work/life balance and security in Europe and US

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Arkitech
ok, before I can even attempt to reason with you we need to address your problems. From the many comments you've made in this thread, you clearly believe that it's unacceptable for people to need help from others for any reason what so ever. Lets just say that the above comments you made to my examples were 100% valid, you still have'nt accounted for the fact that people are'nt perfect. In a perfect world with perfect people we would be able to make decisions now that would work out perfectly for us 15-20 years down the line. But the reality is that even smart, educated people can make poor choices. Even talented, hardworking individuals can find themselves in bad situations that they did'nt create and can't control.

Its so easy to pick someone else's life apart and point out what they should or should'nt have done, but I guarantee that even you will one day find yourself in a predicament where you'll need someone's assistance. That assistance may not be monetary but you'll still need to suck up someone else's resources whether its time or some other form of commodity due to your ignorance or negligence. If you're as smart as you think you are you'll log off the computer tonight and examine your personal motivations and feelings towards other people. Wealth and power are not valid qualities of a great man, understanding and compassion are.

I've already been there. Twice. It sucked and I didn't look to others for help, I searched within. I don't ever want to go through that again.

That's where my perspective is coming from. When you fail, you learn. I learned and will never make those mistakes again. I will never be underinsured and I will never stop reaching for the stars or become complacent. Biggest thing I learned is we are all consequences of our decisions and choices. In america you are completely free to make those choices as well as you are completely free to make dumb ones.

a good bit of that is true. problem is, not everyone has access to the same choices that everyone else does. If you started in a life of priveledge, you may never be able to understand that. ...if you can't accept that reality, then that's on you. deny it all you want, it still won't change the fact that opportunity is not as universal in this country as we are raised to believe.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: jackace

I totally agree with you, but if everyone struck out on their own who would everyone hire to work for them????

Everyone knows owning your own business and profiting from your employees and other assets (yes employees are assets) is the quickest way to getting rich. But, some people either cannot start a business themselves for w/e reason, their business failed and need to pay bills,
or choose not to start their own business. Those people that work for other people should not be forced to work for a wage that is below the poverty line. By working for someone else most American's know they are not going to get rich, but should that force ~20% of them to live a life of poverty? I believe we are better then that in this country and we should do something about it. Healthcare changes are the least we can do.

about 12-13% of people in the US live in poverty. that number is down greatly from the late 50s but has been relatively constant since the late 60s.

of that, a disproportionately large % are recent immigrants (a class of people who generally rise in society rather quickly). and i'm sure an even more disproportionately large % are illegal immigrants.

we've spent 11 trillion dollars on the war on poverty over the last 40 years. and i'm not all that certain that this 'war' will ever be won, for definitional reasons.

i'm sure that when they first made up the definition in 1964 that poverty actually meant what people think it does (it was supposed to be an income where 1/3 of your income would be required for the cheapest nutritionally adequate diet). of course, the way this original definition was arrived at may be suspect as well.

since then they've increased the income level for 'poverty' by the gov't inflation rate (which tends to overstate inflation, imho, by using a constant goods basket rather than looking at buying patterns, and also it does not take into account quality improvements).

but that isn't the worst problem with the definition. the biggest is that they're measuring the wrong thing. 'poverty' is defined using income. but poverty is actually consumption (or lack thereof). the bottom fifth of income earners spend well over 200% of income.

the definition has gotten so out of whack that, as of 2003:
nearly half of poverty households own their own home;
three quarters have air conditioning (almost no one had air conditioning in 1964, i'll bet)
the average american poor person has more living space than the average parisian (not the average parisian poor, the average parisian)
half have more than one TV
3/4 have cable




as for forced to work for poverty wages, for 2001 (the latest year for which data is available) poverty wage for a 2000 hour a year laborer was lower than minimum wage.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: jackace

I totally agree with you, but if everyone struck out on their own who would everyone hire to work for them????

Everyone knows owning your own business and profiting from your employees and other assets (yes employees are assets) is the quickest way to getting rich. But, some people either cannot start a business themselves for w/e reason, their business failed and need to pay bills,
or choose not to start their own business. Those people that work for other people should not be forced to work for a wage that is below the poverty line. By working for someone else most American's know they are not going to get rich, but should that force ~20% of them to live a life of poverty? I believe we are better then that in this country and we should do something about it. Healthcare changes are the least we can do.

about 12-13% of people in the US live in poverty. that number is down greatly from the late 50s but has been relatively constant since the late 60s.

of that, a disproportionately large % are recent immigrants (a class of people who generally rise in society rather quickly). and i'm sure an even more disproportionately large % are illegal immigrants.

we've spent 11 trillion dollars on the war on poverty over the last 40 years. and i'm not all that certain that this 'war' will ever be won, for definitional reasons.

i'm sure that when they first made up the definition in 1964 that poverty actually meant what people think it does (it was supposed to be an income where 1/3 of your income would be required for the cheapest nutritionally adequate diet). of course, the way this original definition was arrived at may be suspect as well.

since then they've increased the income level for 'poverty' by the gov't inflation rate (which tends to overstate inflation, imho, by using a constant goods basket rather than looking at buying patterns, and also it does not take into account quality improvements).

but that isn't the worst problem with the definition. the biggest is that they're measuring the wrong thing. 'poverty' is defined using income. but poverty is actually consumption (or lack thereof). the bottom fifth of income earners spend well over 200% of income.

the definition has gotten so out of whack that, as of 2003:
nearly half of poverty households own their own home;
three quarters have air conditioning (almost no one had air conditioning in 1964, i'll bet)
the average american poor person has more living space than the average parisian (not the average parisian poor, the average parisian)
half have more than one TV
3/4 have cable




as for forced to work for poverty wages, for 2001 (the latest year for which data is available) poverty wage for a 2000 hour a year laborer was lower than minimum wage.

You hit the nail on the head. In summary, poverty is a definition derived based upon the average. When I was in the Caribbean we left the resort to go play golf one day. I saw people coming out of the ground and had to assume that the little shanties covering them were their homes. I seriously doubt they had cable.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Lets not forget that Europe creates all these social programs at the expense of their own security, well not really because the U.S. provides them their security. Without a U.S. deterrent, Russia could steamroll through Europe, just as they would have 50yrs ago if we werent standing guard over your continent. If the U.S. decided to pack up and go home, you would be completely at the whim of your eastern neighbors, because living under the skirt of the U.S. for so long has made you impotent to external threats. You think you are better than us because you can sit back and enjoy the benefits of having another country at your becking call to look after you. We cant afford these grand social programs, because we are busy trying to keep order in a world European colonial powers royally fucked up. Europe hates us because they need us.

Has it occurred to you that maybe we should worry about our citizens instead of subsidizing the rest of the world's defense, drug research, manufacturing, etc. Have you asked your average American if they would rather their money be spent defending French from the Russians or taking care of Americans' needs? Other countries take care of their people first and foremost. We ignore our own problems and take care of other countries' problems, real or imagined.

Yes, as a matter of fact I just asked myself that after reading this thread.

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Sry, didn't realize we were citing. Here you go:

You are correct that my poverty levels are not official...then again, show me a family of 4 living in acceptable conditions earning 25k. What the government names 'official' doesn't necessarily make it logical or reasonable. But I'll let that go.

Here's the raw data (males only, but females are worse so let's keep it simple for now). Let's crunch the numbers. 111,686 total. Under 17,500 a year is 30963, which is 27.7%. So I'm correct. Under 25k is 43365, which is 38.8%. So I'm off on that one a few percentage points, not sure where I screwed up my initial calculation on it. Roughly 73k are below $50,000 so my 70% claim is pretty much accurate. Now, if you look at women you'll find the earnings much lower, so it will only increase the validity of my claims.

Bottom line: VERY FEW PEOPLE IN AMERICA MAKE ANY MONEY.

edit: if you want an easy overview based on government data check this wiki out.

Thank you for the links, the first one that breaks down by numbers to income brackets is what I was looking for. But I still have questions on what exactly I am looking at. This right here throws up a red flag to me: "People 15 years and over as of March of the following year. Means are based on total population instead of population with income"

So this could be including a pile of teenagers and college students working for gas and beer money as well as retired people that may or may not work for something to do? Plus the statement about means being compared to all the population vs. just wage earners really concerns me. So if I have 3 people making $25,000 a year, and one person makes 0, instead of it being an average of $25k/year it's actually $18.75? Is that how I should interpret that?

I'm not trying to dodge the topic or ignore your points, I'm simply just trying to get an objective and accurate representation of how actual incomes are measured.

I absolutely agree that there are some people that are completely crapped on in this country. But I think that the majority of people have the choice and freedom to help themselves. You say that over 70% make less than 50k. That's not a bad wage at all in many parts of the country. Even $35k outside of major metro areas is a very liveable wage. You're not going to own a Lexus and 4000 sq/ft McMansion with granite counter tops at that income, but you certainly can have a dependable vehicle and a home that isn't in complete shambles. And if you have a dual income household your standard of living just went up even higher without incuring any major additional costs(not counting possible childcare during pre-schooling years).

If there is any perspecitive that needs to be made, it's that you just can't toss a number out like $50k and say "we're a poor nation because a lot people make less than that". That's simply not the truth. The truth is there are thousands upon thousands of reasonably priced homes and open job positions around those homes that can support a reasonable living. It's just a lot of people don't want to live there or do that job. It's not the economy's fault that people don't want that. It's just that we want nicer homes and more desireable climates/cities.

The other fallacy is that statistics are a snapshot. They don't account for advancement during ones life.

When my parents were in their early 20's they were on public welfare. We had condensed milk and other food items from the government. I had meal tickets for lunches at school. But they didn't stay there. They were above he household average income by the time they were in their early 30's.

My wife never earned above poverty level until she was 25. At the age of 27 she is in the top 5% of income earners.

Myself - when I was 22 I made 32k a year. At 27 I was making almost 50% more.

Very few people start out at their income ceiling. It's something you work up towards. The statisitics don't have an asteric that say "first job" or "ages 18-24". They simply say "this number of people made this much this year".

I don't question the numbers, I question what they represent.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Lets not forget that Europe creates all these social programs at the expense of their own security, well not really because the U.S. provides them their security. Without a U.S. deterrent, Russia could steamroll through Europe, just as they would have 50yrs ago if we werent standing guard over your continent. If the U.S. decided to pack up and go home, you would be completely at the whim of your eastern neighbors, because living under the skirt of the U.S. for so long has made you impotent to external threats. You think you are better than us because you can sit back and enjoy the benefits of having another country at your becking call to look after you. We cant afford these grand social programs, because we are busy trying to keep order in a world European colonial powers royally fucked up. Europe hates us because they need us.

Has it occurred to you that maybe we should worry about our citizens instead of subsidizing the rest of the world's defense, drug research, manufacturing, etc. Have you asked your average American if they would rather their money be spent defending French from the Russians or taking care of Americans' needs? Other countries take care of their people first and foremost. We ignore our own problems and take care of other countries' problems, real or imagined.

are you aware that foreign aid represents 1% of our federal budget?

Thats just direct payments. It's probably a bit more when you factor in how much of that aid is wrapped up in our general defense budget.

 

[OVerLoRDI]

Yeah Europe rocks!!! Just ignore the unemployment in countries like Germany 7.1%, France 8.7%, and Italy 7%. Granted these are better numbers than a few years ago where France and Germany were over the 10% mark. The problem is with all these perks that you enjoy is the incredible cost your employee must swallow to hire people. When the costs for having employees are too high then businesses will look elsewhere for employees which in the long run results in less and less available jobs.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: jackace

I totally agree with you, but if everyone struck out on their own who would everyone hire to work for them????

Everyone knows owning your own business and profiting from your employees and other assets (yes employees are assets) is the quickest way to getting rich. But, some people either cannot start a business themselves for w/e reason, their business failed and need to pay bills,
or choose not to start their own business. Those people that work for other people should not be forced to work for a wage that is below the poverty line. By working for someone else most American's know they are not going to get rich, but should that force ~20% of them to live a life of poverty? I believe we are better then that in this country and we should do something about it. Healthcare changes are the least we can do.

about 12-13% of people in the US live in poverty. that number is down greatly from the late 50s but has been relatively constant since the late 60s.

of that, a disproportionately large % are recent immigrants (a class of people who generally rise in society rather quickly). and i'm sure an even more disproportionately large % are illegal immigrants.

we've spent 11 trillion dollars on the war on poverty over the last 40 years. and i'm not all that certain that this 'war' will ever be won, for definitional reasons.

i'm sure that when they first made up the definition in 1964 that poverty actually meant what people think it does (it was supposed to be an income where 1/3 of your income would be required for the cheapest nutritionally adequate diet). of course, the way this original definition was arrived at may be suspect as well.

since then they've increased the income level for 'poverty' by the gov't inflation rate (which tends to overstate inflation, imho, by using a constant goods basket rather than looking at buying patterns, and also it does not take into account quality improvements).

but that isn't the worst problem with the definition. the biggest is that they're measuring the wrong thing. 'poverty' is defined using income. but poverty is actually consumption (or lack thereof). the bottom fifth of income earners spend well over 200% of income.

the definition has gotten so out of whack that, as of 2003:
nearly half of poverty households own their own home;
three quarters have air conditioning (almost no one had air conditioning in 1964, i'll bet)
the average american poor person has more living space than the average parisian (not the average parisian poor, the average parisian)
half have more than one TV
3/4 have cable




as for forced to work for poverty wages, for 2001 (the latest year for which data is available) poverty wage for a 2000 hour a year laborer was lower than minimum wage.

I've always thought this statistic pretty much explains why this numebr lives in poverty. Living beyond their means now, rather than working their way to afford those means later.
...seems like an entirely different problem altogether. Tied into Anerican cultural values of success, and what is necessary for a good life. kind of ass-baskwards imo, but whatever...

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Lets not forget that Europe creates all these social programs at the expense of their own security, well not really because the U.S. provides them their security. Without a U.S. deterrent, Russia could steamroll through Europe, just as they would have 50yrs ago if we werent standing guard over your continent. If the U.S. decided to pack up and go home, you would be completely at the whim of your eastern neighbors, because living under the skirt of the U.S. for so long has made you impotent to external threats. You think you are better than us because you can sit back and enjoy the benefits of having another country at your becking call to look after you. We cant afford these grand social programs, because we are busy trying to keep order in a world European colonial powers royally fucked up. Europe hates us because they need us.

Has it occurred to you that maybe we should worry about our citizens instead of subsidizing the rest of the world's defense, drug research, manufacturing, etc. Have you asked your average American if they would rather their money be spent defending French from the Russians or taking care of Americans' needs? Other countries take care of their people first and foremost. We ignore our own problems and take care of other countries' problems, real or imagined.

are you aware that foreign aid represents 1% of our federal budget?

Thats just direct payments. It's probably a bit more when you factor in how much of that aid is wrapped up in our general defense budget.

by looking out for the world, we're looking out for ourselves. We all share this planet, you know...

EDIT: meaning, I wouldn't claim that part of those expense are "tied up" in defense. We spend that money on defense because it protects our own interests by protecting others,. therefore, it shouldn't be considered foreign aide. that revenue comes back in trade and other benefits.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: vi_edit

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Sry, didn't realize we were citing. Here you go:

You are correct that my poverty levels are not official...then again, show me a family of 4 living in acceptable conditions earning 25k. What the government names 'official' doesn't necessarily make it logical or reasonable. But I'll let that go.

Here's the raw data (males only, but females are worse so let's keep it simple for now). Let's crunch the numbers. 111,686 total. Under 17,500 a year is 30963, which is 27.7%. So I'm correct. Under 25k is 43365, which is 38.8%. So I'm off on that one a few percentage points, not sure where I screwed up my initial calculation on it. Roughly 73k are below $50,000 so my 70% claim is pretty much accurate. Now, if you look at women you'll find the earnings much lower, so it will only increase the validity of my claims.

Bottom line: VERY FEW PEOPLE IN AMERICA MAKE ANY MONEY.

edit: if you want an easy overview based on government data check this wiki out.

Thank you for the links, the first one that breaks down by numbers to income brackets is what I was looking for. But I still have questions on what exactly I am looking at. This right here throws up a red flag to me: "People 15 years and over as of March of the following year. Means are based on total population instead of population with income"

So this could be including a pile of teenagers and college students working for gas and beer money as well as retired people that may or may not work for something to do? Plus the statement about means being compared to all the population vs. just wage earners really concerns me. So if I have 3 people making $25,000 a year, and one person makes 0, instead of it being an average of $25k/year it's actually $18.75? Is that how I should interpret that?

I'm not trying to dodge the topic or ignore your points, I'm simply just trying to get an objective and accurate representation of how actual incomes are measured.

I absolutely agree that there are some people that are completely crapped on in this country. But I think that the majority of people have the choice and freedom to help themselves. You say that over 70% make less than 50k. That's not a bad wage at all in many parts of the country. Even $35k outside of major metro areas is a very liveable wage. You're not going to own a Lexus and 4000 sq/ft McMansion with granite counter tops at that income, but you certainly can have a dependable vehicle and a home that isn't in complete shambles. And if you have a dual income household your standard of living just went up even higher without incuring any major additional costs(not counting possible childcare during pre-schooling years).

If there is any perspecitive that needs to be made, it's that you just can't toss a number out like $50k and say "we're a poor nation because a lot people make less than that". That's simply not the truth. The truth is there are thousands upon thousands of reasonably priced homes and open job positions around those homes that can support a reasonable living. It's just a lot of people don't want to live there or do that job. It's not the economy's fault that people don't want that. It's just that we want nicer homes and more desireable climates/cities.

The other fallacy is that statistics are a snapshot. They don't account for advancement during ones life.

When my parents were in their early 20's they were on public welfare. We had condensed milk and other food items from the government. I had meal tickets for lunches at school. But they didn't stay there. They were above he household average income by the time they were in their early 30's.

My wife never earned above poverty level until she was 25. At the age of 27 she is in the top 5% of income earners.

Myself - when I was 22 I made 32k a year. At 27 I was making almost 50% more.

Very few people start out at their income ceiling. It's something you work up towards. The statisitics don't have an asteric that say "first job" or "ages 18-24". They simply say "this number of people made this much this year".

I don't question the numbers, I question what they represent.

I absolutely agree that we have a good quality of life if we choose to, even at lower incomes. I've never made more than 30k in a year but I live just fine. The point, however was to dissuade people of this idiotic notion that everyone makes (or can make) 70k a year or more. It's simply not true. Furthermore, because of our capitalist driven society and lack of socialized options (not that I'm saying they're good things) we have a lower quality of life at a given income level than a European counterpart at equivalent wage. Yes, they often pay more in taxes, but in my studies I've found it to come out in their favor when dealing with incomes under middle-class equivalent.

It doesn't matter if they're teenagers working for cash and beer, or teens supporting their sick parents, or adults supporting their children, or adults supporting their WoW and pot habit...it all figures in exactly the same and it should. It also should (and does) include non-wage earners because they have to be supported somehow which means either government support, or support from other wage earners (thus representing a drain on available finances).

Snapshots are irrelevant because the snapshot includes people at all the stages. Sure the low incomes are often people just starting out, but the high incomes are usually people who've climbed the ladder. It's self correcting in that way.

Again, I'm not arguing that at 40k a year we should feel sorry for someones living conditions...I was merely pointing out that with such a huge number of people at the lower end of the spectrum and less socialized options for support we do not have the same conditions here as we would have in most European nations.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

I've always thought this statistic pretty much explains why this numebr lives in poverty. Living beyond their means now, rather than working their way to afford those means later.
...seems like an entirely different problem altogether. Tied into Anerican cultural values of success, and what is necessary for a good life. kind of ass-baskwards imo, but whatever...

well part of it is people having a down year in income are counted as 'living in poverty.' but they're hardly living beyond their means if they've got a good nest-egg built up. heck, if i owned an incorporated small business, the company would own damn near everything: company car, company housing, company appliances, etc. i'd be 'impoverished' and driving a luxury car with good health insurance.

the biggest indicator of living in real poverty, however, is the lack of a father at home.

there are people living in actual real poverty. i won't dispute that. our poverty statistic, however, does not represent that.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: zinfamous

I've always thought this statistic pretty much explains why this numebr lives in poverty. Living beyond their means now, rather than working their way to afford those means later.
...seems like an entirely different problem altogether. Tied into Anerican cultural values of success, and what is necessary for a good life. kind of ass-baskwards imo, but whatever...

well part of it is people having a down year in income are counted as 'living in poverty.' but they're hardly living beyond their means if they've got a good nest-egg built up. heck, if i owned an incorporated small business, the company would own damn near everything: company car, company housing, company appliances, etc. i'd be 'impoverished' and driving a luxury car with good health insurance.

the biggest indicator of living in real poverty, however, is the lack of a father at home.

there are people living in actual real poverty. i won't dispute that. our poverty statistic, however, does not represent that.

true dat

 

[jackace]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18868904/

"A generation ago, American men in their thirties had median annual incomes of about $40,000 compared with men of the same age who now make about $35,000 a year, adjusted for inflation. That?s a 12.5 percent drop between 1974 and 2004, according to the report from the Pew Charitable Trusts? Economic Mobility Project."

So in 30 years the median male worker has actually lost 12.5% of his actual earning power. Not a good sign IMHO.