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.
It sounds as if you are insinuating that Sweden's socialist government would appeal to someone who doesn't want to work, as if Swedes aren't working hard and paying taxes into the system that they benefit from. I
Well, yes if you don't want to work, Sweden is a better place to live if you can handle the weather. There's a reason why the Scandinavian countries were traditionally not very open to immigration until fairly recently.
If you truly know what it means you would have never posted this thread in the first place. Unless an anomaly event that's statistically very unlikely to occur takes place, there is NO CHANCE of this happening to the USA in the next twenty years. And this is accounting for all aspects of a third world country. Meaning no we won't be considered third world economically, militarily, educationally or in terms of quality of life. Let me give you an example of how it's like in a third world country and you tell me if these conditions are likely for the US in the next 20 years:
No chance of it happening? JMO, but I still think Americans are too complacent and have an "it can't happen here" kind of attitude....which increases the chance of us falling backward. I think a war could take us to 3rd World status in pretty short order.
That's fair, there are certainly some that are bound to be a paperwork nightmare.
That said, you can't really take the "Doing Business Index" all that seriously. Cameroon, for instance, is considered 135th out of 189 countries for ease of starting a business. And I'm sure that, if you followed all the regulations to a T, you'd probably find it was THAT hard. But I have a friend who started one there, and all he did was basically pay a guy filing his paperwork just a little extra under the table and voila! he was approved for his license in three days.
There's a reason that some of the richest businessmen in this country are leaving the first world entirely (with the notable exceptions of Singapore, Hong Kong, Puerto Rico and Costa Rica) to conduct their business.
And yes, my post was an oversimplification. Explanation of why first world companies have historically stagnated in the last fifty years would probably require treatment in an entire economic treatise, and I tried to explain it in one post. But the basic principles don't change, and the original argument was that it had something to do with first world countries needing to do worse for third world countries to do better, which it doesn't.
Fair points. I'd have to say it depends on the individual country and leave it at that. "Third World" really encompasses a lot of different countries with a lot of different issues.
It's not about the rich vs. the poor. It's about the politically connected vs. everyone else, and until people start understanding the nature of THAT paradigm, things will continue to get worse.
I'm totally with you on this one And what you've said above also illustrates that a reasonable approximation of true free markets doesn't really exist in most countries, including the US (despite what we're told).
I think this piece elaborates quite well on what you've said:
....The class of people who deserve our enmity is not precisely “the rich†at the very top of the income ladder; instead, the class deserving voters’ wrath is composed of society’s predators and parasites, who span all rungs of the income ladder.
blisterpeanuts, wow, lots of ideas. I certainly agree with many of your ideas. I thought I would mention one of your ideas as I believe it explains much of what has happened in the last few decades. You looked back to the 1960s and claim a man with a modest job could raise a family of 4. Well, I doubt that was easy back then. I know my wife's family was in that situation and they managed to get by with very, very little beyond the basics. Now we expect a bigger house and more than one car. Each kid needs a computer, ipad, and smart phone. We don't have a single TV with free channels but we expect large flat screens in every room with cable channels. The kids no longer play in the neighborhood but need to be driven to events. We need the GPS to get us there. We don't just go on vacations to visit the relatives. We expect theme parks and cruises. We don't drink water out of the tap. We want bottled water and sodas. We want fast food since mom no longer spends days cleaning and cooking. When we eat at home we think nothing of having fruits and vegetables from around the world. We have to have "organic", gmo-free, Whole Foods gourmet groceries. It is not so much that the basics have become more expensive but we expect much more than we did in the '60s.
Most of what you reference is due to the natural advancement of technology, the starkest example being computers. A person that had $100 to spend in 1980 which grew to $200 in 1990, to $300 to spend in 2004, but then remained there can now buy a laptop computer with that money that would have cost $3000 a decade ago, but that doesn't mean he has more money, it means the laptops are cheaper and more advanced. The cost of TV sets also came down with time, though not nearly as fast. Similarly, a homeless person being able to pay for a telephone call in 1930 doesn't make him any richer than homeless person in 1870 that didn't have that chance. You might argue their standard of living increased, but if the former person's money had continued to grow his standard of living would have gone up much more than it did. The same logic applies to American households, the bottom 90% of whom are taking in as much money now as they did in 1970 despite many more two-worker* households. If the post-1970 stagnation had never happened household income would be $150 000 right now, which would buy them a lot more electronics, organic foods, bottled water*, and vacations than they can afford now.
Rightly so, since with advancing technology and concomitant rise in productivity, over time incomes should rise along with what one counts as the basics (beyond the simple advance of technology). If that does not happen that means there is something wrong. The fact, which you freely acknowledge, that 2010's people increasingly cannot afford that rise over the 1960's proves the point you're trying to refute: that there is something very wrong with the American economy and has been present for 15-40 years. You having to even mention the rise in basics as an explanation for the financial squeeze proves that point.
The rest of your references are the requirements of having two workers: "mom no longer spends days cleaning and cooking" because she is out working, which makes food from elsewhere necessary. In both the 1960's and 2010's in the bulk of the country each worker needs a car to get to work, and if there are two workers in the household two cars will be necessary unless both work at the same place. Undoubtedly much of the increase is not related to this, but many more household need two cars to maintain their income in the 2010's than did in the 1960's. You also have to consider that the 1960's household had a 5-year-old car, and the 2010's household had an 11-year-old car, so undoubtedly many 2010's families chose/had to economize on one or both of those cars.
*I say the gender-neutral "two-worker" because for this purpose it wouldn't make any difference if the wife worked and the husband stayed home. Indeed, one might have expected less husbands and fathers to work if wives and mothers worked more; incidentally even today most working mothers work out of need rather than out of wanting to work (source).
*Most consumers buy bottled water just to drink at home and on the go, which costs very little, so I don't see why you mentioned that. Soda consumption was not that different then than it is now, and beverages of all stripes have never been a significant drain on most people's disposable income anyway.
It is much more difficult to absorb Latin American and African immigrants because their cultures and habits are vastly different from even the current American culture. Look at picture of San Paulo, Guadalajara or Monrovia. These peoples ways of life bear no resemblance whatever to the those of the peoples of Northampton, Galway or Krakow.
This is racist/ethnocentric and simply not true. You're judging by pictures. I can tell you've never visited any of those places. Brazil, for instance, has a growing middle class. Although the culture & attitudes are different, there are plenty of people there (perhaps 1/4 - 1/3) who live a scaled down version of the American middle class lifestyle.
The real problem we have with immigration from 3rd World countries to rich countries is that it's the poor people from those countries who immigrate, not the middle class. The economy in rich countries simply doesn't have much demand for low skill labor, as was the case in the past, so poor people from the 3rd World have a much harder time immigrating and being economically successful in 1st World countries.
Yeah that works well until you can't even afford the bathroom in an apartment. Then what? Are people supposed to start living in shantytowns?
Hyperbole not appreciated.
Ironically, Americans are much more likely to end up living in said shantytowns if they don't learn to live below their means.
What actually happens when people learn to save and invest significant portions of their incomes is they have significant savings. Even if everyone isn't able to save a lot, more people can. When that happens, it means fewer people are beholden to their employers. When fewer people are under the thumbs of their employeres, it means wages go up because folks can hold out for better wages, and, over time, some will be able to leave paid employment much sooner than traditional retirement age of 65 or 70. That creates better wages and job opportunities for those who are still employed.
But if we keep our savings rate at a pathetic 5%, then the middle class will continue to shrink and more of us will live in shantytowns.
As I said, it's time end the complaining and rethink what passes for a typical American middle class lifestyle while we still have one. The irony is the people who don't chase the high consumption lifestyle are the ones who are more likely to be able to actually afford it.
I've heard that one of the side effects of Sweden being a welfare state and having a crappy climate is that the suicide rate is high, granted I think its more to do with climate. Granted a welfare state does make it hard to feel independent. I truly believe most people want to be independent and try to make some sort of living.
Eh, actually their suicide rate has dropped over the years and is now about the same as in the US:
Yes, I think we're headed for 3rd World status in another generation or two. If nothing else, our massive debts will take us down. Already, our biggest non-defense outlay in the federal budget is interest on the national debt and in a few years it will be the biggest, period, at about a trillion a year. We're like a credit card junkie, just living from month to month making the minimum payments.
I agree with the sentiment here, but the part about interest being the biggest non-defense outlay is just WRONG. It's actually Medicare/Medicaid, followed by Social Security. Interest on the debt was only 6% of outlays, but it does most definitely bear watching. If interest rates on treasury bonds return to 5% or 6%, those interest payments could spike in fairly short order.
I think we can pull out of this tailspin, but it would take the kind of dedication and work ethic that we no longer seem to possess, the kind of determination and drive that people used to have back in the 1930s and previously. We have to get that back.
Agreed. Actually, I think one of the biggest things people can do for their country is to eat healthier. Many of our medical costs would just evaporate if we all ate a plant based diet with minimal meat and processed foods. Incidence of obesity, heart disease, high blood pressure, and diabetes would all dramatically fall, and so would our medical costs.
But whether we're talking about increasing savings or adopting healthier lifestyles, the bottom line is we can't keep doing life the way we've been doing it and expect things will improve.
Perhaps not third world which is usually extreme poverty conditions. More like second world like Russia in the 90s, Brazil, etc. Expect heavy crime, ghettos, corporations running wild, mass corruption in the political ranks, etc.
We've had that for decades, nothing new there.
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.
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.
And what you've said above also illustrates that a reasonable approximation of true free markets doesn't really exist in most countries, including the US (despite what we're told). 
