Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > United Kingdom
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-04-2012, 12:03 AM
 
Location: Duluth, Minnesota, USA
7,641 posts, read 18,086,955 times
Reputation: 6913

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eoin (pronounced Owen) View Post
Sure, I agree completely. It can take a great deal more effort and ability for people from poorer backgrounds to overcome obstacles to success than those from more privileged backgrounds, which is why it's such a credit to yourself and your husband for pulling it off. The primary reason I was drawn into the topic of social mobility is because I've had impressed on me just how much of a difference it makes to the functioning of society. The USA in particular has always rightly valued the principle of the American Dream, but the problem as I see it, is that with every passing generation the American Dream becomes more of a dream. It's not that I have an axe to grind with the USA, or that I have a misplaced sense of the UK's position on this; as while the UK has somewhat greater social mobility than exists in the USA, it's nowhere near a record worthy of boasting about when compared with the big hitters like Sweden.



Again I agree that the US Government does act to help poor people, but what I'm really trying to get at is that it doesn't do nearly as much as it could (and I'd argue should) to help. So I'm not mis-interpreted here I'll re-state that the UK doesn't have a lot to be proud of in this respect either. When I entered this discussion I had assumed that Tvdxer was (he'll forgive me for saying) a bit of a simpleton because he seemed to conclude that American poor people have a decent time of it because they can afford consumer electronics. Tvdxer proved my initial assessment of him to be way off the mark with his well-researched post on the living standards of various socio-economic groups in the Duluth area, but I feel like I haven't really gotten my point across.

I wonder if the current American populace aren't to some extent under-valuing the effect of social mobility as the most important form of wealth. People will put up with just about any level of destitution so long as they know its temporary and they can work themselves out of it, but people at the bottom who think (often with good reason) that they're going to stay at the bottom turn to despondence, booze, drugs, anti-social behaviour and a slippery slope ending in crime. I'm perhaps doing a dis-service to Americans here, because I know that 99.9% of Americans will agree with everything I've just said. However, I also know that Americans are going to start disagreeing once I propose Government led (& tax funded) solutions to the problem. This isn't a uniquely American phenomenon, there are plenty of Brits who are skeptical of Government interventions as well, but the scale of the mistrust of Government and its resulting effects are uniquely American.

I find this confusing. Most Americans will acknowledge that a lack of social mobility causes crime and a raft of social problems. Most Americans are happy to fund a police force to catch and deter criminals. Yet a great many Americans (more than any other nationality I'm familiar with) object profusely to the US Government spending even the paltry sums it does at present to help people onto the greasy pole. I could understand if they were criticising policies which were inefficient or ineffective, but I don't see that happen very often, mostly they seem to allude to any interventionist policies as being detrimental rather than vital. If re-distributive economies like in Scandinavia didn't exist, I could maybe understand it, but because there are clear lessons the USA and UK can learn from these other countries I struggle to understand the contentiousness.

Anyway I digress,
Eoin
The American social welfare system is designed to help people who otherwise can't meet their basic needs. For each "need", there is a separate program. For example, for food there is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which distributes to its 40+ million recipients monthly benefits on a card that can only be used for purchases of food. For heating and cooling needs, there is LIHEAP ("Energy Assistance"), which is directly paid to utility providers; for education, Pell Grants, which go directly to universities; etc. This appears to contrast with the monthly "dole" that is given out in the U.K. or most advanced social welfare states. I think this boils down to a basic mistrust of the needy to make wise spending decisions, which, judging from experience and statistics is not entirely unjustified. Better to make it difficult to buy alcohol or drugs with an EBT card (addicts turn into "shoppers" who fraudulently sell access to their cards) than to hand out checks every month.

To qualify for these programs - in other words, to "be in need" in the government's eyes - one must have income and assets below a certain level. Once that level is exceeded, one fails to qualify for them. This results in a scenario in which it is often in a person's best interest, in terms of their standard of living, to remain unemployed or work part-time rather than work full-time. For example, say Sally is a 30 year-old single, never-wed mother of four with a high school education. She could continue on to college with a government Pell grant, but she is not motivated enough and barely graduated high school anyway. This leaves her with a choice of deliberately working few or no hours and receiving welfare benefits, or slaving away at a low-paying job and receiving few or no welfare benefits. What's the rational choice, disregarding "work ethic" or "leeching"? Her children will likely grow up among like children with like parents, and attain similarly low levels of achievement, and this is one way in which "poverty" is perpetuated. Likewise, for people with chronic illnesses, getting on disability (with the aid of an attorney) and receiving Medicaid (free medical insurance) may be a economically more rational decision than continuing to work and paying impossible premiums for health insurance.

Take it from someone who has been on food stamps: it's hard paying for food with hard-earned cash when you become accustomed to charging it to the State with an EBT card. (Although initially that takes some getting used to, since such programs are often abused and therefore frowned upon by a large sector of American society).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-04-2012, 04:53 AM
 
25,024 posts, read 27,874,201 times
Reputation: 11790
Quote:
Originally Posted by tvdxer View Post
The American social welfare system is designed to help people who otherwise can't meet their basic needs. For each "need", there is a separate program. For example, for food there is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which distributes to its 40+ million recipients monthly benefits on a card that can only be used for purchases of food. For heating and cooling needs, there is LIHEAP ("Energy Assistance"), which is directly paid to utility providers; for education, Pell Grants, which go directly to universities; etc. This appears to contrast with the monthly "dole" that is given out in the U.K. or most advanced social welfare states. I think this boils down to a basic mistrust of the needy to make wise spending decisions, which, judging from experience and statistics is not entirely unjustified. Better to make it difficult to buy alcohol or drugs with an EBT card (addicts turn into "shoppers" who fraudulently sell access to their cards) than to hand out checks every month.

To qualify for these programs - in other words, to "be in need" in the government's eyes - one must have income and assets below a certain level. Once that level is exceeded, one fails to qualify for them. This results in a scenario in which it is often in a person's best interest, in terms of their standard of living, to remain unemployed or work part-time rather than work full-time. For example, say Sally is a 30 year-old single, never-wed mother of four with a high school education. She could continue on to college with a government Pell grant, but she is not motivated enough and barely graduated high school anyway. This leaves her with a choice of deliberately working few or no hours and receiving welfare benefits, or slaving away at a low-paying job and receiving few or no welfare benefits. What's the rational choice, disregarding "work ethic" or "leeching"? Her children will likely grow up among like children with like parents, and attain similarly low levels of achievement, and this is one way in which "poverty" is perpetuated. Likewise, for people with chronic illnesses, getting on disability (with the aid of an attorney) and receiving Medicaid (free medical insurance) may be a economically more rational decision than continuing to work and paying impossible premiums for health insurance.

Take it from someone who has been on food stamps: it's hard paying for food with hard-earned cash when you become accustomed to charging it to the State with an EBT card. (Although initially that takes some getting used to, since such programs are often abused and therefore frowned upon by a large sector of American society).
I'm not arguing with your post, I'm in agreement with yours. I'd just like to add a few points as well to yours.

This is what I don't understand about Brits and Europeans. Reading their posts, it seems like they see the U.S. as some kind of 3rd world country where no one has a "safety net" to catch them if they fall, that we just tell all of our poor to roll over and die quickly. The truth of the matter is, we have ALL the welfare programs for the poor and needy that western Europe has. The only difference is, our programs were designed to help combat addiction and dependence, hence the basic lifestyle one on welfare receives, unlike in western Europe where the spending is more lavish (I believe we spend just as much or more on welfare than any one western EU country?) and is more of a blank check. Welfare abuse is much more ripe in the western EU since there is less accountability. So, I'm sorry to our European posters on here that we prefer not to foot the bill for people to live in million pound homes, courtesy of the taxpayer

Another thing I've noticed among European posters is that they like to cherry pick their statistics. They criticize the US, all 3.79M square miles/9.82M square kilometers, as some kind of rich paradise living next to a 3rd world dump with people's teeth falling out and living in dilapidated trailer parks. They probably think all of the US is a little bit like Mississippi. I've looked up the HDI score of the US, and it's HDI is .910. That's the forth highest in the world. I looked up the HDI scores of each EU member state, and only Austria is comparable to the US in human development, as per the United Nations. In keeping with that, I'd like to point out that Mississippi has a slightly higher human development index than the UK does . Now, how does a nation with such lavish welfare benefits like the UK manage to squeak in with a 0.861 HDI index, and a 3rd world hellhole that wishes its non-rich citizens to die a quick death if they don't earn more than $70,000 a year manage an average with 0.910? So, Europeans, let's be honest, shall we? If you're going to criticize the US, make sure you are comprehensive in your analysis and thorough, which you are not. You fail to recognize that your countries are of the size and population of one or several of our states.

So, if you're going to compare "Europe" with the US, don't cherry pick your country and compare it to all 50 states of my country. You probably also didn't know that the development in the US parallels the EU as well, with our richest and most developed part being the Northeast which is analogous to northern Europe aka Scandinavia. Next up are the Pacific states which is similar to western Europe. The Plains and Mountain states which is similar to central Europe, the Midwest which is similar to southern Europe, and the infamous Southeastern states (that everyone thinks the entire US is like this) which is closest in development (yet far outpacing anyway) to eastern Europe. So, can we stop with the poorly researched, emotional bull**** arguments already that you probably got from the Guardian or der Spiegel or whatever? Because all I ever see are the same, tired arguments from anyone who's an EU citizen, coincidentally. Thanks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2012, 09:43 AM
 
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
554 posts, read 735,340 times
Reputation: 608
Hi again Kathryn,

Quote:
Actually, according to the sources listed below, the US is the top destination for immigrants in the world.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...de=eur&rank=45

Per capita, in 2012, the US is ranked 26th in net migration rates - exceeded by many small countries (including Qatar and Zimbabwe, and two larger ones - Australia and Canada. The UK ranks 29th

per capita, and since we keep talking about Sweden - Sweden ranks 44th.

Switzerland ranks 47, Austria ranks 41, New Zealand ranks 36, Luxembourg ranks 14, and Ireland ranks 42.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...de=eur&rank=45

In light of the information I just provided to you, I'd say that the US has a very healthy rate of net immigration, continuing a notable history and tradition of upwardly mobile entrepreneurs

and career business people.
For one reason or another we seem to be getting our wires crossed on this point. You had argued that class distinctions in America are in some sense mitigated compared to other countries because the USA has an unprecedented history and tradition of welcoming immigrants from other countries. The stats I linked to earlier showed that the percentage of foreign born persons living in other developed countries is broadly similar to the USA, and that therefore, in the present-day, immigration to the USA is no longer unprecedented or exceptional. You have come back with statistics showing that in 2012, America is ranked 26th in the world for the number of immigrants as a proportion of population. Could you explain why it is that you feel that the estimated number of immigrants to the US in 2012 supports your conclusion that class distinctions in the USA are broken down by immigration in a way that is not true of other countries?

Quote:
From this excellent article: http://www.brookings.edu/research/ar...bility-winship
Indeed it is an excellent article, have a rep point for giving me a good read. (Not to mention a worthwhile discussion.)

If I could make one point though, the section of the article you quoted was about absolute social mobility. e.g. If my dad earned exactly the average salary in 1970, and I earn exactly the average salary in 2012, then I earn more than my dad did because the average salary is worth more in real terms in 2012 than it was in 1970. It's definitely a worthwhile argument to consider as it does show that disposable incomes are rising, thus it's a perfectly valid point for you to make, but it's a slightly different point to the one I've been making. While I've been using the term 'social mobility', I've been using it in the commonly used sense of 'relative social mobility'. e.g. If my dads salary was in the bottom 1/5 of income earners in 1970, what are my chances of working my way into higher income brackets in my lifetime? Nonetheless the article is an excellent read and I can see myself citing from the it in the future, so thank you again for posting it.

Quote:
Actually, your sources were discussing American MEN for the most part, which leaves out a huge segment of the population. And I will be the first to admit that men from lower socioeconomic classes in the US often remain in those scenarios. Have you noticed a correlation between criminal records, single motherhood, drug usage, etc among that same socioeconomic class? You're saying that low incomes produce those issues. I'm saying that often, poor life choices create financial hardships.
Yes I have noticed a correlation between criminal records, single motherhood, drug abuse and the lowest socioeconomic class. You seem a little bit fuzzy over what I'm trying to argue, which in retrospect is perhaps because I haven't gone into great detail on it. I'll correct this omission by making my point more explicitly.

1. Low income does not unto itself encourage people into crime, single motherhood or substance abuse. The vast majority of extremely poor people across the world, are as morally upstanding (if not more) as those wealthier than them.
2. I wholeheartedly agree that poor life decisions are almost exclusively what turn people into criminals, single mothers or substance abusers.
3. What I'm interested in discussing is the extent to which low social mobility (not low income), acts as a negative influence by pushing people towards making the poor life decisions which result in criminality, single-parenthood and/or substance abuse.

While it might not be immediately obvious where I'm going with the following, please bear with me as I will (eventually) get to the point.

A psychopath is defined as somebody who does not experience emotions like guilt or remorse in the same way as others without the condition. The term has (often wrongly) come to be mean 'criminal', 'murderer' or 'sadist' in popular culture, but most psychopaths are not criminals, and their condition does not condemn them to a life of crime. Indeed, for psychopaths who make it onto the corporate ladder, they tend to excel at rising through the ranks, because their lack of inhibitions over hurting the feelings of others actually gives them a competitive edge in that environment. (1)

However, a psychopath born into a situation of low social mobility, where legitimately earned rewards are harder to come by, is at significant risk of turning to less savoury activities to get his/her financial compensation and mental stimulation. Ultimately, the same psychological condition which in one person manifests itself as corporate bullying, manifests itself in other afflicted people as brutal and unremorseful criminal activity. One of the most major factors, if not the predominant factor, which will determine which direction that a psychopaths life unravels, is the level of social mobility that they're born into.

"Ok" you might say, "I see the logic but you're talking about a very small group of people." While that's true, the reason I chose psychopaths as an example, is because in their unusual case, it's relatively straightforward to see how one factor (their mental condition) interacts with another factor (their social mobility) to arrive at a preferable outcome of corporate employment, or an unpreferable outcome of criminal brutality, making psychopaths a good example to begin with.

This logic can be applied to a raft of more common circumstances. Somebody with low self-esteem who is socially mobile, has a better shot at overcoming their problems than their socially immobile equivalents, because they are more likely to find out that they aren't half as stupid or useless as they think they are. Somebody with low self-esteem who is socially immobile, is more likely to have their negative thoughts about themselves reinforced, because throughout their lives they're less likely to have their negative thoughts about themselves challenged. e.g. "I'm in a dead end job or unemployed with no future because I'm stupid and useless." vs "I think I'm stupid and useless, but things seem to be going ok, maybe I'm not as stupid and useless after all." It's unsurprising that many with low self-esteem and low social mobility resort to taking comfort in alcohol or substance abuse. After all, the self-reinforcing downward spiral of low self-esteem and failure mentioned above will eventually lead many people down to rock bottom. If I had very little in my life to feel happy or proud of, I think I could quite easily find myself going through a bottle of whisky a day or crystal meth. Once somebody is dependant on substance abuse for comfort, it's a relatively inevitable step into crime or prostitution to pay for the habit, which in turn reinforces the need for more booze or drugs to blank out the guilt and remorse they feel over how their life has panned out. Once somebody in that position has a criminal record and chronic health problems due to their substance abuse, their chances of ever achieving a productive life are negligible.

My argument is that it's complex inter-relationships between factors which lead to criminality, single-parenthood and substance abuse; and that low social mobility is the common theme which ties these factors together. You cited bad decision making as a cause of this behaviour, and I agree, but can you see my point that many people will be succumb to pressure to make bad decisions because of bad circumstances compounded by low social mobility? I'm not solely talking about psychopaths and those with low self-esteem, one could add people who lose a job and an income they need for their mortgage, people with below average intelligence, or invisible disabilities, or a long list of other complaints that a social worker could diagnose in their clients. I haven't the expertise to come close to doing justice to this subject in its entirety, but I hope that at least it will make clearer why I'm so fixated on this concept of low social mobility.

Quote:
Our fifty individual states are the main providers of public education - not our federal government. States have more jurisdiction and control over MANY aspects of government than the federal government has, specifically because the US is so large and so diverse, that we as a people generally believe that local entities can better determine and meet many of the needs of their local constituents. Therefore, educational needs, strengths and weaknesses vary WIDELY from state to state, and even from school district to school district.

We don't see the answer as coming from the federal level - to attempt to meet such varied local needs, capitalize on those strengths, and address those weaknesses from a federal level would add layers and layers of expensive and clumsy bureaucracy.
Insofar as I'm aware, Pell Grants already exist, and so presumably the bureacracy is already in place to manage such a programme. The present system would surely just need a larger budget to increase the value of the grants available so that it would cover a greater proportion of tuition and living expenses, thereby increasing the numbers of applicants? Would you argue against this proposal on the basis that it's not technically feasible, or is your objection that this is not how you wish to see public money spent?

Quote:
Considering this, we're often loathe to INCREASE these percentages, when our federal budget is so heavily earmarked to social programs already.
To make the argument that you're trying to make, would you not agree that you'd really need to draw a comparison between the rough proportions of the US budget spent on social programmes, versus the proportion of the budget other countries spend on their social programmes? I mean you're clearly right that social welfare and healthcare are the largest single expenditures in the US budget, but who is to say that the percentage spent by the US on social welfare is 'enough'? On questions like this it's surely necessary to compare the percentage of spending with other developed countries? For example the equivalent UK chart looks like this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...xpenditure.svg

As you alluded to in your post, it would require a lot of work to establish exactly how much of each countries expenditures end up being spent on social welfare, because the responsibilities of departments not directly tasked with social welfare may include welfare spending. At face value though, there are a couple of observations I'd make which make which lead me to doubt that percentage of US Government expenditure on social welfare is as high as it is in other developed countries. You'll be able to see that in both the UK and the USA, spending on social welfare and healthcare are the largest single expenditures. However from this (2) link which makes the numbers a bit easier to read, you'll be able to calculate that the US spends 23% on social security administration, while from the earlier chart you'll see that the UK spends 32% between Social Protection and Personal Social Services. I'm not drawing any firm conclusions here for precisely the reasons you mentioned, I'm just urging caution over using this argument as it would really need you to perform a lot of statistical analysis, or alternatively find the results of studies which have already done the leg work for you.

Eoin

(1) Why (Some) Psychopaths Make Great CEOs - Forbes
(2) 2013 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2012, 10:29 AM
 
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
554 posts, read 735,340 times
Reputation: 608
Quote:
Originally Posted by tvdxer View Post
The American social welfare system is designed to help people who otherwise can't meet their basic needs. For each "need", there is a separate program. For example, for food there is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which distributes to its 40+ million recipients monthly benefits on a card that can only be used for purchases of food. For heating and cooling needs, there is LIHEAP ("Energy Assistance"), which is directly paid to utility providers; for education, Pell Grants, which go directly to universities; etc. This appears to contrast with the monthly "dole" that is given out in the U.K. or most advanced social welfare states. I think this boils down to a basic mistrust of the needy to make wise spending decisions, which, judging from experience and statistics is not entirely unjustified. Better to make it difficult to buy alcohol or drugs with an EBT card (addicts turn into "shoppers" who fraudulently sell access to their cards) than to hand out checks every month.

To qualify for these programs - in other words, to "be in need" in the government's eyes - one must have income and assets below a certain level. Once that level is exceeded, one fails to qualify for them. This results in a scenario in which it is often in a person's best interest, in terms of their standard of living, to remain unemployed or work part-time rather than work full-time. For example, say Sally is a 30 year-old single, never-wed mother of four with a high school education. She could continue on to college with a government Pell grant, but she is not motivated enough and barely graduated high school anyway. This leaves her with a choice of deliberately working few or no hours and receiving welfare benefits, or slaving away at a low-paying job and receiving few or no welfare benefits. What's the rational choice, disregarding "work ethic" or "leeching"? Her children will likely grow up among like children with like parents, and attain similarly low levels of achievement, and this is one way in which "poverty" is perpetuated. Likewise, for people with chronic illnesses, getting on disability (with the aid of an attorney) and receiving Medicaid (free medical insurance) may be a economically more rational decision than continuing to work and paying impossible premiums for health insurance.

Take it from someone who has been on food stamps: it's hard paying for food with hard-earned cash when you become accustomed to charging it to the State with an EBT card. (Although initially that takes some getting used to, since such programs are often abused and therefore frowned upon by a large sector of American society).
You deserve a rep but apparently I have to spread it around first!

The benefit trap you've so eloquently described is something that afflicts the UK also. Contrary to the misplaced notion that unbrainwashed seems to be pandering to (and I'm looking forward to responding to) the UK doesn't have a particularly generous or well thought out welfare system by European standards. Until very recently, the 'taper' (the rate at which benefits taper off for each additional £1 earned) was 90%. i.e. If you were living solely on state benefits, and you got a part time job earning £400/month, you'd only end up £40/month better off than resting on your posterior.

Our last Government came up with a partial remedy for this problem which they called 'tax credits'. The credits themselves are actually unrelated to tax in any sense whatsoever, they're basically just monthly payments made to people working on low incomes, to make working a more attractive prospect than living on benefits. While it's the right idea, the implementation of the system has left a lot to be desired. People whose working hours fluctuate, or who work temp jobs for short periods of time have found themselves being overpaid tax credits, and left in the situation of being in debt to the Government, sometimes by quite considerable sums of money because claims are only re-assessed once a year. People in that position find themselves spending half their free time at benefits offices with payslips for 4 hour shifts they had taken on to earn extra cash, only to later face a reduction in the amount of tax credits due to them and bills at the end of the year. In short, unless somebody finds a job with set hours, the setup is a frigging nightmare and its put many people off bothering to apply.

Last but not least is the problem benefit claimants face with administrative delay. If a benefit claimant canvases employers and manages to land themselves a 2 week job placement, then naturally they immediately lose 90% or all of their benefits (depending on how much they earn.) However, if at the end of the placement they don't get a job out of it, they could be looking at waiting 2 weeks in administrative delay before they get their next living expenses into their bank accounts, or up to 4 weeks for their next rent money (which is handled separately) to be put into their account. For somebody with any savings at all that's maybe not a problem, but most benefit claimants have next to nothing in savings.

Altogether it's a system in need of reform, which is apparently being phased in during 2017, although given the Government tasked with handling this reform, I'm not holding my breath!

Eoin
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2012, 12:41 PM
 
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
554 posts, read 735,340 times
Reputation: 608
Aha brainwashed, I've been relishing the prospect of responding to this post since I had the pleasure of first reading it!

Quote:
Originally Posted by theunbrainwashed View Post
This is what I don't understand about Brits and Europeans. Reading their posts, it seems like they see the U.S. as some kind of 3rd world country where no one has a "safety net" to catch them if they fall, that we just tell all of our poor to roll over and die quickly.
Yes indeed. I've repeatedly asserted that America is a third world country and not once in any post have I ever acknowledged any form of assistance that the US Government renders to the destitute. You must understand that as a Brit and a European (the worst of both worlds I'm sure you'll agree), my life revolves around dreaming up unsubstantiated criticisms to level at the United States. My favourite hobby is to crack open a bottle of red 'surrender monkey' wine and relax while picking fights with inhabitants of our ex-colonies.

Quote:
The truth of the matter is, we have ALL the welfare programs for the poor and needy that western Europe has. The only difference is, our programs were designed to help combat addiction and dependence, hence the basic lifestyle one on welfare receives, unlike in western Europe where the spending is more lavish (I believe we spend just as much or more on welfare than any one western EU country?) and is more of a blank check. Welfare abuse is much more ripe in the western EU since there is less accountability. So, I'm sorry to our European posters on here that we prefer not to foot the bill for people to live in million pound homes, courtesy of the taxpayer
Well you see this is the difference between you and me brainwashed. I actually want to see more money spent on putting up the jobless in period housing. My sole regret in this world is that we don't have enough stately homes with commanding views of our best scenery to house them all in. Your unsubstantiated assertion that the UK has less accountability built in its welfare system than the US system is unquestionably correct. In actual fact, accountability is something we strive to avoid under any circumstances. In my 6 years as a benefits officer I've lost count of how many case-papers myself and my colleagues have folded into paper aeroplanes and competed for distance out of the 3rd floor window. If I'm being honest I'm not even sure my name's actually Eoin, much less who that unlikely character was who I signed off thousands of pounds of taxpayers money to last week.

Quote:
Another thing I've noticed among European posters is that they like to cherry pick their statistics. They criticize the US, all 3.79M square miles/9.82M square kilometers, as some kind of rich paradise living next to a 3rd world dump with people's teeth falling out and living in dilapidated trailer parks. They probably think all of the US is a little bit like Mississippi.
One such as I wouldn't stoop so low as to question the intellectual integrity of a poster who takes a Daily Mail story about a handful of exceptional Housing Benefit claims, and then criticises the entirety of Europe for cherry picking statistics within the space of 3 sentences. As such I'll leave this issue to one side...

Quote:
I've looked up the HDI score of the US, and it's HDI is .910. That's the forth highest in the world. I looked up the HDI scores of each EU member state, and only Austria is comparable to the US in human development, as per the United Nations. In keeping with that, I'd like to point out that Mississippi has a slightly higher human development index than the UK does . Now, how does a nation with such lavish welfare benefits like the UK manage to squeak in with a 0.861 HDI index, and a 3rd world hellhole that wishes its non-rich citizens to die a quick death if they don't earn more than $70,000 a year manage an average with 0.910? So, Europeans, let's be honest, shall we? If you're going to criticize the US, make sure you are comprehensive in your analysis and thorough, which you are not. You fail to recognize that your countries are of the size and population of one or several of our states.
Now look here. Myself and every other European who has ever posted on this forum is fully aware of your plight. We know about the abuses you face at the hands of your corporate slave-drivers and we're just trying to make you aware of the tyranny you live under. It's not fair on you that when you emerge into daylight at the end of your 14 hour shift in the salt mine, that you have to stagger home to your trailer with aching limbs, worrying about the rising cost of your growth hormone microwave dinner. It's readily apparent to Europeans like me that we're more fit to assess your standard of living than you are, and that is why I go out of my way to avoid using any statistical evidence to support arguments I make about the USA in any thread I've ever commented in.

Quote:
So, if you're going to compare "Europe" with the US, don't cherry pick your country and compare it to all 50 states of my country. You probably also didn't know that the development in the US parallels the EU as well, with our richest and most developed part being the Northeast which is analogous to northern Europe aka Scandinavia. Next up are the Pacific states which is similar to western Europe. The Plains and Mountain states which is similar to central Europe, the Midwest which is similar to southern Europe, and the infamous Southeastern states (that everyone thinks the entire US is like this) which is closest in development (yet far outpacing anyway) to eastern Europe.
You don't need to lecture us on what the USA is like, we know that you all sit on your porches in the evening plucking away at your banjo's and complimenting people on their purty mouths.

Quote:
So, can we stop with the poorly researched, emotional bull**** arguments already that you probably got from the Guardian or der Spiegel or whatever? Because all I ever see are the same, tired arguments from anyone who's an EU citizen, coincidentally. Thanks.
Ok I'll come clean. Every day when I'm pedalling 20 miles home from work on my European eco-tricycle, I peel my way through the rain and sweat soaked pages of my copy of the Guardian looking for something... anything in fact that I can post that reflects badly on America which will plug the void I feel at not having been born an American. I mean sure I spent 4 years studying economic and social history as an undergraduate, then 6 years working as a benefits officer for Glasgow City Council, but the real reason I've chosen to get involved in a discussion over the merits of social mobility in the USA is because I'm an emotional trainwreck trying to reconcile what I see in Hollywood movies with the post-apocalyptic wasteland I read about in the Guardian.

Yours Sincerely,
Eoin
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2012, 04:42 PM
 
48,505 posts, read 96,682,701 times
Reputation: 18304
The mian difference is central governamnt control of buienss to a large degree. Its a competitive issue .One can see just by the per cenatge of GDP needed to sustain governamnt that returns very liitle has far as reinvestment that increase growth.I time such policy elminates growth investments.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2012, 05:05 PM
 
Location: London
1,068 posts, read 2,018,025 times
Reputation: 1023
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eoin (pronounced Owen) View Post
Aha brainwashed, I've been relishing the prospect of responding to this post since I had the pleasure of first reading it!



Yes indeed. I've repeatedly asserted that America is a third world country and not once in any post have I ever acknowledged any form of assistance that the US Government renders to the destitute. You must understand that as a Brit and a European (the worst of both worlds I'm sure you'll agree), my life revolves around dreaming up unsubstantiated criticisms to level at the United States. My favourite hobby is to crack open a bottle of red 'surrender monkey' wine and relax while picking fights with inhabitants of our ex-colonies.


Yours Sincerely,
Eoin
Maybe you could both go toe to toe in a cross Atlantic game of 'Assassins Creed' or something?

Winner takes all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2012, 09:16 PM
 
Location: The Silver State (from the UK)
4,664 posts, read 8,231,611 times
Reputation: 2862
Quote:
Originally Posted by texdav View Post
The mian difference is central governamnt control of buienss to a large degree. Its a competitive issue .One can see just by the per cenatge of GDP needed to sustain governamnt that returns very liitle has far as reinvestment that increase growth.I time such policy elminates growth investments.

Governments can foster enormous growth. Do you think infrastructure materializes out of nothing? Where is growth in China coming from?? The irony is that China is now fueling part of US debt because our citizens aren't taxed enough. Go figure.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2012, 07:44 AM
 
Location: Telford, Shropshire UK
54 posts, read 108,967 times
Reputation: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by ian6479 View Post
Governments can foster enormous growth. Do you think infrastructure materializes out of nothing? Where is growth in China coming from?? The irony is that China is now fueling part of US debt because our citizens aren't taxed enough. Go figure.
Valid points. Infrastructure doesn't just magically build and maintain itself and I don't recall major road and rail networks being created by private companies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2012, 07:47 AM
 
Location: Telford, Shropshire UK
54 posts, read 108,967 times
Reputation: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eoin (pronounced Owen) View Post
Aha brainwashed, I've been relishing the prospect of responding to this post since I had the pleasure of first reading it!



Yes indeed. I've repeatedly asserted that America is a third world country and not once in any post have I ever acknowledged any form of assistance that the US Government renders to the destitute. You must understand that as a Brit and a European (the worst of both worlds I'm sure you'll agree), my life revolves around dreaming up unsubstantiated criticisms to level at the United States. My favourite hobby is to crack open a bottle of red 'surrender monkey' wine and relax while picking fights with inhabitants of our ex-colonies.



Well you see this is the difference between you and me brainwashed. I actually want to see more money spent on putting up the jobless in period housing. My sole regret in this world is that we don't have enough stately homes with commanding views of our best scenery to house them all in. Your unsubstantiated assertion that the UK has less accountability built in its welfare system than the US system is unquestionably correct. In actual fact, accountability is something we strive to avoid under any circumstances. In my 6 years as a benefits officer I've lost count of how many case-papers myself and my colleagues have folded into paper aeroplanes and competed for distance out of the 3rd floor window. If I'm being honest I'm not even sure my name's actually Eoin, much less who that unlikely character was who I signed off thousands of pounds of taxpayers money to last week.



One such as I wouldn't stoop so low as to question the intellectual integrity of a poster who takes a Daily Mail story about a handful of exceptional Housing Benefit claims, and then criticises the entirety of Europe for cherry picking statistics within the space of 3 sentences. As such I'll leave this issue to one side...



Now look here. Myself and every other European who has ever posted on this forum is fully aware of your plight. We know about the abuses you face at the hands of your corporate slave-drivers and we're just trying to make you aware of the tyranny you live under. It's not fair on you that when you emerge into daylight at the end of your 14 hour shift in the salt mine, that you have to stagger home to your trailer with aching limbs, worrying about the rising cost of your growth hormone microwave dinner. It's readily apparent to Europeans like me that we're more fit to assess your standard of living than you are, and that is why I go out of my way to avoid using any statistical evidence to support arguments I make about the USA in any thread I've ever commented in.



You don't need to lecture us on what the USA is like, we know that you all sit on your porches in the evening plucking away at your banjo's and complimenting people on their purty mouths.



Ok I'll come clean. Every day when I'm pedalling 20 miles home from work on my European eco-tricycle, I peel my way through the rain and sweat soaked pages of my copy of the Guardian looking for something... anything in fact that I can post that reflects badly on America which will plug the void I feel at not having been born an American. I mean sure I spent 4 years studying economic and social history as an undergraduate, then 6 years working as a benefits officer for Glasgow City Council, but the real reason I've chosen to get involved in a discussion over the merits of social mobility in the USA is because I'm an emotional trainwreck trying to reconcile what I see in Hollywood movies with the post-apocalyptic wasteland I read about in the Guardian.

Yours Sincerely,
Eoin
Hahahahaha, hilarious! I almost spilt my eco-friendly coffee all over today's Guardian reading this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > United Kingdom
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:04 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top