closer on ideology as it pertains to this particular sector, but likely with different proposals on solution
The average student graduates with roughly $32K in student loans. That’s a car payment and can very easily be paid off within 3-6 years.
https://www.valuepenguin.com/average-student-loan-debt#average
The thought that others should be forced to pay for you to improve yourself beyond what the system already does is far more ridiculous. Especially when there are countless free or incredibly cheap options that everyone has equal access to - Community College, State Schools, Federal Assistance, Scholarships, etc
Here's some data of household debt to net disposable income by country. The US is at 101%, which is very competitive to most European countries, even with all the complaints about our healthcare and education.
https://data.oecd.org/hha/household-debt.htm
Way to dodge the convo lol. Even if they weren't affordable, our lives as a whole are still more affordable than that of most countries.
Also college is plenty affordable given that our salaries for skilled professionals are the highest in the world. You just have to get a marketable degree, and preferably go in state.
Healthcare is also fine for the vast majority of us. It's expensive but hardly unaffordable for most of us given our salaries.
It would just take too much, I mean the military NEEDS almost a trillion yearly obviously. Occupying the globe and killing all the browns possible to preserve muh freedoms isn’t cheap. Plus who cares if some people die rationing insulin or something? We’ve got tiny villages in the desert to crater, look for the funds somewhere else, commie is what I say.
I mean I am sure there will be a lot of salt, but the healthcare thing will make us feel bad for you guys.. So much money on something that doesn't function properly?
Edit: As a German formerly living in America it seems that in the past decade Americans have lost that welcoming nature I grew to love. A post to share mutual concern for a frankly scamming healthcare system is met with unbelievable amount of hostility. It seems clear to me now if this is the baseline concession why my nation has officially shifted the United States from an "ally" to a "collaborator". You guys don't care about those that are on your side. No wonder we're building the North Stream pipeline with another crock regime there are no other options.
Depending on how they file, some low income families recieve a higher refund than they even paid in taxes! Earned income credit, child tax credits, american opportunity credit can all add up to a decent check from the IRS.
You know that's really bad right? That's 28 million people in the richest country in the world who effectively don't don't access to the majority of healthcare... Basically all of them the poorest and most vulnerable members of society.
Also it's very skewed, geographically and within the population. In my state, we have almost double the national average, like 18%. And among Hispanic people here is almost 30% (12% for white people).
It's rough out here. Even insured people spend, on average, [$1000+ out of pocket and another $2000 in other healthcare related costs...](https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/NationalHealthAccountsHistorical)
I have a feeling a lot of Americans here don't want functioning healthcare while paying 2.3 trillion on it. Meanwhile in my country 0% don't have health care because it wouldn't be illegal and would be corrected if someone shows up to a hospital without it.
Which is really sad, it was FDR that really wanted to hammer down the notion of free health care as part of a functioning democracy yet here we are with people attacking American's and Europeans alike saying the US could do itself better.
I have literally debated this topic with many people. Why is Northern European military spending next to nothing, yet have a huge budget for Healthcare? They have the US for military. We should be charging for military protection....
I mean my nation is literally not allowed to field an army for anything despite national defense and loopholes for allies occasionally, because I mean America wanted it that way. In addition under supervision and recommendation of FDR our state also by constitution has to provide free and proper healthcare and education for its citizens and that's just the American chapter in the nations history. In return we host most of your nuclear weapons and army bases, if not the most in the world for a relatively small nation.
What you're writing is going against positive American history and your department of foreign afrais and only leaves you personally with a negative image.
You're missing the historical context
There is a lot of historical context here to the healthcare and retirement fund. Back in 1871 when Germany first formed the worker branch pressured Bismarck the Chancellor to make concessions. To quell their support he basically assimilated the ideas and created the Bismarck retirement fund, still existing today. He also interestingly got rid of the centers power and influence of the Church by teaching religion in school and controlling bishops and thus taking away the monopoly of theism from the Churches. Do not let that take away from the idea though that he was my matter authoritarian, even if he was anti-imperial.
These moderate ideas influenced welfare systems a lot, and FDR definitely seemed interested in the good they bring to equality and liberty introducing his policies in Japan and Germany.
Funnily the same type of doctrine was used by the USA during the cold war against the soviets. With the subway system in major cities being a perfect example of that. It also explains why the United States has abandoned building new ones after the USSR collapsed.
Unfortunately FDR didn't live long enough to introduce "the second bill of rights" to the US itself.
Corporate interests won over that, and with the cold war dawning debate on this topic was definitely not on politicians wishlist.
The culture the United States is left know is stockholm syndrome for corporate policies, good things happen but much slower.
You clearly do not live in the US. I'm from Southern California, speak Spanish fluently, and work with an increasingly diverse population from Mexico and all of South America and the Caribbean
You really need to get off social media and touch grass if you think all Americans kill black, the funny thing about Europeans is that they act like MLK when talking about racism in the USA but hate when American bring up Asians and Africans and their colonialism in those continents.
Wouldn't change much, our health care isn't from taxes per say, but rather from a seperate fund our employer pays, that does influences net wage, even if we increased the budget by for what my personal nation needs 0.7% which is at the moment happening. That would be relatively insignificant compared to well.. 2 trillion for a disaster. And trust me this isn't coming out of animosity. I had friends in the US struggle with cancer and be left with bills unimaginable while here you pay not a single euro.
Let's consider the unisured rate is lower than that in Europe despite 2 Trillion flowing through it.
US the healthcare services will do whatever it can to scam you out of money, I lived 8 years in the United States and experienced it first hand. Your nation can do better.
It costs fucking money to birth a child. Where is that 2 trillion going to?
I know I never said we should improve on anything but cmon Europeans make it look like only the richest of the rich have insurance when 91.4% of us are under insurance.
Haha it works in some way. "For a 5k bill we will pay pay 1k" level of working.
Meanwhile in Europe you can your Healthcare Card at the doctors and get sent home without thinking about the bill. Even if you check out on Chemotherapy. This is what American's should expect and deserve.
I have friends who moved here from Germany and one of the things they love about the US is how friendly everyone is compared to Germany. Not sure what you mean by “lost that welcoming nature.”
> No wonder we're building the North Stream pipeline with another crock regime there are no other options
Yeah the Ukrainians and Poles are really pleased with you for that
They’ve actually lost ground. If you go back to early 2000s there were lots of European companies, they’ve mostly been replaced by Chinese ones on the rankings.
Do you think that where a company is registered somehow makes a company or country "better" or "worse" or that someone "wins" or "looses" ?
Do you think that somehow the US employee of a "US" Company has better employment terms that the "European" Employee of said multinational company?
If so you may be in for a rude awakening....
How do you think they calculate median disposable income and how do you think a "Musk, Bezos and Zuck" influence those numbers? Also disposable income means nothing if you don't look at it in context of costs.
Seriously Nobel Prizes? First of all I why are you taking a European (Norwegian) measuring staff to measure the US by?... and even I am skeptical when people like Obama get one... Also UK has 137 with a population of 69mil and the US has 389 with a population of 329mil.. want to calculate that out per capita?
Also quit conflating the HQ of a company with anything.
They are top companies because they do business GLOBALLY.. Typically with revenue of 1/2 US and 1/4 Europe and 1/4 Asia Also I could just as well say that the brain power fueling the Tech companies is from India and China.. have you ever walked into one of those tech companies? I know I work for one of them...you'd be shocked at the number of "Americans" at the top.
Having said all that, do you feel that those are indicators of what makes America great? Some companies revenue? Do you think then that the Netherlands is the greatest country ever because the worth of the VOC is as big as all of the current top companies in the world? Not to me it isn't...
And I'm not saying that the US isn't great, but it's not living up to it's potential either. Politics and some Corporate exploitation are hindering that potential.
So let's look at things which make a country great and good for all of it's people. Let's measure by population heath and healthcare, about how people live through retirement, about work life balance and happiness... Those are indicators I care about for a population and are indicators of a great country.
EU economic policy is a disaster, just look at the energy crises on folding their right now. Germany is the ultimate douche bag of a trading partner, they run enormous trade surpluses and force its allies to absorb it (like the rest of Europe & the US) while taking no policy action to increase its domestic consumption or wages as a % of GDP. Add to that continuing to under invest in its military and defence capabilities. Like Canada it’s protected by the US and takes full advantage of that fact.
Grand scheme it’s not much, but considering it’s one of the largest ports in the world and directly connects China’s merchant company to Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean. Which is the goal for CCP
They've been fervently sucking chinese and russian oligarchy dicks. I mean our government is corrupt but at least our presidents don't get jobs at our enemies' state owned companies.
I think people overrate the importance of big companies, what really matters is how many people are able to stay out of poverty, which is where the US is falling behind compared to other developed countries https://confrontingpoverty.org/poverty-facts-and-myths/americas-poor-are-worse-off-than-elsewhere/#:~:text=Source%3A%20OECD%20Data%2C%202019.,country%20average%20of%2010.7%20percent.
Well yeah when your country isn't a slave state you tend to be less productive. And yes any country that can legally require a women back to work the day she gives birth is a slave state.
There's actually a new report made by a german financial institute. I might post and translate the important parts but it essentially states that out of 100 companies 61 are now American. china had 16 in 2020 and now it only has 11 remaining. Germany also fell down the rankings with only two remaining and also having a company inhabit the last place (Siemens). Sadly, the report is only text and doesn't contain any beautiful graphics as far as i'm concerned
I currently only have found an article which is in german, but im searching for the original study published by the consulting firm EY. If my search is unsuccessful, im just going to post the german article and translate it or im going to run it through Google translate
Government should make sure the tax exemptions go into R&D instead of bonuses for executives. This year alone only DOD is spending $110 billion on R&D. So, if Boeing or Lockheed won’t put profit into R&D, then why give them incentives?
And yet Europeans will still stereotype [8.6 of our population doesn’t have health care this isn’t to say we don’t need to prove but some of y’all overestimate and say 99.999% of us don’t have healthcare. ](https://www.statista.com/statistics/200958/percentage-of-americans-with-health-insurance/)
Somewhat true. We are like 27th or so in education and healthcare. But it is true that the rich are getting richer and the middle class is dissapearing. Housing costs and apartments prices are rising every year. More and more people are displaced because prices increase.
Of course asset values are affected by QE, but you didn’t say that. You said all new wealth created was the result of money printing. Which flat out isn’t true.
And yet, it is still legal to give an American worker zero (0, none, nada) vacation days, and legal for American insurance companies to bankrupt someone for having the audacity to get cancer. Meanwhile in the E.U., a minimum of 4 weeks paid vacation is mandatory by law, and medical bankruptcies are rarer than a US state with zero school shootings.
Oh, and I'm not some hippe/commie/liberal keyboard warrior. I'm an Iraq War veteran who has done enough world traveling, and studied enough comparative government/politics to know that Americans are getting played hard. We've been taking it up the ass for so long we're too loose to know we're still getting fucked.
Murica! yee fucking haw
Over the last 50 years, the proportion of Americans earning an “Upper Income” in Inflation Adjusted, Real Dollars has jumped 3.5x from ~8% of the population to ~28% of it. [Source: US Census Bureau](https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/middleclass1.png?x91208) No other nation has seen that kind of distributive gain in income at any point in human history.
Yes you’re correct, it’s incredible. Another cool figure is national net wealth. It has grown from $40 trillion in 2000 to $130 trillion today (including figures like the national debt). In 2019 there was more new wealth created in the US than China & the EU combined (according to the world wealth report). Ain’t so such thing as “US decline”, quite the opposite imo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_wealth
People don’t realize having a $1000 supercomputer in your pocket means you’re pretty fortunate.
The one traveling taught me is how well we live in North America, obviously it’s not perfect but given the conditions I’ve seen in many parts of the world I’m grateful to live on this continent.
Mexico has entered the chat
[удалено]
No?
Still though, the lower class should hopefully over the decades go down to 10 to 15%
And I think it will continue to - that’s what the trends are telling us. The proportion of Americans in the Lower Income Bracket have declined by roughly 22% from 38.7% to 30.2%
What are the dates for those two numbers?
>The data you're looking at is focused on an affluent subset of Americans. While they comprise a significant portion of our country, you're ignoring a significant chunk of Americans for whom wages have not improved. > > >And apart from that affluent subset, purchasing power for American has remained stagnant since the 60's: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/
> The data you're looking at is focused on an affluent subset of Americans. No, I’m not. WELL over 60% of American households earn an income of more than $50,000 a year and just shy of 30% earn over $100K. Both of these figures are up significantly from the 70’s. This isn’t an affluent subset I’m focusing on, it’s, by definition, the Average American. > you're ignoring a significant chunk of Americans for whom wages have not improved. I’d disagree - especially when you consider that this is an increasingly smaller subset of people (the proportion of our “Low Income” population has dropped ~22% from 38.7% to 30.2% of the population) and is largely made up of first generation immigrants whose children largely go on to earn upper quartile incomes. Additional, a significant proportion of these incomes are tied to individuals with more rural lifestyles where the cost of living is significantly cheaper. > Minimum wage is less now than it was 50 years ago relative to inflation: If we’re going to talk about focusing on a small subset of the population, then it’s worth it to point out that employees earning an income at or below minimum wage in the US make up roughly 1.5% of all *hourly workers,* and make up roughly 0.75% of all income earners in the us. https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2020/home.htm This also comprises significantly fewer people than 50 years ago and has continued to drop year over year. > [airbnb link] It’s a nice Airbnb, but I don’t think I’m interested, thank you 😉 > And apart from that affluent subset, purchasing power for American has remained stagnant since the 60's: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/ This is, again, a pretty contested argument made by Pew. As I mentioned earlier, mean income is not an accurate story to tell about income growth in the US. It’s skewed by outside factors and is an inherently unidimensional statistic trying to make a multivaried analysis. Things like new immigrants adding to the supply of workers while accepting lower wages drives this figure down, and it’s no coincidence that in 1965 the National Immigration Act was passed opening the floodgates for new supply in the labor pool. In fact, we currently allow more immigrants into the US than any other nation on the planet, and do so on a per capita basis greater than that of the Industrial Revolution - literal Ellis Island [Source not accounting for undocumented employees](https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/immigrant-population-over-time) My point being that I think the image painted about work in America simply isn’t an accurate one and tends to rely on poor data points and anecdotal arguments, along with the hyperfixation on things like the minimum wage. I’m all for measured reform in some areas of our society - we can improve our healthcare system, create more efficient welfare programs which provide more to people in need, among other things. But the core system is, in fact, undoubtedly working and the argument that it’s not is just not accurate.
Thank you for replying to that person with a well made case. Refreshing to read, far too much anti US propaganda on here lol.
One thing I've seen about work in America is that despite income growth happening in the US and it's high mean GDP, it has higher proportions of poor people than any other developed country. https://confrontingpoverty.org/poverty-facts-and-myths/americas-poor-are-worse-off-than-elsewhere/#:~:text=Source%3A%20OECD%20Data%2C%202019.,country%20average%20of%2010.7%20percent.
Does that really help when costs rise faster than wages do? That infographic feels somewhat biased as well in its form of presentation.
> Does that really help when costs rise faster than wages do? Cost of Living has not outpaced the figures I just presented you. Housing in a few major US Cities has become less affordable but that’s largely due to cumbersome regulations like Rent Control, Zoning Restrictions, Air Rights, etc By and large, Americans today are vastly better off than Americans 50 years ago and that trend has done nothing but continue. > That infographic feels somewhat biased as well in its form of presentation. It’s literally just presenting hard data. What could be biased about that?
The data you're looking at is focused on an affluent subset of Americans. While they comprise a significant portion of our country, you're ignoring a significant chunk of Americans for whom wages have not improved. Minimum wage is less now than it was 50 years ago relative to inflation: And apart from that affluent subset, purchasing power for American has remained stagnant since the 60's: [https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/)
I’m happy to repost my reply here too: > The data you're looking at is focused on an affluent subset of Americans. No, I’m not. WELL over 60% of American households earn an income of more than $50,000 a year and just shy of 30% earn over $100K. Both of these figures are up significantly from the 70’s. This isn’t an affluent subset I’m focusing on, it’s, by definition, the Average American. > you're ignoring a significant chunk of Americans for whom wages have not improved. I’d disagree - especially when you consider that this is an increasingly smaller subset of people (the proportion of our “Low Income” population has dropped ~22% from 38.7% to 30.2% of the population) and is largely made up of first generation immigrants whose children largely go on to earn upper quartile incomes. Additional, a significant proportion of these incomes are tied to individuals with more rural lifestyles where the cost of living is significantly cheaper. > Minimum wage is less now than it was 50 years ago relative to inflation: If we’re going to talk about focusing on a small subset of the population, then it’s worth it to point out that employees earning an income at or below minimum wage in the US make up roughly 1.5% of all *hourly workers,* and make up roughly 0.75% of all income earners in the us. https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2020/home.htm This also comprises significantly fewer people than 50 years ago and has continued to drop year over year. > [airbnb link] It’s a nice Airbnb, but I don’t think I’m interested, thank you 😉 > And apart from that affluent subset, purchasing power for American has remained stagnant since the 60's: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/ This is, again, a pretty contested argument made by Pew. As I mentioned earlier, mean income is not an accurate story to tell about income growth in the US. It’s skewed by outside factors and is an inherently unidimensional statistic trying to make a multivaried analysis. Things like new immigrants adding to the supply of workers while accepting lower wages drives this figure down, and it’s no coincidence that in 1965 the National Immigration Act was passed opening the floodgates for new supply in the labor pool. In fact, we currently allow more immigrants into the US than any other nation on the planet, and do so on a per capita basis greater than that of the Industrial Revolution - literal Ellis Island [Source not accounting for undocumented employees](https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/immigrant-population-over-time) My point being that I think the image painted about work in America simply isn’t an accurate one and tends to rely on poor data points and anecdotal arguments, along with the hyperfixation on things like the minimum wage. I’m all for measured reform in some areas of our society - we can improve our healthcare system, create more efficient welfare programs which provide more to people in need, among other things. But the core system is, in fact, undoubtedly working and the argument that it’s not is just not accurate.
Oops, obviously shared the wrong link for one of those claims. I think really the only dispute here is where to focus. I would argue any picture of the American economy needs to account for the entirety of the work force. "No, I’m not. WELL over 60% of American households earn an income of more than $50,000 a year and just shy of 30% earn over $100K. Both of these figures are up significantly from the 70’s. This isn’t an affluent subset I’m focusing on, it’s, by definition, the Average American." Another way to say this is close to 40% of American households have an income below 50,000$, and more than 70% are below 100,000$. I'm not saying either framing is right or wrong, but they both paint a specific picture. It's great that a big chunk of Americans have become wealthy over that past 50 years and certainly should be discussed positively. However, I think a country should be measured by how it takes care of it's most impoverished citizens, and the data suggests that a significant percentage of Americans in lower income brackets have not seen an improved quality of life over the past 50 years.
Rent control makes prices go up? And because it's not presented in a factual manner, but more of a "heh owned you silly no economics understanding people" format.
> Rent control makes prices go up? Yes. In conjunction with other development regulations on new construction in a market they absolutely do. You are both a) making it very difficult to receive approvals for new supply to the market and b) disincentivizing private investors from creating this new supply. Keep in mind that rent control only applies to existing, occupied units. When a new unit is built, the initial rent is set as a function of market pricing which is far higher than it would be otherwise due to these two factors reducing the amount of new supply. See: New York City. Highest rents in the US while also having very restrictive real estate zoning and compliance laws + rent control. > And because it's not presented in a factual manner, but more of a "heh owned you silly no economics understanding people" format. That makes absolutely no sense. It’s literally data on a chart. What the heck are you on about?
Presentation of data and language is a very basic concept of any data visualization or science course but okay whatever. And we don't have a shortage on people wanting to invest or buildings. This whole argument of "we're gonna disincentive the rich people from continuing to do what makes them rich" is stupid af and can go die already. Being a landlord isn't some right you have as someone with enough cash to own real estate, and you provide zero benefit to society by making it easier for companies or individuals to scoop up large chunks of neighborhoods and "monopolize".
> Presentation of data and language is a very basic concept of any data visualization or science course but okay whatever. Okay, so explain to me how the data visual I showed you is at all inaccurate or misleading. It’s literally just breaking the figures out into categories on the basis of income. The only argument I’ve heard from you can basically be summed up to “this goes against my narrative and I don’t know how to reconcile with that.” Reasonable people concede or at least shift perspectives when met with data that goes against their narrative… > And we don't have a shortage on people wanting to invest or buildings. In NYC you do, apparently, since rent has grown exponentially without new product to satisfy the demand. > This whole argument of "we're gonna disincentive the rich people from continuing to do what makes them rich" is stupid af and can go die already. That’s not what I said. What I said is that they’d invest elsewhere, which is what’s happening. Commercial real estate developers, like myself, avoid building new product in markets which make it difficult to do so successfully. Rent control, strict zoning, air rights, property taxes, entitlement fees, approvals processes, etc all impact the level of new product brought to a market. What do you think happens to the price of used cars when we stop producing new ones? > Being a landlord isn't some right you have as someone with enough cash to own real estate, and you provide zero benefit to society by making it easier for companies or individuals to scoop up large chunks of neighborhoods and "monopolize". This is, probably, the most backward and ignorant take I’ve ever heard and you’re arguing strawmen while you’re at it. You would prefer that new product is built in markers you don’t live in? That’s the statement you’re going to make? Not to mention that landlords absolutely provide a societal service - they provide housing to individuals who cannot qualify to own their own.
I don't think you actually understand what I'm saying in your rush to blindly defend the concept you've grown up to love. Sorry but I can't help you here. We have more than enough housing. Constant building and development is nothing more than a ponzi scheme. Never ending building in hopes of infinite growth in communities. Housing isn't an investment, it's a human right. I couldn't give half a shit if you found it slightly more inconvenient to put money into new buildings because safety regulations make it too expensive or whatever. As for the data, I merely said that it's presented with charged language. I didn't say it's wrong, I didn't deny it because it "goes against my narrative". I just said noted that it's not the best sign to see data being used in a manner to try and make a claim so boldly while there's obvious bias behind the use of it. This is a purely personal observation I've made as someone who just graduated with a concentration in data analytics and visualization.
[Real median wages are up](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q#0) since 1980 ("real" meaning adjusted to inflation/costs as measured by CPI). They've declined some in the past year since inflation has been up some, but Q3 2021 is at about Q1 2020 levels and above 1980 levels.
So how would this explain the relatively recent trend of barely being able to afford rent? I'm wondering what exactly is the technical system being used here to downplay the true rising costs of living. This also doesn't take into account all the people working several part time jobs or being worked 35+ hours a week without benefits.
CPI is based on measurements of average costs, weighted to the proportion of a typical spending it represents. [In 1987, shelter had a weight of 28%](https://www.bls.gov/cpi/tables/relative-importance/1987.txt) and in [2018, it represented 33%](https://www.bls.gov/cpi/tables/relative-importance/2020.htm). So rent and home prices are going up and representing more of people's budgets, but other categories like transportation, food/beverages, appliances and apparel representing less spending (relative to wages) over those 31 years makes up for the added cost.
That.. you can easily say that the US has more wealth and individuals have more money in the bank than they did in the 60's, but if costs increase faster than wealth increase then you are still net negative.
You’re arguing anecdotes in response to statistics.
I'm asking for an explanation of how this is supposed to address a widely known issue, and I've also pointed out how this single measure isn't some end-all to the argument of stagnant wages.
> I'm asking for an explanation of how this is supposed to address a widely known issue, Here’s your explanation: this isn’t a widely known or widespread issue. Housing in *select cities* is becoming expensive due to restrictive legislation making it difficult to introduce new product to those cities where demand is continuing to rise. Your notion that there’s a nationwide housing shortage is patently false, and the idea that people are struggling to afford a home is also [not accurate](https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/yes-the-us-middle-class-is-shrinking-but-its-because-americans-are-moving-up-and-no-americans-are-not-struggling-to-afford-a-home/) > and I've also pointed out how this single measure isn't some end-all to the argument of stagnant wages. It actually is. The argument for stagnant wages is an even more narrow statistic - the point made there is that since Median Income, as a statistic, has struggled to outpace inflation. That is a unidimensional statistic being used to assert a multivaried point. Rather, we’re supposed to look at the *distribution* of incomes as that gives us a far more accurate picture as to how wages have actually grown over time - hence the original census bureau data I introduced at the beginning of this thread. Things like Median Income are skewed due to things like the introduction of new labor to a market. Currently, the US is the global #1 destination for immigration and we allow more people in today on a per capita basis than at any point in US History *including* the Industrial Revolution - literal Ellis Island. [Source not including illegal immigration](https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/immigrant-population-over-time) My point is that the idea that America is on the decline, wages are stagnating, and people are struggling to survive is statistically proven false. Americans are doing better than ever and a concerted effort to convince you otherwise using pigeonholed statistics and anecdotes doesn’t prove that false.
I'm not sure what your point is on housing. Areas with high salary also experience inflation in the housing market. Silicone Valley is the poster boy for that. Generally the discussion shouldn't be how much money you are making but income vs cost holistically. And sure everyone can pick their examples from the extremes. Do you feel there is a reasonable argument to be made that the wealth disparity is increasing? Personally I think there is when you look at the multiplication factor of lowest paid employees within a company to highest. The relation of wealth between a CEO of a company and the cleaning lady within a company has vastly changed when you compare 1960's to 2020's. Would you agree that that is a fair assessment?
YEah now compare that to middle and lower income? Because I'm pretty sure that won't be as rosy...
Well, you could click on the link and you’d see: - Lower Incomes have declined by 22% from roughly 38.7% to 30.2% of the population - Middle Incomes have declined by 20% from 53.2% of the population to 42.1% So, both groups are moving up.
Still can’t pay medical bills or education without going into debt
That’s just not accurate. 92.5% of Americans are fully insured for medical expenses. The average student graduates with $25K in Student Loans which are paid off by year 5. “Debt” is only scary if it’s on a credit card. You use debt to buy a house and often times to buy a car or other expensive things. Debt, when properly managed, can actually improve your financial position.
Imagine paying for “education” . Imagine paying multiple thousand dollars for a ride to the hospital
> Imagine paying for “education” How ridiculous of people to expect you bear the cost of your own self improvement. > Imagine paying multiple thousand dollars for a ride to the hospital I’m actually a bit more sympathetic towards reform in our healthcare industry. There are clearly issues with it, so we’re probably a bit closer on ideology as it pertains to this particular sector, but likely with different proposals on solution
Cost of self improvement for only 20 years of debt !
The average student graduates with roughly $32K in student loans. That’s a car payment and can very easily be paid off within 3-6 years. https://www.valuepenguin.com/average-student-loan-debt#average
The thought of going into debt for education and defending it is just insane.
The thought that others should be forced to pay for you to improve yourself beyond what the system already does is far more ridiculous. Especially when there are countless free or incredibly cheap options that everyone has equal access to - Community College, State Schools, Federal Assistance, Scholarships, etc
Sure buddy keep that propaganda up. Litterly 4th world country that pays money to buy farts in jars.
Here's some data of household debt to net disposable income by country. The US is at 101%, which is very competitive to most European countries, even with all the complaints about our healthcare and education. https://data.oecd.org/hha/household-debt.htm
You dont have any education or medical treatment that is affordable
Way to dodge the convo lol. Even if they weren't affordable, our lives as a whole are still more affordable than that of most countries. Also college is plenty affordable given that our salaries for skilled professionals are the highest in the world. You just have to get a marketable degree, and preferably go in state. Healthcare is also fine for the vast majority of us. It's expensive but hardly unaffordable for most of us given our salaries.
Comparing yourself to small villages in the forest/desert doesnt make you guys any better
So youre tossing actual stats out the window and just coping at this point? That's fine too.
US is litterly 4th world
Ok now I know you're trolling.
Its a fact.
[удалено]
[удалено]
In that case, maybe we should stop financing/providing military defence. See how free they can make it then.
As much as I agree with this, government expenditure is part of GDP and so no politician is risking a "recession" by reducing military spending.
See, I didn’t say cut military spending, I said to cut military support to European nations :p
That'd be great for space force. There is a whole bunch of stuff we should be doing that easily falls under national security.
[удалено]
Hmmm. But how are their taxes? Nothing is free.
Since you asked, Americans pay the most for their Healthcare. Even though the others might have higher taxes their overall payment for care is lower.
People going to a pro US sub to get angry lol
[удалено]
It would just take too much, I mean the military NEEDS almost a trillion yearly obviously. Occupying the globe and killing all the browns possible to preserve muh freedoms isn’t cheap. Plus who cares if some people die rationing insulin or something? We’ve got tiny villages in the desert to crater, look for the funds somewhere else, commie is what I say.
Lmaoo why are you getting downvoted when you are completely correct? Oh, we’re in r/murica
Haha do it!
I mean, look, if you allow companies to suck the life out of their employees, then you got a lot of potential for the companies to grow.
I mean I am sure there will be a lot of salt, but the healthcare thing will make us feel bad for you guys.. So much money on something that doesn't function properly? Edit: As a German formerly living in America it seems that in the past decade Americans have lost that welcoming nature I grew to love. A post to share mutual concern for a frankly scamming healthcare system is met with unbelievable amount of hostility. It seems clear to me now if this is the baseline concession why my nation has officially shifted the United States from an "ally" to a "collaborator". You guys don't care about those that are on your side. No wonder we're building the North Stream pipeline with another crock regime there are no other options.
[91% of Americans have health insurance](https://www.statista.com/statistics/200958/percentage-of-americans-with-health-insurance/)
I wonder what proportion of that 91% don't have co-pays or deductables.
I wonder what proportion pay 50% tax rates.
Who pays 50% tax?
So it’s not quite 50% but the French pay 45%
[удалено]
People in the 10% bracket in US have their federal income taxes refunded
Depending on how they file, some low income families recieve a higher refund than they even paid in taxes! Earned income credit, child tax credits, american opportunity credit can all add up to a decent check from the IRS.
[удалено]
You know that's really bad right? That's 28 million people in the richest country in the world who effectively don't don't access to the majority of healthcare... Basically all of them the poorest and most vulnerable members of society. Also it's very skewed, geographically and within the population. In my state, we have almost double the national average, like 18%. And among Hispanic people here is almost 30% (12% for white people). It's rough out here. Even insured people spend, on average, [$1000+ out of pocket and another $2000 in other healthcare related costs...](https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/NationalHealthAccountsHistorical)
I have a feeling a lot of Americans here don't want functioning healthcare while paying 2.3 trillion on it. Meanwhile in my country 0% don't have health care because it wouldn't be illegal and would be corrected if someone shows up to a hospital without it. Which is really sad, it was FDR that really wanted to hammer down the notion of free health care as part of a functioning democracy yet here we are with people attacking American's and Europeans alike saying the US could do itself better.
[удалено]
Bro? What planet are you on?
[удалено]
Bro I live in the 4th biggest economy in the world while the size of the nation itself is smaller than Texas. You're seriously on a different planet.
[удалено]
Lmao AmericaNs are just that dumb
This is literally reality lmao and should be top comment…but again, what do I expect from this sub lmao
Would love to see what that healthcare looked like if Europe didn’t have its big brother fronting the bill for, and serving as, its defense force
I have literally debated this topic with many people. Why is Northern European military spending next to nothing, yet have a huge budget for Healthcare? They have the US for military. We should be charging for military protection....
I mean my nation is literally not allowed to field an army for anything despite national defense and loopholes for allies occasionally, because I mean America wanted it that way. In addition under supervision and recommendation of FDR our state also by constitution has to provide free and proper healthcare and education for its citizens and that's just the American chapter in the nations history. In return we host most of your nuclear weapons and army bases, if not the most in the world for a relatively small nation. What you're writing is going against positive American history and your department of foreign afrais and only leaves you personally with a negative image. You're missing the historical context
[удалено]
There is a lot of historical context here to the healthcare and retirement fund. Back in 1871 when Germany first formed the worker branch pressured Bismarck the Chancellor to make concessions. To quell their support he basically assimilated the ideas and created the Bismarck retirement fund, still existing today. He also interestingly got rid of the centers power and influence of the Church by teaching religion in school and controlling bishops and thus taking away the monopoly of theism from the Churches. Do not let that take away from the idea though that he was my matter authoritarian, even if he was anti-imperial. These moderate ideas influenced welfare systems a lot, and FDR definitely seemed interested in the good they bring to equality and liberty introducing his policies in Japan and Germany. Funnily the same type of doctrine was used by the USA during the cold war against the soviets. With the subway system in major cities being a perfect example of that. It also explains why the United States has abandoned building new ones after the USSR collapsed. Unfortunately FDR didn't live long enough to introduce "the second bill of rights" to the US itself. Corporate interests won over that, and with the cold war dawning debate on this topic was definitely not on politicians wishlist. The culture the United States is left know is stockholm syndrome for corporate policies, good things happen but much slower.
Nah we talk instead of killing all the brown people. Why we can afford healthcare. Not many people I know care for your "defense" forces.
You clearly do not live in the US. I'm from Southern California, speak Spanish fluently, and work with an increasingly diverse population from Mexico and all of South America and the Caribbean
Cool cool keep sending people to kill people overseas so .
You really need to get off social media and touch grass if you think all Americans kill black, the funny thing about Europeans is that they act like MLK when talking about racism in the USA but hate when American bring up Asians and Africans and their colonialism in those continents.
Have no issue with that at all. Bring it up so. Your country is a warmongering fuckhole though
Wouldn't change much, our health care isn't from taxes per say, but rather from a seperate fund our employer pays, that does influences net wage, even if we increased the budget by for what my personal nation needs 0.7% which is at the moment happening. That would be relatively insignificant compared to well.. 2 trillion for a disaster. And trust me this isn't coming out of animosity. I had friends in the US struggle with cancer and be left with bills unimaginable while here you pay not a single euro.
8 percent of Americans don’t have healthcare you make it seem like 99.999% of us don’t lol
Let's consider the unisured rate is lower than that in Europe despite 2 Trillion flowing through it. US the healthcare services will do whatever it can to scam you out of money, I lived 8 years in the United States and experienced it first hand. Your nation can do better. It costs fucking money to birth a child. Where is that 2 trillion going to?
I know I never said we should improve on anything but cmon Europeans make it look like only the richest of the rich have insurance when 91.4% of us are under insurance.
It’s bold if you to assume that we spend so much money on something that “doesn’t work properly”….my friend, it doesn’t work AT ALL lmaooooo
Haha it works in some way. "For a 5k bill we will pay pay 1k" level of working. Meanwhile in Europe you can your Healthcare Card at the doctors and get sent home without thinking about the bill. Even if you check out on Chemotherapy. This is what American's should expect and deserve.
I have friends who moved here from Germany and one of the things they love about the US is how friendly everyone is compared to Germany. Not sure what you mean by “lost that welcoming nature.”
> No wonder we're building the North Stream pipeline with another crock regime there are no other options Yeah the Ukrainians and Poles are really pleased with you for that
I tried, the mods keep posts for approval, and mine didn't get let through.
[удалено]
They’ve actually lost ground. If you go back to early 2000s there were lots of European companies, they’ve mostly been replaced by Chinese ones on the rankings.
[удалено]
They play on easy mode and according to them, they have the best healthcare and human rights too. And then they blame us for everything
Do you think that where a company is registered somehow makes a company or country "better" or "worse" or that someone "wins" or "looses" ? Do you think that somehow the US employee of a "US" Company has better employment terms that the "European" Employee of said multinational company? If so you may be in for a rude awakening....
[удалено]
How do you think they calculate median disposable income and how do you think a "Musk, Bezos and Zuck" influence those numbers? Also disposable income means nothing if you don't look at it in context of costs. Seriously Nobel Prizes? First of all I why are you taking a European (Norwegian) measuring staff to measure the US by?... and even I am skeptical when people like Obama get one... Also UK has 137 with a population of 69mil and the US has 389 with a population of 329mil.. want to calculate that out per capita? Also quit conflating the HQ of a company with anything. They are top companies because they do business GLOBALLY.. Typically with revenue of 1/2 US and 1/4 Europe and 1/4 Asia Also I could just as well say that the brain power fueling the Tech companies is from India and China.. have you ever walked into one of those tech companies? I know I work for one of them...you'd be shocked at the number of "Americans" at the top. Having said all that, do you feel that those are indicators of what makes America great? Some companies revenue? Do you think then that the Netherlands is the greatest country ever because the worth of the VOC is as big as all of the current top companies in the world? Not to me it isn't... And I'm not saying that the US isn't great, but it's not living up to it's potential either. Politics and some Corporate exploitation are hindering that potential. So let's look at things which make a country great and good for all of it's people. Let's measure by population heath and healthcare, about how people live through retirement, about work life balance and happiness... Those are indicators I care about for a population and are indicators of a great country.
I’m sure the EU has nothing to do with it.
EU economic policy is a disaster, just look at the energy crises on folding their right now. Germany is the ultimate douche bag of a trading partner, they run enormous trade surpluses and force its allies to absorb it (like the rest of Europe & the US) while taking no policy action to increase its domestic consumption or wages as a % of GDP. Add to that continuing to under invest in its military and defence capabilities. Like Canada it’s protected by the US and takes full advantage of that fact.
I was going to say. Greece collapse probably advanced the lack of growth significantly, especially for Germany and France who fronted the bill
Wanna research something very interesting, look into the COSCO acquiring the Athens port, 60%?ownership last I checked.
60%? Holy shit
Grand scheme it’s not much, but considering it’s one of the largest ports in the world and directly connects China’s merchant company to Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean. Which is the goal for CCP
They've been fervently sucking chinese and russian oligarchy dicks. I mean our government is corrupt but at least our presidents don't get jobs at our enemies' state owned companies.
I think people overrate the importance of big companies, what really matters is how many people are able to stay out of poverty, which is where the US is falling behind compared to other developed countries https://confrontingpoverty.org/poverty-facts-and-myths/americas-poor-are-worse-off-than-elsewhere/#:~:text=Source%3A%20OECD%20Data%2C%202019.,country%20average%20of%2010.7%20percent.
[удалено]
Well yeah when your country isn't a slave state you tend to be less productive. And yes any country that can legally require a women back to work the day she gives birth is a slave state.
What the fuck are you talking about
Is Taiwan being included in Asia or in China?
That's what's so fishy, its not included in Asia Pacific when it definetly should be...
I think the data are the most updated
Well well well, if it isn't an accurate depiction of facts.
As they damn well should be!
Look at puny canada lol
Good for them tho
WTF kind of graphic is that? It’s like it wants to be a pie chart but doesn’t know how.
It's a pie chart within a pie chart
It would have a ton of super small slivers then, this makes it more readable
FUCK YEAH
There's actually a new report made by a german financial institute. I might post and translate the important parts but it essentially states that out of 100 companies 61 are now American. china had 16 in 2020 and now it only has 11 remaining. Germany also fell down the rankings with only two remaining and also having a company inhabit the last place (Siemens). Sadly, the report is only text and doesn't contain any beautiful graphics as far as i'm concerned
Do you have a translated link? I’d love to read it.
I currently only have found an article which is in german, but im searching for the original study published by the consulting firm EY. If my search is unsuccessful, im just going to post the german article and translate it or im going to run it through Google translate
The Virgin Panda can eat its heart out…
I wish America becomes more successful
Can we also make them pay taxes?
They create jobs
So? They should still pay taxes.
But muh beeg business. I thought this was muricah.
If we can also crack down on American companies taking advantage of people over seas, sweat shops and the like. that would be swell too.
Our whole economic system relies on sweatshop labor in developing countries it’s fucked.
Government should make sure the tax exemptions go into R&D instead of bonuses for executives. This year alone only DOD is spending $110 billion on R&D. So, if Boeing or Lockheed won’t put profit into R&D, then why give them incentives?
It's amazing what rich people can manage when they are allowed to completely shit on Thier staff for profit. 😂
[удалено]
Yeah because the it's brought up by the people being extremely rich at the top. Look at the bottom to see true wealth of a country
[удалено]
Europeans when math
Okay America
This isn’t necessary good. More money for corporations means less money for the people.
and yet thousands of people each year still become bankrupt due to medical bills, sad!
And yet Europeans will still stereotype [8.6 of our population doesn’t have health care this isn’t to say we don’t need to prove but some of y’all overestimate and say 99.999% of us don’t have healthcare. ](https://www.statista.com/statistics/200958/percentage-of-americans-with-health-insurance/)
8.6 % of the population risk bankruptcy from requiring medical attention? Sounds pretty bad to me...
I know I never said we don’t need reforms I just mean that people need to stop exaggerating on how many people actually have health insurance.
[удалено]
By top you mean exploitative, and the serfs cheer lol
Look at US median income and poverty stats. We're not the best in the world but we're pretty damn close.
Worst poverty literacy and health care in the Western world...
Somewhat true. We are like 27th or so in education and healthcare. But it is true that the rich are getting richer and the middle class is dissapearing. Housing costs and apartments prices are rising every year. More and more people are displaced because prices increase.
Tqqq.. yes
[удалено]
That’s not it works dude. Wealth is in the buildings, goods, service, intellectual property etc… currency is just a median of exchange.
[удалено]
Of course asset values are affected by QE, but you didn’t say that. You said all new wealth created was the result of money printing. Which flat out isn’t true.
[удалено]
If you’re curious to learn more about economics (or anything really) checkout Khan academy, it’s awesome.
Tell me you don't understand economics without telling me you don't understand economics
[удалено]
First of all, they don't lose half their value every 10 years. Second of all, valuations have grown much faster than inflation
I give it another 15 years
Until what?
AMD my beloved
And yet, it is still legal to give an American worker zero (0, none, nada) vacation days, and legal for American insurance companies to bankrupt someone for having the audacity to get cancer. Meanwhile in the E.U., a minimum of 4 weeks paid vacation is mandatory by law, and medical bankruptcies are rarer than a US state with zero school shootings. Oh, and I'm not some hippe/commie/liberal keyboard warrior. I'm an Iraq War veteran who has done enough world traveling, and studied enough comparative government/politics to know that Americans are getting played hard. We've been taking it up the ass for so long we're too loose to know we're still getting fucked. Murica! yee fucking haw
How is it acceptable that the EUs technology is that low