Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

America pays workers just 27% of what its wealth allows – the worst in the OECD

fortune.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 238 posts

Re: America pays workers just 27% of what its wealth allows – the worst in the OECD

#61

Post by cyberjerkXX »

simianwords wrote: post #46
logicchains wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wealth inequality doesn't cause ills, envy does. Envy should be regarded as a character defect, a sin, not something to be elevated to policy. You're not poorer because someone's richer than you, and indeed policies aimed to reduce wealth inequality will actually make you poorer, that's why average European salaries are much lower than US ones.

The classic reply to this is that inequality reduces the agency of people to make decisions in the society - IOW it causes _power_ inequality. But the reply to that is that it is orthogonal to the discussion. Power should be distributed in a way that increases efficiency and not just for the virtue of doing so.

All human relationships have inequalities. Attempting to use the government to destroy hierarchies is utopian bullshit. It always leads to worse outcomes than intendent because humans are imperfect. Intentions should never be the measure of success, only outcomes.

Re: America pays workers just 27% of what its wealth allows – the worst in the OECD

#62

Post by logicchains »

simianwords wrote: post #46
logicchains wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wealth inequality doesn't cause ills, envy does. Envy should be regarded as a character defect, a sin, not something to be elevated to policy. You're not poorer because someone's richer than you, and indeed policies aimed to reduce wealth inequality will actually make you poorer, that's why average European salaries are much lower than US ones.

The classic reply to this is that inequality reduces the agency of people to make decisions in the society - IOW it causes _power_ inequality. But the reply to that is that it is orthogonal to the discussion. Power should be distributed in a way that increases efficiency and not just for the virtue of doing so.

>The classic reply to this is that inequality reduces the agency of people to make decisions in the society - IOW it causes _power_ inequality.

The only agency it reduces is the agency for people to make decisions about what should be done with other people's wealth. Which is not a productive agency for them to have as they've got an incredible conflict of interest to just waste it on themselves.

Re: America pays workers just 27% of what its wealth allows – the worst in the OECD

#63

Post by gadders »

mlrtime wrote: post #48
gadders wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of people in the UK (with professional jobs) top up their state health provision with private medical insurance provided by their employer. This isn't a bad mix.

There are some companies that give private health care to all it's UK employees. It's the best of both worlds.

Yes, agree. I only really know about office work. If people are giving it to their blue collar employees as well, that's great.

Re: America pays workers just 27% of what its wealth allows – the worst in the OECD

#64

Post by stavros »

mlrtime wrote: post #45
microtonal wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For instance, if you are less than 50 and on private health care through your employer than you're very likely going to have better healthcare access than anywhere in Europe and Canada. Your healthcare insurance being dependent on your employer seems like hell though. They will always have enormous bargaining power over you and I think it also leads to chilling effect, when your health is literally dependent on your…

America has some of if not the best hospitals in the world. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean equal access, but those are facts not ideology. We can argue if that is fair or not, but if you have a well paying job with good employee provided HC, America is [one of] the best places to be for medical care.

So basically you're saying "if you can afford it, the US is one of the best places to get medical care". Well, if I can afford it, why wouldn't I just fly to the US to get that care then? I don't have to be living there.

Re: America pays workers just 27% of what its wealth allows – the worst in the OECD

#65

Post by dzonga »

DarkNova6 wrote: post #2

As somebody living outside the US, I would find moving to the states highly undesirable even if it wasn't for the hostility towards non-US citizens. To me, it would mean a significant reduction in quality of live and I am low-key scared of all the ingredients and additives in food that are pretty much banned everywhere else. Not to mention all risks regarding healthcare.

yeah the hostility started recently with trump and his ilk - fighting for nationalism of a bygone era.

if you can afford it - the US has excellent healthcare, you can also get organic food and dare I say better housing, private infra. what the US could/should improve on is have public clinics ie for preventative and quick care. public hospitals in the long run have many problems.

in the U.K for example - I used private healthcare, could've I have to the NHS - yeah but it means waiting times.

the southern states in the US are also what bring the quality of life down.

Re: America pays workers just 27% of what its wealth allows – the worst in the OECD

#66

Post by microtonal »

mlrtime wrote: post #45
microtonal wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For instance, if you are less than 50 and on private health care through your employer than you're very likely going to have better healthcare access than anywhere in Europe and Canada. Your healthcare insurance being dependent on your employer seems like hell though. They will always have enormous bargaining power over you and I think it also leads to chilling effect, when your health is literally dependent on your…

America has some of if not the best hospitals in the world. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean equal access, but those are facts not ideology. We can argue if that is fair or not, but if you have a well paying job with good employee provided HC, America is [one of] the best places to be for medical care.

It is similar to universities, the US has some exceptional hospitals/universities and a lot of mediocre ones. Exceptional facilities are more accessible to certain groups than others. Many European countries strive for a high average, perhaps not as good as the US's best, but much better than the US average, and they are accessible to everyone [1].

My parents also lived in the US (and IIRC they were on private insurance), but no way would they want to trade European healthcare/education for the US counterpart.

At any rate, all the statistics show that the US pays ~twice as much for health care with worse outcomes for the general public.

if you have a well paying job with good employee provided HC

It's always so surprising that people from the US do not see the issue with this. Let's say, assuming that you are in tech, I hope you don't get laid off in the next round.

[1] I have to add a bunch of qualifiers here, because the EU or Europe is not a single country and some countries have private insurance, private clinics, etc.

Re: America pays workers just 27% of what its wealth allows – the worst in the OECD

#67

Post by oblio »

lostlogin wrote: post #4
DarkNova6 wrote: post #2

As somebody living outside the US, I would find moving to the states highly undesirable even if it wasn't for the hostility towards non-US citizens. To me, it would mean a significant reduction in quality of live and I am low-key scared of all the ingredients and additives in food that are pretty much banned everywhere else. Not to mention all risks regarding healthcare.

I’m not in the US, but laughed when I saw that my bike is ‘known to cause cancer or birth defects/reproductive harm.’ When everything is dangerous, nothing is dangerous.

And you know that it's not dangerous based on... Gut feeling?

Have you read the health warning in detail and disagree from an informed point of view or are you just generally opposed to regulation?

Even better, can you link the bike model and health warning and let others take a look at it for you? Or just your neighborhood chat bot :-)

Re: America pays workers just 27% of what its wealth allows – the worst in the OECD

#68

Post by krige »

roenxi wrote: post #12

> America pays workers just 27% of what its wealth allows – the worst in the OECD The US consistently scores among the best countries in the world for paying people [0]. Is there some way I can lodge an application to be exploited in a similar manner, without having to move there? Being wealthy and having to live among really wealthy people sounds better than being poor and living among equals. They're inventing a me…

These charts are seriously out of date though. Five years in the current economic climate? Might as well be ancient history.

Re: America pays workers just 27% of what its wealth allows – the worst in the OECD

#69

Post by pjc50 »

lostlogin wrote: post #4
DarkNova6 wrote: post #2

As somebody living outside the US, I would find moving to the states highly undesirable even if it wasn't for the hostility towards non-US citizens. To me, it would mean a significant reduction in quality of live and I am low-key scared of all the ingredients and additives in food that are pretty much banned everywhere else. Not to mention all risks regarding healthcare.

I’m not in the US, but laughed when I saw that my bike is ‘known to cause cancer or birth defects/reproductive harm.’ When everything is dangerous, nothing is dangerous.

"we know this is dangerous, but we're not going to do anything about it"

Re: America pays workers just 27% of what its wealth allows – the worst in the OECD

#70

Post by cannonpr »

lostlogin wrote: post #4
DarkNova6 wrote: post #2

As somebody living outside the US, I would find moving to the states highly undesirable even if it wasn't for the hostility towards non-US citizens. To me, it would mean a significant reduction in quality of live and I am low-key scared of all the ingredients and additives in food that are pretty much banned everywhere else. Not to mention all risks regarding healthcare.

I’m not in the US, but laughed when I saw that my bike is ‘known to cause cancer or birth defects/reproductive harm.’ When everything is dangerous, nothing is dangerous.

Well… your bike likely has several lubricants, and paints as well as coatings that especially in close contact with your skin… especially in the handle bars under friction indeed probably introduce chemicals that will increase some risks, versus never having done it. That is the horror of what we have done with modern material science… Would you prefer a label that gives you only risk increases above say 1% ? Alternatively you can just assume we have complicated the world so much with modern material tech that despite its benefits nearly everything you touch increases your cancer chances in America.
Post reply on HN