Ava
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 30, 2011 12:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 4,269
|
Post by Ava on May 21, 2017 12:37:32 GMT -5
Based on what parameters?
I'm asking because I don't see it. What I see is many indicators that point to it not being first world.
At the same time I believe the money and the resources are there and we could transform it into a first world country relatively quickly.
Of course, it all depends on what you understand by "first world".
What is your opinion?
|
|
Rob Base 2.0
Well-Known Member
Joined: Feb 23, 2017 18:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 1,538
|
Post by Rob Base 2.0 on May 21, 2017 13:38:37 GMT -5
Why don't you explain why you don't consider it a first world?
And what country(ies) would u consider to be 1st world?
|
|
Ava
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 30, 2011 12:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 4,269
|
Post by Ava on May 21, 2017 13:49:31 GMT -5
I would say a country like Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Germany or France are first world in my opinion.
The issues that make me question whether the U.S. is first world are, mainly;
-high income inequality -expensive healthcare that is not accessible to all citizens -insufficient mental health care -expensive education -expensive child care -crumbling infrastructure and lack of access to good public transportation systems -high incarceration rates and for-profit prisons -lack of a good social safety net
All these issues could be easily fixed, I believe. The money and the resources are there.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 15, 2024 3:23:13 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2017 14:22:13 GMT -5
The countries you list have their own problems--growing income inequality in France, increasing limited access to higher education access in Germany, etc. The U.S. was founded on different premises than the countries you list. Our Puritan and colonial ancestors had a "work or starve" ethic. We haven't really lost that although we do have safety nets for those who truly need it. We have welfare, Medicaid (and Medicare for the elderly), subsidized housing, Earned Income Tax Credit for working families, Pell Grants and subsidized loans, etc. We have Head Start and strong Special Education laws that will spend thousands to provide a "free and appropriate" education to children with disabilities. What you want is basically socialized government paid for with really high taxes. You can see a fuller set of rankings hereI think first world countries are traditionally defined as developed countries with access to most of what you list. It doesn't have to be government-provided to qualify.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on May 21, 2017 14:22:32 GMT -5
Those things are not what is traditionally used to define first world.
|
|
Ava
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 30, 2011 12:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 4,269
|
Post by Ava on May 21, 2017 15:14:19 GMT -5
Of course it's my personal perception. I just don't see it.
Take, for instance, an article I read the other day. In Louisiana, many people are declared guilty without due process because the state doesn't have the money to pay public defenders. That doesn't sound first world to me.
The roads in my town and adjacent towns have craters on them. There's a couple of collapsed bridges in the neighboring town that have been closed for over a year. The state's capital, Hartford, is about to declare bankruptcy.
Another thing is the lack of safety net for recent parents, where they can get 12 weeks if they are lucky but try that without income.
Or the fact that workers are not guaranteed vacation time or certain medical coverage. It depends on your employer.
All those things, and others, don't make me feel like I live in the first world. And I'm sure the countries I listed have their own sets of problems. Nothing is perfect.
|
|
Ava
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 30, 2011 12:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 4,269
|
Post by Ava on May 21, 2017 15:15:01 GMT -5
Those things are not what is traditionally used to define first world. How would you define a first-world country?
|
|
Ava
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 30, 2011 12:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 4,269
|
Post by Ava on May 21, 2017 15:17:24 GMT -5
I would say a country like Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Germany or France are first world in my opinion. The issues that make me question whether the U.S. is first world are, mainly; -high income inequality -expensive healthcare that is not accessible to all citizens -insufficient mental health care -expensive education -expensive child care -crumbling infrastructure and lack of access to good public transportation systems -high incarceration rates and for-profit prisons -lack of a good social safety net All these issues could be easily fixed, I believe. The money and the resources are there. All of those countries have the same expensive things, they just have a different way of paying them. Considering the original definition of a first world country we're those that were aligned with the US post WWII, I'd say that the US definitely makes the list. Of course over the years the definition has changed, but I would think most people agree that a first world country would be an industrialized country ranked in the top economy wise We pay, in general, more for things than other countries, and we don't guarantee access to everybody to basic things such as housing or healthcare. Yes, the U.S. is in the top economically, but the income is skewed to the top. Average wages have not gone up for decades for the regular worker.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on May 21, 2017 15:23:32 GMT -5
Those things are not what is traditionally used to define first world. How would you define a first-world country? The actual definition that has come about after the cold war (during the cold war all first world meant was the US and our allies) is a free democracy that's stable, a stable capitalist economy, and a high standard of living. It also usually means the county is past its industrial revolution (which also means they tend to be more ecologically aware) and no longer fighting easily eradicated/controlled diseases like malaria, polio, cholera, etc. Most of what you listed are more the markings of a socialist country which does not necessitate being a first world country by the standard definition of one.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on May 21, 2017 15:25:47 GMT -5
Of course it's my personal perception. I just don't see it. Take, for instance, an article I read the other day. In Louisiana, many people are declared guilty without due process because the state doesn't have the money to pay public defenders. That doesn't sound first world to me. The roads in my town and adjacent towns have craters on them. There's a couple of collapsed bridges in the neighboring town that have been closed for over a year. The state's capital, Hartford, is about to declare bankruptcy. Another thing is the lack of safety net for recent parents, where they can get 12 weeks if they are lucky but try that without income. Or the fact that workers are not guaranteed vacation time or certain medical coverage. It depends on your employer. All those things, and others, don't make me feel like I live in the first world. And I'm sure the countries I listed have their own sets of problems. Nothing is perfect. Then what prompted you to come here? I forget when you said you came here, but I believe a lot of the issues you point out and have a problem with were around when you moved here. Why here and not Germany?
|
|
dannylion
Junior Associate
Gravity is a harsh mistress
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:17:52 GMT -5
Posts: 5,214
Location: Miles over the madness horizon and accelerating
|
Post by dannylion on May 21, 2017 15:30:18 GMT -5
Scandinavian countries are often held up as models of general wonderfulness and just overall superiority in every way in comparison to the U.S. What never gets mentioned in this storm of U.S. bashing is the fact that all of those countries are considerably smaller than the U.S. and, until every recently, had entirely homogeneous populations with many centuries of shared cultural traditions and very, very little diversity or immigration. It is much easier to achieve consensus on social, political, and economic issues in a homogeneous culture, especially if the population is comparatively small and the geographic, social, cultural, religious, and other conditions in which that population lives are very similar and they all have basically the same history.
it is unrealistic to expect a much larger, more diverse nation with a different origin, history, system of government, geography, climate (and climate range), and a whole laundry list of other significant differences to develop in the same way as very small, homogeneous, countries surrounded by other small, homogeneous (and often similar) countries.
Not to mention the fact that all that Scandinavian wonderfulness and engineered "equality" is achieved and maintained by taxes that approach, and in some cases exceed, 50%.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 15, 2024 3:23:13 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2017 15:57:39 GMT -5
I think, Ava, you will find that most Americans are content with the way our country works. If anything, Americans want lower taxes and less socialized services. That's why there is push-back on social welfare programs. We don't want government taking care of us because it always comes with strings. Americans don't share the European mindset. Maybe theirs comes from the feudal system where the lord took care of you in return for your service. Like I said, our colonial ancestors were more of the "work or starve" mentality. It was exactly what was required to come to an undeveloped area and build a nation from scratch. You talk often of returning to your original homeland. Without intending to be mean, that might be a good idea if it can provide you the socialistic government that you prefer. You won't find it in America. I'd like a link to Louisiana prisoners being denied due process because of funding. Can you provide it? Due process is a constitutional right. and I imagine the article you read is fighting to make sure that it is provided. However, Louisiana has a different set of laws because they are based on the Napoleonic code. So it's not necessarily easy to compare their legal structure to the rest of the U.S. If you want to practice law in Louisiana, you pretty much have to go to law school in Louisiana.
|
|
dee27
Senior Member
Joined: Sept 28, 2016 21:08:12 GMT -5
Posts: 2,211
|
Post by dee27 on May 21, 2017 16:27:17 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 15, 2024 3:23:13 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2017 17:30:20 GMT -5
I think, Ava , you will find that most Americans are content with the way our country works. If anything, Americans want lower taxes and less socialized services. I'd argue that one.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 15, 2024 3:23:13 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2017 18:10:34 GMT -5
I think, Ava , you will find that most Americans are content with the way our country works. If anything, Americans want lower taxes and less socialized services. I'd argue that one. Then argue with it. The tax part/socialized services, I mean. I live in a Republican state. We actually get more back from Washington than we pay in, but the citizens of Alabama forget that. I've never heard anyone argue they want to pay more taxes or even that their tax burden is "fair." School vouchers, repeal the Affordable Care Act, complain about the EITC, welfare mamas, special education laws . . . these are not popular in the middle class social circle I travel in. But then again, I have a politician (Republican, of course) as a son-in-law and a corporate tax accountant as a son.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 15, 2024 3:23:13 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2017 18:38:36 GMT -5
Oh, I think a fair number want lower taxes and greater services And some want the same taxes and greater services. And some want higher taxes and the same services. And some want higher taxes taxes and greater services. And some want lower lower taxes and less services.... but it's hardly homogenous. There isn't one way all Americans view this subject.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on May 21, 2017 18:43:02 GMT -5
I think, Ava , you will find that most Americans are content with the way our country works. If anything, Americans want lower taxes and less socialized services. I'd argue that one. I think that very issue was part of the reason for the big surprise in this last presidential election. The majority of the media tends to be composed of people who want more socialized services, assume that every other reasonable person wants the same, and can be dismissive of and insulting to the views of others - implying people who want lower taxes and fewer socialized services are either evil or ignorant. People got tired of being cast in that light and stopped discussing their views with the media... which is why so many of the major polls were so wrong about who people were voting for and why the results were so completely different than what was predicted. I'm not sure anybody has a very clear picture of what the majority of Americans want right now because so many people refuse to discuss or disclose their beliefs.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 15, 2024 3:23:13 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2017 18:43:43 GMT -5
Oh, I think a fair number want lower taxes and greater services And some want the same taxes and greater services. And some want higher taxes and the same services. And some want higher taxes taxes and greater services. And some want lower lower taxes and less services.... but it's hardly homogenous. There isn't one way all Americans view this subject. Well, they don't want less services for themselves, that's for sure.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 15, 2024 3:23:13 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2017 19:08:05 GMT -5
Everyone in the circle talking to me yesterday informed me they voted for a Supreme Court justice and that is all. And possibly Pence and his religious stances (implied but not explicit).
Yes, I thought my post suggested there is no clear picture of what consensus might look like.
|
|
alabamagal
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 11:30:29 GMT -5
Posts: 8,148
|
Post by alabamagal on May 21, 2017 19:40:27 GMT -5
On work travels, I have spend 3 months at a time on assignment in Norway, Switzerland and France. On all the assignments I was outside the major city in a small town. I am not an expert, but I have seen life in those countries.
Norway was really nice. The people I met were really nice. My impression of life there is that everyone is middle class. I did not see any bad areas, but I did not see any really nice areas. Other countries were very similar.
In the US, we get caught up in all of the bad things. And there are problems. But there are no starving people. While we emphasize the "homeless" problem, most of them could find shelters if they desired. While there are racial injustices, those same problems happen in other countries, and often to much greater extent.
I also recently hosted some coworkers from 2 different South American countries. What they enjoyed about the US - shopping! They were ordering stuff off Amazon and having it delivered to their hotel to bring home because taxes in their home country were so high. They also loved the fast food - they wanted to go to Wendy's every day. So it is all about perspective.
I think the US is the greatest country in the world. I love visiting other places, but have no desire to live anywhere else.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on May 21, 2017 22:01:19 GMT -5
When you combine your taxes with medical insurance premiums, co-pays, deductibles, expensive child-care, expensive post-secondary education, etc., you're probably paying far more.
|
|
tskeeter
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 19:37:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,831
|
Post by tskeeter on May 21, 2017 22:16:08 GMT -5
I would say a country like Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Germany or France are first world in my opinion. The issues that make me question whether the U.S. is first world are, mainly; -high income inequality -expensive healthcare that is not accessible to all citizens -insufficient mental health care -expensive education -expensive child care -crumbling infrastructure and lack of access to good public transportation systems -high incarceration rates and for-profit prisons -lack of a good social safety net All these issues could be easily fixed, I believe. The money and the resources are there. But Ava, the money required to create your vision of the first world is my money. That I worked 80 to 100 hours a week to earn. And that I'm really not interested in having taken away to improve the livestyles of others while degrading the lifestyle I enjoy. By the way, I'm not convinced that throwing money at out shortcomings is the answer. Locally, we've been throwing millions of dollars a year at our homeless problem for over 50 years without significantly improving the situation. Seems that the more assistance and services that are provided, the more people find homelessness to be a viable lifestyle choice. Similar situation with our national education system. Billions of dollars, hundreds of government improvement programs, smaller class sizes, yet measures of academic performance are lower than they were in the 1950's, when class sizes averaged about 40 students, even in elementary grades. More funding hasn't improved education, it has only made education more expensive.
|
|
tskeeter
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 19:37:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,831
|
Post by tskeeter on May 21, 2017 22:31:26 GMT -5
Scandinavian countries are often held up as models of general wonderfulness and just overall superiority in every way in comparison to the U.S. What never gets mentioned in this storm of U.S. bashing is the fact that all of those countries are considerably smaller than the U.S. and, until every recently, had entirely homogeneous populations with many centuries of shared cultural traditions and very, very little diversity or immigration. It is much easier to achieve consensus on social, political, and economic issues in a homogeneous culture, especially if the population is comparatively small and the geographic, social, cultural, religious, and other conditions in which that population lives are very similar and they all have basically the same history.
it is unrealistic to expect a much larger, more diverse nation with a different origin, history, system of government, geography, climate (and climate range), and a whole laundry list of other significant differences to develop in the same way as very small, homogeneous, countries surrounded by other small, homogeneous (and often similar) countries.
Not to mention the fact that all that Scandinavian wonderfulness and engineered "equality" is achieved and maintained by taxes that approach, and in some cases exceed, 50%. They also have done some things that we would find reprehensible. For example, Dad tells about discussing education for special needs children with a Norwegian educator back in the 1960's. The visiting professor stated that Norway didn't need education programs for special needs children. A baby that was expected to grow into a special needs child was euthanized at birth. I understand that either Sweden or Norway has no unemployment. If a person is "unemployed", they are assigned to work on a public works project so they earn a pay check. No SNAP, no Section Eight, no unemployment, no Medicaid. Only work. Over the decades, I've heard proposals similar to this many times. Unfortunately, we as a country find it more expedient to pay people not to work, rather than making jobs for them to work at.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,912
|
Post by zibazinski on May 22, 2017 5:00:47 GMT -5
Every time you talk about putting those on assistance to work you hear the cry about child care and handicapped.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 15, 2024 3:23:13 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2017 5:11:36 GMT -5
Scandinavian countries are often held up as models of general wonderfulness and just overall superiority in every way in comparison to the U.S. What never gets mentioned in this storm of U.S. bashing is the fact that all of those countries are considerably smaller than the U.S. and, until every recently, had entirely homogeneous populations with many centuries of shared cultural traditions and very, very little diversity or immigration. It is much easier to achieve consensus on social, political, and economic issues in a homogeneous culture, especially if the population is comparatively small and the geographic, social, cultural, religious, and other conditions in which that population lives are very similar and they all have basically the same history.
it is unrealistic to expect a much larger, more diverse nation with a different origin, history, system of government, geography, climate (and climate range), and a whole laundry list of other significant differences to develop in the same way as very small, homogeneous, countries surrounded by other small, homogeneous (and often similar) countries.
Not to mention the fact that all that Scandinavian wonderfulness and engineered "equality" is achieved and maintained by taxes that approach, and in some cases exceed, 50%. They also have done some things that we would find reprehensible. For example, Dad tells about discussing education for special needs children with a Norwegian educator back in the 1960's. The visiting professor stated that Norway didn't need education programs for special needs children. A baby that was expected to grow into a special needs child was euthanized at birth. I understand that either Sweden or Norway has no unemployment. If a person is "unemployed", they are assigned to work on a public works project so they earn a pay check. No SNAP, no Section Eight, no unemployment, no Medicaid. Only work. Over the decades, I've heard proposals similar to this many times. Unfortunately, we as a country find it more expedient to pay people not to work, rather than making jobs for them to work at. To be fair there is a reason IDEA was written here. We were not treating those populations well ourselves. Im all for works programs. Or you can put your works hours in to training or parenting classes, etc. I'd much have preferred a works program to tax breaks during the last recovery / stimulus. I'd also support a routine works program.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,912
|
Post by zibazinski on May 22, 2017 5:35:47 GMT -5
You can't always tell a special needs child at birth. Then what? My Godfather was a doctor in a small town and he used to kill babies that weren't right when they were born and tell the family and mother that the child was born dead. Felt it was a blessing for the family. I'll bet he wasn't the only doctor that did this.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,912
|
Post by zibazinski on May 22, 2017 5:36:15 GMT -5
This was for babies born at home btw.
|
|
dannylion
Junior Associate
Gravity is a harsh mistress
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:17:52 GMT -5
Posts: 5,214
Location: Miles over the madness horizon and accelerating
|
Post by dannylion on May 22, 2017 6:32:33 GMT -5
Scandinavian countries are often held up as models of general wonderfulness and just overall superiority in every way in comparison to the U.S. What never gets mentioned in this storm of U.S. bashing is the fact that all of those countries are considerably smaller than the U.S. and, until every recently, had entirely homogeneous populations with many centuries of shared cultural traditions and very, very little diversity or immigration. It is much easier to achieve consensus on social, political, and economic issues in a homogeneous culture, especially if the population is comparatively small and the geographic, social, cultural, religious, and other conditions in which that population lives are very similar and they all have basically the same history.
it is unrealistic to expect a much larger, more diverse nation with a different origin, history, system of government, geography, climate (and climate range), and a whole laundry list of other significant differences to develop in the same way as very small, homogeneous, countries surrounded by other small, homogeneous (and often similar) countries.
Not to mention the fact that all that Scandinavian wonderfulness and engineered "equality" is achieved and maintained by taxes that approach, and in some cases exceed, 50%. They also have done some things that we would find reprehensible. For example, Dad tells about discussing education for special needs children with a Norwegian educator back in the 1960's. The visiting professor stated that Norway didn't need education programs for special needs children. A baby that was expected to grow into a special needs child was euthanized at birth. I understand that either Sweden or Norway has no unemployment. If a person is "unemployed", they are assigned to work on a public works project so they earn a pay check. No SNAP, no Section Eight, no unemployment, no Medicaid. Only work. Over the decades, I've heard proposals similar to this many times. Unfortunately, we as a country find it more expedient to pay people not to work, rather than making jobs for them to work at. I think this does not apply in all Scandinavian countries. There are now some (I'm too lazy to look up exactly which, but think at least Denmark) that provide what we would consider unreasonably long unemployment benefits. Eleven years sticks in my mind. I became curious about Scandinavian countries a couple of years ago and read several studies and a couple of books. I have forgotten a lot of the details, though I do recall that Norway's programs were, indeed, less generous than some of their neighbors'. Some social programs (at least in Denmark and Sweden) now also are very deep and wide; hence the extremely high tax rates to pay for all of it. It is important to remember, though, that Norway has a very small population (5 million more or less), which makes a "full employment" program practicable and enforceable.
Interesting perspective on special needs children. I did not know that. I wonder what their status is now. I don't recall that being addressed in anything I read, though I wasn't looking specifically for anything with that information.
|
|
naughtybear
Familiar Member
Joined: Aug 10, 2016 17:03:08 GMT -5
Posts: 996
|
Post by naughtybear on May 22, 2017 7:14:26 GMT -5
JFC I am horrified at that.
|
|
giramomma
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 11:25:27 GMT -5
Posts: 22,161
|
Post by giramomma on May 22, 2017 7:37:07 GMT -5
Yes...well..it seems that my dr isn't even pushing to wait for birth.
Rather he suggesting termination at 12 weeks if we don't get a perfect baby.
The thing that upsets me the most is he didn't even warn me that for some of the Trisomy (aside from downs) issues, the Mat 21 test screening is only 60% correct as recent as two years ago.
It's gone both ways. Parents have terminated healthy kids based on the screen, and some parents thought they were getting healthy kids and ended up with kid incompatible with life.
|
|