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.
If you grant citizenship then there is a two way requirement.
One that the citizens will work for the betterment of the society.
The other the society will work for the betterment of the citizens.
So if there is a problem with immigration then one should look at both the selection of citizens and how that society then looks after their new citizens.
I think that we have social peace here in Finland,because our ancestors shot all the communist at 1918,or put them on Concentration camps. ~D Link
To answer the original Question:
I agree with most statements here on "The American Dream".
Franconious, you asked whether it was possible for someone living in a ghetto to break out. It happens, but the environment of the ghetto itself tends to keep many down. It is not the government, or society. It is the nature and nurture of being raised in a violent place lacking in social values, morals, and ethics. If you are taught to steal, then you shall steal.
But as for breaking out of poverty... I myself have dived in the trashcan looking for cans to recycle, because I had no money. I worked two very low paying jobs and had no car. I walked a very long way to my first job in the morning and took the bus back home, where I would catch a nap before walking to my second job at night. It was terrible. And it was also my fault. I dropped out of High School and had no skilled experience. I was directed otherwise, but I was fiercely independant.
But I broke out of that entirely on my own. I own a single family home in Southern California, vacation regularly, have a four year college education, little debt, and retain every chance to continue the positive momentum. I never blamed anyone but myself.
The poor are poor because of one or many of the following:
a. They have no social or moral values.
b. They have no natural ability or intelligence.
c. They lack vision and motivation.
d. They are unwilling to sacrifice now for greater gains later.
e. They made selfish decisions.
I do not pity the poor. I have been poor. They have an equal chance.
As for those with "old" money: Their family has worked very hard to secure the future of their children. And this trend has continued, so the family inherits and retains great wealth. We should all follow their example.
My children deserve a better future than the eight children of "Tyquandra" the crack whore. Why? Because I care enough to secure their future and wait until I am ready before having children. Unlike the crack whore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
This is the most selfish post I've seen in a long while. First, it's easy for you to come down hard on the poor, isnt it? Especially since you claim to have been there? Well, guess what, you wasnt even close to being poor. You had 2 jobs for crying out loud. The poor have no homes or jobs, thats being poor. And about the crack whore, well, why does her children not deserve a bright and hopeful future? Is it the childrens fault they are born into poverty, misery and addiction? Hell no. Where's the state to take care of them? And yes, this is exactly, in a civilized country, where the state should step in and pamper the children of a fx. crackwhore.
According to you, apparently (that's how I read it) they should just be stuck and live hopeless life -while your middle class kids can at least retain some hope, why is this fair?
Social peace my arse. I'll be the first to join the ranks if the US ever rebels against persons such as yourself.
Hmmm. Do I detect a little anger? Well, I'll not be angry in reply, since you have little knowledge of who I am, what I have been through, or what background I have. I might just have a little crack whore in me too, sonny Jim. Sure, I'm middle class now. But I have not always been so. It was through my own effort, and the mercy of God, that I am where I am.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sjakihata
So, do not jump to conclusions, fellow patron. If you want to blame somebody, you may blame yourself.
Should we pamper crack whore children? No. But we do provide an escape for them when they are ready to take it. It's called education. And each of us has an equal shot at getting one. Maybe not Ivy league, but an education either way. There are many kids who listen to the guiding and responsible hand of teachers and other alternative guiding hands (other than "tyquandra"). These children, raised in poverty, must only believe in the dream that these leaders try to share. Priests, ministers, educators, social workers, guidance counselors. If the young are prepared to accept responsibility for themselves, then they have a great future.
As for the very young, our authorities do what they can to remove these children from their dangerous environments. Those generous enough to be foster parents and adoptees may give these children the chance they deserve. It is not state given money that will save these kids, it is the loving hand of human compassion.
And my two jobs paid squat. I barely had enough to eat and I lived in an income restricted apartment complex filled with illegal immigrants and recovering crack addicts. If you made above a certain level, you could not live there. I am not asking anyone to feel sorry for me, and I have no reason to elaborate on how crappy my life actually got.
And why is it your poor people can't find work? Not enough jobs at fast food restaraunts? Or how about picking strawberries? Cleaning houses? Janitorial services? Lawn mowing and weed pulling? Oh thats right. These are the jobs that "no American wants". Because there is more dignity in taking welfare then cleaning toilets or picking lettuce.
My friend, you make little sense. But I hope I at least clarified my position.
No simple reality. If you look after your children they will be better off then relying on social welfare.
Even with access to free health and schooling, children will do better with involvement of their parents.
Relying on others to raise your children so you can pursue a life of self pleasure is the selfish option.
The American Dream obviously worked well for generations of Americans and immigrants, but its emphasis on rugged individualism is geared to world that is now nearly gone. The ' downfall of many' is caused by the complexity and interdependence of modern life, coupled with government withdrawal for various spheres. According to Jeremy Rifkin, who grew up on the American Dream and is still proud of it, that dream is proving ever more elusive: Americans are increasingly overworked, underpaid, squeezed for time and unsure about their prospects for a better life. He cites statistics that say one third of all Americans say they no longer even believe in the American Dream.Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
What would you say to that?
You will find that all these conditions are met in my nation... and will be even more so now that the people of Norway has elected a red-green government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Franconicus
As a Blue (right) this means I'll have to pay higher taxes and possibly survive a increase in the interest rate.
Oh, it is so great living in the best country in the world (according to the UN fifth year in a row)...
Congratulation! :thumbsup:
Wealth redistribution and social-democratic policies dragged Finland from an agrarian backwoods into a first-rate wealthy "information society" in under fifty years. Along the way acute poverty (in the comparative international sense) apparently got, for a brief while, almost entirely eradicated.
Go fig.
That aside, by what counts exactly does the US of A have a "social peace" ? By what I know of the crime rates, prisoner numbers and sundry there - nevermind the pervasive sense of "fearing thine neighbour" I often get when speaking with Americans about, say, gun ownership - I sincerely doubt if it can honestly be called that. The Haves hide behind their guns and guards and alarms and law enforcement, the Have-Nots have thus far been too busy exploiting and brutalizing each other to organize revolts but that's about it.
Social peace ? In a ridiculously country armed to the teeth (which is supposed to add personal security), with more prisoners per capita than any three or four other countries combined, and nonetheless one of the, if not the, highest violent crime rates in the entire First World ? Plus something like sixty-per cent functional illiteracy rates and wealth distribution patterns more closely resembling Third World banana republics than First World postindustrialized states ?
If that counts as "social peace", what the Heck do you need to have not to have it ? A civil war or total anarchy ? Mind you, the cynics tend to point out something like that is going to be the end of the US anyway - it's not like it's going to fall to an outside attack, so that leaves rotting from the inside.
Have you ever been to the United States, Watchman?
Are you talking about a "ridiculous country, ermed to the teeth" or a "country, ridiculously armed to the teeth"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Just asking as I would consider the first one a tad offensive...
Otherwise I think you are painting an exaggerated picture here. It seems you are taking parts of the country (e.g., inner cities) and project what you find on the country as a whole.
BTW, just for my understanding, what do you mean by "functional illiteracy rates"?
Lots of people are illiterate here.
But they aren't immigrants or denied education or anything. They're just lazy.
So probably not a very good example.
Eh, forgot a word from there for some reason. Brain fart. Insert "rich" after "ridiculously", and it'll make a lot more sense.
Nope. Haven't had a reason. I'm working on comparative statistics, witness statements, broad currents accumulated from various sources, and good old-fashioned deduction here. Why do you ask ?Quote:
Have you ever been to the United States, Watchman?
(And the sarcastic little prick inside me inquires if I would need to travel to Muslim countries to know the treatment of women over there sucks, too ?)
Well, naturally. I'm not about to start comparing New York and East Lubbock, TX, here, nor am I by any stretch of imagination qualified to. What'd be the point ? The US of A is a big place. Anyway, as far as I'm concerned in modern states the equation is "city = about everything". Cities are where the majority of people live and work. Cities are what civilizations live and die by. Cities are where developements happen, and also where the frictions and problems of societies tend to be most starkly visible.Quote:
Otherwise I think you are painting an exaggerated picture here. It seems you are taking parts of the country (e.g., inner cities) and project what you find on the country as a whole.
"Functional illiteracy", as far as I understand the term, means being either unable or unwilling to read, regardless of what your literacy level officially is. Put this way: if the sports section of the newspaper is the just about only thing you ever read, then you're essentially "functionally illiterate".
That make sense. You did not portray the America I live in accurately at all. I am sitting in my house, in a big city, with my doors unlocked and my guns in the safe.Quote:
Have you ever been to the United States, Watchman?
Nope.
It seems you have taken the problems of the inner city and applied it to America, which doesnt surprise me considering some European media.
Come visit, its not that dangerous. Just stay out of the ghetto. :laugh4:
Oh, and plenty of people read.. lol. :rolleyes4:
*shrug* Good for you. But might I point out it's not the better cases that are the concern, but the worse ? It's rather a small consolation for the inhabitants of the next burned-out "wretched hive of scum and villainy" of a ghetto over that you live in a safe area.
Besides, the thanks for the image go to a far greater extent to the American media...
Sounds weird, with all the pro gun people here saying they're ready to use their guns to shot every single people stupid enough to ring at their door, or that gun is the only way to protect your freedom (huhu). It would almost sound like there were a dangerous gang of socialist native-afro-latinos in every street of the US ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
That's one thing I've also noticed whenever I debate guns with American pro-gun types. Even besides the rhetoric, what their arguments to a large degree seem to convey between the lines is a palpable sense of fear. *Maybe* they're just trying to present the American society as more crime- and violence-ridden than it actually is to help justify gun ownership, but I somewhat doubt it - that basic idea gets too much flank support from too many unconnected sources to be dismissed so easily.
Plus the well-documented prisoners-per-capita ratio has to be an indication of something...
Who is saying that?Quote:
Sounds weird, with all the pro gun people here saying they're ready to use their guns to shot every single people stupid enough to ring at their door, or that gun is the only way to protect your freedom (huhu). It would almost sound like there were a dangerous gang of socialist native-afro-latinos in every street of the US
Europeans seem to feel they are more "worldly" or well read about the rest of the world, but the common perceptions they hold about the US do not back that up. They can only thank the media for the vast, and sometimes outrageous, misconceptions they hold.
Come visit! Its not as you believe it to be. I can almost guarantee you wont be shot at... ~;)
Uh, PJ ? I'm pretty sure I did mention "witness statements"...
Hey Watchman, PJ makes some really good points.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
The majority of the population of the US comes from small to medium sized towns, the big cities are where all the action is and get lots of media but most of us live in boring “little” cities and our ghettos are nothing more than a few blocks of low income housing. I never have to use my gun to suppress the gangbangers so I can drive my MadMax style car thru an urban wasteland to get to work ~;) .
As far as reading goes, how many copies of Harry Potter were sold in the first 24 hours in the US? ~:eek:
You make some good observations, Watchman, but they really don’t apply to the whole of the US only the 1 or 2 cities in about 40 of the 50 states.
The US is a BIG country and very diverse from city to suburb to boonies. I think you would find a visit pretty interesting. ~:cheers:
Let me put it this way: after Katrina gangs of armed looters became such a problem the National Guard had to be sent in to suppress them so the relief operations could be carried out unhindered.
What, exactly, does that tell you about the country in general ? I can assure you we don't get those kinds of problems around here after natural disasters...
@ Divinus Arma – way to make the best of a tough situation. :bow:
Life has not been peaches and cream for me either but I made a personal choice to move out of the dead end town I graduated HS from and go make something of my life. I went into debt up to my neck but it has been worth it.
The choices I made are the same ones anyone could have made regardless of race or financial situation (it actually would have been slightly better to have been poorer, more financial aid available to lower income people for college). Some people choose to stay in a crappy life because they lack your mentioned a-e.
The only people I feel bad for in the US are mental handicapped; we do a poor job of helping them. But anyone else can get a job, there are job finding and training services that are free all over the country, and do something with their lives. There are lots of ways for people to make serious changes in their lives, mentoring programs, big brothers big sisters and the military are all totally easy ways that are very available. I am not sure how to fix some of the social issues we have but I am 100% comfortable saying people can get away from them if they want.
Anyway, cheers for making yours a better life. ~:cheers:
Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
Hehe, I'm pretty sure the same could be said about your perception of Europe ;)
I'd more than happily visit US one more time, since there are many things I'd like to see there(Among those was New Orleans :embarassed: )
I won't give name, but from some pro guns people's speechs, I had the feeling that you had to own a gun in order to go to the supermarket, or else you'd be raped/attacked/burnt/pillaged/looted.
Is that the simplistic viewpoint you were presented with over there? Things are all falling into place.. :thinking:Quote:
Let me put it this way: after Katrina gangs of armed looters became such a problem the National Guard had to be sent in to suppress them so the relief operations could be carried out unhindered.
What, exactly, does that tell you about the country in general ? I can assure you we don't get those kinds of problems around here after natural disasters...
If you are attempting to make a value judgement of American society from the Katrina disaster, its important that you take a few things into consideration.
-Most of the city was evacuated before the hurricane.
-Those left were the poorest and most socially unstable.
-The prisons in the area were opened as they were filling up with water.
Now Ive never been to Finland, but I would wager that if you let your prisoners loose in an abandoned city, the same results could be expected. But maybe not, im not going to try and lecture on a place Ive never been to. ~;)
Everyone in the us gets an equal shot contray to popular belif there is no man keeping the poor down most poor people are just lazy people in America if you work hard and bust your ass you will get where you want to go
Wouldn't you say a kid whose father runs a large business would have a much better chance to: get into a good school; have an "in" to other major positions in other large businesses; make a succesful business, because of the experience said kid has with business; etc., etc.? I think it is oversimplifying to say, "everyone has equal chance," or to say, "the poor have absolutely no social or economic mobility."
some cases yes but most no if the kid gets Fs in school he will find it a bit harder and I agree its not entirely fair but people can earn a decent living (most of the time) if they work hardQuote:
Originally Posted by Kanamori
Good school? Bad school? Schools here are what you make of them. You screw off, you go to a bad school. You go to a little town high school (hundreds of them in Kansas), and no, you won't get the same advanced placement oppotunities I had, but when you go to a University (and state universities are NOT prohibitvely expensive, especially with the vast amounts of aid available to poorer families [like me for example]. If you don't want to pay with your first born child, don't go to a private university), then everything will even out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanamori
What is wrong with using contacts? I didn't have any, but I have made some. I refuse to believe that there some monolithic entity in the USA that keeps any person or group of people poor. You want something? Earn it.
And you know what? If you want a job here, all you have to do is find one. Maybe the job will suck, but there are always jobs available. And if you refuse to find a job, why should I be stuck paying for you? If you do not contribute (by doing anything that earns money, artist, writer, whore whatever), why do you think you are entitled to anything at all?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sjakihata
Yeah! Bleeding-heart exhibit #1: children. Social services will come for them as soon as Social services is notified. Then, the children will have the opportunity, paid for by me mind, of an education and a chance at a better life. Meanwhile the waste that was their mother will go to hospitals and try to go through rehab. Still, paid for by me. I would prefer she pay for her mistakes, but I don't get that choice,
And what is this? Is Sjakihata threatning another member? You would take away what Divinus has earned? What about what I have earned? Would you take that too? If you would, you are welcome to try.
Azi
So, you think that a public school in the inner-cities is going to get as much funding from their property taxes as a public school in rich suburbs? Initiative certainly plays a large role, trying to deny it would be stupid, but there is such a thing as opportunity too. For one, a reputable college would much rather have students from more reputable high schools.Quote:
Good school? Bad school? Schools here are what you make of them. You screw off, you go to a bad school.
Sorry, big companies would rather have someone from Harvard than from a State University. Harvard is more expensive than your state universities.Quote:
You go to a little town high school (hundreds of them in Kansas), and no, you won't get the same advanced placement oppotunities I had, but when you go to a University (and state universities are NOT prohibitvely expensive, especially with the vast amounts of aid available to poorer families [like me for example].
How many of the lawyers in the top firms of New York do you think aren't from a major law school? Now, don't blow-up I'm not saying you have to go to the big private schools to succeed, that would be ludicrous, I'm saying that you would tend to do much better if you went to one of them.Quote:
If you don't want to pay with your first born child, don't go to a private university), then everything will even out.
Nothing.Quote:
What is wrong with using contacts?
I never said there was, and I agree with you. You are arguing against the strawman that I illustrated before. It isn't a simple idea, socio-economic mobility, there are many factors. Your success is not soley dependant on the effort you put in, like it or not.Quote:
I refuse to believe that there some monolithic entity in the USA that keeps any person or group of people poor. You want something? Earn it.
I don't know about that but it seems both the US and Aus political systems are doing a good job in looking after the mentally handicapped... ~Dno offense to the handicapped just the politicians.Quote:
Originally Posted by yesdachi
~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers:Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
No. A State University will take anyone that can pass their entrance requirements (GPA and ACT/SAT scores). What? State Us not good enough? So be it. Do something to earn the right to go to the University of your choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanamori
Azi
I don't understand how this relates to what I said.Quote:
No. A State University will take anyone that can pass their entrance requirements (GPA and ACT/SAT scores). What? State Us not good enough? So be it. Do something to earn the right to go to the University of your choice.
Just heard that 50% of the property in Germany belongs to 10% of hte people. And 25% of the kids are funded by welfare. Does not sound like socialism wonderland.