New research suggests that the American dream isn’t alive in Scandinavia

[Elegiac]

Everyone has their own standards of good quality of life. Someone can say, "I can't afford a personal helicopter?! Something is wrong with this country!"

If this is the basis of your argument, that really speaks to how weak it is.

Oh, great. And those statistical realities show that 95% adults have jobs, that median household income in the US is over $50k, that about 0% of citizens die of starvation... So, again, where do you folks get the idea that people are "forced" to stay in their parents' homes, instead of moving out?

Personally I don't care if they do or don't, I hold the extended family model to be vastly superior than this 'one mum, one dad' bullshit conservative whites have been pushing for nigh on a century.

None of your data shows that people aren't having difficulty moving out, because fun fact; they are.

- - - Updated - - -

I would argue that is the way it should be, the governments job should be facilitation towards national interests rather than direct responsibility.

This has never worked as a political model.

A common doomsayer line used decade after decade. Yet in never pans out, infrastructure constantly gets rebuilt. Poor people dont starve, their QoL goes up over the long-term.

The infrastructure in the US is rarnked one of the worst of the developed countries, and the current estimates for bringing it up to code runs in the realm of four million let along expanding it to meet increasing demand. So yeah, 'falling apart' is an apt description.

'At least no one starved'; thank you, Herbert Hoover. That doesn't make their lives less unacceptably difficult.

[May90]

If this is the basis of your argument, that really speaks to how weak it is.

It does not. I am more than happy with the quality of life I can get on the minimum salary, you think it is atrocious. Since there is no "objectively sufficient" quality of life, since all people have their own standards - this is not something that can be reasonably debated.

The best you can do is compare the US stats to similar stats of other countries. And you will see, that, despite all the doomsaying, the US is actually doing very well, among the leading countries on this planet.

Personally I don't care if they do or don't, I hold the extended family model to be vastly superior than this 'one mum, one dad' bullshit conservative whites have been pushing for nigh on a century.

None of your data shows that people aren't having difficulty moving out, because fun fact; they are.

I've just explained to you that the minimum salary is more than enough to move out; you countered it by saying that it is not worth it, because you wouldn't like the location. So, what do you want to be possible, for anyone to at any moment move to a paradise on Earth and instantly get a royal quality of life?

- - - Updated - - -

The infrastructure in the US is rarnked one of the worst of the developed countries

http://www.statista.com/statistics/2...nfrastructure/

[Elegiac]

It does not. I am more than happy with the quality of life I can get on the minimum salary, you think it is atrocious. Since there is no "objectively sufficient" quality of life, since all people have their own standards - this is not something that can be reasonably debated.

Once again, I'm not inclined to respect your opinion since it seems to be based on the idea that spending less than $100 a week on food is remotely viable let alone healthy.

I've just explained to you that the minimum salary is more than enough to move out; you countered it by saying that it is not worth it, because you wouldn't like the location. So, what do you want to be possible, for anyone to at any moment move to a paradise on Earth and instantly get a royal quality of life?

People being able to enjoy a good quality of life without being sentenced to live in the sticks.

[Masark]

Once again, I'm not inclined to respect your opinion since it seems to be based on the idea that spending less than $100 a week on food is remotely viable let alone healthy.

And speaking of health, their quality of life probably involves skating along with no health insurance and hoping that nothing happens.

[PC2]

'At least no one starved'; thank you, Herbert Hoover. That doesn't make their lives less unacceptably difficult.

They have to accept the reality that resource scarcity is a problem and that it takes innovation to reduce it. Over 20 billion people in history have had ultra shitty lives, the current poor people arent special and above them in worth, and the majority have it way better than their ancestors anyways.

[May90]

Once again, I'm not inclined to respect your opinion since it seems to be based on the idea that spending less than $100 a week on food is remotely viable let alone healthy.

*sigh* That was expected...

People being able to enjoy a good quality of life without being sentenced to live in the sticks.

No one is sentenced to live in the sticks.

[Elegiac]

They have to accept the reality of resource scarcity is a problem

Which is entirely irrelevant to the issues of income inequality, wage suppression, and service costs.

Over 20 billion people in history have had ultra shitty lives, the current poor people arent special and above them, and the majority have it way better than their ancestors.

So? Relative poverty is still poverty.

[May90]

And speaking of health, their quality of life probably involves skating along with no health insurance and hoping that nothing happens.

I can't lawfully remain in the US without having an active health insurance. Nice try though!

[Elegiac]

*sigh* That was expected...

Don't make such a patently ridiculous assertion then.

No one is sentenced to live in the sticks.

Except the people living there.

- - - Updated - - -

I can't lawfully remain in the US without having an active health insurance. Nice try though!

Obamacare's non-employer provided option is so garbage as to be indistinct from being uninsured.

[May90]

Except the people living there.

Someone shoots those who are trying to escape this terrible place? Sad times...

Obamacare's non-employer provided option is so garbage as to be indistinct from being uninsured.

I have an employer-provided insurance.

[Spectral]

People being able to enjoy a good quality of life without being sentenced to live in the sticks.

Living in a major city and dining out regularly aren't exactly fundamental human rights.

[PC2]

So? Relative poverty is still poverty.

No, poverty is the state of being poor. Once you hit a fixed inflation-adjusted threshold then you can never be impoverished.

[Elegiac]

Living in a major city and dining out regularly aren't exactly fundamental human rights.

'Services' meaning healthcare, education, transportation, et cetera.

But really, fuck rural living.

- - - Updated - - -

No, poverty is the state of being poor. Once you hit a fixed adjusted over-time threshold then you can never be impoverished.

'Poverty doesn't exist'. You heard it here first, folks.

[Spectral]

'Services' meaning healthcare, education, transportation, et cetera.

But really, fuck rural living.

People have access to these services in rural areas.

Hating rural areas is an aesthetic preference, not some objective reality about the world. Trying to end the reality that people live in rural areas isn't really a legitimate goal. It actually sounds pretty dystopian.

[Elegiac]

Someone shoots those who are trying to escape this terrible place? Sad times...

If their option for living alone is 'move to the sticks' exactly how are they going to afford leaving it? Especially considering opportunities for income advancement might as well be fuck all in such low population areas.

I have an employer-provided insurance.

Cool story. Not really relevant to what Masark or I were pointing out.

[May90]

'Services' meaning healthcare, education, transportation, et cetera.

But really, fuck rural living.

"Fuck living the way that doesn't match my greedy standards!"
"Haaaaalp, I don't have enough money!"

I don't even know how to criticize this kind of logic...

If their option for living alone is 'move to the sticks' exactly how are they going to afford leaving it? Especially considering opportunities for income advancement might as well be fuck all in such low population areas.

1. Earn a few thousands while living in your parents' house. You can do it while still studying at school.
2. Move to a new place. Rent an apartment.
3. Find a job at the new place.
4. Profit.

[Elegiac]

People have access to these services in rural areas.

To a far lesser degree, which sort of defeats the point of public services in the first place.

Hating rural areas is an aesthetic preference, not some objective reality about the world. Trying to end the reality that people live in rural areas isn't really a legitimate goal. It actually sounds pretty dystopian.

As is expecting people to move to them because 'lol, can't afford to move out in the city'.

[PC2]

'Poverty doesn't exist'. You heard it here first, folks.

I didn't say that. My point was that it is a state that can be overcome by having a minimum fixed amount of resources, human poverty doesn't exist on an infinite scale.

[Independent voter]

And speaking of health, their quality of life probably involves skating along with no health insurance and hoping that nothing happens.

In 2013, a typical Canadian family of four can expect to pay $11,320 for public health care insurance. For the average family of two parents with one child that bill will be $10,989, and for the average family of two adults (without children) the bill comes to $11,381.

I have health insurance through work, I pay about $45 a month for it, my employer covering the rest.

Even if I didn't have health care, $11,320 will cover a lot of doctor visits. You'd have to be pretty unlucky to benefit from insurance rates that high.

[Xeones]

It does not. I am more than happy with the quality of life I can get on the minimum salary, you think it is atrocious. Since there is no "objectively sufficient" quality of life, since all people have their own standards - this is not something that can be reasonably debated.

The best you can do is compare the US stats to similar stats of other countries. And you will see, that, despite all the doomsaying, the US is actually doing very well, among the leading countries on this planet.


I've just explained to you that the minimum salary is more than enough to move out; you countered it by saying that it is not worth it, because you wouldn't like the location. So, what do you want to be possible, for anyone to at any moment move to a paradise on Earth and instantly get a royal quality of life?

You haven't explained anything. You just made absurd claims like you could eat on $200 a month and that is just not happening period,

I could move out on near minimum wage, but I would have to work over 40 hours a week in order to break even and that would not leave me any cash for anything beyond survival. Why would I move out of my moms house in order to lose all enjoyment from my life?