I've spent most of my adult life outside of the US, after having spent my childhood and university in Florida. Now, when I travel in the States, I see a _lot_ of good everywhere I go, but it's undeniable that other countries are doing certain things better (I'd argue that nobody has it all together, though Singapore comes mighty close in my book).
This is actually a great thing for the US in many ways -- we've spent almost a century in the lead, having to figure out what works through trial and error. Now the entire world is participating in this trial and error, and we are (in theory, if we're willing to be a bit humble and admit we don't know it all) able to benefit from the discoveries made without paying for the trials.
There will probably never be a repeat of the 1950s, where the United States dominated the world in almost every category, but ... who cares? The 1950s sucked in a lot of ways for a lot of people, most Americans included. That doesn't mean we can't maintain parity, and exceed in certain areas in which we've made priorities.
Now the entire world is participating in the way of doing things that the US pioneered in the 19th and 20th centuries.
The US was indeed exceptional for most of this time. It's not anymore, but it's more because the rest of the world caught up, not so much because the US stopped (although resting on laurels has certainly slowed it down).
> There will probably never be a repeat of the 1950s, where the United States dominated the world in almost every category
There will probably never be a repeat of the 1950s, where the rest of the developed world was mostly bombed to smithereens and working hard to rebuild themselves.
I agree in general, but several of the specific policy recommendations he puts forward are horrible.
States having equal representation in the Senate is one of the few protections for States' Rights today. Population isn't the only reason for representation.
Direct election of the President by popular vote per state would probably be functionally the same as the electoral college, modulo faithless electors, but most proposals are for nationwide popular vote, which also hinders States' Rights -- and would allow a President to be elected by appealing just to voters in major cities (a plurality of the population).
I'm not sure a system where the president gets elected by ignoring Texas, California, New York, New England etc is really a better system than a nationwide popular vote.
As someone who has lived in the US, AU & the EU in a few places I'd have to say this article is great. It's something you wind up doing if you live in other places.
America is #1 in quite a few things, such as software, just try naming non-US software companies that matter, it's an interesting exercise. Also the US highway system is excellent, the US's culture of entrepreneurship is also awesome. The best US colleges are the best in the world. US computer games, TV shows (Breaking Bad/Mad Men/Louie/The Sopranos etc) and other things are great from the US.
But in many things the rest of the rest world laughs at the US. US High School education, for instance, is not well regarded. The US health care system is regarded as scary and pretty poor.
There are even other countries that are really good at seeing things overseas and copying. Australia, for instance, got a points based immigration system from Canada, Universal Saving for retirement from Singapore and looked around the world for ways to reform the Australian Reserve Bank.
> US High School education, for instance, is not well regarded.
I think this is a bit disingenuous. I would say that the US high school system is not equitable. It works just fine for the upper middle class on up. It's the lower class that gets screwed over by the way things are set up.
Yes just try comparing Detroit public schools with that of the suburbs and you'll realize no one can make general statements about how crappy US schools are.
Interesting the point you made about US TV shows - it's very subjective but I'll say honestly I can't stand them. I'm from the UK and think it's something to do with not being able to relate to your culture as well as you do, and so I find them to be mostly deeply irritating. The same goes for US films - I much prefer European movies as a whole.
I agree with this. My eyes opened I ways I never expected by living abroad. I thought America was safe and it is compared to Somalia but not compared to may other contries. I didn't notice this because I've been trained to ignore it. I've been trained not to walk down dark alleys. I've been trained not to leave anything visible in a car when I park it or else it will get broken into. When it had been broken into Ive been trained to blame myself for leaving something visible or parking too near the wrong neighborhood. But living abroad I learned some countries don't have these issues. Then benefit from them too. There are vending machines outdoors all over Japan for example, in America they'd have long since been vandalized. In Japan there are amazing double size car stereos because they don't have to worry about car stereo theft. Sorry I don't have better examples at the moment.
I also learned many false assumptions. For example even though logically as an athiest i knew morals don't come from a deity the number of assumptions and thought paths I had ... Uh.. Thought or read about that clearly came from a christian influenced society really stuck out.
Cultural differences as well like maybe there's some positive aspects to a more collectivits society vs an individualist society like America.
It's hard to articulate how much impact living abroad had.
Another is just how much "yay us!!!" there is. I watched a Ken Burns documentary where it seemed that every other line was "Only in America". We've heard that so much we take it for granted without actually checking if it's true. Every country has this issue. It's only living outside that will make it stick out IMO
In not saying America sucks. Each country and culture has trade offs but until you truly spend time experiencing those differences you'll likely be unaware such differences even exist.
Unfortunately I don't expect enough people will ever live abroad
I have never lived abroad, but everything you've said is obvious to me, because I interact with and learn about the World outside my country and have a natural tendency to question anything that politicians or people in power have to say.
People don't need to live abroad to come to these conclusions. I suspect that you're probably mistaken that living abroad did this to you, and that it would have happened anyway. It's what happens to (most) intelligent people as they age and mature.
EDIT: Re vending machines on the street, I visited Connecticut once and where I stayed, there were boxes on the street that you can put money in and take a paper out of. I'm from the UK and if you had that here, it would be fine in a lot of places, but in some places, people would set fire to them for fun. Re car crime, on the same visit I noticed that people were leaving their car windows open in a car park (it was very hot). Like hell would I risk that in this country, but I'm sure there are plenty of places where it would be fine. Every country has their share of good and bad areas. Anecdotes are fairly useless here.
> *People don't need to live abroad to come to these conclusions.
Yes, yes they do. Actually you're right, it's not a panacea, and to most intelligent people they gain this wisdom with age and maturity. However, we have a serious media problem in the US that doesn't always tell the truth. So, it's extremely difficult to learn about the world outside the American bubble.
Also, I did notice you are from the UK. It's much more culturally accepted to learn about the World outside of the UK. America, not so much.
...and how did I come to this conclusion? Because I'm American and live in your country! This isn't some sweeping generalization I heard on the news, I concluded it after having lived here. You'd be shocked how little Americans know and understand about the World.
One thing that occurred to me only after leaving the US: only in America can you consider yourself "educated" or "well cultured" and yet have never been to a place where the people did not speak your language!
Isolationism has always been the biggest threat to America's success. I wonder if it's only coincidence that the height of America's power came after it sent a large chunk of its young population overseas?
>However, we have a serious media problem in the US
As an outside, who has briefly stayed in a lot of countries including America I would have to agree with you. In most of the countries, the news channel covers international news quite regularly, but when I was in the US it was very VERY difficult for me to get any kind of international news from the television. Most of them just glossed over it, which made it appear that they were just ticking the checkbox of the day.
>When it had been broken into Ive been trained to blame myself for leaving something visible or parking too near the wrong neighborhood. But living abroad I learned some countries don't have these issues.
Granted there are definitely some countries with lower crime rates, but for most property theft the US is actually ranked pretty well. For auto theft, which is the closest comparable crime I can find to stereo theft with available data, the US ranks below Sweden, Switzerland, New Zealand, Australia, and Ireland. And for residential burglaries we rank below England, Scotland, Canada, the Netherlands, and Australia.
Also, as long as we are using anecdotal evidence, out of everyone I know (well enough to know this), there are maybe half a dozen who have been robbed 4 of those have been while on vacation in Europe.
Without knowing the details of the statistics, I wonder if the disconnect between perception and statistics has to do with population distribution? I've lived in the suburbs of the US, as well as right in Manhattan. In the suburbs, many nights we wouldn't even lock the door. In Manhattan I was attacked by thugs with a knife in the subway.
I now live in Ankara, a city with an official population larger than Chicago, but I can walk 15 min from my home and be in the middle of a field with no signs of civilization for miles. I think nowhere else in the world has urban sprawl that comes anywhere close to what you find in America. So, if you want an accurate comparison, I think you'd have to isolate and remove the statistics from suburbs, as they essentially don't exist outside the US.
When, after years of paying premiums into it (net positive for it), the health care system suddenly turned its back on me. When the only recourse for mis-treatment -- even simply to fix the resulting problem; never mind about compensation -- would be to go to court (no matter how ill and incapacitated you are).
This is when I learned that the U.S. is fundamentally unsafe.
P.S. Personal anecdote. Not to compare to nor diminish the very real physical threats that others face.
surely articles such as this are of value in challenging and expanding the perspective of the average american HN reader? after all, good entrepreneurs are well-rounded. and as this article (and the comments) makes it clear, the software industry in the US is something of a bubble, insulated from the troubling problems of contemporary american society. problems american entrepreneurs ignore at their own long-term risk.
as for the level of rhetoric in this comment section, I think it is high, and contains many interesting points to consider.
Even when it comes to the "pursuit of happiness," enshrined in our Declaration of Independence as one of the noble goals of government, our citizens are only the 15th most satisfied with their lives.
The text asserts the right of men [mankind] to pursue happiness, not the goal of government to provide it!
That is such an excellent point. I don't know if this is an issue found in other countries as much as here, but I find (especially during election times) people take such pride in what they achieve, but blame the government for what they don't. It doesn't help when politicians are publicly using this attitude as a major part of their strategy.
It is an issue that is found in other countries proportionately to the prevalence of socialism. The French, for instance, will not only blame everything on the government (or people who have had success), but expect everything from it (find me a job, keep me healthy, save my company from bankruptcy, provide me with nice state-sponsored TV fiction championing the values of "diversity", etc.). You don't want America to go down that road.
Having lived in both the United States and Denmark, I think I would like America to go at least slightly more down that road. It frees up a lot of individual decision-making if very basic things are taken care of. Even in the U.S., nobody expects you to contract for your own police officers to investigate a crime if you get shot. Denmark just takes it a bit further and says you shouldn't have to contract for the ambulance and hospital that treat the gunshot wound, either. That frees you up to work on things that actually matter. Not having healthcare tied to employment frees up many options as well.
It is, sadly, a very common opinion - if I have the right to pursuit of happiness, the government must provide me with my happiness. Ironically, after a century of bigger and bigger government, the citizens' confidence in the said government and its ability to provide anything resembling happiness has eroded considerably - as the author of the article notices. Even more ironically, the author absolutely fails to make this link, and complains the government doesn't intervene enough to provide the happiness to the people.
The role of government should be at least as good as the Hippocratic Oath: First, do no harm.
And while it's not the government's role to provide happiness, the structure and practice of government should at least not hinder the pursuit of happiness, and better should promote it. And if a government action does not promote the pursuit of happiness (in the large) ... why are we doing it?
It's pretty telling that even an article trying to question the culture of unquestionable-exceptionalism is still chock-full of jingoistic language that says "if we just fix a few things we'll be the best country on earth again", as if such a thing was or is factual or even possible.
Not "exceptionalism is a myth" but "exceptionalism needs a new paint job". This is what passes for dissent in mainstream American discourse.
awesome point. you hit the nail on the head i think - this is an article soaked with deep cultural ego. unfortunately, these sorts of self-centered attitudes are probably necessary to rouse the interest of the average american reader. after all, america as a country is divorced from reality. kind of makes you wonder if there's any hope for the place in the long-term.
The article focuses on the same things have been hammered on for a while now (other countries do health care better, other countries do education better, other countries do education better...), but I think there's another reason to get out of America: other countries have different cultural strengths.
Antonio Cangiano wrote a post a while back about why Italy doesn't do enough startups (http://programmingzen.com/2011/11/10/the-real-reason-italy-s...). In that post, he has a chart (http://programmingzen.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/does-su...) that shows that Americans, more that the citizens of any other country, believe that their success or failure is a direct result of their own actions. This is a blessing and a curse, as it means that Americans are willing to work harder to get what they want, but they are also willing to believe when a politician says that there's no need for universal health care or help getting people jobs because "anyone who wants it enough can work harder and get it for themselves".
Regardless, I would argue that this is America's defining cultural strength.
I recently moved to Turkey. Turkey has "hospitality" as its defining cultural strength. If you go to a little shop and look around for more than 10-15 min, you can expect to be offered a drink (free of charge, of course). When I go to the bakery, the woman who works there frequently slips me a cookie or pastry after I've already paid. Most of the malls in Turkey have systems in place that tell you exactly where there is an open parking spot so you don't have to spend 15 min driving back-and-forth.
In America, people celebrate blog posts about pricing tricks that will convince customers to part with a few extra cents. In Turkey, cab drivers regularly round fares down to the nearest lira (well, assuming you aren't a tourist in Istanbul, which is a whole different issue). Now, you could do extensive studies to show that hospitality leads to customer loyalty over the long term, and greater profits blah blah blah...but Turks don't need that. Hospitality is second nature, and my anecdotal experience is that it makes for a generally happier populace, even when all the objective metrics indicate that Turks should feel worse-off than Americans.
What really strikes me, though, is that I have experienced Turkish-like hospitality from one company in the US: Apple. So, now you have every MBA student in America racking their heads trying to figure out what Apple has done to become the most valuable company in the world, where if they had only spent a couple of years living in Turkey they might already have their answer...
You wouldn't get a free rug in a Turkish rug store but Apple do go out of their way to appear inviting and helpful way beyond any of their competition.
This. I've found that business in America have a tendency to try and monetize the entirety of every business transaction. For example, I used to work at Circuit City, and if you came in to buy a TV you'd be amazed how quickly the salesperson would shift the conversation onto cables, power supplies, protection plans, etc. When the end of the day rolled around, and praise was divvied out by the store managers, no one ever talked about the size of the TV so-and-so sold. The praise focused entirely on the "attach".
On the other hand, a Turk will recognize that you are there to carry out a certain business transaction. Turks can haggle and negotiate with the best of them (another aspect of their culture). But you'd better believe that, as you spend half an hour negotiating the price of that rug, the rug seller will have had his assistant bring you tea and simit, and you'll have the most comfortable seat in the place (none of this "make the floor as hard and uncomfortable as possible so that customers complete their transactions quickly"...yes, that is a well known trick in the American retail industry).
Apple does the same thing, especially with their stores. Their computers are not cheap. But Apple will hold free workshops telling you how to use them. Store employees will help you transfer data from your old computer if you need it, and when you come back in a week, you'll get the same reception as you did before you made your purchase, even though you're unlikely to be buying another computer.
Mostly, it's about recognizing your customer as a fellow human being, as opposed to "the next mark"...
Note that you are comparing a big chain store (Circuit City) with small business (a Turk). Most businesses in the US are small businesses, which behave differently than chain stores. And if you think that that the Turk wouldn't get back the price of his tea hundredfold when you buy that rug, then you're very naive :) It's just different styles of conducting business - in some cultures, the negotiations are supposed to be personal and simulate closeness and friendship (even if parties are hoping to cheat each other as much as possible), in some it is supposed to be businesslike and impersonal.
As for the Apple store, I had been a number of times in Apple store in San Jose, that's abut 15 minutes drive from main Apple campus. Almost each time I had the worst experience. I had to wait for a long time, workers kept redirecting me from one to another, and since the policy is that there are no lines in Apple stores, I had no idea when I am going to be served - I just had to aimlessly wander around the store and wait for the moment where some "genius" is ready to grace me with his attention. I had to explain what I need to multiple people, which for some reason didn't talk to each other, and I observed multiple store workers not busy with anything but somehow still unavailable to help me. I am totally unconvinced about that being the paragon of customer service.
Well, you're wrong about one thing: that's not just small businesses in Turkey. Even very large chain stores have the same level of hospitality. And it's not just stores. As an example, tomorrow is the start of Seker Bayrami (literally translates as "Sugar Holiday" but is just what Turks call Eid al-Fitr, the end of Ramadan). The holiday lasts for 3 days. I received a text from Turkcell the other day stating that they were giving everyone unlimited texting during the holiday.
Edit: Also, of course the Turkish businessman is making back the cost of the tea. It would be foolish to think otherwise. The point is that (if you want to go all Econ 101 on it...) Turks tend to think in terms of straight profit, whereas Americans are much more obsessed with opportunity cost.
There are many more examples of stuff regularly given out by companies for free, it's just two things I could remember immediately due to you mentioning "sugar holiday" :)
Heh...you really do need to visit Turkey. Turkcell didn't advertise that they were giving everyone unlimited texts. There was no article in the national paper about Turkcell giving unlimited texts. They did it because it was proper, and hospitable. In short, Turkish hospitality is very different from the examples you gave.
Trust me, if you ever care to visit Ankara, tell me and I will show you Turkish hospitality.
(Or, as odd as it sounds, Anthony Bourdain's "No Reservations" episode on Istanbul does an amazingly good job of capturing the essence of modern Turkish culture...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ojatA-Xqhk)
I have visited Turkey in the past briefly, and it was nice, though I did not notice any special hospitality not encountered in other places. Maybe I just wasn't lucky.
Off topic indeed, but this year's Eurovision singer from Turkey was Jewish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Can_Bonomo). Not to say there isn't anti-semitism, but I think it is much less in Turkey than you might think.
One area where we lag behind the rest of the world is our voting system. In 1992 Clinton was elected with 43% of the vote because Perot split the Republicans. In 2000 Bush was elected with 48% because Nader split the Democrats.
This kind of voting system has been mathematically proven to create a two-party system (Duverger's Law). In many other countries they use runoff voting, so if no one gets 50%, they hold another round of voting with the top two candidates. This way you can vote for whoever you want without worrying about letting the wrong guy win. And it works - check out these numbers from France's 2012 election:
That could never happen in America. Our voting system is rigged to favor the Republicans and the Democrats. It's like choosing between DSL and cable - one may be better than the other but they both suck. How much brighter would our future be if we had more choices?
Has anyone actually stopped to figure out how multi-party systems really scale? India is the largest in the world, but also A) has Euro-style population density and B) is maybe not such a great example of a functioning representative government. France and Germany are better examples of governments that mostly work, but are dealing with a fraction of the US population and order-of-magnitude differences in density and geographic area compared to the US.
And, tellingly, what I know of French and German politics is basically that, while in theory there are a bunch of parties and there are places where they can pick up a seat or two... they're still two-party in the sense that they tend to develop stable, long-lived pairs of large dominant parties, who in turn are the only ones with a shot at forming a government. Every once in a while a third party gets just big enough to play kingmaker, but that's about it. And that doesn't sound like enough of a sweeping change to justify rebooting the entire system.
France and Germany are not so two-party. In the 53 years of France's current government, they have elected presidents from four parties. In the 22 years since German reunification, they have had presidents from three parties and one independent.
Meanwhile, in the last 159 years, the US has only had Democrats and Republicans.
Also, even if minor parties do not get elected, they offer healthy competition and keep the main parties on their toes. Candidates in the US hate to present concrete plans or answer specific questions. They only have one opponent, so they take the least controversial stance that will differentiate them against the other guy. Offering more information than this minimum required is bad strategy.
If other parties were in the running, candidates would be forced to take positions and offer plans, because they have to differentiate themselves from several opponents.
I don't think changing how we elect people counts as "rebooting the entire system". We would have to eliminate the electoral college, but who would be against that? It is a relic left over from the days when local election results had to travel on horseback with a trusted messenger.
>France and Germany are not so two-party. In the 53 years of France's current government, they have elected presidents from four parties.
It's really two and a half.
De Gaulle - Pompidou - Chirac -Sarkozy were part of the same party that morphed and changed names everytime there was a new leader.
Miterrand - Hollande are the other.
Giscard was a one-term president from a party that has always been a junior partner of Main Right-Center party. So he's the half.
Does Germany hold runoff elections? It looks like Merkel won in 2009 with only 34% of the vote. If they use the same system that the US does, that is probably why their elections only choose between the main two parties.
Actually, the Chancellor is elected by the bundestag and not directly by voters.
And yes, it is required that more than half of the bundestag votes for the candidate.
Other comments have covered the France/Germany thing.
I will point out that I'm actually a fan of the electoral college in the present day, and believe it serves a useful purpose.
The quintessential problem in American politics is the different regions of the country, which all have their own set of interests and values. And, in general, people get very upset when they feel they aren't represented at all; for example, I live in the lone county in my state that consistently trends liberal, and I know that my vote effectively doesn't count for anything state-wide or any national election, because I'm surrounded and outnumbered by far more conservative voters. This is frustrating and leads to apathy.
Similarly, when a significant region of the country is effectively disenfranchised in this fashion, serious problems result. And that's what would happen if we replaced the electoral college by direct popular election: a small number of coastal population centers would essentially decide every election, leaving a huge swathe of the country realizing that their votes don't count.
Under the current electoral system, meanwhile, candidates for President have to be responsive to the interests of a broader cross-section of the country in order to get elected. On the whole, I think that's a good thing, because it ensures that we don't end up in a tyranny-of-the-urban-majority situation.
Perhaps we should eliminate parties altogether. The existence of party whips and cabinets in many countries tells us a lot about their "representative" democracies.
It's fine if they work together. I just don't think a formalized hierarchy, nor a populace voting for candidates due to their party association, is healthy -- it causes bad distortions, like the threat of political death if a member dares cross the floor.
I agree that there are problems with/from hierarchy and single-lever voting, I guess I don't think that it comes from formalized parties. I pretty much end up blaming the voter (I end up reducing a lot of complaints about voting systems to "If this democracy had more rules, people would vote better", which doesn't necessarily make much sense).
It would be interesting to see what resulted from removing affiliation information from ballots.
Furthermore, the lack of discipline of US parties has to be taken into consideration.
They're basically coalitions in which factions compete for power and influence through primaries and financing while in France everyone knows the minor center-left parties (the Greens for instance) will participate in a coalition led by the Socialist Party.
The negociation on the inclusion of this or that topic in the common platform are formal.
But in the end, only Hollande and Sarkozy had a chance to win
The runoff system sometimes provides different results in the second round, true. (And you know that it only applies if none of the candidates has more than 50% of valid votes, right?)
It's easy to over-emphasize the importance of the voting system. I note how you contrast the badness of winning with 43% and 48% of the vote with a guy who won with 29% of the vote. Yes, you get the run-off, but most of the time, that just degenerates into a free-for-all in the first round and the "real election" between the two "real" parties in the second. You even get the issue of vote-splitting: In 2002, Front National narrowly beat the socialists, so the run-off was between conservative Chirac and far-right Le Pen. Chirac got 20% in the first round and 82% in the second - on a 32%/68% favorable rating.
Voting isn't really about lofty ideals and finding the best person for the job. The presidents of France aren't significantly or consistently better or worse than the presidents of the US. The fact is that across all the voting systems in the free democratic world, the people elected are rarely brilliant and visionary leaders - they are just good enough and there is a solid mechanism for firing them if they screw up badly enough.
Bush the Younger won in 2000 with fewer votes in total than Gore because of the "winner take all" electoral collage system. If you don't live in a swing state basically your vote is not even counted.
I have lived in a country wil multi-party election system. I am not really sure you'd prefer it to US system if you saw it in action. In multi-party system, one of the "big" wins the elections and then has to bargain with smaller parties to create a ruling coalition. This bargaining usually a completely disgusting process of political horse-trading, where narrow-issue parties wield wildly unproportional influence and extract huge concessions due to their political position. This also happens sometimes on narrow votes in US system, but while in US this is more of an exception, in multi-party state this is the only way to go. What is called "pork barrel spending" in US and seen as something that should be reduced if not eliminated completely in US is the only way to spend in a good multi-party system, because without buying off smaller parties (which are not shy of outright extortion because they have enough votes to hold small but key position and do not fear to look bad because they don't have to woo independents) no law and no budget can ever pass.
I'm not saying any of the systems is best or worst in each case, but multi-party system has as many, if not more, problems than two-party system.
Much of what he lists here as weaknesses I consider strengths, especially the electoral college. Maybe it's because of length, but he doesn't give more than casual support to any point.
Absolutely not. Solutions implemented by people from other countries work because they've been implemented by people from different cultures, cultures which are compatible with those solutions. Attempting to implement a culturally-alien solution within America would likely fail, but not before wasting a lot of everyone's time and money and not before fouling up what's already working.
To 'make America great' would require a deep cultural understanding of Americans and how American culture both helps and hinders them. It would then require solutions tailored to American culture - or if no culturally-compatible solution could be found, a plan to alter the culture before implementing the solution, fully appreciating that by altering the culture we may weaken some of America's real strengths.
This isn't easy at all to do and get right - which is why our default stance should be 'unless there's a really, really compelling reason to change things, don't tinker with it.' The Constitution's checks and balances are in place to enforce this stance, so people like the author can't rashly tinker with things on the strength of a single election, and cause more problems than they fix.
The fascinating thing about this article is that it legitimizes the "Atlas Shrugged" response of many entrepreneurs from a progressive perspective. While there is much to be quibbled with in his analysis [1], the simple fact that we now have rationales from both sides for leaving the US and striking out abroad is extraordinarily important. Look for more people to repeat these arguments, to flee taxes, crime, and regulations while claiming they are fleeing inequality, provinciality, and an inadequate level of government control over the economy.
[1] for example, did the mass immigration of millions of unskilled immigrants without high school educations contribute to income inequality? And is bankrupt France really a country to emulate, or should we cast our eyes to the Pacific Rim?
France isn't bankrupt because of it's healthcare system, which provides excellent value for money (around 7% of GDP vs 17% in the USA). The point is to look around the world and select the best of each area to emulate.
Did you read the article? The author isn't arguing that people should flee the country. At least not permanently. He's simply saying that the US could learn from other countries and that people should study/live abroad to gain new perspectives.
> And is bankrupt France really a country to emulate
Yes, it really is. Its people are happier, healthier, and better educated; they work less, eat better and have better relationships with their families. And are substantially less indebted than those of the US.
How so? Maybe if the USA was healthier and less depressed you'd have joined the war from the get-go rather than staying in bed for the first four years. But even if you'd stayed out entirely it wouldn't have delayed the soviet defeat of Germany overmuch. If you were talking about France's failure to defend Indochina you might have more of a point, but the US doesn't exactly have a great record there either.
While it is true that Soviets did a major part of the actual combat work, they probably could not have done it without economic help from the US. If US were unable or unwilling to provide such help, it is not at all given that Soviet economy alone would have survived the onslaught. While the heroism of the Red Army people is unquestionable, one needs a lot of material resources to wage war, and without them even most heroic people can not win. Even Joseph Stalin - a man not known for being overly modest - acknowledged that.
France's debt to GDP ratio is ~86-89%. The United States is 102%. Now the US is surely going to crash, and crash hard, but emulating France is not going to get us out of a debt crash. Quite the contrary.
1) "France's debt crisis could doom the European Union"
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/The-Daily-Reckoning/2012/0724/France-s-debt-crisis-could-doom-the-European-Union
2) "France to tackle crushing debt, says French PM Ayrault"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18693089
3) "Investors Won't Like The News Out Of Greece And France"
http://seekingalpha.com/article/571001-investors-won-t-like-the-news-out-of-greece-and-france
France's current debt to GDP ratio is about 86-89% as of the
first quarter of 2012. This ratio was expected to pass
100% by 2017 with Sarkozy as the president. With Hollande we can expect the ratio to pass 100% by an earlier date.
Just today I was reading an interview with a Belgian journalist/writer, Bjorn Soenens, who travelled through America and wrote a boook about it's current state, on all levels. His conclusions were pretty much the same as in this article, although I'd also say 'darker'. Some claims he made, which I cannot verify but would love to hear comments about [I have the impression he's rather pessimistic and mainly lifts out the bad things; there's only a couple of good things he has to say about America. But even then, it's not exactly good news]:
- lots of people still believing strongly in the American Dream, thinking 'one day I'll be rich'. Resulting in hardly any complaints when the taxes are lowered for the rich poeple. Resulting in an even bigger gap between poor and rich, and a middle class that is evaporating
- it's a miracle there hasn't been a revolution. Occupy Wall Street came close, but now they went underground
- people living in their cars
- 'Reaganomics': low taxes, low influence of the government, maximum freedom for private initiative. Which basically resulted in the crisis. Another example: New Orleans during Katrina. Since Reagan the government didn't watch the dikes anymore nor built new ones, seems there were also holes in them, in the spirit that everyone would took ther own initiative when things went bad. Resulting in a disaster.
- the media only report loudly on being pro or contra something. Not about the fact that there are always more poor people for instance [this is definitely differen in Europe]
- universities like Harvard will remain good because the elite puts money in them, but the rest of the education system is a mess, resulting in students that can hardly read and write [really?]
- a lot of Americans will either not believe claims like these, or be shocked
- Obama is actually doing very well, but gets the wind ahead from all areas, esp Tea Party, which is a shame
If you think OWS came close to revolution you should switch the brand that you're smoking, it's not good for you :)
OWS was completely insignificant movement without goals, purpose, ideology, leadership, ability or understanding of anything that happens in the society. It was overhyped, mostly by sensation-seeking reporters that want clicks/eyeballs to run ads and by leftist press outlets because they wanted their own Tea Party (which of course no revolution either, but at least had some successes to boast).
You've misread -- `stinos' isn't the one saying these things, he's quoting a Belgian journalist. He disclaimed that he doesn't know if these are accurate depictions and asked HN for comment.
I'm an American living in AU, going to move to Canada.
Couple of thoughts.
1. Family was discussing where to live. US didn't really come up as an option because of healthcare and education. Things are generally cheaper in the US, but standard of living for our kids was considered more important. Canada in particular is very close, nearly as cheap and has better education and healthcare. Win-Win.
2. People in the US generally don't realize A. how cheap things are and B. how bad things like education and healthcare are.
3. We are taking a significant tax hit in either AU or CAN...and that is OK because of what we are getting in return. I'm actually more mad at thinking of the things we DON'T get in the US for our taxes.
4. lastly (unrelated to the article), the difference between AU and CAN consumerism culture is amazing. The change is rather drastic and, I feel strongly about this, better for overall health to not be so wrapped in the consumeristic US culture.
I'm curious why you're moving from Australia to Canada? Canada has a lot going for it, and it's definitely cheaper, but in most regards I think Australia has its act together better.
Valid question because I would generally agree that AU has quite a bit going for it.
The single main reason is location. AU is FAAAAAR from things. I fly for work to the US and Europe several times a year. This gets very old very quickly in AU. To get to Singapore, which is the main hub to Europe, is 8hrs. That is already longer than the longest US flight. To get from Singapore to Europe is between 12 and 14 hrs. To get from Sydney/Melbourne to LAX is 15hrs. Do this with two kids and you'll just hate life.
Also, for the kids, the cousins, grandparents and aunts and uncles all live in the US, which is a quick direct flight away. This is the single biggest factor.
This is more a huge pet peeve of mine and I wouldn't move because of this, but I hate the nanny state that is AU. The government here is very restrictive and tends to take away rights "for the kids". There is constant talk about an internet firewall and quite a few other little things that add up to "nanny state". I told my wife that if we stayed in AU it might cause me to get into politics b/c of how messed up it is. It is that bad.
And, lastly, we've had an adventure. We are looking to settle in to a place for 10-15 years or so while the kids grow up and go to school. If it wasn't for the above, AU might have been that place, but the second item makes it hard for us to be this far away.
I say about AU that if you can leave your former life and live in AU (meaning, you live, work and pretty much embrace the AU life), AU is AWESOME. They really do have quite a bit going for it, even with the nanny state item. They don't call it 'the lucky country' for nothing!
"Imagine if a politician were to say, "France has a better health care system than we do." I can almost guarantee that politician would suffer electoral defeat "
Which America this guy is from? In the United States of America in which I am residing, lots of politicians talk all day long about pretty much every developed country in the world having better medical system than US (even though those systems are radically different and the politicians don't even bother to prove they are actually better) and they get regularly reelected. What is this thing with publishing articles in prominent magazines saying "Nobody in US dares to talk about it but I will! Yes, I'll do it and nobody can stop me!". Nobody wants a magazine opinion writer to be a hero - just a competent writer that does not insult the intelligence of their readers.
As somebody who lived in 3 very different countries, I understand learning from different cultures and countries is very useful. But in order to explain that, there's no need to exaggerate the faults of the US and present it as if most Americans are wildly opposed to any foreign ideas or experiences.
Really? Can you give a little more evidence to support your claim?
I'd love to see a clip of Romney or Obama saying "We're looking to copy the french healthcare system". They would get murdered for being "Un-American".
Romney and Obama are not the only people in US politics. There are multiple proponents of single-payer model (which is obviously modelled along the same lines as in countries where it currently exists), and they keep being elected. Of course nobody would just say "we are going to copy France" - that'd be stupid, US and France are different countries with different traditions, legal systems, economic and political systems, etc. But many politicians I've heard compared favorably health care systems in Canada, UK, France, Switzerland, Germany, etc. to American one and I don't see why they would suffer electorally for it - the idea that American system needs reform is a commonplace among both left and right (they of course disagree as to what kind of reform it needs) and comparing favorably to certain aspects of foreign experience is nothing unexpected - in fact, in this case, there's not much choice to compare - if you want to argue "we want to change it", you'd need examples, and since you won't be able to find enough examples in the US (state experiments don't have enough timespan and may not scale well) you'd have to go international. If you wanted to show, for example, that single payer is a workable model, you won't have much choice but to refer to the experience of the countries where it was introduced.
> that'd be stupid, US and France are different countries with different traditions, legal systems, economic and political systems, etc.
> (state experiments don't have enough timespan and may not scale well)
You see, this is problem right here. America was founded on the idea that each state should govern themselves and that there should be minimal federal involvement (this is what Libertarians fight for). Furthermore, I'm not sure I agree with your line of reasoning. Your saying that we can't copy other countries because they're different, yet we can't copy ourselves because it doesn't scale well.
> I don't see why they would suffer electorally for it
I don't see why either, but that's the reality. Have you ever watched Fox News for more than 5 minutes? They would slander the hell out of ANY politician who said "let's be like France" in any capacity. Note - It's important to understand that neither I nor yourself need to watch Fox News. The point is, a VERY LARGE portion of America does, and they believe the stuff that spews out of these people's mouths.
I think the overall point of the article is that we are effectively "trapped" in the US because we are constantly reminded that "This is the America Way!" and to think otherwise is blasphemy. We are lucky in American to always have the ability to create a challenging opinion...always. However it doesn't mean it's popular. Popular gets you elected. Elected gets you legislation.
>> Your saying that we can't copy other countries because they're different, yet we can't copy ourselves because it doesn't scale well.
Right. That's why mere copying of anything won't work. One has to actually put some thought into how to make it work without just copying something. I know, it's a bummer, but when we spend trillions of dollars on federal government, we can expect them to have at least couple of people who can think and do beyond what an average copying machine does.
>> Have you ever watched Fox News for more than 5 minutes? They would slander the hell out of ANY politician who said "let's be like France"
I'd recommend to leave aside the knee-jerk Fox News bashing, it does not add anything to the topic. I'd also recommend to actually read my response, where I specifically say that nobody would say "let's be like France" - but many politicians can and do say "let's borrow this good idea from France". France being substitute for many various countries here of course.
>> Note - It's important to understand that neither I nor yourself need to watch Fox News. The point is, a VERY LARGE portion of America does, and they believe the stuff that spews out of these people's mouths.
I strongly suspect your information about "stuff that spews out of these people's mouths" is a a distorted third-party reports and not the result of actual observation of sufficient footage and comparing it to other comparable networks and hosts - such as MSNBC, for example. FN is no better and no worse than any other major news outlet - they all are politicized and all employ some people which have very strong opinions, earn millions by voicing these opinions to the public and sometimes do not let the actual facts to stand in the way of these opinions. This however is not related too much to the topic in question, as existence of politicians that openly declare views which go directly opposite to what most of the FN viewers would agree with is the fact, be these opinions regarding health care, finances, social issues, judiciary issues or any issues whatsoever. FN or their viewers do not hold any death grip on America and are only one part of various and pluralistic public scene. They have their options, other people have theirs, and all of them "spew" them from their mouths freely. It may cause some people stop voting for some politicians, and some other people start voting for them - that's how the elections work. But assuming politicians live in mortal fear of FN and that prevents them from telling what they want to tell people is pure nonsense.
>> I think the overall point of the article is that we are effectively "trapped" in the US because we are constantly reminded that "This is the America Way!" and to think otherwise is blasphemy.
This is baloney. There is no agreement what is "America Way", and right now there are at least two, if not more, polar opposite approaches as to what is "America Way" in pretty much every issue are being actively discussed in public, with roughly equal parts of the population sympathizing to each approach. In this situation, claiming there's only one "America Way" and departing from it is seen by the public as blasphemy is to confess your own ignorance and detachment from most current events easily observable.
The USA seems to get a third world country. The step between poor and rich is huge, there is no health insurance, people can buy weapons and kill each other, the political system is broken and corruption is everywhwere.
I'm probably going to be modded down like crazy for this; just remember it's not a rant, I'm just sharing my perception of America as a whole. Hopefully you'll see some value in an outside opinion :)
DISCLAIMER: I'm writing this based in a view of "average" America. HN readers are most likely far from the average. It's a view shared by many younger (<35) people I talk to.
TL;DR: European views US as being backwards, socially underdeveloped. Geared for the rich. But with great TV, films and software companies. And the "average" American is 55, Obese, and thinks that Paris is a short stroll from the center of London (that might tainted be because I lived near Stratford-upon-Avon, which is a honey pot for dumb but wealthy Boomers on their first trip outside of the US).
I'm British, moved to The Netherlands at 26 (I'm now 32). I've travelled all over the world, US (see below), Scandinavia, most of Europe, Africa and Asia.
My perception of the US is that it's like a big company: they've been the boss for so long that they have forgotten to improve. Sure, in the 1960s they were the best at everything. Only the world has moved on, and in reality they're quickly turning into a dinosaur.
From what I've seen of Americans, their ideas are stuck very much in the 1900s. They're hierarchical, the system is tailored to the factory owners.
The lower class have been conditioned to think that faux sweat-shop working conditions (40+ hour working weeks) are a good thing. They don't have vacations. They can be sacked pretty much at will. Healthcare is fubar. There's a complete lack of empathy and realism. Which is strange from a land which claims to be "Christian".
The Americans I speak to seem to fall into two groups: those brainwashed into believing that if they work themselves to death they'll "get rich", or those who're just plain religious lunatics who've thus been conditioned to "suffer" for their "faith".
The only two areas where I see the US leading are in Computing and Entertainment; and this is more a function of the US speaking one language than it is anything inherent in the attitude or politics.
Now for something completely anecdotal:
I live in the Netherlands. I have a nice house. It's smaller than the American norm, but our land is smaller. It's better built (brick instead of wood).
I have a good job, earn a good salary (3x norm). In the US I'd earn three to five times as much - but that's more a function of the market than society (higher demand in US). I work a 38 hour week, and have 25 days holiday (+ 6-8 public holidays).
My health insurance costs $150/month, and isn't connected to my employer.
My employer can't just sack me. If I were to become unemployed, I'd get enough in welfare to live comfortably. If I'm injured, and unable to work, then I receive 70% of my salary plus the state benefits (which include the healthcare).
I pay lots of tax: 40% of my salary, 21% on anything I buy (except for cars, they have a 40% tax-rate, and food which is 6%), 70% of the cost of my fuel, and $100/month car tax. $100/month in local government fees. I can claw back $300 of tax a month on mortgage interest - it'd be much more if I'd have bought a bigger place (didn't seem wise at the time, we bought in 2007, at the peak).
I had a decent education in the UK, but I'm an outlier: because I got severally bullied (my parents were religious, evangelical Christians, and the UK's main religion is a Atheism) I missed my last year of Highschool (still score in the top 10% of the exams, top 5% in the STEM) and have educated myself to University-level via the Open University (and it helps having a decent IQ ~146 in the Mensa test, for what it's worth). I speak fluent Dutch (one of the harder languages to learn. Oh, and I still have an inferiority complex because I can't help but compare myself to the brilliant people here, and I aspire to top my field :)
My wife had a fantastic education in the Netherlands, and - together with all other people in her field - is better qualified than any American (she's a Pharmacist, in the Netherlands they're as well educated as medical doctors; pharmaceutical decisions are made by the specialists here, not just by the doctors).
I can go into town, to a coffee shop, and smoke a joint. I won't be arrested. I won't do it. But if I drive 50 miles to the East I would be (European insanity).
I have choice of cable/ASDL providers. Almost everyone here has >10mb/s internet. I have choice out of lots of mobile providers. Only if I travel 50 miles to the East, 100 miles to the South or 200 miles to the West it gets expensive (because the idea of the United States of Europe has failed in the face of capitalism).
I can cycle to work. Or to town. Without going on the roads, because there are cycle tracks everywhere. Lots of people do. But I'm too out of shape to do it. I probably should, because I'm overweight.
* I've been to Florida & NYC; they were like two different countries.
* Florida (1995) was a shit hole full of rude and ignorant people with plastic smiles. The officials at the airport were assholes, they treated the black and Asian foreigners like dirt. The people who weren't being assholes were all astonished to hear my British accent, they loved how quaint and foreign it sounded, "just like Monty Python" and "just like the Beatles" apparently (I sound nothing like either).
* NYC (2008) is fantasic. The people were friendly, they didn't patronise you. The police were friendly and helpful. The people at the Airport were great - nicer than they are in London Heathrow. That was the biggest surprise of all, and says the most about New York.
I totally agree with your sentiment and let me play something out on the flip-side that I noticed about British life...
British people are brought up in a society that teaches them average is always OK and that life has dealt it's cards, so just deal with it. I know this is a sweeping generalization, and isn't how everyone in Great Britain operates, but this has been my general understanding of the motivation culture in this fine country. I've had this discussion with many people, either foreign or not, and they tend to believe this is a result of being in a class-system for hundreds of years.
You see, America was built and is comprised largely of the most motivated people on the planet. They (we) came to find the country because they wanted something better. Does the American Dream still exist? Of course it does, because it's an idea and will only die if we tell the idea to die. America is NOT for everyone. As you've outlined, not EVERYONE wants to live like that. I enjoy the same comforts as you, but I believe if I have the same superior means and the intelligence a you, I can earn vastly more money in the US and live vastly more comfortable. Does that mean I necessarily want that life? Not really, it's just that America provides and culturally accepts that plausibility of it, regardless of whether it's truly a reality.
This is probably going to be a radical statement - but I really wish the poor people of America had the ability to leave the country. They are really the only ones who complain about America not being suitable and backwards. If you're rich in America, there's little to complain about and life is good. What this would do is force the rich to provide better support to the poor, because without the poor the rich won't exist and we'd have a much bigger middle class (which is something that has made America so strong).
That's a good observation about the British. They're also really pessimistic (Americans are broadly positive). And, unfortunately, they're very small minded (polar opposite of Americans). That's the result of being a fallen Empire, I guess.
I like the Dutch: they're stubborn and everyone has an opinion on everything BUT they respect that. Heck, it's expected. That's something they have in common with Americans (very direct and opinionated). They have a similar background (America was colonized by various Christian sects, The Netherlands was the central hub of lots of sects because it was the only place they managed to live together without killing each other). Yet they're pragmatic, and largely class-less. Same as the Scandinavians. They also share the same 19th century ideas over work as the Yanks (>40h weeks, retire at 67), only they have holidays. Protestant work ethic at work.
BTW, I would recommend spending some time living in a foreign country - as a native (INTEGRATING, not moving to Spain to live with a load of rich British ex-pats) to anyone reading. It really opens your mind, and changes the way you think about yourself (and the world as a whole). Even better if you can combine it with learning another language.
On work hours, the Scandinavians do still have the Protestant work ethic culturally, but have been trying to cut back on number of hours, out of a theory (probably correct imo) that in a modern information economy it's more about quality of work than quantity of hours in chair. The current Danish workweek is 37 hours, and followed quite religiously. Everyone is on time and works efficiently during the day (no 2-hour lunches), but few people can be found in the office past 3pm on a Friday.
Scandinavia is also an interesting option on the last point if you aren't up to the language-learning, though there are pros/cons. It's actually harder to integrate language-wise than most other places, because the languages are phonologically difficult for Americans (especially Danish), and people all speak good English so their patience for your broken language is low as they can just switch. So you'll probably learn more Spanish in Spain or Italian in Italy than Danish in Denmark. But because of the good English, it's quite possible to at least partly integrate culturally if you find the right social circles. (It also makes it easy to deal with formalities, since much government and bank correspondence can be done in English if you request it.)
It is true that quality is more important than quantity. But somehow in many cases people do use that as an excuse to slack off, and on the contrary, people delivering the best quality also those that do not skimp on quantity. If somebody knows how to do his thing in an excellent way, he'd probably also stay after 3pm on Friday to finish his thing. If his mind turns off at 3pm, then maybe he wasn't turned on too much even at 2pm. At least where it concerns professions which require personal engagement, if you just dig holes 9 to 5 (to 3 on Friday) then it's different of course.
I guess I don't think that's true. Imo, the best quality comes from companies with happy employees who have good work/life balances, not from the kind of places that expect employees to be chained to the boss.
You talk about coercion. I am talking about pride in one's work and not switching one's passions off when the clock hits 3pm. That doesn't prevent one from being happy and having good work/life balance, you know. I'm not saying it'd happen in 100% of cases. Nothing guarantees 100% happiness. I'm just saying if one's happiness lies in clocking off at 3pm and forgetting about everything till 9am on Monday I'm not sure if this person is a happy employee or just happy he's getting the money while spending as little time and effort as he can on the job.
Could you explain this statement? If you mean to imply that the rich somehow exploit the poor, the reality is exactly the other way around - the poor and middle class exploit the rich.
To quote Paul Krugman on the topic (he was discussing the 1980's, but none of the facts he relies on have changed significantly since then).
"...growth in inequality is not a simple picture. Old-line leftists, if there are any left, would like to make it a single story--the rich becoming richer by exploiting the poor. But that's just not a reasonable picture of America in the 1980s. For one thing, most of our very poor don't work, which makes it hard to exploit them. For another, the poor had so little to start with that the dollar value of the gains of the rich dwarfs that of the losses of the poor..."
The Age of Diminished Expectations, 1990, p. 22.
Also, the US has more progressive taxation than the rest of the OECD.
What? The last census (2001, since 2011 results are pending) put Christianity at 72% and "no religion" at 15%. Surveys in 2011 by other groups put Christianity consistently above 60%. Considering the UK has an official state religion, a monarchy and unelected bishops in political office.. I can't see how anyone can claim the UK is "atheist".
As a Frenchman, I also can't see how you can call the UK "atheist" :p
BUT, I do think the number of religious extremists is lower. (I haven't lived in the UK though).
It's like when I hear people here (I live in the Netherlands) that they are not a religious country. The fact that they have several political parties with Christian root (and still being actively referring to them) among other things tell me otherwise ...
I agree with most of your points, but as a German, my perspective is a bit different (and that is really 50 miles to the East of you). For all the things that are objectively better here in Europe, I always felt a bit like I was born in the wrong country, like the US is where I really belong. Of course, me being a scientifically-minded atheist, the idea of really fitting in there is probably absurd in practice, but still the general feeling remains.
Probably it's all more related to the idea of America as a country of free and innovative thinkers. Compared to Germany, where the definition of progress is a carefully hedged illusion of marginal improvement based on immovable foundations, the US still seems like a country where big ideas can be generated and accepted into society. When I'm over there, I also generally get the feeling people tend to be a bit more friendly and cooperative in the Staates.
"My health insurance costs $150/month, and isn't connected to my employer."
If I could change one thing about the US, this would be high on the list. In order to have meaningful access to quality health care, you must have insurance, and for most people the only way to get good insurance is through your job. If you have a job.
Don't lose your job, because if you get sick society is quite happy for you to dry up and rot.
I've told people to leave the US before on HN, and got downvoted, so I won't.
America's #1 problem is that solutions that work are often fairly labelled socialist, because they are, and thus they immediately lose all popular support, because for some reason, you are all mentally still fighting the cold war?! (So are the Russians, but that's beside the point.)
"Socialism" needs to stop being pejorative. You're trapped by political language as much as insularity and self-regard.
The word "freedom" appeared in this piece exactly 0 times. Ditto for "liberty." A society cannot be both free and equal. Amidst America's large geographic size, high population, and many different cultures, there are two warring factions that will ultimately split the country in two.
There are those that espouse the views of the author, where privileges are derived from a central government composed of only the most intelligent and gifted members of society. The means of production are centrally controlled and wealth is distributed by whatever means dictated by the core elite.
And then there are those that want to live free. Those that believe that rights come from nature and from god, and that government cannot create rights, only take them away.
These two ideas cannot coexist in one nation. America has survived with both so far because of our size. But soon the division will be too great and we will hopefully go our separate ways. We tried once before.
I've spent most of my adult life outside of the US, after having spent my childhood and university in Florida. Now, when I travel in the States, I see a _lot_ of good everywhere I go, but it's undeniable that other countries are doing certain things better (I'd argue that nobody has it all together, though Singapore comes mighty close in my book).
This is actually a great thing for the US in many ways -- we've spent almost a century in the lead, having to figure out what works through trial and error. Now the entire world is participating in this trial and error, and we are (in theory, if we're willing to be a bit humble and admit we don't know it all) able to benefit from the discoveries made without paying for the trials.
There will probably never be a repeat of the 1950s, where the United States dominated the world in almost every category, but ... who cares? The 1950s sucked in a lot of ways for a lot of people, most Americans included. That doesn't mean we can't maintain parity, and exceed in certain areas in which we've made priorities.
reply