Live data from Hacker News

US takes 'richest nation on earth' crown from Switzerland

thelocal.ch

81–90 of 248 posts

Re: US takes 'richest nation on earth' crown from Switzerland

#81
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Texas has literal shanty towns with 100,000 American citizens living there so I think this is a situation where statistics (or the ones presented) are highly inaccurate or deeply mischaracterized: https://www.google.com/search?q=texas+colonias&sxsrf=ACYBGNT...

The Texas colonias are inhabited by people who crossed into the US from Mexico. There are many Americans citizens there because everyone born in the US is automatically a citizen. But their standard of living says nothing about the accuracy of the statistics addressing the standard of living at the 20th percentile. (That’s 60 million people from the bottom.) That’s not to say we shouldn’t “do something” about their l…

The post I am replying to claims that the "20% poorest" in the US have it better than middle-class Europeans which is such a ludicrous claim as to require posts like mine to provide the context of reality.

To your stuff about Sweden and refugees, income and wealth are related but separate concepts.

Re: US takes 'richest nation on earth' crown from Switzerland

#82
post #64
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

France has much slower internet on average than the US: https://www.akamai.com/de/de/multimedia/documents/state-of-t... It’s almost as if it’s part of a pattern, where the top 75% in the US do better than France, while the stronger French safety net is better for the bottom 25%.

How did you get from "slower internet" to "there is a pattern"? If you scroll two comments up, you'll see the most crucial difference: free healthcare. Healthcare-related expenses can bankrupt an entire family in the US, even with great health insurance... Then there is free education, but let's leave that aside for now.

That’s also consistent with the pattern. 75% of Americans have either employer paid insurance or Medicare. For those people, premiums and out of pocket costs are on average less than the extra taxes they’d pay in Europe for health insurance: https://www.assembly.ca.gov/sites/assembly.ca.gov/files/Arch... (page 18, showing 5.2% of household income spent on premiums and out of pocket costs). (Note that France doesn’t have free healthcare. It has a significant 30% co-insurance which is usually covered by private insurance. Non-premium out of pocket costs, which comprise 2.1% of the 5.2% above in the US, are only a little lower in the US than in France.)

Now, because the US has a weaker safety net, some people fall into gaps where they make too much to qualify for Medicaid and not enough to have good health insurance, or go bankrupt despite having good health insurance. But that happens to a small percentage of the population. Most people do fine with their employer paid insurance or Medicare, and get to spend their extra money on more consumption.

As to free education. If US colleges were like French ones, we could have free college too: https://mises-media.s3.amazonaws.com/styles/max_1160/s3/spen.... We spend more government money in higher education, as a percentage of GDP, than France. We still have to charge people tuition because our colleges are far more opulent. Most French universities are what Americans would consider commuter schools. Focused on instruction rather than research with most students staying local and living at home. Even then, free college just isn’t that valuable of a benefit. The average tuition at a public school in the US is $10,000 a year. The total cost of a degree is $40-50,000. And remember, most Americans don’t get a college degree (and neither do most French.) Over a career, the value of tuition free college for the average American comes nowhere near the extra taxes and lower income they’d have in France.

Re: US takes 'richest nation on earth' crown from Switzerland

#83
post #8
post #2

I suspect using the median net assets instead of the average would lead to vastly different results.

Actually the 20% poorest in the US has it better than the average EU middle class. Ref: https://www.google.com/amp/s/fee.org/articles/the-poorest-20...

The source of this claim is highly questionable

Re: US takes 'richest nation on earth' crown from Switzerland

#84
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Texas colonias are inhabited by people who crossed into the US from Mexico. There are many Americans citizens there because everyone born in the US is automatically a citizen. But their standard of living says nothing about the accuracy of the statistics addressing the standard of living at the 20th percentile. (That’s 60 million people from the bottom.) That’s not to say we shouldn’t “do something” about their l…

The post I am replying to claims that the "20% poorest" in the US have it better than middle-class Europeans which is such a ludicrous claim as to require posts like mine to provide the context of reality. To your stuff about Sweden and refugees, income and wealth are related but separate concepts.

[deleted]

Re: US takes 'richest nation on earth' crown from Switzerland

#85
post #64
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

France has much slower internet on average than the US: https://www.akamai.com/de/de/multimedia/documents/state-of-t... It’s almost as if it’s part of a pattern, where the top 75% in the US do better than France, while the stronger French safety net is better for the bottom 25%.

How did you get from "slower internet" to "there is a pattern"? If you scroll two comments up, you'll see the most crucial difference: free healthcare. Healthcare-related expenses can bankrupt an entire family in the US, even with great health insurance... Then there is free education, but let's leave that aside for now.

It’s not free. Taxes in France are massive. It’s one of the highest tax to GDP in the world. That and inflexible labour law also comes at an additional cost: high unemployement and sluggish growth even when the whole world is doing great.

Re: US takes 'richest nation on earth' crown from Switzerland

#86
post #64
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

France has much slower internet on average than the US: https://www.akamai.com/de/de/multimedia/documents/state-of-t... It’s almost as if it’s part of a pattern, where the top 75% in the US do better than France, while the stronger French safety net is better for the bottom 25%.

How did you get from "slower internet" to "there is a pattern"? If you scroll two comments up, you'll see the most crucial difference: free healthcare. Healthcare-related expenses can bankrupt an entire family in the US, even with great health insurance... Then there is free education, but let's leave that aside for now.

Nearly a quarter of US residents are on medicaid, and have free healthcare.

Medical bankruptcy was a big problem, but under the ACA the yearly out of pocket max has all but eliminated these.

Re: US takes 'richest nation on earth' crown from Switzerland

#87
post #2

I suspect using the median net assets instead of the average would lead to vastly different results.

You would be correct, the US lags far, far behind in median wealth, behind countries like Korea and Spain.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-23/australia-tops-median...

Re: US takes 'richest nation on earth' crown from Switzerland

#88
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Texas colonias are inhabited by people who crossed into the US from Mexico. There are many Americans citizens there because everyone born in the US is automatically a citizen. But their standard of living says nothing about the accuracy of the statistics addressing the standard of living at the 20th percentile. (That’s 60 million people from the bottom.) That’s not to say we shouldn’t “do something” about their l…

The post I am replying to claims that the "20% poorest" in the US have it better than middle-class Europeans which is such a ludicrous claim as to require posts like mine to provide the context of reality. To your stuff about Sweden and refugees, income and wealth are related but separate concepts.

I am replying to the post and you're off somewhere else faltering in your efforts.

Even at the 20th percentile ain't no Americans better off than middle class Europeans unless you operate under a perverse and objectively dishonest analysis structured to favor your own views. CanShootGuns+500 AccessToDecentHealthCareThatWon'tBankruptYourFamily+15

Re: US takes 'richest nation on earth' crown from Switzerland

#89
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did you get from "slower internet" to "there is a pattern"? If you scroll two comments up, you'll see the most crucial difference: free healthcare. Healthcare-related expenses can bankrupt an entire family in the US, even with great health insurance... Then there is free education, but let's leave that aside for now.

Nearly a quarter of US residents are on medicaid, and have free healthcare. Medical bankruptcy was a big problem, but under the ACA the yearly out of pocket max has all but eliminated these.

there is no such thing as free healthcare, someone has to pay for it...

Re: US takes 'richest nation on earth' crown from Switzerland

#90
post #76
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did you get from "slower internet" to "there is a pattern"? If you scroll two comments up, you'll see the most crucial difference: free healthcare. Healthcare-related expenses can bankrupt an entire family in the US, even with great health insurance... Then there is free education, but let's leave that aside for now.

The lowest income people in the US also qualify for free healthcare through Medicaid. It covers ~20% of the US population (that number also includes those with disabilities).

Medicaid isn't bad, it's better than many bottom-tier private plans, but it's also got some problems. For one, finding a doctor can be hard. Not so much with general practitioners, but definitely with specialists. Also if you're in the higher qualified income band, you can still get stuck with 10 to 20% of the bill, and making 150% of the poverty limit doesn't make you any better equipped to deal with $100,000 in expenses than if you made a little less money... It actually pays to be poorer. Not all prescriptions are covered either, level of coverage varies by state. Sure the pharmacy has to give it to you if you say you can't pay, but you still owe the money and can get sent to collections, have wages garnished, have to declare bankruptcy, etc.

Medicaid simply isn't the healthcare panacea for the poor that some make it out to be when they say, "But the poor already have coverage!". And it ignores the fact that there's millions of people just above the income cutoffs whose state of poorness is pretty indistinguishable from those that get coverage, but they're still completely on their own.

Post reply on HN