> The USA is a horrible country to anyone looking in from the outside.
When I was at a multinational corporation we had people from our EU and Asia offices fly out to the United States for a couple weeks at a time (their choice).
We'd go out to lunch every day and some of us would have them over for dinner at our houses to get to know them.
Many of them were young and had developed their idea of the US from Reddit, Twitter, and TikTok. They'd show up thinking they were walking into a hellscape of a country because that's what they saw on Reddit.
It was a rite of passage for all of them to slowly realize that the US in person is different than the US according to Reddit or TikTok.
One example that came up frequently was minimum wage. Reddit talks about the federal minimum wage all the time as if Americans everywhere are making minimum wage. We'd have to explain that our state minimum wage was significantly higher than the federal minimum wage. We'd also explain that it's basically impossible to find a job paying that minimum wage right now because even the post office and local fast food places were hiring at higher wages.
The list went on and on. I remember several coworkers who went from thinking the US was a horrible country to asking us to sponsor their moves to the US.
> No one would actively choose to live there if it wasn’t for high salaries in certain fields.
That's a chronically online take, but it's completely wrong. Immigration demand to the United States is extremely high, even for jobs that don't pay high salaries.
>Anectodotally back when I was studying in USA the local Panera was hiring for like 20 bucks n hour. Which is more than the mean wage where I live now.
I have literally lived in the US before. I spent 12 years in Canada, right next to the US as well. Awful place to live.
And of course your multinational coworkers want to move there. They’d make a lot of money to insulate them from the awfulness. Not to mention a huge raise compared to working in their home country.
> I have literally lived in the US before. I spent 12 years in Canada, right next to the US as well. Awful place to live.
How long did you live in the US? And what part of Canada did you live in to be near the US?
Most of the Canadian border is sparsely populated on the US side. So I can't see how being in Canada would give you much of a feel for median/mean U.S. life.
And Canada is relevant because I visited the US multiple times per year for both work and pleasure and got to see what living in different cities would be like. And it was awful.
> That's a chronically online take, but it's completely wrong. Immigration demand to the United States is extremely high, even for jobs that don't pay high salaries.
I would complement that it's completely wrong as long as you're unaware of the hidden health hazards the US poses (which are a consequence of low regulation). These won't affect your day to day life and thus are easily overseen, and are invisible - unless they start affecting you years down the line. Most people are uneducated in terms of en
Examples are the superfund sites in California, the high sugar added to most foods, etc.
Even if you live in the top 1% it's hard to escape these - if your company office is near a superfund site (eg Nvidia HQ) then good luck, your money won't help with that. Yeah you can buy organic foods but if you're going to a restaurant with friends you'll still have to deal with bad quality ingredients.
I'm often amazed how nad the internet it is too when I talk to friends in Silicon Valley.
Bottom line: your high earning salary can only get you so far to offset and insulate you from the health hazards living in a low regulation society impose
A society that bans the sale incandescent light bulbs and washing machines that can be set to rinse clothes with warm or hot water is not a low regulation society.
What you read online can definitely sway your opinion, especially if you’ve never traveled to or lived in that country for an extended period of time. It can give you a misleading perspective.
I’ve lived in both EU and US, and EU definitely has the better quality of life for the average person. I 100% agree.
However if you are at all an ambitious youngster with huge dreams, the EU is where dreams go to die lol. EU living is what i’d call “coasting in life”. It’s a safe, sheltered life, the government is very functional and “takes care” of you which i’m sure is comforting for many. It’s not for everyone though.
In other words, I would recommend the typical person moves to the EU if they have the opportunity. Their quality of life would improve and they would be happier. For anyone that’s very ambitious or very talented at something, your efforts will pay off 10x in the US, and you’ll have a better quality of life than your EU counterparts.
Depends what quality of life means to you right? My parents were average income but I never had money stress; worst that happens is the state pays for them or me etc. I have many millions now because selling some businesses; my life is the same; high quality. So what do you mean? I can only read 'more cars' or something in your post.
your last comment made me chuckle because I actually hate driving. :-) I agree with you, quality of life is very personal!
I’ll share what a quality life means to me. For context, I grew up middle class, my father was a city employee, and my mother was a stay at home mom for a number of years.
• large emergency fund (zero stress about paying mortgage or losing job).
• I don’t have to look at prices when buying groceries or eating out.
• Time and money for 1-2 vacations per year. At least 1 international. My spouse and I love to visit new places.
• I can work remotely outside the US for 4 weeks internationally per year. I typically stay with my dad’s side of the family (in europe) for 3 weeks each year, while working remotely. Great way to spend lots of family time and not burn vacation time.
• No stress about medical care or costs.
• Ability to start a family without money stress.
• Good work life balance, no more than 40yrs on average. Minimum 3 weeks vacation per year.
• Ability to retire earlier, to pursue hobbies, if i wish.
• Easy access (45 min or less) to quality outdoor recreation on the weekends. Things like hiking, kayaking, etc.
A lot of those are luxuries, but certainly feel like a quality life for me. Yes, I realize how lucky I am. MOST people in the US are not so fortunate. I’m just explaining what quality of life might mean to someone… It’s not about buying pointless junk for me.
Your quality points are similar to mine, but then I don't get the US part? Many of these are basically guaranteed here. And the others are similar; for me it was never hard (because I am programmer since I was a kid) to make stupid money, but stupid money doesn't mean billions. The only reason I can see the US for is to make billions instead of millions. But the point is; if either of that fails, at least I always knew I am never living in a trailer park or on in my car or under a bridge here. Whatever risk (well outside dope) I take, it won't be that bad.
I cannot see how the US helps here positively unless you are don't mess up; I have got all you listen with very little effort and no risk (if it failed, I would live very much exactly the same) except maybe the family starting part as I never wanted kids. But the rest I have. I don't have a mortgage to care for either; I don't care for goods (like you), so I have a simple abode with a lot of (hiking and kayaking) land, which happens to cost next to nothing here.
>>>>large emergency fund (zero stress about paying mortgage or losing job).
I don't know about the EU, but in the UK I know their mortgages are usually fixed for only like 5 years. In the US they are typically 30 year fixed. That can cause a lot of instability when interest rates go up.
Your quality of life points boil down to being rich. If you’re saying that you’re more likely to end up rich in the US then sure, but most people don’t end up rich.
> Depends what quality of life means to you right?
I recently got laid off for the 2nd time in 4 years (probably better off than most, to be honest). I'm done with shooting for the moon. I am now strongly considering a "boring" job - the kind that keeps the basics of society running and has government contracts. I can bootstrap my own moonshots over the weekend (I'm probably going to make split keyboards with Rust firmware FWIW).
So, yeah totally, it can even change for an individual pretty drastically.
That doesn't explain the astronomical wages for tech workers at all. Tech workers are paid highly because their employers are generating huge revenues per employee and the cost of living in these coastal hubs is exceptional [even before the most recent tech boom]. Tech workers not in Seattle, Bay Area, LA/Irvine, Boston, NYC and DC/NoVA are not getting paid nearly the same as tech workers in those places. Even in Chicago, Miami, Houston, Austin, Denver, Boulder, Raleigh, Charlotte, Philly -- they're all 20% or more lower comp. And what I'm not sure most folks on the outside looking in realize is just how much better tech companies pay for tech roles than non-tech companies pay for the same roles (usually in "IT" organizations). A SWE with 5yr experience at Google might be making $325k/yr total comp, but a SWE with 5yr experience at a F500 manufacturing company might be making $100k (and possibly working on harder problems).
The Google engineer is probably working directly on a product (or at least in a job function that is paid as if their members are working on the high-margin part of the business). The F500 manufacturing SWE is treated as part of the costs (and probably as NRE or overhead rather than as part of the product or even part of COGS).
>Tech workers are paid highly because their employers are generating huge revenues per employee and the cost of living in these coastal hubs is exceptional
These are factors common to all (e.g.) Google employees. But the folks cleaning the toilets aren't getting paid as much as the software engineers. So there must be a bit more to it than that. I'm not saying that the factors you listed aren't factors, but they aren't the whole story by any means.
it’s funny because most of the US has the perception that canada is a mess and a horrible place to live too. Awful job prospects, migrant problems, horrible weather, and a housing market that makes the US look cheap. Just to name a few.
Not sure if that’s true at all, i’ve never been to canada! So take those opinions with a huge grain of salt lol.
What’s my point? I guess that perceptions can be very different.
Anyway since you left canada, I hope you found someplace where you are happier. :-)
Over half of Canadians live within 70 miles of the US border and up to 90% (methodologies vary) live with 100 miles of the border. The converse isn't even close to being true.
Most of the murders are just in a few zip codes[1]. In some cities they are literally concentrated in a few city blocks. So if you move to the U.S don't live in obvious high crime areas and you'll be fine. The best way to tell if an area is high crime is to look for Starbucks. The more comfortable the seating in the Starbucks, the less crime there is. High crime areas have no Starbucks or they have Starbucks without seating or bathrooms. These are known as "Problem" Starbucks and they progressively remove things like outlets, seating, toilets, operating hours until problems stop. If things don't improve, they just close.
So you felt like living in Canada gave you a clear understanding of the high cost of living and low wages in the US (we'll ignore how wrong you are about this for the moment), and your example of a more affordable place to live is... Tokyo?
Thanks for making it clear I should treat your posts as a regurgitation of terminally online zoomer talking points from here on out.
I'd agree Tokyo or East Asian Cities certainly has a much better quality of life than the dump that is the Bay Area, but if take everything bad about the US labour market that's pretty much amped to 100 in Asian societies and for lower pay and longer hours. You won't have the time to enjoy much of that comfort in the same way as you might in a vacation.
Anybody ambitious would agree it's still far more optimal to work in a USA and build a career there first before moving to Asia as an expat to better negotiate terms. And even then, the supply of interesting jobs there is going be much less.
That’s not really true anymore! Japan works on average less hours than the US does at this point, especially if you’re in tech like me. I’ve never worked more than 40 hours per week here.
And Japan actually has more time off for people to enjoy the fruits of their labor too!
As far as moving goes, I wouldn’t be so sure. Plenty of people start off their career in their home country before moving to HK or Singapore or Tokyo, skipping the US entirely.
Anecdotally, a relative of mine worked at a firm in Hong Kong as an Architect, and the firm literally refused to do anything about nearby construction that there was dust blowing into the office ever day. That's the kind of labour standards you may see in Asia :)
She's working in London right now and alot more happier, tbh having grown up there in HK most of my cohort have moved to US or Europe.
Tech as an expat is a bit of bubble, most of the "hard work" in building a career is achieved in the less competitive environment. Growing up there in those cities is another matter, the academic pressure and job market can be soul-crushing. If you don't get into a top university many large firms won't hire you. That's not to say similar things happen in USA, but it's relatively easier to get into Ivy League, and outside of Banking or Law most other careers are willing to give you a chance to prove yourself.
Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. Keep in mind median income is 37K, 50K in cities. If you think you can live a fulfilling life on that income then I’d be impressed.
>> Are you saying that for people making median level of income, the US is a horrible place to live compared to the rest of the world?
> Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying.
I just came back from Chad. I've also spent time in Mozambique, Madagascar, Ethiopia, and South Africa. I'm pretty sure that the quality of life for those at median income is quite a bit worse in all of those places than in the US. So perhaps it's a bit hyperbolic to make a statement such as that, comparing the US to the rest of the world.
This thread is a bit reminiscent of the old days when the East German government used to claim - with a straight face - that the Berlin Wall was there in order to keep the westerners from overrunning the Workers' Paradise of the east.
Revealed preference shows that way, way, way, more people are trying to move into the US for economic reasons than are trying to leave.
Of course people want to move to the US, there’s decades of propaganda that they believe in. If they knew what their life would be like they would want to go somewhere else though.
That's why Bill G, Larry E, Jeff B, Mark Z, and Warren B have all left, because the US is a shithole (your word) and they can afford to go anywhere they want.
For you, the question is theoretical. For me, I've lived it.
Before I transitioned into software, I had a very a fulfilling life being paid a mediocre salary as a graphic designer, supporting my family for years and investing plenty of time and money into my hobbies.
I don't know how to convince you of the very real experience I and many others here are having, and I don't really feel like it's a good use of my time. Feel free to keep holding onto your theories.
Every international median income ranking I've seen, which attempts to compare median income on an apples-to-apples basis, puts the US very near the top. Here's one example:
You are a member of a household, even if your household size is only 1. So yes, you are a household.
Imagine a household of two parents and one 17-year-old dependent. One parent works in this household and the 17-year-old has a part time job working 15 hours a week at $9/hr.
The parent who works has an income of $90,000. The 17-year-old makes ~$6,480 for working 48 weeks in the year. The other parent's income is $0. The median pre-tax personal income of this household is ~$6,480. Is this the right statistic to understand the wealth of this population?
Let's then add a household of one making $38k. Then another with one person making $22k and another making $110k. $0, $6.4k, $22k, $38k, $90k, $110k. So now our median personal income is $22k, but a median household income of $96.4k. Does the individual income really reflect the actual average purchasing power of the people in this community?
Going by the median personal income, you're including people who choose not to work or choose to only work few hours or a non-high-paying job potentially because they've got access to other forms of wealth. You're also including retirees who essentially just get by with a small pension or using their savings because they already own their home or live with family or whatever. Going by household income gives a much better understanding of wealth and purchasing power of inter-related people (even people not officially related).
Yeah sure, the US is better than India and it has a large scale immigration program, doesn’t mean people would choose to move there if they had other choices.
All of it sucks tbh. East coast, west coast, midwest, south, all of it. So much space and you couldn’t build a single place good for people to live in.
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
Nationalistic flamebait in particular is not welcome here (regardless of nation).
Are you on the outside looking in, and this is what the US looks like to you?
My commentary as someone on the inside who has also been on the outside looking in:
> Incredibly expensive, low wages
Pick one. Wages trend higher where it’s expensive. Wages trend lower where it’s not.
There are also tough-to-see subsidies like prop 13 and rent control in CA (as an example).
Currently the US appears expensive from the outside due to a strong dollar.
From the inside, it’s more nuanced — specifically, the distribution of wealth across the capital class and the worker class is skewing much more towards the capital class than at any time in our lives, but is trending towards a common state if looking at a longer time scale.
> no safety net,
No European-style safety net.
Japan doesn’t have a safety net either. Is it “horrible”?
The US has a substantial safety net via charity. Most of the people seen in the news who need it (e.g., homeless folks) choose not to use it, since it comes with restrictions like not being on drugs.
> car and health insurance are mandatory,
Yay?
Fwiw, health insurance is federally subsidized for low income folks.
Car insurance is a good thing, imho.
> homelessness everywhere,
In many cities, yes. Outside of those… not really. If you don’t live or work in a city, this is only something you see on TV.
> gun violence is rampant,
None of my friends, family, or acquaintances in my entire life have been a victim of gun violence. I know of three people who committed suicide with their own guns (which is counted in “gun violence numbers”), but I don’t think that’s what you’re referring to.
I realize that’s a class issue, and that there is more gun violence in the US than in Europe, but it’s just not part of the day-to-day reality for most people.
> and the government is a dictatorship disguised as a democracy
Objectively not true, at least for now.
The system of checks and balances baked into the US system is failing tragically at the moment, but we are not at the level of a dictatorship yet.
> No one would actively choose to live there if it wasn’t for high salaries in certain fields.
I don’t think that this is universally true.
I know plenty of immigrants who make their money, retire, and choose to stay in the US. Some people go back, but a lot stay, and with purpose.
Realistically I think the guy is centering on the experience of the poor only and using that as the quality of life index.
In another comment he talks about car insurance and food costs as if those are even major expenditures?
For a European moving to the US the only actual difference is health insurance, and even then, at low income you probably end up paying about the same or slightly more as European taxes, at a higher income you come out significantly ahead.
I also don't know a single person in the entirety of Europe/UK who doesn't own a car outside of the megacities like London, Paris etc, so it seems like a daft comparison given that car insurance rates are fairly similar in UK and US.
>Cars are seen as a burden, so only people that need one buy one.
I don't know where exactly you are located but it sounds like a delusional place. Can't name one first-world country where getting a car is seen as 'a burden' and not 'a massive improvement of one's life'
>None of my friends, family, or acquaintances in my entire life have been a victim of gun violence. ... I realize that’s a class issue, and that there is more gun violence in the US than in Europe, but it’s just not part of the day-to-day reality for most people.
I'm curious roughly how old you are. I grew up in a fairly well off suburb of Seattle and am in my mid 30s. At some point around 2020 I realized that among my friends, parents/kids of friends, and coworkers there had been 8 or 9 incidents of newsworthy gun violence in my fairly close contacts. In a way I would consider myself as having grown up fairly sheltered and so it was a surprising realization.
Newsworthy used to avoid digression about mass shootings vs shootings, as you did about suicide. I think most were reported as mass shootings but I'm not certain now.
*posted from a new account while traveling, I'm not meaning to come off as a troll jumping in to focus on guns as a topic. It just stood out to me as I was reading.
Note that I grew up around guns, and most areas I have lived in while in the US are gun friendly.
In my family and peer group, gun safety was taught at a very young age, and it was taught strictly — guns weren’t to be treated like toys, don’t even appear to mishandle a gun (e.g., by flagging someone, even if obviously unloaded), and don’t wield a weapon unless you’re willing to pull the trigger and neutralize/kill them (n.b., avoiding the situation or running away is often the best option).
That said, I know of three people (not close to me, but in my wide circle of acquaintances) who have had their guns confiscated by LEOs, each time by a spurned spouse who alleged that they were in danger or the gun owner was a danger to themselves, and each time was a generous interpretation of the circumstances, imho.
> there had been 8 or 9 incidents of newsworthy gun violence in my fairly close contacts.
If you don’t mind me asking, was there a common theme to the incidents, or was it just random stuff?
> I'm not meaning to come off as a troll jumping in to focus on guns as a topic.
I've mostly lived in places that you might consider gun unfriendly. I don't own a gun and am not always comfortable in places where they are too present. I know enough about safety from friends that I've avoided shooting with certain people in my greater friend circle. That said, living in the mountain west friends of mine own guns, hunt, and one set of friends owned a gun related business for several years.
For the incidents 3 were school/university shootings, 3 were in malls or similar public locations, and 1 was a house party. I don't know of any real common theme beyond gatherings of people. One I included in the earlier post was a domestic incident with several deaths and so it might not belong with the others.
I've noticed my 50-60 year old friends and their children in high school are more concerned about school shootings than I ever was. That may just be excessive concern due to increased news coverage, but I think there is also something about the availability of guns and teenage brains that is a real concern for them.
My personal experience has only been hearing gunshots nearby, although one incident involved a death. I don't think of myself as being in dangerous places but it has happened more than a few times. Guns and gun violence aren't something I think about much at all, but when I do it's surprising by how much it touches my life and my friend's lives.
All that said, one thing I do appreciate about this country is the variety of it. A friend who grew up sheep ranching told me they were allowed knives up to a certain length and guns at his school. Meanwhile mine would have had a lock down if students did the same thing.
> Are you on the outside looking in, and this is what the US looks like to you?
No, I lived in Canada for 12 years, my family lived in the US for 6 years, and I regularly visited for work and pleasure. My first hand experience is that the US is a shithole.
> Pick one. Wages trend higher where it’s expensive. Wages trend lower where it’s not.
No. Slightly higher wages do not offset the incredible cost of living in cities. And likewise, if you live in a cheap area you still have to compete with everyone else for certain goods.
> Japan doesn’t have a safety net either. Is it “horrible”?
Japan does have a safety net.
> The US has a substantial safety net via charity
lol. Guess I'll die unless Jeff Bezos decides to give me money.
> Fwiw, health insurance is federally subsidized for low income folks.
It should be federally covered for everyone in the country.
> None of my friends, family, or acquaintances in my entire life have been a victim of gun violence
Yes, that's statistics for you. I'm Brazilian but I haven't been murdered even though lots of people are murdered in Brazil.
> I know of three people who committed suicide with their own guns
This is gun violence.
> it’s just not part of the day-to-day reality for most people.
It literally is. A ton of people own guns for "protection", because what if the other person has a gun. There are areas of cities you avoid because they're dangerous. If you get stopped in your car by a cop, there's a non-zero chance you will get shot. Kids literally have active shooter drills in school. It literally is part of day-to-day reality for most people. You're just in it so you don't realize it.
> The system of checks and balances baked into the US system is failing tragically at the moment, but we are not at the level of a dictatorship yet.
Yes you are. You get a choice between two parties who are basically the same. 70% of the country's vote is thrown away in federal elections. A vote in Wyoming counts for 4x more than a vote in California. Counties are gerrymandered so badly your vote doesn't matter even in local elections. Voter suppression is table stakes. That's not a democracy.
>> I know of three people who committed suicide with their own guns
> This is gun violence.
Huh? Do you count people who hang themselves as victims of "rope violence"? Are people who kill themselves by sucking on the vehicle's tailpipe victims of car accidents? People who jump off of buildings are counted as construction accidents?
People choose guns because they’re very lethal. If a gun wasn’t around they might not choose that route, and eventually get out of the dark place they’re in.
Out of pocket health care expenditure as a share of GDP per capita is fairly low in comparison with other wealthy nations. Of European nations, only Monaco, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and France are lower (and not by much!).
Transportation spending is indeed higher in the US than most of the developed world, but it doesn't eat away much at the increased disposable income per capita -- proportionate to household income we're talking about a few thousand dollars higher, and most of that is a very recent development as costs went way up over the last few years.
Certainly food and cars is not more expensive than most European countries. Health insurance is also not that much expensive, it is only the way you pay it which in Europe is by tax. There is the issue of not being covered if you don't have a job but that's has nothing to do with price. The US is one of the cheapest countries in the world with pretty decent salaries and endless variation in house prices, there also always cheaper cities or alternative states. Try that in Europe or Australia or Canada, good luck.
>The (average) income is therefore calculated according to the Atlas method from the quotient of the gross national income and the population of the country.
Ah yeah, surely that doesn't get insanely screwed up by America's near top of the list inequality?
The average salary for 9 homeless people and 1 CEO is $100k! Americans are definitely better off than Europe!
I mean, the same is true of median income as well. People overestimate how much inequality affects the actual end numbers in the US. The median incomes in the poorest US states are still higher than most of the world.
I have an objectively higher QoL than almost anyone in the EU or Japan who wasn't born rich.
After many years as a SWE without a college degree, I was able to buy a large 5 new 5 bedroom house within ~25 minutes of my employer in a beautiful city, I have a full time nanny for my children, a luxury car, padded retirement, and plenty of other money to buy what I want.
Where else can a smart, hardworking person achieve that who didn't come from generational wealth?
I'm not so unique either, I have some friends I've known who similarly didn't come from money and have been able to build up careers that support a wonderful lifestyle.
Europeans have a bottomless admiration for generational wealth (old money), and equivalently despise individual success (nouveau riche). Centuries of monarchy does that to the spirit of a people.
I can’t retire and continue my current lifestyle, I would need some sort of job. Therefore, I don’t consider myself rich.
More importantly though, I have this lifestyle due to a job, one that is quite common (software engineer). I didn’t luck into some unique position or business opportunity.
Your comment is interesting to me as a comment further up sates that: "People move from China to India despite the higher prices in America precisely because the increase in wages is more than enough to offset the higher prices." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42321211
So while expensive holds, the low wages does not.
> no safety net
There are safety nets in the US, just not one singular one nor is it always easy to apply or get benefits.
> car and health insurance are mandatory
What countries don't have mandatory car insurance?
Which ones don't have mandatory health insurance?(Universal health care doesn't count, as that is mandatory and taken from taxes.)
Further, you can eschew health insurance in the US. Many people do(for various reasons, cost being one of them), it is just not that wise of a move as healthcare here is very expensive.
> gun violence is rampant
We have pockets of areas where violence, not just gun, is rampant. I think a fairer analysis shows that it is the intersection of poverty and also drugs but I can not speak fully to this topic.
>the government is a dictatorship disguised as a democracy.
Is this talking about the current government(Joe Biden?), the future administration(Donald Trump) or the administrative government(deep state?)?
I would agree that our government is not functioning as well as it could, I am also not sure if I have seen any other governments do any better.
Japan: Due process with police holding suspects and trying to force confessions.
South Korea: Recent Martial Law issue
France: Numerous protests occurring
Great Britain: Prime Minister just told all farmers "If you don't like the changes we have implemented, you can leave." Protests and counter protests with violence on both sides but police seem more focused on arresting people for social media posts.
I can't think of any recent issues from the Scandinavian countries but that is more likely due to my lack of exposure to media than lack of issues.
Please let me know which countries you find to be great.
Yeah, every country has its problems, but that doesn’t mean they’re all as bad as each other.
Yes, Japan has a problem with allowing police to hold suspects for 3 weeks with no outside contact. But the reality is that very few people are ever arrested, to the point that nobody is afraid of police.
The same can’t be said for the US, where black parents have to tell their kids to not trust cops.
In my experience Japan is pretty great, so that’s where I live.
Other places I consider top tier are Holland and Scandinavia. Western Europe and developed Asia is tier 2, some of Eastern Europe and Canada are tier 3, USA and most of South America are tier 4, and any other countries I wouldn’t live in.
The bizarre thing is that the problems are fixable. The federal government already spends more per capita on healthcare than other developed countries, just that our healthcare is so much more expensive and for no good reason.
Our healthcare system, to the extent that it was intentionally designed at all, implicitly prioritizes consumer choice and immediate access over cost efficiency. While there are certainly gaps in access and affordability, the typical middle-class voter can still get elective care quickly from a variety of local providers. Most other developed countries have longer queues or certain services are less available. We also subsidize drug development costs for the rest of the world. Whether those are good reasons for paying more is a matter of opinion.
Of course there's also a certain amount of waste, fraud, and abuse that inflate our costs.
> The US certainly does not subsidize drugs for the rest of the world.
It literally does. The costs of producing drugs are mostly borne by the US market, allowing drug manufacturers to charge less elsewhere while still investing the billions of dollars necessary to develop the drugs.
Economists, and pharma lobbyists, argue against US drug price regulation because new drugs produce large positive externalities.
I think it's a mix of pharma lobbying and also altruism. Pharma lobbies Congress to do the altruistic thing, and many Congresspeople agree, because they believe in markets and understand incentives.
No one claimed that it's for the benefit of the rest of the world. But the reality is that if US drug prices were fixed by the government at lower levels then there would be less new drug development. The US develops around 75% of world's new drugs. Would you prefer to have fewer new drugs going forward?
Nope. Nobody changed the argument. No one said "USA subsidizes drug development out of a societal sense of charitable obligation to the rest of the world." It just so happens that - due to the unfortunate design of our system - the rest of the world is receiving a subsidy.
In fact, there are European-HQ'd pharma companies that also make the lion's share of their profits in the US - so that's certainly not benefiting the US.
There is a good reason: profits and management pay. And greed is good, right?
> the problems are fixable
Fixable in theory. The US would first have to fix the underlying issue, which i.m.o. is government, media and even judicial capture by financial interests. Billionaires are now openly buying "shares" in those. I don't see any sign of it changing anytime soon. It only seems to get worse.
It's not just profits and management. Administrators, nurses, and yes, definitely doctors, get paid far higher in the U.S. than in other countries. Who wants to be the one to say we need to cut staff, and cut wages for nurses and doctors, in order to bring down costs? Just cutting fat from insurance companies, or having the government step in as insurer with no other changes, wouldn't move the needle much.
I'm pretty sure healthcare costs in the US are also higher as a percentage of GDP compared to EU, so higher wages would not explain the difference. Also productivity should be higher?
I think pharmaceutical, hospital, insurance and legal companies take all the money.
Yes there’s tons of overhead and extra costs, but it isn’t mostly at the insurance company level. It’s spread all around the system, that was my point. There’s no one “quick fix” that leaves everyone with the same job and fat salary as they had before.
