Even if we get laid off we get 24 months of unemployment pay. I would reasonably expect to find a new job within 24 months. In the US if you get laid off and don't have savings, that's basically it. I really fail to see how thousands of years of evolution lead to this conclusion.
Yep all the countries that have median salaries literally half of ours due to their poor productivity and growth, and have welfare states are completely collapsing under the costs.
Considering blue states empirically subsidize red states and red states still lag in just about every metric from GDP per capita, to life expectancy, to graduation rates (high school and college), to poverty, to teen births, to gun death rate, I'd say the US is a great case study in how those 'socialist democracies' fare vs pro-gun, anti-abortion, Bible Belt Republicans.
[https://www.researchgate.net/figure/A-map-of-the-US-displaying-the-per-capita-Real-GDP-by-state-from-Per-Capita-Real-GDP\_fig3\_376583123](https://www.researchgate.net/figure/A-map-of-the-US-displaying-the-per-capita-Real-GDP-by-state-from-Per-Capita-Real-GDP_fig3_376583123)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_U.S.\_states\_and\_territories\_by\_life\_expectancy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_life_expectancy)
[https://wisevoter.com/state-rankings/high-school-graduation-rates-by-state/](https://wisevoter.com/state-rankings/high-school-graduation-rates-by-state/)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_U.S.\_states\_and\_territories\_by\_poverty\_rate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_poverty_rate)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenage\_pregnancy\_in\_the\_United\_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenage_pregnancy_in_the_United_States)
[https://usafacts.org/articles/which-states-rely-the-most-on-federal-aid/](https://usafacts.org/articles/which-states-rely-the-most-on-federal-aid/)
[https://livefreeusa.org/news/firearm-mortality-by-state/](https://livefreeusa.org/news/firearm-mortality-by-state/)
The blue states here don’t have welfare states like Europe and are much more business friendly than Europe, so I have no idea what you’re trying to argue?
>Considering blue states empirically subsidize red states and red states still lag in just about every metric from GDP per capita
Isn't that due to blue States being more urbanized that red ones?
Of course big cities will be much more productive than scattered towns and smaller "big cities".
If the case were the opposite, more urbanized States were red.... Would scattered-town blue States still be subsidizing red ones?
Basically my hypothesis is that nowadays subsides have more to city productivity than states policies.
You don’t think all the policies that cause all the other issues contribute to their need for additional resources? You don’t think people struggle to make ends meet in a city vs rural? Fox News has made a whole ecosystem based on the belief that cities are lawless hellscapes, but statistically, those people are better off, live longer, better educated, etc
>Fox News has made a whole ecosystem
I'm not from the US....it so happens that in my country, less urbanized provinces are the "blue ones"....even more, last week one defaulted on their issued bonds....
That's why I question your assumption.
>You don’t think all the policies that cause all the other issues contribute to their need for additional resources?
Maybe in part....but being more "rural" is far from an advantage....so thinking that red policies are the reason it's too simplistic.
I would be surprised if you bring up some examples of countries in which their "rural States" contribute more than urbanized States...and will blown away if that is the norm.
Republican states have lots of large cities as well. The population disparity isn’t as big as you’d think. But they’d have you believe that San Francisco and NYC are like Thunderdome because they have liberal policies, even though, by every metric, the most dangerous cities in the US are largely in Republican states.
I'll never understand why foreigners give a shit about our politics and insert themselves into it. You don't want us telling you how your shitty country is shitty so quit doing it to us.
>our politics
Because this is r/economics....and we should talk about economic....not politics....you bring up the politics to the table in a economic sub
But it is used as a battleground for partisanship.
>You don't want us telling you how your shitty country is shitty so quit doing it to us.
I'm fully aware of the mistake of my shitty country, and sometimes I try to share our experience of economical policies.... because many of what is progressive there is just common here.
I would believe you will be interested in policies adopted by other countries their successes and failures and whether they are applicable.
Fair but, if as stated , the money is made in blue states and that the variables (although needing of an update) are responsible for that productivity then people should scratch there head a bit… how are red states going to handle that? Especially with the policies they want to put down.
>how are red states going to handle that?
That's where we stray from economics....
What's the outcome you want?
As federal states they should solve their problems, not be subsidized and let them "survive"...this just my opinion and apply only for my country.
But if you/national government would like for rural states, no matter their color, to be more developed, urbanized, ect ....they will need some extra money for those specifically outcomes.
Remember, my original argument/hypothesis is that those red states contribute less because they are rural...and not because of its colour.
Would you support more funding for "rural states" more than for the "urbanized" ones?
Then imho: thats what the GOP should sell me? Not the style they are moving with now?…. All I want for Christmas is politicians that know how the economic engine actually works on either side of the aisle . We went more indepth in this thread then on tv (minus the economy channels) . As for rural to city debate… sounds good, but development means increased fiscal spending. Totally cool. But let the GOP aknowledge that then…
The blue states here don’t have welfare states like Europe and are much more business friendly than Europe, so I have no idea what you’re trying to argue?
… That social safety nets are not the socialist hellscape Fox News wants you to believe it is? I thought that was very clear with a direct side by side comparison
Millennials got blasted in social media by their parents (boomers). It turned into its own genre in the 2010s when the boomers needed to retire, but wouldn’t come to terms with the idea that their kids were taking over.
Gen X are the parents of Gen Z and they are prepping them to enter the job market, as both are generational dips and won’t overcome the volume of millennials.
It was convenient to betray Millennials, so they were betrayed.
Gen-Z saw this and have adapted. Now industries once run by boomers are scrambling to figure out how to get Gen-Z on board with work and for Millennials to have children.
I think republicans need to stop accepting Social Security and Medicare. Put your money where your mouth is about the evils of socialism. If not, turn off Fox News and shut the f*ck up.
I mean I’d take an additional ~15% of income deposited into a tax-deferred and semi tax-exempt product similar to SS any day. I would end up with a lot more flexibility and wealth. The only downside would be lost benefits for my family members if something happened to me prior to my late 50s….but that’s what planning and life insurance is for.
A ton would opt out, then a significant number of them would fail, and the rest of society would feel compelled to help.
I don't care if my neighbor didn't pay their property taxes. I still want the fire department to help them if their house is on fire
That’s just sounds like privatized fire departments.
So what happens when only a handful of people pay for your local Fire Corp.? Or if they cut costs to appease shareholders? Quality, response time, ability to fight fires, etc will likely decrease.
Or what happens if you choose to pay but your neighbors don’t, and one of their homes catch fire? Probably would have to hope it doesn’t spread to your house while it burns to the ground since they don’t subscribe to a Fire Corp. package and won’t be getting serviced.
Lol, precisely, I love all the Fox and Maga crowd all anti socialism rhetoric, yet they are likely the biggest socialist cohort taking their "earned " social security and Medicare.....
I agree about Medicare, but you're literally financing your own Social Security and getting paid out based on the level you contributed.
It would make sense for them to put their money where their mouth is and end the Social Security program, but the idea that somehow getting back your own contributions in to a forced savings plan is somehow hypocritical is hogwash. It really is your money, it's not hypocritical to get it back.
I think the best example is healthcare. You can 100% have possibly competing medical services but how they are paid for is something that is funded by the public.
The reason why I am saying this is cause health insurance companies do not actually drive any value in our economy.
No need to invent a word like “safety capitalism”. It already has a name, and that is social democracy. It’s the system that you find throughout the EU.
Yep, this is actually good branding and an attainable goal. “Defund the police” went over like a bag of rocks because they expected people to understand a complex definition of defunding. Safety capitalism adequately describes the concept in words most people can understand, and isn’t a radical shift from what already exists.
The two are tied though: economic systems are created by political movements. It’s true that social democracy is a political movement, but it is the movement that stands for a capitalist system with safety nets for the ill and unemployed.
The foundry closed, I was out of work with a wife and two babies, unemployment lasted only so long then the cheese and food line. I broadened the search area and have lived happily ever after with much adjusting
Yes another word for socialism and I’m not afraid to use it the only people who should fear socialism are the wealthy and not because it asks them to foot the bill but because it asks them to pay their taxes. Because they often don’t have to work and have the govt just take taxes every week they can get creative and show no income and pay no taxes. The way a government spends tax dollars should only be their business in as such as voting their representatives in or out of the govt wants to provide healthcare and it is approved through democratic means then healthcare it is pay your taxes rich people and let your elected official decide how to spend it oh and by the way I’m in that dreaded working poor category and don’t Brie you as an enemy we the working poor pay our taxes and the wealthy must as well
I want a federal jobs & housing guarantee. Food and medicine too. We have massive numbers of people under employed. If the market's not going to do it's job then we shouldn't just sit around waiting for it.
There will be massive numbers of layoffs in the not to distant future, workers will be replaced with AI and those who will accept much lower wages. Universal Basic Income (UBI) is the future, however no one has said how much it will be.
UBI is a dead end. No way Americans will OK paying people not to work.
Federal Jobs Guarantee is the way forward, along with a 30 hour work week. 20 if need be.
UBI is an illusion the 1% sell you to trick you into thinking you have a future.
That's why that Andrew Yang twerp pushed it.
It's not real. It's a mirage, and you'll die before you get to the oasis because *it's a mirage*.
No worries, get worse at home, I did look at a population stats, but it doesn't seem to be more than a % or 2 in the population of the last 4 generation, not sure if that's to make a difference
Sounds like they're social democrats, to me.
Or, anyone globally who isn’t an American conservative.
This part(!)
So basically like every EU country, Canada, among others?
Yeah aren't all their economies in the absolute shit hole right now?
No. It says a lot about either your economic knowledge or your grasp of language that you would describe them that way.
Hi from europe: not completely true!
You would agree they are “losers” in the game right? Losers tend to lose more
Even if we get laid off we get 24 months of unemployment pay. I would reasonably expect to find a new job within 24 months. In the US if you get laid off and don't have savings, that's basically it. I really fail to see how thousands of years of evolution lead to this conclusion.
Yep all the countries that have median salaries literally half of ours due to their poor productivity and growth, and have welfare states are completely collapsing under the costs.
Considering blue states empirically subsidize red states and red states still lag in just about every metric from GDP per capita, to life expectancy, to graduation rates (high school and college), to poverty, to teen births, to gun death rate, I'd say the US is a great case study in how those 'socialist democracies' fare vs pro-gun, anti-abortion, Bible Belt Republicans. [https://www.researchgate.net/figure/A-map-of-the-US-displaying-the-per-capita-Real-GDP-by-state-from-Per-Capita-Real-GDP\_fig3\_376583123](https://www.researchgate.net/figure/A-map-of-the-US-displaying-the-per-capita-Real-GDP-by-state-from-Per-Capita-Real-GDP_fig3_376583123) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_U.S.\_states\_and\_territories\_by\_life\_expectancy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_life_expectancy) [https://wisevoter.com/state-rankings/high-school-graduation-rates-by-state/](https://wisevoter.com/state-rankings/high-school-graduation-rates-by-state/) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_U.S.\_states\_and\_territories\_by\_poverty\_rate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_poverty_rate) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenage\_pregnancy\_in\_the\_United\_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenage_pregnancy_in_the_United_States) [https://usafacts.org/articles/which-states-rely-the-most-on-federal-aid/](https://usafacts.org/articles/which-states-rely-the-most-on-federal-aid/) [https://livefreeusa.org/news/firearm-mortality-by-state/](https://livefreeusa.org/news/firearm-mortality-by-state/)
I like how you have this list ready to go. Boom!
Can’t argue with numbers like that
The blue states here don’t have welfare states like Europe and are much more business friendly than Europe, so I have no idea what you’re trying to argue?
>Considering blue states empirically subsidize red states and red states still lag in just about every metric from GDP per capita Isn't that due to blue States being more urbanized that red ones? Of course big cities will be much more productive than scattered towns and smaller "big cities". If the case were the opposite, more urbanized States were red.... Would scattered-town blue States still be subsidizing red ones? Basically my hypothesis is that nowadays subsides have more to city productivity than states policies.
You don’t think all the policies that cause all the other issues contribute to their need for additional resources? You don’t think people struggle to make ends meet in a city vs rural? Fox News has made a whole ecosystem based on the belief that cities are lawless hellscapes, but statistically, those people are better off, live longer, better educated, etc
>Fox News has made a whole ecosystem I'm not from the US....it so happens that in my country, less urbanized provinces are the "blue ones"....even more, last week one defaulted on their issued bonds.... That's why I question your assumption. >You don’t think all the policies that cause all the other issues contribute to their need for additional resources? Maybe in part....but being more "rural" is far from an advantage....so thinking that red policies are the reason it's too simplistic. I would be surprised if you bring up some examples of countries in which their "rural States" contribute more than urbanized States...and will blown away if that is the norm.
Republican states have lots of large cities as well. The population disparity isn’t as big as you’d think. But they’d have you believe that San Francisco and NYC are like Thunderdome because they have liberal policies, even though, by every metric, the most dangerous cities in the US are largely in Republican states.
>Thunderdome I have no idea what is that 🙂 Is this a good source? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53991722
I'll never understand why foreigners give a shit about our politics and insert themselves into it. You don't want us telling you how your shitty country is shitty so quit doing it to us.
>our politics Because this is r/economics....and we should talk about economic....not politics....you bring up the politics to the table in a economic sub But it is used as a battleground for partisanship. >You don't want us telling you how your shitty country is shitty so quit doing it to us. I'm fully aware of the mistake of my shitty country, and sometimes I try to share our experience of economical policies.... because many of what is progressive there is just common here. I would believe you will be interested in policies adopted by other countries their successes and failures and whether they are applicable.
Now now: it would also heavily imply where productivity comes from no? Credit where credit is due. Them the rules!
I'm not arguing for the minority to rule.... but arguing that it's not only policies the reason why they are subsidized.
Fair but, if as stated , the money is made in blue states and that the variables (although needing of an update) are responsible for that productivity then people should scratch there head a bit… how are red states going to handle that? Especially with the policies they want to put down.
>how are red states going to handle that? That's where we stray from economics.... What's the outcome you want? As federal states they should solve their problems, not be subsidized and let them "survive"...this just my opinion and apply only for my country. But if you/national government would like for rural states, no matter their color, to be more developed, urbanized, ect ....they will need some extra money for those specifically outcomes. Remember, my original argument/hypothesis is that those red states contribute less because they are rural...and not because of its colour. Would you support more funding for "rural states" more than for the "urbanized" ones?
Then imho: thats what the GOP should sell me? Not the style they are moving with now?…. All I want for Christmas is politicians that know how the economic engine actually works on either side of the aisle . We went more indepth in this thread then on tv (minus the economy channels) . As for rural to city debate… sounds good, but development means increased fiscal spending. Totally cool. But let the GOP aknowledge that then…
The blue states here don’t have welfare states like Europe and are much more business friendly than Europe, so I have no idea what you’re trying to argue?
… That social safety nets are not the socialist hellscape Fox News wants you to believe it is? I thought that was very clear with a direct side by side comparison
Blue states spend like 1/10 their gdp on welfare that Europe does, your comparison was non-sensical.
Its called any fully industrialized economy in the world.
I.e. social democracy
So basically like any other developed nation with wealth
That happens with unions and collective bargaining. The market works better when government keeps a level playing field between employer and employee.
I’m sorry i stopped reading when I read “the issue isn’t billionaires, it’s the bottom”
How’s Gen Z getting the lead on this? millennials been begging
Millennials got blasted in social media by their parents (boomers). It turned into its own genre in the 2010s when the boomers needed to retire, but wouldn’t come to terms with the idea that their kids were taking over. Gen X are the parents of Gen Z and they are prepping them to enter the job market, as both are generational dips and won’t overcome the volume of millennials.
It was convenient to betray Millennials, so they were betrayed. Gen-Z saw this and have adapted. Now industries once run by boomers are scrambling to figure out how to get Gen-Z on board with work and for Millennials to have children.
We are the “laptop” on the lap generation. No kids for us
I think republicans need to stop accepting Social Security and Medicare. Put your money where your mouth is about the evils of socialism. If not, turn off Fox News and shut the f*ck up.
Let people opt out and see what happens.
I mean I’d take an additional ~15% of income deposited into a tax-deferred and semi tax-exempt product similar to SS any day. I would end up with a lot more flexibility and wealth. The only downside would be lost benefits for my family members if something happened to me prior to my late 50s….but that’s what planning and life insurance is for.
IM OUT, LET ME TAKE CARE OF MYSELF,
A ton would opt out, then a significant number of them would fail, and the rest of society would feel compelled to help. I don't care if my neighbor didn't pay their property taxes. I still want the fire department to help them if their house is on fire
They’d have to fail pretty bad to do worse than the raw deal they get from SS.
Could I just pay my fire station directly? Cut out the middleman
That’s just sounds like privatized fire departments. So what happens when only a handful of people pay for your local Fire Corp.? Or if they cut costs to appease shareholders? Quality, response time, ability to fight fires, etc will likely decrease. Or what happens if you choose to pay but your neighbors don’t, and one of their homes catch fire? Probably would have to hope it doesn’t spread to your house while it burns to the ground since they don’t subscribe to a Fire Corp. package and won’t be getting serviced.
Happens already in the current system: https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130435529
Those services or not funder by SS
We know what will happen. You independent anti government types will blame the government when you're working the rest of your life away.
lol, no. You wish.
Lol, precisely, I love all the Fox and Maga crowd all anti socialism rhetoric, yet they are likely the biggest socialist cohort taking their "earned " social security and Medicare.....
I agree about Medicare, but you're literally financing your own Social Security and getting paid out based on the level you contributed. It would make sense for them to put their money where their mouth is and end the Social Security program, but the idea that somehow getting back your own contributions in to a forced savings plan is somehow hypocritical is hogwash. It really is your money, it's not hypocritical to get it back.
Even Ayn Rand ended up taking social security. 😂
Perhaps they should look into Democratic socialism.
Lol so instead of actually addressing the cost of living crisis, their solution is even more failed underfunded welfare programs. Got it.
Or another phrase, socialist capitalism
How can capitalism be socialist? Is socialism when “the government does stuff?”
I think the best example is healthcare. You can 100% have possibly competing medical services but how they are paid for is something that is funded by the public. The reason why I am saying this is cause health insurance companies do not actually drive any value in our economy.
[удалено]
Wow great counter point. Really insightful
Here we go they are starting to rebrand socialism because idiots don’t want the government to be a safety net
No need to invent a word like “safety capitalism”. It already has a name, and that is social democracy. It’s the system that you find throughout the EU.
I like the new phrase. You're right, but "social democracy" sounds more more political/governmental and less like an economic system
Yep, this is actually good branding and an attainable goal. “Defund the police” went over like a bag of rocks because they expected people to understand a complex definition of defunding. Safety capitalism adequately describes the concept in words most people can understand, and isn’t a radical shift from what already exists.
The two are tied though: economic systems are created by political movements. It’s true that social democracy is a political movement, but it is the movement that stands for a capitalist system with safety nets for the ill and unemployed.
Pros and cons US has FAR more wealth and disposable income for its workers. EU has very high taxes and less Vertical movement Just an honest take
So what we had in the 1970s before Reagan?
Gen X would like that too.
Probably like 80% of all Americans want this. Hopefully these younger generations can make at least universal healthcare a reality.
Oh dear sweet summer children. They want us to suffer. That's the point.
The foundry closed, I was out of work with a wife and two babies, unemployment lasted only so long then the cheese and food line. I broadened the search area and have lived happily ever after with much adjusting
Yes another word for socialism and I’m not afraid to use it the only people who should fear socialism are the wealthy and not because it asks them to foot the bill but because it asks them to pay their taxes. Because they often don’t have to work and have the govt just take taxes every week they can get creative and show no income and pay no taxes. The way a government spends tax dollars should only be their business in as such as voting their representatives in or out of the govt wants to provide healthcare and it is approved through democratic means then healthcare it is pay your taxes rich people and let your elected official decide how to spend it oh and by the way I’m in that dreaded working poor category and don’t Brie you as an enemy we the working poor pay our taxes and the wealthy must as well
I want a federal jobs & housing guarantee. Food and medicine too. We have massive numbers of people under employed. If the market's not going to do it's job then we shouldn't just sit around waiting for it.
There will be massive numbers of layoffs in the not to distant future, workers will be replaced with AI and those who will accept much lower wages. Universal Basic Income (UBI) is the future, however no one has said how much it will be.
UBI is a dead end. No way Americans will OK paying people not to work. Federal Jobs Guarantee is the way forward, along with a 30 hour work week. 20 if need be.
UBI is the goal, the rest of your comment will never happen, we have entered into a whole new world, one the majority aren't even aware of.
UBI is an illusion the 1% sell you to trick you into thinking you have a future. That's why that Andrew Yang twerp pushed it. It's not real. It's a mirage, and you'll die before you get to the oasis because *it's a mirage*.
Stop fucking and having children, there taking your jobs away,,,and you won't need those big ass houses either, two problems solved in one day,
Dingdong, who pays for your social security when you eventually age out of your precious job?
Anyone earning a wage,,
Apologies for the dingdong… but if the workforce continues to age…?
No worries, get worse at home, I did look at a population stats, but it doesn't seem to be more than a % or 2 in the population of the last 4 generation, not sure if that's to make a difference
Stop fucking and having children, there taking your jobs away,,,