Come here and work on hard problems – except the ones on our doorstep • Hacker News Board

Re: Come here and work on hard problems – except the ones on our doorstep

#291

Post by jrochkind1 » Tue, May 14, 2013, 11:19 PM UTC

ims wrote: post #163

ownagefool wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm Scottish and while I've not quite experienced it myself, I'm happy living in Europe where m taxes are spent on health care as opposed to bombs. It's not so much shocking as it is just really sad. :(

And the rest of the Western world, like it or not, is able to spend less on defense precisely because -- thanks to some unique events in the 20th century -- the US is effectively providing a defense subsidy for all of its allies. I'm not advocating, just saying. Perhaps European countries would have to spend more if the US did not concern itself with the rest of the world? Food for thought.

The US is in fact providing a defense subsidy to it's allies AND to it's enemies.

EVERYONE gets their weaponry from the US (they bought it back when they were allies, now their enemies), and/or gets weaponry developed with US military R&D.

It's certainly good for the US defense industry. You've got to buy more better weapons cause your enemy has bought more better weapons, and both sides buy em from the US defense industry.

When the US gives another country military aid (or actually most any kind of aid), 100% of the funds 'donated' need to be used buying military goods from US companies. So military aid goes right to US defense companies too. (I think Israel is the one special exception, who for some reason only have to spend 50% of their military aid on US goods, and can spend the other half on Israeli-made goods).

The US spends more on the military than every other country _combined_.

So, yeah, I'm not sure this state of affairs could really be described as the US keeping the planet _safe_ by spending so much on military. But it is true that the US equips the entire rest of the world militarily.

Re: Come here and work on hard problems – except the ones on our doorstep

#292

Post by jrochkind1 » Tue, May 14, 2013, 11:22 PM UTC

run4yourlives wrote: post #81

beat wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_guarantee The solution is simple. You simply give every adult citizen enough money every year to insure that they can afford food, shelter, and other basic needs. Give it to everyone, rich or poor, same amount. BAM! No more poverty, except in self-inflicted cases (drug addiction, for example), or things like severe and very expensive illness (which are covered by other means)…

While I like the idea of a Basic Income, and have actually come to support it heartily, (if you don't, take a look at some of the economists who have, and why they do) you are being naive to think that "self-inflicted cases" are somehow anything other than a vast majority. Almost all homeless have mental illness and/or substance abuse issues. That's why they are unable to act on one of the endless options that exist…

> You can't simply suggest that addiction/mental illness is "self inflicted", give them $10K and say "You're on your own, bud." That isn't solving anything. Solving homeless is the same as solving mental illness and/or addiction, and those are massively hard problems to address.

Not true. You know how you can solve homelessness without solving mental illness and addiction EVEN IF (let's accept for the sake of argument) most homelessness is caused by mental illness and addiction?

It's really quite simple. You just give housing to mentally ill and addicted people. They are still mentally ill and/or addicted, but now they're not homeless, because you gave them a place to live.

Re: Come here and work on hard problems – except the ones on our doorstep

#293

Post by just_hobbyst » Tue, May 14, 2013, 11:38 PM UTC

LekkoscPiwa wrote: post #280

entropy_ wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had honestly never heard about this before, what does the U.S. pay to countries that have bases in them? Any references? I'm honestly curious

Never heard that there are for example over 50,000 US soldiers in Germany operating military equipment worth billions of USD courtesy of the US tax-payer? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Europe So, any attack on the German soil must result in dead American soldiers. Now, who sane would risk doing so? Yeah, very convenient preaching universal healthcare and welfare for the poor when somebody else pays…

Russia has other reasons not to attack Germany - it makes money by exporting oil and natural gas. Germany is a prime consumer.

What does Arab Spring have to do with it? It is dangerous mostly to some of African dictators and European armed forces in fact supported insurgents in Libya...

Besides, you never addressed my earlier argument that healthy population is vital for national defence.

Re: Come here and work on hard problems – except the ones on our doorstep

#294

Post by hawkharris » Tue, May 14, 2013, 11:54 PM UTC

I think it's often harder to acknowledge local problems such as homelessness because they require a sustained commitment. You literally seem them as you walk home or drive to work.

Contrast that with the instant gratification of making a one-time contribution to solve a distant problem, and it's easy to see why many prefer the latter approach.

Re: Come here and work on hard problems – except the ones on our doorstep

#295

Post by troebr » Wed, May 15, 2013, 12:04 AM UTC

wutbrodo wrote: post #161

troebr wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm French living in Jersey. I have been to San Francisco, even though it's blatant when you walk here, everywhere in the US I have that feeling that the poor are really forgotten. And they live in third-world country conditions. In France, the average rich is not as rich, and it's probably a lot harder to become successful and wealthy than here; but the poor are not left behind as much. It feels more like a society…

> America is more daring, more exciting, and there are more opportunities when you have the right cards to do something. But if you had a bad hand to start with, then you're royally screwed. This seems a little contradictory. Being daring and exciting as a country and an economy would be more like how America used to be, where the upside of having people dying in the street was that if you came here and you had drive…

Maybe that only applies to my specific field, working in tech is a lot more exciting here.

Re: Come here and work on hard problems – except the ones on our doorstep

#296

Post by ims » Wed, May 15, 2013, 12:04 AM UTC

jrochkind1 wrote: post #291

ims wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the rest of the Western world, like it or not, is able to spend less on defense precisely because -- thanks to some unique events in the 20th century -- the US is effectively providing a defense subsidy for all of its allies. I'm not advocating, just saying. Perhaps European countries would have to spend more if the US did not concern itself with the rest of the world? Food for thought.

The US is in fact providing a defense subsidy to it's allies AND to it's enemies. EVERYONE gets their weaponry from the US (they bought it back when they were allies, now their enemies), and/or gets weaponry developed with US military R&D. It's certainly good for the US defense industry. You've got to buy more better weapons cause your enemy has bought more better weapons, and both sides buy em from the US defense in…

You're mistaking what I mean by subsidy. I'm talking game theory, not short term shuffling of monies.

You are correct in that there are transfers of money and arms, the individual value and long term wisdom of which are always debatable. What I am talking about is a de facto subsidy, based on the fact that many other countries have in effect outsourced much of their security apparatus to the United States because they know that the US would step in for any existential crisis caused by mutual enemies.

Think of it this way. It costs billions to construct a single aircraft carrier. Many seafaring nations currently build smaller navies than they would if the United States were not filling a large portion of this role for them. When buying aircraft, ships, tanks, missiles, etc, an allied country only has to build those assets marginally necessary to create a comfortable excess over and above the security already seen as inevitably provided by the US. That constitutes an indirect subsidy.

Re: Come here and work on hard problems – except the ones on our doorstep

#297

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, May 15, 2013, 12:05 AM UTC

TheBoff wrote: post #285

LekkoscPiwa wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

European nations would not be able to afford universal healthcare and all the welfare if they had to pay for their security. US bases in Europe are great financial aid. I never hear discussions about Iran or Russia being a possible threat in Europe. I do in the US. Which is funny because it really is much bigger problem for Europeans to have guys like Putin and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at their door steps. Never happens.…

You really the NHS costs less per-capita in tax than US healthcare?

> You really the NHS costs less per-capita in tax than US healthcare?

I think you left out a "think" between "really" and "the NHS" there. And, yes, the UK's public expenditures per capita on healthcare are less than the US's. In fact, the UKs public and private expenditures on healthcare combined are, per capita, less than the US's public expenditures (which, in turn, are less than the US's private expenditures). The UK's public expenditures on health care are also less than the US's public expenditures on health care as a share of GDP.

http://www.oecd.org/unitedstates/BriefingNoteUSA2012.pdf

Re: Come here and work on hard problems – except the ones on our doorstep

#298

Post by hkmurakami » Wed, May 15, 2013, 12:10 AM UTC

michaelochurch wrote: post #263

hkmurakami wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Coincidentally, many of the twenty and thirty somethings in Japan who didn't manage to score a stable, well paying corporate job (due to the economic downturns of the 90s and 2008-current period) -- which is at times said to be upwards of 30% of the male population in said age group [1] -- have been expressing their despair at their financial situation and grim economic outlook for their country and collapsing social…

The U.S. has the same problem. Now that people have lost faith in the "middle class society" and we realize that 99% of us are poors at the mercy of bosses and health insurance, the IQ 120+ set is deferring childcare until they "make it", the odds of which are very low and most people won't because even at 140+ most people get screwed. So smart people are self-selecting out of the gene pool, not with that intention b…

also education. Free higher education is the absolute best eugenic program ever devised-- if your kids are smart, society will invest limitless resources in making them succeed-- because it hurts absolutely no one; it's pure carrot. Instead of getting soaked on tuition, parents whose kids get into top schools should get paid.

The only countries whose education systems I'm familiar with are the US, Japan, and England. In Japan, public universities are of higher quality than their private counterparts, and their tuition is much cheaper. You do get the effect of smart kids studying their butts off to get into a public (national) university like Tokyo U. or Kyoto U. because they can't afford a private college tuition (though annual rates are in the range of $10-15k, much more reasonable than the US). Iirc England is somewhat similar, with reasonable rates for the best universities (Oxbridge, for instance)

Re: Come here and work on hard problems – except the ones on our doorstep

#299

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, May 15, 2013, 12:12 AM UTC

fasouto wrote: post #238

pionar wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. Also, if you live anywhere and think your taxes don't go to defense spending, you're delusional.

Obviously. Every country in the world spend money in defense, the difference is the percentage of the GDP spent.

> Obviously. Every country in the world spend money in defense, the difference is the percentage of the GDP spent.

Kind of like healthcare.

Where, germane to other arguments made in the thread, the US also spends a larger share of its GDP than other developed countries, so, no, other developed countries aren't able to provide universal healthcare through public spending because of a "security subsidy" from the US; there able to do so because their mostly-public healthcare systems are more efficient than the US system which splits costs between public and private systems nearly evenly (with a slight private bias.)

Re: Come here and work on hard problems – except the ones on our doorstep

#300

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, May 15, 2013, 12:16 AM UTC

LekkoscPiwa wrote: post #268

pyoung wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The lack of universal health care probably exacerbates the homelessness situation in the U.S. With that said, what you see in San Francisco is largely a product of the combination of homeless friendly policies and tolerable weather. Many of the 'homeless' you see during the day don't actually sleep on the street (although a decent number do) and actually reside in SRO's, subsidized housing, and shelters (One complain…

European nations would not be able to afford universal healthcare and all the welfare if they had to pay for their security. US bases in Europe are great financial aid. I never hear discussions about Iran or Russia being a possible threat in Europe. I do in the US. Which is funny because it really is much bigger problem for Europeans to have guys like Putin and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at their door steps. Never happens.…

> European nations would not be able to afford universal healthcare and all the welfare if they had to pay for their security.

European nations that provide universal healthcare spend less (as a share of GDP and per capita) on healthcare than the US does. So, while they may get a "security subsidy" from the US, it doesn't make sense to say they wouldn't be able to afford universal healthcare without it, since the universal healthcare they have is less expensive, as a share of GDP, than the non-universal healthcare the US pays for while providing the security subsidy.