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.
I've seen this argument more times than I can count. I've yet to see anyone actually explain why homogeneity and smaller population actually effects this in any way.
A homogeneous society is extremely loyal and patriotic one. For the most part, these people are connected by a shared lineage, history, and evolution. For lack of a better phrase, they are of the same blood. This leads to a "high-trust" society. The US was a "high-trust" society but has slipped into a low trust one as a result of diversity. For exampled, you used to be able to hitch hike in the US, not anymore. In homogeneous society you also don't have racial resentment (a prominent feature of diverse nations). In homogeneous nations they see each other as brothers and sisters and are okay with the idea of a robust social welfare system because it goes to "their people."
Also, if you find this so hard to believe then just look at the nations which always receive the "best standard of living" awards. Its always homogeneous nations like the Nordic ones (den,nor,swe,fin,ice); Australia and New Zealand; Japan, etc.. Notice the pattern? they are all essentially 90%+ of either white or Asian.
That doesn't change the fact that Norway's middle class is in Norway's highest income tax rate bracket, while in the US it takes 8 times a middle class income to hit the top tax rate bracket.
Well, we can't have those things here in the US because the middle class and low-income don't pay their fair share via a MUCH flatter income tax structure and a 20-25% VAT tax that EVERYONE pays.
The US is overly dependent on taxing the rich. The result: inadequate tax revenue to fund those nice things, PLUS the added perverse incentive that doing so generates for the federal government to make sure only the rich get richer in order to maximize tax revenue.
You seem to be saying that the middle class income in US is around 50k, while well above 100k in Norway. That's incorrect, or at least the middle class is defined differently.
In Europe, rich are taxed more, way more. With the exception of a few tax havens.
The middle class here is taxed plenty for what you get (which is really not much).
A homogeneous society is extremely loyal and patriotic one. For the most part, these people are connected by a shared lineage, history, and evolution. For lack of a better phrase, they are of the same blood. This leads to a "high-trust" society. The US was a "high-trust" society but has slipped into a low trust one as a result of diversity. For exampled, you used to be able to hitch hike in the US, not anymore. In homogeneous society you also don't have racial resentment (a prominent feature of diverse nations). In homogeneous nations they see each other as brothers and sisters and are okay with the idea of a robust social welfare system because it goes to "their people."
Also, if you find this so hard to believe then just look at the nations which always receive the "best standard of living" awards. Its always homogeneous nations like the Nordic ones (den,nor,swe,fin,ice); Australia and New Zealand; Japan, etc.. Notice the pattern? they are all essentially 90%+ of either white or Asian.
I believe you are correct, except for one thing: the US was never homogeneous or "high trust."
America was initially settled by competing Christian sects who often hated each other. Later waves of immigration from various European nations created even more division. On the west coast, Chinese immigrants were specifically excluded from society. Add all of this together and you get a nation that consists mainly of bitterly divided tribes. We can't stand the thought of cooperating for the "common good" because it means that "my money" is going to "those people."
The whole situation is great for Capital seeking to exploit Labor. If Labor can't unite against the power of Capital, Capital wins. For example, Andrew Carnegie exploited the ethnic divisions in his largely immigrant work force to keep them from forming a labor union. And it worked. And it's still working today.
"Yes there is a class war, and it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning."
-- Warren Buffett
A homogeneous society is extremely loyal and patriotic one. For the most part, these people are connected by a shared lineage, history, and evolution. For lack of a better phrase, they are of the same blood. This leads to a "high-trust" society. The US was a "high-trust" society but has slipped into a low trust one as a result of diversity. For exampled, you used to be able to hitch hike in the US, not anymore. In homogeneous society you also don't have racial resentment (a prominent feature of diverse nations). In homogeneous nations they see each other as brothers and sisters and are okay with the idea of a robust social welfare system because it goes to "their people."
Also, if you find this so hard to believe then just look at the nations which always receive the "best standard of living" awards. Its always homogeneous nations like the Nordic ones (den,nor,swe,fin,ice); Australia and New Zealand; Japan, etc.. Notice the pattern? they are all essentially 90%+ of either white or Asian.
I don't disagree with your analysis - there ARE common understandings in a homogenous community that promote "high-trust." That said, it's possible to promote high-trust using other societal mechanisms.
Likewise, diversity (multiculturalism) can lead to other societal-goods. Even though we are neurologically-prgrammed to fear "the other" we are also capable of responding to learning.
I'd say that some of slippage of "high-trust" here in the US may have less to do with absolutely multiculturalism and more to do an exploitation of that innate human tendency to fear the unknown.
It's the advantage of some to promote dissension and division.
More, most of the inherent ideologically division arises from subcomponents among our original white settlers.
Norwegians are cultural programmed for community, Americans are culturally programmed for rampant individualism.
A homogeneous society is extremely loyal and patriotic one. For the most part, these people are connected by a shared lineage, history, and evolution. For lack of a better phrase, they are of the same blood. This leads to a "high-trust" society. The US was a "high-trust" society but has slipped into a low trust one as a result of diversity. For exampled, you used to be able to hitch hike in the US, not anymore. In homogeneous society you also don't have racial resentment (a prominent feature of diverse nations). In homogeneous nations they see each other as brothers and sisters and are okay with the idea of a robust social welfare system because it goes to "their people."
Also, if you find this so hard to believe then just look at the nations which always receive the "best standard of living" awards. Its always homogeneous nations like the Nordic ones (den,nor,swe,fin,ice);Australia and New Zealand; Japan, etc.. Notice the pattern? they are all essentially 90%+ of either white or Asian.
Not true of NZ which is less homogeneous than the US.
I believe you are correct, except for one thing: the US was never homogeneous or "high trust."
America was initially settled by competing Christian sects who often hated each other. Later waves of immigration from various European nations created even more division. On the west coast, Chinese immigrants were specifically excluded from society. Add all of this together and you get a nation that consists mainly of bitterly divided tribes. We can't stand the thought of cooperating for the "common good" because it means that "my money" is going to "those people."
The whole situation is great for Capital seeking to exploit Labor. If Labor can't unite against the power of Capital, Capital wins. For example, Andrew Carnegie exploited the ethnic divisions in his largely immigrant work force to keep them from forming a labor union. And it worked. And it's still working today.
"Yes there is a class war, and it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning."
-- Warren Buffett
We wrote at the same time.
Absolutely. I don't think the inherent division was exactly differing Christian sects - rather those with inherently different views of society clashed. The more communal Yankees were Puritan, likewise you have the Quakers whose take on community, government differed dramatically from the Presbyterian Scots-Irish with their rampant individualism.
Subsequent waves of immigrants fit themselves into these divisions, often depending on where they settled geographically.
Some of this is the old chicken and the egg argument. Do religious differences promote discord or is religion instead exploited by certain leaders for their political ends? Sure, differences make it *easier* so sow discord but history also shows that peoples can live for centuries in relative peace and harmony until so-manipulated.
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.
