[morningmoon]

- 65% of Americans don't save, despite most having the ability to do so. 1 in 3 have less than $5,000 saved for retirement! It's a massive cultural problem. [1]

- Most Americans live unhealthy lifestyles that contribute to $1.5 trillion in estimated healthcare costs from preventable disease. 1 in 3 Americans have pre-diabetes and 2 in 3 Americans are overweight. 1 in 3 Americans are obese. Again, a cultural problem. [2]

Our culture is toxic and unsustainable. Government can't fix this. It's a generational problem that's been growing with each generation.

[1]: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/15/bankrate-65-percent-of-ameri...

[2]: https://blog.bcbsnc.com/2014/06/costly-habits-1-5-trillion-l... [3]:

[nosianu]

2nd reply, for some reason HN refuses to accept my edit of the 1st one where I appended this, although it still lets me open the "Edit" option even when I reload.

As for your second point, I have a similar argument to make as in my first reply about your fist point about "saving". Unless you think that suddenly, within the last fifty years somehow humans especially in the US were born radically different than any human or pre-human generation in the million years before them, it's kind of strange to blame it on the individuals. I would say humans have stayed pretty much the same. So if the outcome suddenly is bad, why do look for the reasons in the individuals who did not change? There must be something outside people that changed, and I would say that is where one should look for a solution. Not in changing the people ("You buy wrong! You eat wrong!"), which won't work.

The Guardian has just written an article along those lines: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/mar/16/snack-attacks-...

[cam_l]

You have touched on what i think is the critical underlying difference between Left and Right thinking.

Systemic responsibility vs personal responsibility.

The thing is, they are not mutually exclusive. They are more like two sides of the same coin. And while those two sides may not be exactly equal, most arguments between the sides seem to centre on the disjunct between these two ways of thinking.

If you can acknowledge, but frame the very real issue of personal responsibility within the context of a system, we may find it easier to bridge this divide.

For example, judge the responsibility of three hypothetical people with a sweet tooth.

1. Tries to eat healthy, but goes out to buy a cake every day.

2. Tries to eat healthy, but friend brings around cake every day to tempt.

3. Tries to eat healthy, but friend brings around cake everyday, and empties pantry of all other healthy food.

Most people will waver on 2. or 3. But depending on where you live, 3. may well be the closest to reality.

[nosianu]

That is not a difference of politics but of what you are looking at. If the subject is public health policy you look at statistics and the big picture. If you look at one particular patient you don't. Same here: If the subject is the fate of one person and one person only (meaning that person isn't a "Fake" stand-in example and the subject really is the big picture) then you can and should talk about that person's behavior. If the subject is the big picture that's useless because you can't change people and you should make policies that work and don't demand a huge genetic change. Same in crime: Individuals are and should be held accountable, but public policy should not and does not rely on people to change but sets the framework.

So, no contradiction necessary. The exact same person can have both views - depending on what the subject is. However, lots of discussions and comments focus on individuals (even if no concrete one is chosen) when the subject is the big picture.

I think so-called conservatives and progressives would find that they are not actually all that far apart at all if they really looked at individual cases. It must be true individual cases - people tend to extrapolate and still think about the population (coming up with things like "slippery slope" arguments, or giving small criminals huge sentences to "send a signal").

[cam_l]

Fully agree, but i think the crux is you cannot have an individual without a system.

Which i think the Right don't really understand. And of course the left speak as if the individual is theoretical when looking at the system.

[nosianu]

On the level of the economy there is no "saving" (ignoring small things like leaving resources under ground for later instead of digging them up now). What is produced now is consumed now, especially services. Governments may keep strategic reserves e.g. of oil or some basic foods but that's outside the economy, that's (obviously) not added to by "saving for retirement" and all the other kinds of "saving" that individuals are encouraged to do.

Just think about it for a moment, what it actually means when people "save". The future economy certainly doesn't need that money, it's used in the current economy and not buried underground. Not to mention that money, being completely virtual (which is a good thing IMO), never is a problem - unless the government (or the world) messes up big time (like in the 1930s).

Businesses don't need anybody's "savings" either, banks create money (through debt) if a lender, especially a business, has a good plan.

So again, just take a moment to think about what it means when everybody is encouraged to "save". One aspect is - do those with any power (and I don't mean this politically, simply that different people have different roles and positions) really want everybody to save? Because if everybody does it the economy goes down. One person's expenses are another person's income. However, having this "you don't save!" sure is great to have to throw into conversations to show "it's your own fault". Of course, that's not the intention why "you must save" is kept, I don't think anybody (of those who are relevant) consciously thinks like that. Overall though "saving" helped lower the government's role and funnel lots of money streams through a thriving and ever increasing financial industry. If the government actually wanted people to consume less they could have achieved that decades ago.

[morningmoon]

Yeah yeah the deflationary death spiral that’s never actually happened.

Saving is literally keeping money to use it at a later date. So how will you retire without saving? Are you planning on working until you’re dead?

[bb88]

Your post [1] discusses that half of those questioned can't afford to save money. It's not a cultural problem as much as it is an economic problem.

The adjusted median income really hasn't grown in the last couple of decades. And only recently got back to the rate in the 1990's. [3]

[3]: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N

[raesene9]

isn't taxation, in this case, a type of government enforced savings :)

So the gov. could force people to essentially provide for a level of healthcare for everyone.

Also on the Obesity point, if the UK was a US state we would rate somewhere in the middle of the pack on obesity levels.

Yet the UK pays far less per capita on healthcare and provides a basic level of healthcare free at point of use (rich people are free to increase that if they want)

[morningmoon]

The bulk of research shows the US spends more on healthcare due to higher prices, not more care. Increasing taxes will not solve anything without some sort of strategy to control prices.

One solution is price controls for common, well understood procedures and medications, like most other countries with single-payer. The UK for example, engages in price controls.