141–150 of 528 posts
> Also adjusted for purchasing power, they exceed $50,000 in Mississippi, America’s poorest state—higher than in France. Damn...how does a country get so rich?
Debt. So much debt.
China (and other big surplus countries) put a lot of money in to keeping the cost of things in the US low, due to their own mercantilist policies, directly at the expense of their own household sector.
Sure the USA has led in some quarters, but that's more to do with the close of the second world war where European invented technologies (and the brightest creators) were confiscated (from Allies and Enemies). That head start encouraged more external talent to congregate.
I have no problem with that, but this idea that it's "Labour laws" or any magic is about as compelling an argument as "Twitter or Facebook are providing their networks with the best experience and that's why they're so big"
You can also see that China is currently getting on par and ahead in some areas, and that's also because they are taking knowledge (for free) from outside (mostly the USA). And they have terrible Labour laws.
What I do not like in these discussions is that there are always a bunch of fellow Europeans, trying to link economic success to economic inequality. 1. Nothing says it has to be this way, and taking the big picture of history in perspective, it definitely is not that way. 2. Inequality comes in many forms. Corporate and financial culture in Europe pretty much says that you are only allowed to be an entrepreneur if y…
I would make even another point here: At least in Spain, the figure of the "angel investor" or the "venture capitalist" is basically non-existent to normal people who had a good idea. AFAIK most of them only invest in real estate, and those that have some tech investments only invest in projects that are starting to give some benefits, are made by some known person, or have other important investors.
For those who could know more: If this isn't correct, please correct me. Also, I know this could be not applicable to the whole Europe, but I don't know at all how are business outside Spain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Utilities in general even. Nobody wants municipal water supplies failing quickly. But for core commercial actives it seems like a fair observation.
No... but having them spend two decades failing slowly isn't the answer, either. I agree that utilities are a special case. The main point is that you don't want them to fail at all, ever. If they do fail, well, there aren't any good ways for that to happen.
Banks are squarely on the infrastructure side. They're a foundation that people rely on to do the really interesting stuff, and as such should be 1) low risk, and therefore 2) not profit-maximizing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you've got cause and effect backwards. Or rather, you don't quite realize that it's a feedback loop. Canada heavily subsidizes the healthcare and post secondary education of all those people who then move to the US, often those people move back in retirement for the healthcare. That no doubt has a detrimental effect on the Canadian economy as Canada pours resources into people and America reaps the benefits o…
They generally don't move back. Anyone who qualifies for Medicare (10 years of employment in the US) will get significantly higher quality healthcare through Medicare than they would receive in Canada. The problem is that Canada's healthcare system is a command economy. The government decides how many med school spots there are, how many residency places, and how many procedures will be funded each year. In order to…
While some of the issues that Canada faces are definitely self inflicted as you describe, the ultimate source of all of Canada's problems are that it is an American vassal state. This relationship results in Canada subsidizing the development of many talented individuals who then make the totally rational self-interested decision to move to the United States where there is significantly more economic opportunity for them. Not only is this a massive drain on Canada's resources and it prevents Canada seeing a return on the investment that it makes in people who are often their brightest and best.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> can be attributed to more unhealthy diet and less walking, which is on the flip side due to US's economic success - affordance for more food and richer food, as well as affordance for car as transportation. people in the US aren't driving because they can afford cars - they have to drive because they don't have any other viable options due to the way american cities are designed
There are walkable US cities, and one can move to NY, Chicago, Boston, Seattle or its outskirts. However, people choose to stay in the suburbs because they can afford it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No idea, but as an American who moved to Europe it's crazy how much ambition is casually discouraged ("the notions on him!") and investors are chickenshit scaredycats offering tiny numbers. Pathetic pay too. But I still live in Europe because I prefer well designed cities and everyone (mostly) having ample vacation time.
> Pathetic pay too. If you're after better pay head to London, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Denmark, or Norway. You won't match those San Fran FAANG wages but they're still very good. I live a VERY comfortable life in Denmark and it's such a great place to raise a family.
Would you mind if I drop you a line? We're pretty in love with NL and have a friend there who describes it as a great place to raise kids (unlike rural Ireland, which is terrible), but DK has come up as an option now and then. Would love to know any thoughts you have to share!
Email is in my bio if so.
Kind of ignores income inequality and that any benefits are going to top income earners. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/01/09/trends-... The article claims income-tested benefits have doubled since 1979 and that incomes for the beneficiaries has increased. At the same time, earned income as a share of the economy has decreased - those folks need the extra benefits because they are unable to earn it, n…
Thomas Sowell once pointed out that billionaires are correlated with millionaires, and millionaires are correlated with a middle class. Most countries without billionaires are not great places to live and work. Governments without rich people to tax do not accomplish much in the way of welfare. Take a look at a map of countries with billionaires.[0] I would argue those with billionaires are much better at providing s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They generally don't move back. Anyone who qualifies for Medicare (10 years of employment in the US) will get significantly higher quality healthcare through Medicare than they would receive in Canada. The problem is that Canada's healthcare system is a command economy. The government decides how many med school spots there are, how many residency places, and how many procedures will be funded each year. In order to…
I knew I shouldn't have included the line "often those people move back in retirement for the healthcare" in my comment because it would derail any conversation about the point I was trying to make. While some of the issues that Canada faces are definitely self inflicted as you describe, the ultimate source of all of Canada's problems are that it is an American vassal state. This relationship results in Canada subsid…
”Average incomes have grown much faster than in western Europe or Japan. Also adjusted for purchasing power, they exceed $50,000 in Mississippi, America’s poorest state—higher than in France.” The article casually dismisses the counterpoint that the US trades high income for a lower social safety net. The average French person has a life expectancy of 82. In Mississippi it’s 74.9, on par with Lithuania. Even Vietnam…
That's a great bunch of cherries you picked there. If you are comparing Europe to the US, comparing France and Mississippi is disingenuous. Compare best-to-best or worst-to-worst [1][2]. The worst European countries are Azerbaijan (66.9), Moldova (70.2), Ukraine (71.2). The worst US states are W Virginia (74.8), Mississippi (74.9), Alabama (75.5). The best EU countries are Norway (83.2), Switzerland (83.1), Iceland (83.1). In the US, it's Hawaii (82.3), California (81.7), New York (81.4).
In short, the best of US is somewhat worse than the best of EU. The worst of US is fares much better than the worst of EU.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_...