Terrible place to be poor more like. Being poor is not enviable in any country, but you're better supported in some countries compared to others. Obviously this comes at a cost for the economy as a whole. At some point you need to think about what kind of society you want to live in.
I wouldn't necessarily make the assumption that welfare support "costs" the economy as a whole.
It's really expensive to support homeless population since they use up critical important resources such as emergency care, compared to just giving them a home. They may recover faster and become a productive member of society again.
For sure, it costs real dollars in a national budget, but it isn't necessarily a bad thing for the economy.
Nobody needs to work in USA either, but people do it anyway since the free stuff isn't comfortable enough. Its the same in Europe, people don't view the free stuff as good enough for them so they work to get more.
But then who's gonna be the delivery man who delivers your post/packages? Who's gonna be your teachers in school? Who's gonna be the baker making your food? Who's gonna be the builder and plumber building the shelter you live in? Who's gonna be the doctor healing you? If nobody needs to work.
They don't need to, they work anyway since we are still living in a capitalist nation where working pays off, that goes for both Europe and USA, you get supported by the state so you don't starve if you don't work but people still prefer working over not working thanks to the extra benefits you get.
Communist nations force people to work, there is no need for that in capitalist nations, people work for the extra rewards.
Yeah they do. I live in a socialist European country and if you refuse to work you'll end up on the streets and only live off charity of others or starve/freeze to death.
You won't get any state welfare if you're decaled medically fit to work and refuse to take work that get sent to you by the unemployment agency, like for example working in a warehouse or in an Amazon fulfilment center. Nobody would willfully take those shit jobs if they wouldn't have to work.
Yeah, there's some people who made a lifestyle out of gaming the system who choose not to work and still get welfare but that's a minority.
> You won't get any state welfare if you're decaled medically fit to work and refuse to take work that get sent to you by the unemployment agency
That depends on the country, but in the USA you get food stamps regardless of anything else so you wont starve. Then you can live on public lands in a tent or so, many do that in California.
> Virtually no one wants to live on the bare minimum
Many people prefer that to working.
The Seattle Times wrote an article decades ago where they interviewed a woman on welfare. They asked her what she'd do if her welfare was taken away. She replied "get a job".
They asked a couple of guys in a car with fishing equipment why they lived on welfare instead of getting a job. They replied that on welfare, they get to fish all day and enjoyed it.
I also knew a fellow for years who was on and off unemployment. He said he'd work at a job long enough to qualify for unemployment, then he'd f'up and get laid off. He'd then live off of unemployment, and would fail the requierd job interviews (amazing!). When that ran out, he'd have no trouble finding a job.
A friend of mine ran a nursery. He tried to hire a couple people who said they wanted the job, but would wait until their unemployment ran out before taking it. They were quite open about it.
Hence why I said "virtually", having a few anecdotes from interviews or from someone you knew doesn't cover it. Of course there will be people who choose to live on welfare, the vast majority would rather not. It's a small price to pay to have welfare programs saving countless lives from falling deeper into the hole of abject poverty... We just view this very differently, you prefer the "stick" approach, punish people who you deem unworthy because of their lack of motivation to work; while me on the other hand prefer the "carrot" where I think it's an okay price to pay to have some people choosing to not to work while society can protect people caught in bad times from falling away from the margins.
It's still absurd the straw man you created, please provide me data covering the whole population and we can discuss it, while it's based on these anecdotes you just being guided by your feelings and ideology.
Making people work is an assumption that work in itself is valuable, or at worse, mostly valuable. This isn't necessarily the case for jobs, and some jobs are probably actually detrimental to the well being of our society.
I honestly think this idea just needs to die. So many people I know don't even bothering applying for welfare because they think they won't get it.
In reality, most US states are insanely generous.
I recall once my mom had to help a friend's dad who was uninsured and dying of prostate cancer simply apply for benefits. He didn't think the state would pay for it and had just resigned himself to death. My goodness, how silly... Instead, he applied and it was paid for.
I myself have fallen into this trap. When I was laid off, I was going to pay COBRA, instead of just biting the bullet and applying for medicaid. There's almost always a free government provided option if you need it. Literally people don't even bother.
Housing and healthcare costs are insane. When you're older, you need a lot more healthcare (and you won't have that nice insurance plan you had at your big company job when you were working), and housing keeps getting more expensive, which is a problem if you're on a fixed income. You could move to much cheaper locales (i.e. rural areas), but those are "healthcare deserts" where there's no competent doctors left and hospitals are all closing left and right, plus when you're infirm how exactly do you drive yourself? Living in a walkable city (or any city really) is much more doable when you're older for these practical reasons (less need to drive, healthcare providers close by), but then you can't afford the housing there.
Well, in Germany health care is affordable in terms of cost.
However, while 20 years ago you just went to a doctor when you were sick, these days you will wait hours and hours even at your family physician's crowded waiting room.
You need a specialist?
6 months if it's something serious like a cardiologist.
If you're on private health insurance, alright, only 3 months.
I don't know if this is specific to Germany, or similar in all of Europe.
But that is a change many people notice that I speak with.
The waiting is similar in the U.S., only the cost is wildly different. Actually, it sounds like you can see a family doctor the same day in Germany? That would make it better in Germany.
In the U.S. I can see a midlevel the same day by paying $200 for an annual membership in a mass-affluent pseudoconcierge practice plus $800ish for the appointment+labs, the $800 may be partly or entirely covered by insurance depending on how the conversation goes with the "provider". I have to wait several months if I want to see a real doctor outside of an emergency room. 6 months is about right for seeing a specialist with a preexisting relationship, might need a little more lead time for an initial consultation.
IDK this is my experience over the past few years with 10+ appointments with two specialists and three PCPs in the SFBA; my understanding is that it is typical in this area and becoming typical in other regions of the U.S. as well.
In the US before Obamacare I could make an appointment with a specialist on the same week. Now it takes more than six months. Three different specialties that I know of and the only three I tried. Apparently we're catching up with Europe.
This is literally not true if you live close to any urban center. Plenty of specialists available in any city. The US healthcare system is broken in many, many ways but "obamacare made me wait 6 months" is not one of them.
This is Albuquerque, which is a three hour drive. There used to be a couple of these specialists in a closer, smaller city, just two hours away. They have all gone. Along with more than half of the rural general practitioners in the surrounding 100 miles. One closed his practice entirely after completely failing to find a replacement. I recently went to an appointment with a specialist in Albuquerque that took me six months to get ... and spoke only with a nurse. No doctors are available even after that long. This was after six months of waiting while in pain and bleeding out of my ass daily.
Shortly before Obamacare I went to the same variety of specialist in that closer city. I called on a Monday and was in to see him on Thursday morning. Now, the three closest clinics to me have no doctors at all between them, just nurse practitioners and physician assistants. If your condition isn't on their short script you get an appointment in six months with a different nurse, or directions to the emergency room. I'm not claiming this is the general experience, but my experience has vastly enshittified.
The specialist nurse that took me six months to see? He ordered a test and scheduled me to come back and discuss it with him in another six months. Maybe I'll get another five minutes of his time then.
While that does absolutely suck, and I’ sorry you find yourself in that situation, it’s not a consequence of Obamacare. It’s just that the time you remember when things were better happens to be before Obamacare.
As another commenter said, there’s been an exodus of specialists from rural areas. This is a global phenomenon, not limited to the US.
It sounds like you live in a rural area. In those places, the providers are drying up as the doctors get old and retire, and there's no one to replace them. This has nothing to do with Obamacare; it's like this in many places, including here in Japan. They actually offer more money here for people to work in the medical field in rural areas, but people would rather get paid less to live in Tokyo, because no one with an education wants to live in rural areas these days if they don't have to.
Basically, if you want really good healthcare, you need to live in or near a very large city. (Albuquerque is not a very large city.)
Another thing that's probably changed in the US is larger healthcare companies taking over doctors' practices and enshittifying them to increase profits. Doctors are happy to sell because they're getting close to retirement, and/or tired of dealing with all the administrative hassle on top of actually being a doctor and caring for patients. I've read about this type of thing greatly affecting veterinary care in the US too.
Americans are discovering that giving universal healthcare access to everyone means those who already had access, now have to wait longer to make room for everyone else. That's how it works.
No they aren't. Americans are finding out that when you abuse medical workers by calling them "essential workers" who have to continue working during a pandemic while hundreds of thousands of patients berate you for saying things like "you should get vaccinated" or "don't eat an anti-parasite medication for horses" and overwork them and pay them shit, they quit in droves.
They are then finding out that for profit businesses have no interest in re-hiring all the workers they had before the pandemic, because they didn't lose as much business as they saved money in salary, so everyone is just running a skeleton crew that they overwork.
Meanwhile the data I find for emergency room visits are that there's barely been any increase in percentage of the population that visited an emergency room since 1997.
Companies are spending less on services and letting us just suffer because we don't have better options and YET AGAIN dumb Americans for some reason blame the government for completely independent companies making self serving choices?!
Housing in US is in fact one of the cheapest... everywhere, measured as price per square foot as percentage of income. Several times cheaper than in many countries and at least somewhat cheaper than almost every single one, rich or poor, democratic or authoritarian.
It's just that "normal" housing in the US is what's only attainable to the very rich and only because they inherited it, in most of Europe let's say: even 1% won't be able to buy an equivalent of median new US single family house, in EU - that 1% probably owns a similar or somewhat better house but simply because they bought or built it generations before.
Got a source for this?
I'm only finding sources that vehemently disagree, and say the only countries worse for this are Portugal and Canada. Everywhere in the world is better.
That's probably because what you are googling is a ratio of price of average house to average income... Which only means that American houses are much much bigger and thus more pricey, because Americans have many times more disposable income per family than just about any nation in the world.
But if you compare the price of the SAME sized house to the average income, the situation is opposite. U.S. is the 3rd best after Oman and Saudi Arabia. It's just that Americans are not satisfied with houses even twice the size of what people in many rich countries are happy with.
American houses are large and unaffordable. The usual term for a situation like that is inefficiency.
Price per square foot is not a very useful metric, because neither utility nor construction costs scale directly with the size of a house. A 3000 square foot house is not 2x as good as a 1500 square foot house, and it should not cost 2x as much to build. Roughly speaking, walls are expensive, while making the rooms larger is cheap. And bedrooms are cheap, while bathrooms are expensive.
If it's so easy why isn't everyone in Europe doing this life hack?
Could it be that moving to a place with high salaries means that job market is more competitive with higher bar to entry, with more stress, and CoL and housing is proportionally higher so once you factor in housing, healthcare, childcare expenses etc you realize that unless you scored some FANG job that pays orders of magnitude more than the local median, you're more or less at the same wealth point as in the lower CoL locations?
Feels like the solution is to find the place when you can earn more than the median there and not just blindly move to the most expensive places in the world hoping that will make you rich.
> If it's so easy why isn't everyone in Europe doing this life hack?
Language barriers, mostly. USA doesn't have those, that is the biggest difference I'd say, language barriers is such a massive hindrance to movement even if you are legally allowed to.
Even if the work language is English you still have to live with all the signs etc being in a language you don't understand, and learning a new language is a massive undertaking.
However if you don't care about that then it is really simple. And lots of people are doing just that, people spending a few years working in a high wage place isn't uncommon at all.
also the massive difference between cultures is a thing aswell.
Not to mention people tend to not move asmuch in europe compared to the US, and people like to stay close to their community and families in my experience.
And have no major health issues/accidents, and be quite lucky, and start with a lot of money in the first place, and be born in the right place in the country.
It's instructive to see what's happening in Britain right now where many people dare not take jobs or even join training schemes to improve their prospects - because they will lose their benefits. To quote from the Spectator: "A Channel 4 (TV) program Britain’s Benefits Scandal hears from some of those affected – people who are often missing from the debate. We have 3.2 million trapped in a system in which they are given a decent payout – some I spoke to said about £1,300 a month, some significantly more – but who want to get back to work."
I know two (educated and hard-working) people in my immediate circle who intentionally keep their income below $30k/year so they qualify for state healthcare programs that they couldn’t otherwise afford unless they were making upwards of $150k.
So we have accountants and scientists who need back surgery intentionally working part-time barista hours.
As a programmer I’m all for gaming the system by knowing and navigating the rules, but the situation is comical.
If you know you can always go live with your rich family, then the cost of failure is pretty close to 0, so you can repeatedly take big risks until one of them pays off.
Getting money for living expenses as you study is the life of the average middle class student in USA, he didn't say it funded Musks ventures. The emerald mine made them rich compared to other Africans, but that doesn't say much compared to the average American.
Would there be any ventures if Errol didn't fund Elon's trip to the USA? That's the point, without the emerald mining funding there would be no Elon in the USA, no Elon taking risks in ventures, etc. It can't be looked at in a vacuum of "he didn't get direct money for his ventures", it was only possible for Elon to start ventures because of the emerald mines.
I know several people who emigrated to the US with a suitcase and became millionaires. None of them had a family emerald mine, or any family wealth at all.
If you live in the USA already, why didn't you start SpaceX? Millions of immigrants come to the USA. Why didn't anyone else start SpaceX?
Anecdotal, but… I'd be willing to put the time and effort in to start a company, but I would not be willing to lose my home or fail to provide for my wife & three children in the process as neither my wife nor I have any family capable of taking us in.
You're risk averse. That's fine - but it does not justify being envious of those who do take risks. Musk bet everything he had on Tesla, and at one point was within hours of personal bankruptcy as well as Tesla's.
With that being said, I'm not sure personal bankruptcy is a particularly meaningful risk when the individual in question can enjoy substantial riches by sheepishly(?) returning home to the care of their parent(s).
Granted, neither you nor I know if this is an option for Musk, but given that his mother speaks quite fondly of her son in public, it seems reasonable enough to me to believe that it is.
What I'm trying to say here is: Musk's risks are not mine. Would personal bankruptcy result in both he and his offspring living in poverty?
Celebrating someone for having taken a risk while omitting what exactly was on the line for them is a debate tactic built on a false equivalency which can be used as a cudgel to beat opponents down in arguments if its foundational trick goes unnoticed.
>> He jumped from the building and survived! Why can't you jump from the building too?
> The fire department erected a life net for him beforehand. All I have is sidewalk.
People go bankrupt all the time in the US. That doesn't mean they starve to death.
> Would personal bankruptcy result in both he and his offspring living in poverty?
Musk did spend time in the US with no money. He got a job. It was a dirty job cleaning industrial machinery. A job anyone with a willingness to work could get.
Instead of doing all this guessing and assuming and making up things about Musk, why not read an actual biography of him? The one I read is by Vance:
I'd invite you to give a counterpoint to what I posted, this type of post is not really in line with the guidelines of HN. You're a dad, act like an adult, please.
As you noticed by your flagged comment, it doesn't matter what you think of me (I really don't care) but it matters how you behave here. It's ironic because this pathetic behaviour seems much more enticing to ridicule than someone sharing opinions :) don't be pathetic.
