Printable View
The USA is the wealthiest nation in the world. But not only that. Compared with other leading industrial nations there is a bigger gap between rich and poor.
In any European country I know this would lead to big social tensions. There would be radical parties with increased influence. Traditional parties would try to absorb them by starting social reforms. If this all does not help there would be demonstrations and even rebellions.
How does the US manage to keep the social peace?
Im not so sure that the USA is the wealthiest nation in the world.
I don't think we are as peaceful as we would like. But I think the possiblity of prosperity by working hard is probably why there isn't as much social hostility as some other countries. Unfortunately there are generations of poor that have been almost programmed to believe that you recieve wealth and prosperity through luck or with government assistance. A poor immigrant from India or some other country considered less rich than the US can come here, work hard along with their family and within a short time and their children will be sent to college and become very successful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Franconicus
Take my family for example, my Father was the first in the family to graduate from High School. My children will go to college and hopefully be more successful than myself because I will do whatever I can for this to happen. My wife is a college graduate. I make a great living because of the hard work I did in the Air Force.
The "American Dream" can be achieved through hard work and doing for yourself and a family that supports you. What is the downfall of many is that they believe that the country "owes" them a successful life, programmed into them by their government dependent parents. That is why generations of Americans will continue to be poor while people that come here from other countries will be more successfull because they have a better work ethic and haven't been told all their lives by their parents or a political party that its the rich's fault that they are poor and that they will never amount to anything because its someone else's fault.
So the 'American Dream', that everyone can make it if he works hard and is lucky, keeps the peace?
Is there really an opportunity for poor people living in the ghettoes? You know I am from Europe and from the distance the picture may be wrong. But my impression is that there are quiet a lot people uneducated, living in crime without a chance to improve their situation.
yes, there is opportunity if you work for it. Many successful people have achieved the so called American dream by working hard and educating themselves. Its not luck or handouts from the government that makes most successful as many would want you to believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Franconicus
I think it this vision of the "American Dream" keeps the peace because how can you progress if you are in jail or dead from being a violent criminal?
There's a difference in perceived responsbility between Europe and the US. In Europe, when the Jones's outclass you, you rail against 'social injustice' and the BMW gap, claiming it's the role of government to make certain if one family has a luxury sedan, all must have one. Here, we tend to accept that if we want a luxury sedan, it's up to us to go out and do the things necessary to accrue the wealth to buy one.
I'm oversimplifying, but not a great amount. I do not view the fact that Donald Trump is as wealthy as he is as a great social injustice and I do not begrudge him what he has.
Also, don't forget, even to be poor in America is pretty damned good. You can earn more on welfare in the US then you can being a mid-to-upper level employee in many countries. Where else would they consider satellite/expanded cable service to be a required service?
The people in America that have it tough are the working poor or those who choose to unplug from the system.
I think that there are lots of contributing factors to the US keeping social peace. I was trying to think of “the one” but cant, there are too many that keep flip flopping for me, so I will list a few.
1. “The American dream” as mentioned already is a big one. Knowing that you can be more than you are if you work at it and seeing examples is inspirational.
2. Distractions. Anyone unhappy with something/anything can quickly forget their woes by watching TV, radio, games, sports, etc. (drugs, alcohol, sex, etc.)
3. Physical security. Although not as safe as we sometimes think we are, the fact that most of America has a low crime rate and we don’t worry about invasion from Canada makes us feel safe.
4. Financial security. No one likes to be in the poor house but we know no matter how bad we screw up our finances there is always a way to get them fixed. Credit cards, bankruptcy, welfare, etc.
5. Selfish. I think that in general, Americans are selfish and unless they are directly effected by some kind of outrage they wont act. Taking care of their own business is priority #1, weather it is school, work, family whatever there is not enough time in the day to do everything we “need” to do, who has time to be part of a revolution or cause. Which leads me to the most important #.
6. Independent. Americans are fiercely independent and even when organized in a group it quickly fractures when pushed. We don’t like to be told what to do. The biggest reason IMO that we haven’t had a major revolution or reform is because we are free thinking independent people. If there are 100 people who all want reform there will be 100 different ideas of what that reform will be, then nothing gets done. When we do organize and move toward a goal it usually doesn’t last and we go back to our own agendas after an easy solution is found.
Unless there is a MAJOR event to threaten our way of life, we will always have social peace. It’s just too much work to have anything else. ~;)
I dont think that any person can ever deserve as much money as Bill Gates of Trump has, but seeing as we live in this system, they have it, and there is no right to take it away from them.
The system we live in now in the western world, or the whole world for that matter is based on the fact that everyone cant have it good. We are pretty much stuck in a system where a few lucky are rich, then there is a huge chunk of fairly rich then the rest of the worlds population is poor... or really poor, starving.
Now as long as there is this huge injustice of the western world raping the rest of the world more or less there will allways be a conflict between the higher ranks of the world and lower in some manner. There will be those that only can blame themselfs for the poor budget, and those that have been treated unfairly.
How do you solve such a problem, well to do that without changing the system in a radical way you have to relay on the rich to spend their money in such a manner it ends up with the poor whom in turn can spend their money so that not all of it ends up at the rich man again.
Also, if the really, stupidly rich, would spend more money on helping society instead of buying boats, privet jets, the newest car, the newest of everything bla bla bla, the poor would not look at the rich as greedy sons of bitches.
One could say that the rich have themself to blame for the hatred the poor have against them. And some Poor has to realise they cant allways have everything the commercials try and sell them and what they see on TV.
:bow:
One implied premise of your stance is that economics is a zero-sum game. If it truly were, than a capitalist system wherein a few have much and many have little would be morally inappropriate. Economics is not, however, a zero-sum game. Transactions and economic exchange build value -- both real and perceived -- and encourage more development. Were this not the case and were economics really a fixed sum, a 1% growth rate would long since have exhausted every resource throughout the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazul
Economies run the greatest risk, achieve the least good, and generate the smallest amount of growth when money is frozen and unable to transact. The ancient kings hoarding money were harming their economies (however much value they gained personally from a large reserve to buy soldiers). The Romans, by contrast, were heavily capitalized -- their money went to work and did not sit idle. Even though they often had a cash crisis when trying to raise armies "under the gun," their economy was far better developed than many of their peers -- and it showed in their persistence and resourcefulness.
So, economic transaction will probably make more money for the capitalists like Trump than I shall ever see, but if the overall growth of the economy betters my situation, wherein is the crime? Trump's success does not subtract from my ability to get ahead. Moreover, with luck, hard work, and a better idea, maybe I could do as well or better than he or Gates.
Does someone from a disadvantaged economic background have a tougher path to success? Surely. But I can earn an education, get a better job than my mom had, set a bit aside and make sure my kids go to an even better school and create advantages for them, and so on.
The American Dream is realizable -- but it is not a handout.
Seamus
The poor are kept at a managable level through a mixture of bribary through government checks and fear of the police and prison.Quote:
How does the US manage to keep the social peace?
The other classes are civilized on their own.
So your saying the poor americans are not civilized and they are the reason on their own for the crime or?Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
Well, last time I checked, poors in the US were poorer than the average european poor. And earning more than a mid-to-upper class employee from another country is worthless, if you can't live with that earning in your own country.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
As for the last question, basically in every western country.
Well, I'm surprised none noticed that these might be the reason of the violent culture in the US (cf. the 2nd amendment topic). I'm not too sure about that, but aren't the violent crimes in the US mainly comited by lowly educated people/poors ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Actually, I was comparing the US to non-Western countries Meneldil. You're right, being poor in France or Sweden probably is better than being poor in the US, in a relative sense. I believe our standard of living overall is higher, but the disparity is greater here in the US than it is in Europe.
As far as it contributing to our crime rate, you might have a point. I will say we have more crime and at the same time less economic disparity in our society then we did... say 100 years ago. I just don't know.
Essentially, yes. That is my experience.Quote:
So your saying the poor americans are not civilized and they are the reason on their own for the crime or?
~:cheers: Becuase we kick ass ~:cheers:
I disagree plenty of poorer people are trying to do there best granted the crime rate is higher but genralazations are never goodQuote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
US pay the price. Largest percentage of the population in jail. The incident in New Orleans is a scary example on supressed social tension, where gangs roam the streets in a time of caos.
To the defence of US, there are hardly any alternatives. Competition creates progress and prosparity, but it also creates loosers and poverty. That is just the way it is......
Yeah, that's probably true (at least that's how things went in France : in 1900, the average upper class family was probably thousand times wealthier than the average low paid worker). Then again, there's probably a whole lot of other reasons that explain America violent culture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
If the immigration rate is as high as it seems to be, then I would guess that's part of the problem. I wouldn't be surprised if the lack of welfare state was another issue, but then, most americans will disagree with me here :bow:
Oh, and don't forget SUVs ~D
But, although I'm not american, I kinda believe in the American Dream. I'm fairly sure there are far more possibilities for someone really willing to work in the US than in France or Germany. And I kinda agree that the way we europeans, and especially french, whine and bitch at successful people is quite annoying. I'm all for a welfare state, but you can't blame others because you screwed up your life.
Thank you all! This is a very interesting debate!
Personally I think that everybody is responsible for his life, too. However, I have some conditions:
1. There should be equal oportunities. A kid from a family man and woman who ruined their lifes (drugs, crime, ...) should have the same opportunities as a rich mans child. So I wish that there a good and free schools for everyone. Only teh capability should decide to what kind of school the kid goes.
2. There must be some social security. You can be unlucky und suddenly your in trouble and cannot help yourself. Then the society should help.
3. Everybody, even those who are poor by their own faults should be able to have a humane life - whatever that means.
4. Everybody should serve the society according to his abilities. So the strong and rich ones should pay more taxes than the others. That is just fair to me.
To achieve that, new born babies should be taken away from their parent and grow up in a neutral environment. Fairly impossible if you ask me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Franconicus
This was one of the main aims of the French 3rd republic, and we failed miserably. Even with a totally free education system, there will be differences between a teen whose parent are well educated and wealthy and a teen whose parents are some random drunk junkies.
1. That is impossible to do on a mass level. Only in a Utopia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Franconicus
2. Welfare...
3. ??? Humane Life? So poor people are treated like animals in America?
4. A rich person does pay more taxes then one with less income.. We don't have a flat income tax...
Not really- a good attourney can lacerate a rich man's taxes. Usually, they pay out very little. Also, income taxes have very little effect on today's rich, because of their alternative sources of income.Quote:
Originally Posted by ghost908
I wish I had enough experience to really post a good opinion here- eventually, I will be able to effectively defend the socialist cause.
I don't care how good your attorney is, if you make 500,000 a year compared to 50,000, you will pay a ton more in taxes.Quote:
Originally Posted by meatwad
No, not if your income is in capital.
If your shares, real estate, bonds etc go up in value by $500,000 you get taxed less then if your get an income of $500,000.
Add to this things like devaluation, tax credits and other forms of offsets and you can end up being far less taxed then someone else on a much lesser income.
My father earns about twice as much as me but pays half the amount of tax... why? Because he also owns a farm and it earns over a certain threshold... hence it is a legitmate capital investment and not a hobby farm... as such the costs of the farm can be deducted. End of the day he pays less tax and creates larger capital by investing in the farm... and farming Maine Anjou cattle and Truffles... which people get to use... that and preserve a third of the farm as native growth with emus and kangaroos.
Definition: Foreign population as % of total population; data for 2000Quote:
Originally Posted by Meneldil
1. Luxembourg 37.3%
2. New Zealand 24.2%
3. Australia 23.6%
4. Switzerland 19.3%
5. Canada 17.4%
6. United States 10.4%
7. Austria 9.3%
8. Germany 8.9%
9. Belgium 8.8%
10. France 5.6%
So by your logic Luxemburg should be crime ridden?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Luxembourg's immigrant population tends to be european and intelligent.
And then New Zealand, Australia, Switzerland and Canada... why aren't they all crime ridden because of immigration?
i said nothing of those places. You used Luxembourg as an example of successful high immigration. This would be similar to reffering to New York's immigration rate based on people emigrating from other states inside the US.
Switzerland would be another similar comparison.
In addition, break down the numbers of immigrants from european nations and, in the case of New Zealand, you would most likely get numbers closer to 13% of the foreign population from a semi-alien culture - rather than the 24% that the chart shows. I see a big difference in immigration from canada to the US compared to immigration from Saudi Arabia to the US.
but that is just me.
I know that children have different parents and that effects their chances. But education should be free and good. Why should that be impossible. Why should a stupid rich child go to an elite university and a clever poor one not?Quote:
Originally Posted by ghost908
Yes, at least so far!Quote:
Originally Posted by ghost908
I did not relate to the US. Just saying that a nation has to guarantee a minimum standard of living.Quote:
Originally Posted by ghost908
Again, I did not relate to the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by ghost908
No, but are you denying that immigration might be a cause of social issues ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
As TSMG said, there are different kinds of immigrants. Luxembourg is a small country, where most of the European Institutions are based. If you plan to work for the EU (and there are a whole lot of people working for the EU), you'll most likely spend some time in your life in Luxembourg.
Now, I'm fairly sure most the 5.6% of foreign population living in France came from either Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco or Turkey. These are not really going to get a well paid EU job, but rather end up jobless and living in some ghetto.
Btw, each country has a different way to grant national citizenship, and in France (unlike what happens in say, Luxembourg, Swiss or Japan), it's kinda easy. These numbers don't really mean anything.