Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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)
 
Old 06-20-2013, 11:05 AM
 
Location: Stillwater, Oklahoma
30,976 posts, read 21,550,753 times
Reputation: 9675

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffdano View Post
Fine post. Ellemint comes up with some interesting, but usually irrelevant metrics.
And after adjusting for costs to determine disposable income, which makes USA number one, further adjustments should be made to see what countries are getting back in return for being forced to pay higher costs, however subjective it may be. Do they get higher levels of happiness? More educated? Longer lives? Better access to health care for everyone? Lower crime and imprisonment? Lower rates of abortion? Lower poverty rates and so on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-20-2013, 11:48 AM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
14,856 posts, read 8,172,111 times
Reputation: 4590
I hate unions, but I would work a union job in a heartbeat. I would prefer to work for a union than a non-union. But, I still absolutely hate and despise unions to no end.

Does that seem weird? Not at all.

Ask yourself a question. Would the current people who are working for low wages in non-union shops be better off or worse off if all unions were abolished? Or possibly an easier question. Would the working poor be better off or worse off if all teachers unions were abolished?


When I look at anything that exists. I always have to ask, who benefits? If you understand economics and history, you'll realize that the primary beneficiaries of the existence of unions, are union employees. And their benefits must come at a cost. And these costs are then transmitted to society at large. And those who pay the highest costs, will be those who are the most vulnerable. Those with the least political or economic power. The working poor.


There isn't a doubt in my mind that the working poor would be considerably better off if there were no unions. And really, that is where my heart is, with the working poor. And anything that exists to disadvantage them, that makes their lives more difficult, or reduces their buying power, needs to be abolished.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2013, 12:16 PM
 
4,699 posts, read 4,053,232 times
Reputation: 2483
Quote:
Originally Posted by StillwaterTownie View Post
And after adjusting for costs to determine disposable income, which makes USA number one, further adjustments should be made to see what countries are getting back in return for being forced to pay higher costs, however subjective it may be. Do they get higher levels of happiness? More educated? Longer lives? Better access to health care for everyone? Lower crime and imprisonment? Lower rates of abortion? Lower poverty rates and so on.
Alright lets look at France vs US. France is one of the most diverse countries in Europe and is the most left wing too.

Income:
US: 42,000
France: 27,500


Happiness:
US: 57% thriving, 40% struggeling, 3% suffering,
France: 35% thriving, 60% struggeling, 6% suffering

Education: (PISA results)
US: 496
France: 497

Life Expectancy:
France: 81.7 years
US: 78.6 years

Health Care:
US: Soon forced private health insurance
France: Public health care, normally considered good

Crime: (imprisonment I am not going to rank, cause low imprisonment is neither positive or negative)
Homicide
France: 1.1
US: 4.8

Victim of assult last year
US: 1.5%
France: 5.0%

Abortion:
France: 20.9%
US: 19.6%

Poverty rate:
Relatative:
US: 17%
France: 8%

Absolute
US: 8.7%
France: 10%

So they got their pros and cons, but I do think US is a better country than France

Last edited by Camlon; 06-20-2013 at 12:34 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2013, 12:23 PM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
14,856 posts, read 8,172,111 times
Reputation: 4590
Quote:
Originally Posted by StillwaterTownie View Post
And after adjusting for costs to determine disposable income, which makes USA number one, further adjustments should be made to see what countries are getting back in return for being forced to pay higher costs, however subjective it may be. Do they get higher levels of happiness? More educated? Longer lives? Better access to health care for everyone? Lower crime and imprisonment? Lower rates of abortion? Lower poverty rates and so on.
Have I mentioned I love Oklahoma? I'm in Midwest City.

I like your line of thinking, especially the question about happiness. I think most of the other concerns are either unimportant or are greatly affected too much by to many other factors.

With that said, I would certainly agree that the government has a huge impact on the relative happiness of the people under it. But happiness is a weird thing, because one being happy doesn't always make a lot of sense. There are people out there that are unhappy, who really should be happy, they have everything. And there are people out there that are happy, and they really shouldn't be, because they have nothing.


I have spent a considerable amount of time around poor people, and in the extreme, around homeless people. I've stayed in a homeless shelter. And while you would believe that the homeless and the poor would have to be unhappy because of the seeming hopelessness of their situation. Let me tell you, a lot of homeless people are pretty happy.

I mean, there are people in prison who are happier than most people. I mean, tons of rich people kill themselves. Actors and actresses kill themselves. Income has only a loose correlation to happiness. And thus availability of goods and services has a loose correlation to happiness.

If we want to discuss what actually causes happiness. We should rather not use the word happiness, and use the word "contentedness". Because contentedness is a much more accurate word to describe what people tend to believe is "happiness".


So what causes contentedness? Well, it is a combination of security/stability and meeting your own expectations of life. A person with high expectations who never comes close to reaching them, regardless of where they place in society, will be unhappy. And security/stability is largely dependent on the individual. A lot of homeless people feel fairly secure. They can easily get money by begging. They have access to food, alcohol, and they have a lot of freedom. When I was in Tampa. The homeless guys there were talking about how they get to sleep on the beach, and go fishing all day. Then they would come stay in a salvation army shelter, and get fed.


The truth is, the United States is full of very non-content people. The question is why?

In my analysis. I would argue that the people of the United States are seemingly unhappy because of social issues, not so much economic issues. The economic issues that seem to exist are not caused by absolute economic issues, but are an extension of social issues(IE inequality, racism, discrimination, etc).

The countries in the world that are most happy. Are countries with very little social strife. They are countries where people agree with each other on most issues, and see themselves as mostly one large community. They are almost always relatively small and almost entirely homogeneous nations.


Thus my conclusion is that, happiness is largely about being around people like yourself. And feeling free from interference by those not like you... With the second part being that you feel that you are meeting your own expectations.

The first part of happiness doesn't require the government at all. In fact, the government tends to stand in opposition to the first part of happiness. The second part of happiness can be addressed by the government. But can allow the government to be abusive. Because everyone's expectations will differ. So to utilize the government to achieve my own expectations could prevent others from achieving their expectations(unless we had the same expectations). And thus, the second part of happiness can only adequately be addressed through the government by like-minded individuals. Thus returns back to the point that, homogeneity is the key ingredient to happiness.

Which to anyone who has ever researched happiness around the world. Should understand the impact of homogeneity on happiness.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2013, 02:32 PM
 
Location: Stillwater, Oklahoma
30,976 posts, read 21,550,753 times
Reputation: 9675
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
I hate unions, but I would work a union job in a heartbeat. I would prefer to work for a union than a non-union. But, I still absolutely hate and despise unions to no end.

Does that seem weird? Not at all.

Ask yourself a question. Would the current people who are working for low wages in non-union shops be better off or worse off if all unions were abolished? Or possibly an easier question. Would the working poor be better off or worse off if all teachers unions were abolished?


When I look at anything that exists. I always have to ask, who benefits? If you understand economics and history, you'll realize that the primary beneficiaries of the existence of unions, are union employees. And their benefits must come at a cost. And these costs are then transmitted to society at large. And those who pay the highest costs, will be those who are the most vulnerable. Those with the least political or economic power. The working poor.


There isn't a doubt in my mind that the working poor would be considerably better off if there were no unions. And really, that is where my heart is, with the working poor. And anything that exists to disadvantage them, that makes their lives more difficult, or reduces their buying power, needs to be abolished.
Much of the higher pay union workers get tends to get spent at local businesses, though, which may employ non unionized low paid workers. Percentage of union membership in the private sector has been steadily going down until now it stands at around 6%. Isn't it about time that the poor start getting some benefit from that tiny number as your theory would suggest?

Last edited by StillwaterTownie; 06-20-2013 at 02:41 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2013, 02:36 PM
 
10,553 posts, read 9,623,725 times
Reputation: 4784
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
I hate unions, but I would work a union job in a heartbeat. I would prefer to work for a union than a non-union. But, I still absolutely hate and despise unions to no end.

Does that seem weird? Not at all.

Ask yourself a question. Would the current people who are working for low wages in non-union shops be better off or worse off if all unions were abolished? Or possibly an easier question. Would the working poor be better off or worse off if all teachers unions were abolished?


When I look at anything that exists. I always have to ask, who benefits? If you understand economics and history, you'll realize that the primary beneficiaries of the existence of unions, are union employees. And their benefits must come at a cost. And these costs are then transmitted to society at large. And those who pay the highest costs, will be those who are the most vulnerable. Those with the least political or economic power. The working poor.


There isn't a doubt in my mind that the working poor would be considerably better off if there were no unions. And really, that is where my heart is, with the working poor. And anything that exists to disadvantage them, that makes their lives more difficult, or reduces their buying power, needs to be abolished.
Your argument is upside-down.

Unions have the effect of improving benefits and increasing wages, for everyone, not just union members, whether within an industry, within a geographic region, or for an entire nation.

Not having unions is one of the reasons the American worker has worse benefits and lower wages than in many other developed nations of the world.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2013, 03:01 PM
 
11,768 posts, read 10,233,061 times
Reputation: 3444
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellemint View Post
Your argument is upside-down.

Unions have the effect of improving benefits and increasing wages, for everyone, not just union members, whether within an industry, within a geographic region, or for an entire nation.

Not having unions is one of the reasons the American worker has worse benefits and lower wages than in many other developed nations of the world.
Except that we have higher wages, longer hours, but higher wages.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2013, 03:03 PM
 
4,699 posts, read 4,053,232 times
Reputation: 2483
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellemint View Post
Your argument is upside-down.

Unions have the effect of improving benefits and increasing wages, for everyone, not just union members, whether within an industry, within a geographic region, or for an entire nation.

Not having unions is one of the reasons the American worker has worse benefits and lower wages than in many other developed nations of the world.
Except US do not have lower wages than many other developing nations. My homecountry is now one the richest countries in the world. In 2005 we were still pretty rich, but when I lived in America for a year I was really suprised of their high standard of living.

Americans have much cheaper housing. To get a deattached house in my city will cost you 1 million dollars. In America you can get a house in America for 1/5 of that. Utilities are cheaper, food is cheaper and you have more choice, and all shopping is cheaper too. Yes, health care is expensive, but many get that covered by their employer. My host family were lower middle income. I still remember how much useless stuff they bought, which they used one time and then never again. Of course after the crisis I am sure things got more expensive, but the standard of living has been very high in America for a long time.

When you start complaining about the low wages in the US, then it just sounds greedy.

Last edited by Camlon; 06-20-2013 at 03:19 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2013, 03:08 PM
 
11,768 posts, read 10,233,061 times
Reputation: 3444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
Except US do not have lower wages than many other developing nations. My homecountry is now one the richest countries in the world. In 2005 the difference was not that large, but when I lived in America I was really suprised of their high standard of living.

Americans have much cheaper housing, cheaper utilities, cheaper food, and much cheaper shopping. Yes, health care is expensive, but many get that covered by their employer. I still remember how much useless stuff they bought, which they used one time and then never again. Of course after the crisis I am sure things got more expensive, but the standard of living has been very high in America for a long time.

When you start complaining about the low wages in the US, then it just sounds greedy
.
No doubt, it's like we conveniently forget that we are the world's 1%.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2013, 03:09 PM
 
Location: Columbus, OH
3,038 posts, read 2,508,888 times
Reputation: 831
Quote:
Originally Posted by StillwaterTownie View Post
Sorry, a lot of other factors made the economic world go around and slowed wage growth than just the rise of unions from the past. Don't confuse cause with correlation.
But I'm supposed to believe you when you say people make more because of unions.

In your case you can prove correlation? lols.
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 > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 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