Live data from Hacker News

Going Dutch

nytimes.com

61–70 of 72 posts

Re: Going Dutch

#61
post #54
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was referring to this quote from the article. "If you tell a Dutch person you’re going to raise his taxes by 500 euros and that it will go to help the poor, he’ll say O.K., he said. But if you say he’s going to get a 500-euro tax cut, with the idea that he will give it to the poor, he won’t do it. The Dutch don’t do such things on their own. They believe they should be handled by the system. To an American, that’s…

The same thing happens in America -- we talk a good game about charity being driven by individual donations, but we don't tend to donate very much. Last I heard, your average US charity has less than 30% of its budget met by donations.

That's simply not true. Compared to any other country people in the US give far more.

"Gaudiani said Americans give twice as much as the next most charitable country, according to a November 2006 comparison done by the Charities Aid Foundation. In philanthropic giving as a percentage of gross domestic product, the U.S. ranked first at 1.7 percent. No. 2 Britain gave 0.73 percent, while France, with a 0.14 percent rate, trailed such countries as South Africa, Singapore, Turkey and Germany." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19409188/

Re: Going Dutch

#62
post #21

To think that the social welfare state is a natural outgrowth of churches setting up schools and hospitals is completely ridiculous. The two things couldn't be more opposite. Social welfare emerges as a result of the collapse of Christianity in a society. The Dutch will talk about how they don't think anyone should be without health care, but if they saw someone in need they wouldn't help them. I don't know which com…

European countries have far more social structure than the US. People are part of groups (tribes) formed around religion, culture, nationality, language, political ideals, labour, and even football. It is the group, not the individual, that takes care of its members. Members of the group contribute and the leaders decide what happens with the contributions. This model doesn't fit individual compassion, because it would distantiate you from the group ("you (member) think we (the group) are not doing enough!?").

That being said, Christianity was in fact the binding element that provided Western-Europe with its strong social structure that still exists today. It was not so much the Bible or morale that bound them, for most it was in fact the fight against catholic oppression that led to Calvinism and other reformations. Without support or leadership from the Vatican, protestants formed scattered social groups, in which members had to protect and support each other. In doing so they found themselves reinventing the biblical message. To protect the family, social gatherings (sunday prayers), give to the poor (prevent them from stealing), take care of the weak. Again, not as individuals, but as a group.

The US on the other hand, was formed through immigration of people who had little or no social relations with each other. The result was an individualistic society where everyone took care of themselves. However, such a system is not inately human. There is no one to take care of the inevitable unfortunate. The individual compassion that is enabled by the lack of social commitments cannot begin to pay the rent for a single mother, the health care bill of a retiree, or the school books of a poor man's daughter. As economic tides reveal the pain of individualism groups are formed.

Gradually, America is shifting towards a stronger social structure. Middle-America finds refuge for its mediocre economic opportunities in evangelical Christianity, whereas the people along the coast-lines are bounded by progressive politics. The growing schism between these groups is exemplary of the social bonds getting stronger.

This also reveals the dark side of social structure. Deep hatred between different groups. A hatred that far exceeds any individual conflict, a hatred that has led to all of history's atrocities we know so well. Yet, the social bonds are unavoidable. Man is meant to live in a tribe. That is how we evolved.

Re: Going Dutch

#63
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"And Arthur Brooks told me that giving goes beyond their own religious organization" I'm curious as to the percentage that goes outside givers' own churches. "when they give, they give more money" I'd also be curious to find out whether or not the less religious give more time, and how much money that time is worth.

I'd also be curious to find out whether or not the less religious give more time, and how much money that time is worth. Depends on how you count worth. The lawyer who volunteers at a soup kitchen, to use a lesswrong.com example, is giving up X dollars per hour of income to provide far less than X dollars per hour of charity, and since this is true for people who give to charity in general (without reference, but I'd…

"The lawyer who volunteers at a soup kitchen... is giving up X dollars per hour of income to provide far less than X dollars per hour of charity."

What about the lawyer who does pro bono legal work for the same soup kitchen? Or (closer to the HN crowd) the coder who puts up a website for a charity?

"it seems clear that people who primarily give time are donating for reputation"

Reputation is one possible motive, but I could imagine others: warm-fuzzy feelings, a desire to connect to one's community, a lack of funds to donate (if a second job is out of the question), and so on.

One might also choose volunteering as an alternative to other non-working activities. The soup kitchen lawyer guy wasn't exactly going to be pulling down $100/hr watching SportsCenter that Saturday.

Re: Going Dutch

#64
post #57
post #36

Speaking only for myself as a US citizen, I'm proud of the fact that the US has led the world in per capita income the last few decades. For a country our size to consistently be number 1 or near the top (depending on who's doing the analysis) is pretty amazing. I think there's room in the world for a country with an ethic that favors aggregate production. Why does everyone have to be the same? People are free to mov…

> I'm proud of the fact that the US has led the world in per capita income the last few decades Huh? Aren't they on par with countries like the Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland, etc?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomin...

actually quite a few spots behind.

Re: Going Dutch

#65
post #58
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, it was probably unnecessary. It's a pity though, cause the metaphorical meaning of living "room" is precisely what I meant.

In modern German, Lebensraum is still a perfectly normal word when used as "the place where animals live". But we are very cautious about our history and the history of words. Sometimes bordering on (self-) censorship. So that caution is not necessarily a good thing.

Habitat might have been the word I was looking for.

I agree that one should be careful when using emotionally charged words, but I also think that playful usage might be a way out of the self-censorship that surrounds a great many dreadful historical events. Not just in Germany.

Re: Going Dutch

#66
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm proud of the fact that the US has led the world in per capita income the last few decades Huh? Aren't they on par with countries like the Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland, etc?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomin... actually quite a few spots behind.

And they are only because they rich are awfully rich. I.e. in Dubai per capita income is over 100,000 usd a year - twice as much as in the USA. Why? Because prince and friends have Trillions (yes, with T in front!). The same is true for the USA. The base salary for McDonald's employee in Switzerland is 20usd/hr. The have no Bill Gates though. So "average" is more-less the same. But I wouldn't say that on average US citizens get the same life quality as Swiss do. If this was true, the US wouldn't rank 44th place for life length expectancy - the same as developing nations...

Re: Going Dutch

#67
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To believe in social welfare is to acknowledge that everyone has a responsibility to help those in need, and that the state should enforce that responsibility.

That's true only if you believe that what the state does is necessarily and only helpful. (There are other requirements as well, but I'm limiting myself to two of the more obvious problems.) Govt help programs, at least in the US, are aimed more at benefitting middle class providers than the poor who are supposedly the beneficiaries.

True. Another fact: in Netherlands you get the money from gov and you decide how and where to spend it. And you spend it for privately held child care, private doctors or private schools. So it is a very good mix of public funding and free market choice.

Re: Going Dutch

#68
post #4
post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article does not mention this fact because it's not true: http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=nl&v=27 . The net migration rate merely stopped growing.

Thanks for the catch. I've corrected it as per below. My source was (my memory of) a statement in a book that I read a while back. From a 2005 article: http://www.expatica.com/nl/news/local_news/why-are-they-all-... "In 2004 almost 50,000 people born in the Netherlands decided to leave and live in a foreign country. Since 1954, the number of emigrants has never been so high. The Dutch economy, with the exception of t…

still doing much better than Americans without savings, bankrupt 401k, huge debts, health system for lucky few who can afford it.

Re: Going Dutch

#69
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the author doesn't conflate anything. Yes, the people mentioned differ in many ways: gender, political views, popular image... But they do have something in common: they vocally attacked Islamic practices and were punished.

Yes, because the idiotic actions of crazy individuals are totally the responsibility of all people in a society. Have you repented for the murder of JFK, Lincoln and some school personnel in San Diego ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brenda_Ann_Spencer ) yet?

I don't know exactly why people downvoted you (I didn't), but guess it's because you attacked factual statements with emotional statements.

Re: Going Dutch

#70
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, because the idiotic actions of crazy individuals are totally the responsibility of all people in a society. Have you repented for the murder of JFK, Lincoln and some school personnel in San Diego ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brenda_Ann_Spencer ) yet?

I don't know exactly why people downvoted you (I didn't), but guess it's because you attacked factual statements with emotional statements.

My tone was a bit overly confrontational I think, for which I apologize.

But I do think the analogy holds. Theo van Gogh was indeed killed for his anti-Islam statements, but by a disturbed individual who had hoped to solve the situation that way. It only made it worse, of course.

The murder of Pim Fortuyn follows more or less the same pattern. Killed by a disturbed individual that figured that was the only way to stop him.

Fortuyn especially had a relatively large following among the Dutch. I don't think "punished" is the right word for it, since it implies that there is any legitimacy to their murders, or even sanctioned by the populace, which is simply not the case.

Post reply on HN