Neither of these is a binary category; countries can be richer than other countries but have a weaker social support system (the US, compared to many other developed countries, is a good example -- it also, has a higher natural population growth rate than many of those poorer-but-with-stronger-social-support countries.)
I am not sure it is so easy to make direct comparisons to other countries. What country that has a similar population, economy, etc. are you referring to where increased social programs result in a net-better environment? Even more locally, is there an example of a state within the US where there are indicators of success in this regard?
I will say I have not studied this deeply, but I've also given it much more than just casual thought, so I am genuinely curious to know what your sample examples of successful countries are.
Which countries are you referring to? Of the 11 countries with GDP per capita no more than 10% below the US's, I see only 1 (Qatar) with social stratification worse than the US. Of the 26 countries with GDP per capita no more than 50% below the US's, I see only ~three (Qatar, UAE, arguably Singapore) with worse social stratification than the US.
So, your argument is basically, "Yay, we're better than two theocratic monarchies whose prosperity is based solely on oil wealth and importing a bunch of virtual slaves from poor countries, maybe better than one technocratic dictatorship, better than a bunch of undeveloped third world countries, but worse than every other single Western democracy. Go us!"
The U.S. is one of the most developed countries in the world, by any reasonable metric.
It's true that it's not doing the best in the world, or that it has no problems -- especially when you compare it to a narrowly cherry-picked set of countries in Western and Northern Europe[1], or island/pseudo-island megalopolises in East Asia like Japan and South Korea. But its massive GDP per capita lines up well with other measures of development, like its HDI.
[1]: As an aside, it's probably more fair to compare Europe as a whole to the US as a whole, and places like Norway and England to places like California and Washington.
Keep in mind that for a lot of quality indicators that impact daily life of the average person on the street, The United States is much more comparable to Developing countries than to Developed countries.
Indicators like murder rates, suicide rates, incarceration rates, unemployment, health, education, etc. etc.
The US is definitely doing better than most developing worlds. Except of course for minor things like lifespan, health, crime etc. However doing better than developing worlds is quite a low bar.
I strongly disagree with the statement, United States, although behind a lot of countries in social mobility index, still ranks pretty high in the world. It also leads with 8.8% of the adult population being millionaires, only behind Switzerland and Australia. That speaks volumes on how many opportunities exist in this country to make yourself better.
I'm not saying every case... but the difference between the United States -- the most advanced, richest country in the world -- as compared to say Denmark, Switzerland, Hong Kong, Ireland etc. ...
Yes, European Countries, except some ex-soviet countries are better than Usa (excluded California or New York probably) on social matters aside maybe personal opportunities due to a Left-Conservatory enviroments
That’s wonderful for Albania et al, more prosperity is always a good thing. My point is just that people should compare apples to apples, especially with US vs Europe, or US vs city states/tiny countries like New Zealand
It's also that the U.S. is a developed country. Most countries are either developed or have good geography, demography and access to natural resources. U.S. has all or it.
reply