[clement_b]

30 years ago people would have said yes perhaps (American dream), but now it has become apparent the US is a very broken country for ~90% of its population. It's actually shocking how bad it is when you think about fundamentals (health, food, security, education). We have many problems in France, they look like micro problems when looking at how painful it is for most to survive in the US.

[spaceman_2020]

As an outsider, what boggles my mind the most about America right now isn’t healthcare or inequality. Its gun violence.

Unreal that schools have active shooter training and no one seems to even care. The fact that there is a non-zero chance your kid might be shot at school is completely absurd.

[rjbwork]

Kids are like 80x or more likely to kill themselves than to be killed in a school shooting. It's not even close to the top of list of real issues affecting the country. It's just an easy one to get clicks and political favor that doesn't require us to do any real socio-cultural analysis - just ban guns!

I think active shooter training time would be better spent on counseling, therapy, PE, recess, or just literally letting kids fuck off and hang out with their friends for an hour.

[eriktrautman]

Firearm deaths just overtook auto deaths as the leading cause of death in children and adolescents in the US: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmc2201761

Unclear the portion that is suicides but homicides are the fastest growing segment beyond unintentional poisonings

[brigandish]

From the article:

> Although the new data are consistent with other evidence that firearm violence has increased during the Covid-19 pandemic,5 the reasons for the increase are unclear,

Seems like there is a pretty obvious candidate for that, lockdowns.

Still, only time will tell, as they go on to say with the rest of that quote:

> and it cannot be assumed that firearm-related mortality will later revert to prepandemic levels.

[sneak]

This bundles in firearm suicides with firearm homicides, obscuring the real issue.

When most people say "gun violence" they do not mean gun-as-tool-used-in-suicide, they mean nonconsensual use of a firearm against someone.

Suicides are way up. Gun murders are up too, but they're still pretty low in the scheme of things. They're "safe to completely ignore" low if you're not in one of a few specific counties in the US where gang violence causes 70-90% of the gun murders.

The movie plot/evening news gun violence stuff that you hear about is so rare as to be safely ignored in all parts of the US.

[AlexandrB]

Making guns harder to access probably reduces suicide rates as well because there are few faster, easier methods of suicide than a gun[1]. I think it's valid to lump gun suicides with other gun violence for this reason.

> The consensus among public health experts is that there is strong evidence that reducing firearm suicides in contexts where more-lethal means of attempting suicide are unavailable will result in reductions in the total suicide rate (see, for example, Office of the Surgeon General and National Action Alliance for Suicide Prevention, 2012; World Health Organization, 2014; for review, see Azrael and Miller, 2016).

[1] https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/suicide.ht...

[JamesBarney]

There's actually better evidence gun control will reduce suicides than homicides.

[refurb]

Yet the US suicide rate is lower than other developed countries that have no guns.

[spaceman_2020]

Amazing that you can look at kids being shot in primary schools and then try to analyze it statistically.

This doesn't happen anywhere else on the planet outside of war-torn countries. Saying that "actually kids are more likely to kill themselves" is just about peak cope.

[rjbwork]

How else would you analyze the issue?

A binary analysis would lead us to conclude that gun regulations are completely bereft of any benefit whatsoever, given that gun violence, even mass shootings/spree killings, happen in countries with quite strict gun control - I mean, the former PM of Japan was killed via firearm just this month! But that is not the case. There is a clear gradient of occurrence and effectiveness of regulation. So, we need to move into the realm of statistics.

And the statistics are that over the course of the decade from 2010 to 2019 ~350 kids were killed in school shootings, and ~26000 took their own lives.

My assertion is that given these numbers, an inordinate amount of resources, political capital, and conversational bandwidth is being spent on what is actually a rather rare occurrence and that this is largely a waste compared to what we could be spending said resources, political capital, and conversational bandwidth on - namely, solving the problems that affect broad swathes of the populace and that I, and others, believe actually drive people to commit such violence in the first place.

Or, we can spend the next century fretting about a statistically vanishingly rare occurrence, keeping the blue and red tribes divided, making little to no progress on the existential problems that we as a country, culture, society, and species face, as the world becomes increasingly uninhabitable.

[spaceman_2020]

> given that gun violence, even mass shootings/spree killings, happen in countries with quite strict gun control

They absolutely do not, not even remotely close to the scale and frequency in the United States. At least not in countries with equivalent socio-economic metrics as the US (El Salvador does not count).

[rjbwork]

>They absolutely do not, not even remotely close to the scale and frequency in the United States.

I thought we weren't analyzing gun violence statistically?

[shkkmo]

And since you agree that it is useful to compare school shooting statistics between countries, then you should also agree that it would be more effective to spend more time and resources combating suicides than school shootings. The relative difference in mass shooting rates based on gun control strictness is much smaller than the relative rates between mass shooting deaths and suicides.

This is not an argument against gun control, but against spending so much time and effort fighting for that gun control at the cost of letting slip the lower hanging fruit that could prevent more deaths.

[fleetwoodsnack]

It’s really quite simple, you didn’t have to spell out your confusion so elaborately:

Statistics deals in degrees; violence against children is something that is sufficiently cognized in absolutes.

[JamesBarney]

If we shutdown all schools we would have 0 mass shootings at schools.

This is the only moral choice when dealing with absolutes.

[chii]

policy decisions and budget allocation should an emotionless utility function that allocates what produces the best outcome with maximal efficiency.

To do otherwise is to be biased one way or another.

[avidphantasm]

> How else would you analyze the issue?

Um, I don’t know maybe morally? As in, it is morally abhorrent and unconscionable for children to be preyed upon in school, one of the places they should safe by definition.

[rjbwork]

Okay.

I agree that kids should not be preyed upon in schools.

Now what?

[lkois]

By binary analysis, it sounds like you mean to claim that 99% effective isn't close enough to 100%. For most people that would be enough. Because I don't know how else you could conclude that gun regulations are bereft of any benefit whatsoever, even hypothetically, without manufacturing such an unfair hurdle to obfuscate the obvious: gun violence requires access to guns.

It seems like you want to say that broader mental health problems are more important than gun violence, but that's only more reason to restrict access to guns. Most other places in the world are able to recognise that mental illness and guns are a bad mix, and act accordingly. The US has had nearly one third of the mass shootings in the world since the 60s yet people like you continue to defend access to guns as though it's not a contributing factor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_S...). That alone seems to point to one of those broad problems affecting the populace. It doesn't have to be the only cause, to merit a treatment.

The rest of the world doesn't view gun access as a given, or even a good. It's earned and revered, or prevented, but never normalised. It's why Abe's assassin had to make his own gun, because Japanese laws didn't make things easier for him. It's why here in Australia, even gangsters don't even have guns, for the most part https://youtu.be/BYsXCnxbnj0?t=461

But we don't judge the effectiveness of these restrictions by some bogus standard of absolute zero gun violence. We judge them by assessing our rare incidents of gun violence, and whether we think we think we could or should have done more to prevent them from obtaining and using a firearm.

And when we look at the numbers of mass shootings in the US, particularly in sensitive places like schools, we wonder how in the world you can think you're doing enough.

[tacitusarc]

This approach assumes a moral equivalence to all gun violence. I believe people tend to assign a significantly higher negative moral weight to the murder of children in general, and children at school in particular. You may disagree with that weighting, but it’s an entirely consistent and valid model.

[shkkmo]

I don't see the moral difference between taking a gun and shooting a kid and bullying and harassing a kid until they are driven to take a gun and shoot themselves.

Both are horrific, but the latter seems even more horrific because it includes not only death, but psychological torture before the death.

[res0nat0r]

Most folks outside the USA (where I live) that I've worked with / spoken to say that we're completely insane and it's embarrassing that we allow the incredible amount of gun violence that we do. All my coworkers overseas think it's unreal and really intolerable that we allow the level of gun violence that we do.

People need to quit embarrassing themselves trying to somehow reason away why the USA is an outlier via some kind of cope metric. It's the guns.

[readme]

you could start by using actual data

your 80:1 stat seems pretty dubious -- do you have a source for it?

[heavyset_go]

I like how it's an argument that mocks gun regulations with the fact that more kids kill themselves with guns than they do each other.

Firearm related injuries are the #2 killer of children after automotive accidents[1]. The rate of firearm related deaths for young people went up nearly 14% between 2019 and 2020 alone.

I do agree with the importance of socio-economic solutions, though, even before gun regulations.

[1] https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmc2201761

[imtringued]

Yes the fear isn't that your kid is being shot by a school shooters the fear is that your child must.kive in a society where school shooting and the long chain of developmental problems that caused these issues has been fully normalized.

We have enough food and housing for everyone right now, except in some popular places, why exactly have we become so desperate? Why can't we give up some economic growth and use the resources we have on general human well-being?

[raxxorraxor]

> Amazing that you can look at kids being shot in primary schools and then try to analyze it statistically.

You have to. For effective policy you need to distance yourself from the deed no matter how terrible they are. All other venues for grief are better than policies motivated by retribution, which will very likely not lead to constructive outcomes and resulting in repeats. Otherwise you end up invading random countries because someone attacked you.

[sudosysgen]

There is a psychological dimension to your kid having to confront the possibility of being shot in school being mere numbers of deaths.

[BobbyJo]

What else should you do when considering legislation? Should we legislate by blindly trying to stop anything bad? That doesn't seem like a good idea.

[anotherhue]

I agree with your sentiment but I wish your claims were true https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_massacres_by_...

[spaceman_2020]

Man, your own list is filled with a) third world countries, and b) actual terrorist attacks.

You're being disingenuous if you're trying to claim that, say, the Beslan School Siege is the same as the Columbine school shooting. One was committed by a terrorist organization with a political goal. The other was just a couple of fellow students.

[lucideer]

Man what is the relevance of this comment? The existence of Beslan on that page has nothing to do with US shootings - the gp was just referring you to US stats that contradict your comment. Nothing to do with Beslan.

[lkois]

>Kids are like 80x or more likely to kill themselves than to be killed in a school shooting. It's not even close to the top of list of real issues affecting the country.

But what's the comparison with the rest of the world here? Are you trying to counter the claim that gun violence is a uniquely American issue? Or are you saying that even higher rates of youth suicide are an even more American issue? Because suicide happens everywhere, but unless the US is doing remarkably well on this, that 80x figure is still far far lower than any other developed country. Where, you know, a non-non-zero chance of shootings means infinite more chance of suicide, most other places in the world.

You're dismissing an acute problem with common sense solutions behind issues that are common enough to almost be normal, in order to justify doing nothing. It's like someone's pointed at your bleeding foot and you've said it's fine, because you've also got high cholesterol.

[rjbwork]

I elaborated here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32163407

But TL;DR: I think that the juice is not worth the squeeze and that it is just another issue for the two tribes to fight about while the ruling class continues to destroy the human habitat and loot our country's wealth.

[ineptech]

The number of school shooting victims in the US looks small compared to the number of suicide victims, and it also looks small compared to the number of cancer victims, or the number of car crash victims, or the distance to the moon in inches. But all of those seem like ways to distract people from comparing it to the number of school shooting victims in other countries.

[dr_dshiv]

It would also help to have mentally healthy streets and neighborhoods that kids and adults can safely play in. Ideally without worrying about violence of any kind.

[chii]

Taking away guns does not solve the reason for which they become used by some people.

The cost, such as politically and time & energy to lobby, would be better spent making the social net better, or add more mental health services that target more people, and to prevent people from getting to a state of destitution (and fall into crime).

[dr_dshiv]

I generally agree. However, I’d say “both/and” is reasonable. Yes, let’s avoid a society filled with destitution—the market actually works better when you take care of people. Also, let’s stop the proliferation of murder machines. A conservative court should recognize that there is not an individual right to bear arms except by the convention of the court. The second amendment supports well-regulated militias. The current court is not conservative so much as cynical.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”

[lawgimenez]

I don’t understand your reasoning. US is the only country in the whole universe that has an active shooter problem in schools. Why in the world shoot kids in the first place?

[rjbwork]

>Why in the world shoot kids in the first place?

I don't know. I certainly don't think anyone should be shooting kids.

>US is the only country in the whole universe that has an active shooter problem in schools.

Because we have guns that are relatively available and a handful of wingnuts that want to hurt kids.

That said, it is not the only place that has a violence against children problem. Not even the only place with a violence against children in schools problem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China

[tcmart14]

Agree and disagree. I dont think it is as simple as an issue that just gets clicks. It is a real issue because it is insane. Where I agree is, no one wants to do any real analysis to figure out how we got here because, its not a simple a problem. It is a problem with a lot of sources, and being able to tackle this, will probably help in other areas (like suicide rates).

Good way to word it. Suicides alone are an NP hard problem. Homelessness is an NP Hard problem, etc. Mass shooting could be a sort of NP Complete problem. If you can come up with solutions that prevent mass shootings, those same solutions will probably greatly reduce the others.

Just to name, a probably short, list of sources.

- We have a poor gun culture. Guns used to be viewed as tools, now they are some cool gadget that is apart of someone's identity.

- We often ignore and stigmatized mental health issues. If you want mental health, you are seen as weak or pathetic. When in reality, we probably all could use some sort of neutral third party counseling at the very least to talk about issues we individually face out loud.

- Insurance coverage is pretty shitty for mental health. My last employer had good benefits, good medical benefits, but it only covered 3 or 4 mental health appointments. Other than that, it was a decent plan.

- We probably should honestly evaluate the process of purchasing a firearm. You can be placed on a no-fly list for suspected involvement in terrorist activities, but can still purchase a gun? Doesn't seem to make sense to me at all.

[Bhilai]

As a parent of kids in public schools in a state that has open carry laws, school shootings are definitely top of the list of things I hate about America. And yes, I do think banning guns is on the table for me as a solution to this problem. I would wholeheartedly vote for representative who support banning guns. Spare me your lecture on 2A, if you think your rights to carry assault weapons reigns over the life of kids, then there is not much to debate about. Its astounding that gun proponents refuse to accept that Kids exists in all other countries across the world and kids are kids with their video games, all of their insecurities and mental health problems but America is the only country where school shootings are rampant.

[jamie_ca]

They can both be problems?

US Teen suicide looks like around 8-11 per 100k, age 15-19, depending on year (source: https://www.americashealthrankings.org/explore/health-of-wom...), with 9 states over 20.

Compare to Germany, 184 between age 15-20 (https://www.aerzteblatt.de/int/archive/article/213427) from a population of 5.41 million (https://www.statista.com/statistics/454349/population-by-age...), or 3.4 per 100k.

[watwut]

> It's not even close to the top of list of real issues affecting the country.

They do have active shooter drills as routine part of education. And schools have cops in them routinely and Americans talk about it as normal. You cant those wish away, those are very really affecting the country.

[ZetaZero]

> Kids are like 80x or more likely to kill themselves than to be killed in a school shooting.

Sure, if you limit the numbers to just school shootings. Why not count all kid deaths by firearms? A kid is twice as likely to die by bullet than by suicide.

School shootings are just the currently most visible form of kid death by bullet.

[electrondood]

Their point wasn't the risk relative to other causes of death for children. Their point was that the US is the only country in the world where this happens, frequently.

[cm2187]

For school shootings, it’s rationally absurd to worry about those rare events. It’s like worrying about dying from a terrorist attack or a plane crash in France. The probability is mathematically non zero, and the country makes a big deal when that happens, but it is statistically a non problem.

Being confronted with an armed robber in a home invasion is more of a problem in the US (but France has its own fair share of violent crime). Outside of that I think the bulk of gun violence is suicides and gang on gang violence.

[apexalpha]

>It’s like worrying about dying from a terrorist attack or a plane crash in France.

The aviation sector is one of the most regulated on earth and has extreme safety standards for exactly this reason: we don't want to crash.

Societies also implemented security measures after terrorist attacks. Especially after Bataclan in France.

These are extremely rare events because we take measures to prevent them.

[chii]

> Societies also implemented security measures after terrorist attacks.

i would argue that those measures are costing more than the attacks themselves. It's security theater - high cost (in terms of time and resources), high visibility (politically). But doesn't really prevent any terrorist attacks, because terrorist attacks are fairly rare all things considered.

So you can say that those terrorists' attack succeeded in making the lives of those they attacked worse, and it's because we let them dictate due to "fear", rather than rationally ignore them.

[Clubber]

>These are extremely rare events because we take measures to prevent them.

When you use the TSA and Patriot Act as an example of meaningful, useful legislation, you're probably not on strong footing. One is considered an expensive boondoggle jobs program, the other is tasked with illegal mass spying of US citizens and deprivation of rights. Neither shows any strong evidence of preventing terrorist acts. Its legislation like these that give gun owners pause of any "common sense" gun control solutions implemented based on emotion.

[polypodiopsi]

Apexalpha was talkimg about bataclan in France. The european context is super different from the US context. For example this year someone killed one person in a Amoklauf (~schoolshooting) in germany with a sports crossbow. These things will now be put under weapons regulation, and will be basically unavailable to the general public. As they should be. What does anyone really NEED, a crossbow for?

[Clubber]

>What does anyone really NEED, a crossbow for?

This isn't a very compelling argument, and it's kinda intellectually dishonest because you wouldn't accept any answer I gave you. You are now acting as "dear leader," who decides what individuals do or don't need.

Why does anyone NEED to go over 10 miles per hour, why does anyone NEED more than one pair of shoes? Why does anyone NEED coffee, tea, beer, lots of things, why does anyone NEED a fast computer? Why does anyone NEED cologne or perfume? Why does anyone NEED dessert? Why does anyone NEED fashionable clothes? Why does anyone NEED art? How do you even justify that outside of a profit motive in a way you will accept? See it's a trick you are playing.

Of course to answer your question, a gun would be the preferred tool. If you ever go camping in the woods, they are certainly handy. If someone tries to rape or murder you, it would certainly come in handy. If you were a woman (or a man even) and attracted a crazy stalker, invaluable. If you have a massive plague where the police stop working and society stops functioning correctly, it would certainly come in handy. Remember covid?

>These things will now be put under weapons regulation, and will be basically unavailable to the general public.

Of course, someone will kill someone with a bow and arrow, then it will be banned, then someone will kill someone with a knife, and they will ban the "scary looking" ones. Then someone will use a slingshot and those will get banned. You know it's all just a theatrical overreaction at that point to placate the hysterical masses.

[spaceman_2020]

> For school shootings, it’s rationally absurd to worry about those rare events.

Rare events that only happen in America.

I don't know what kind of parent looks at a rare event where their kid might die and says "yeah, I'm okay with that".

[korijn]

You can make them extremely rare to non-existent. Why the US people do not jump at the opportunity is beyond me.

[scambier]

"School shootings are mathematically irrelevant", what a take.

[TheSpiceIsLife]

Talk about normalisation of deviance!

I've read that more children have died of gunshot wounds this year than police officers have died in the line of duty.[1]

Granted, there are probably more school children at school than there are police at work on any given day, so ... of course children are more likely to be shot at a school?

But then again, here in Australia we have reasonable gun control after that mass schooling in Tasmania all those years ago ... and the country still turned to shit ... so?

While were here, anyone else got any arguments no one would intentionally make?

1. https://en.as.com/latest_news/more-children-have-died-in-sch...

[chii]

and thousands more died due to motor traffic accidents (https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/overview/prelimina...)

The outrage always happens on politically charged subjects, but worse outcomes happen on the roads, and nobody talks about it as though it was normal.

Kids should fear crossing the street more than an active shooter. While i don't disagree that gun control is a good outcome, the difficulty of achieving it in the US is real. Effort is better spent addressing the root cause of gun violence, rather than attempting to take the guns away and just hope that the violence doesn't occur.

[Handytinge]

> Kids should fear crossing the street more than an active shooter.

And in most countries, they do.

[TheSpiceIsLife]

School children don't cross roads inside classrooms.

There's enough concern to go around to work at improving both.

[spaceman_2020]

"My child died but I can take comfort in the fact that his death was a statistical anomaly!"

[akomtu]

It's true, though. If you were to live many lives in a row, when would be your first time getting shot? "News" agencies are great at distracting attention from real issues: cancer, chemicals contamination, healthcare prices.

[ricardobayes]

That's very true. There's an unprecedented amount of distorted news too. I never believed it until I got a worried message from a friend about wildfires in our area. There are none. I had also read an article in my local news about devastating wildfires in his area, of which there are also none at his place. These were both generally well-respected mainstream media outlets. That's not saying we shouldn't focus on climate change ASAP, but it looks to me as the news broadcasts have an agenda to keep people in fear.

[rtp4me]

Exactly. As I tell my son, the news organizations are no different than other vendors. They have a product to sell (fear, societal divide) and do their very best to continue selling it to the masses. And, astonishingly, people eat it up day and night.

For the people who live outside the US and consume our "news", it must seem our country is falling apart. From gun violence, to wildfires, to racism, to homelessness, we truly must be living in a 3rd world country. However, my experience does not reflect any of this. Yes, these issues exist, but everyday I can go to the grocery store, put gas in my wife's car, walk downtown, take a trip to the lake, visit a neighboring town, etc - all without fear. People of differing backgrounds/colors talk pleasantly with each other, neighbors help neighbors, etc. Totally different from what the "media" is pushing these days.

My advice - walk/run away from the media and don't attach yourself to any political party. Your emotional state will thank you later.

[fleetwoodsnack]

If the statistical relevance fails to capture the underlying practical relevance of a phenomenon, it’s usually the job of the statistician to explain why.

One way is examining the dimensions of analysis. A simple counting exercise and declaring “well it’s just not relevant,” despite contradictory qualitative evidence is really simple-minded and an abuse of statistical reasoning.

But this is typical of non-research thinking, in non-academic contexts so forgive me if I come off harshly.

[akomtu]

No such thing as "practical relevance". It doesn't matter that sharks or bears look scary: hard stats say that both dangers are imaginary. Same for guns.

[Beldin]

> If you were to live many lives in a row, when would be your first time getting shot?

Statistically: that time I lived in the US.

[chung8123]

For children it is diet. I bet that our children's diets kill more than guns.

[bearmode]

>Outside of that I think the bulk of gun violence is suicides and gang on gang violence.

Good job those gang bullets aren't allowed to hit anything other than gang members!

[throwaheyy]

No, school shootings are like a weekly event in the US. They are not “exceedingly rare”.

Do you seriously think the traveling public would accept a plane crashing every week?

[mbg721]

There's someplace where the chances are exactly zero?

The fact that schools have active shooter drills says more about the disclaim-all-liability culture of schools here than it does about gun violence. The more pervasive gun violence problem is outside of schools, and is more a result of a systemic collapse of order in inner cities. The lone-wolf school shooters just make better headlines.

[makomk]

There is no such place. American gun control advocates like to point to the UK, where we completely banned (certain kinds of) gun after a major school shooting and haven't had any since, but there's been enough near-misses where some kid got to the point where they could have shot up their school if not for rethinking at the last minute that even here the chance of one happening is obviously still above zero.

[watwut]

But like, I would expect similar headlines from all around the world had this been true. Meanwhile, the one place you see these news from extraordinary often is America. (Second runner are former ISIS territories where they terrorist attract girls schools occasionally.)

[riffraff]

There's a Twitter thread discussing the outcome of the police investigation after the Uvalde shooting, which discusses how teachers should have known better than to leave door opens, as that clearly complicates defending against school shooters.

From a European point of view it's incomprehensible how that is even a thing.

[UberFly]

Yea but nobody wants to work anymore.

[polypodiopsi]

Hahahaha

[raxxorraxor]

Or that they need security in the first place... Lacking its own will for some reason I fear we will see similar developments in Europe soon. But even that is not a pressing issue, it is an issue that draws attention and is use for political jousting.

[Supermancho]

> The fact that there is a non-zero chance your kid might be shot at school is completely absurd.

This is an ironic demonstration of why larger problems in the US are not addressed. Someone always starts off talking about an issue then "think of the children" rears it's head. Do you believe there's a benefit from the whataboutism when "think of the population" is far more important? The larger societal issues are more likely issues on which there is plenty of low hanging fruit, versus this hand-wringing about children which will not promote any short-term improvements.

To quote Daryl Zero: Now, a few words on looking for things. When you go looking for something specific, your chances of finding it are very bad. Because of all the things in the world, you're only looking for one of them. When you go looking for anything at all, your chances of finding it are very good. Because of all the things in the world, you're sure to find some of them.

[unixhero]

The American dream, you have to be asleep to believe it. -- George Carlin

[Ma8ee]

Exactly! The US is great for the top few percent, but for the rest of the population they’d have a much better life in any Western European country.

[a-user-you-like]

Just raise the minimum wage to $50 an hour, problem solved.

[Swenrekcah]

As has been pointed out elsewhere in the thread, most of the problems can be solved better by treating people with respect rather than raising minimum wage through the roof.

By that I mean universal healthcare, guaranteed sick leave and childbirth leave as well as minimum 3-4 weeks vacation a year and a good unemployment system.

[lnxg33k1]

I agree with you, but let’s not rule out the wage issue, like it’s crazy that people need to work multiple jobs to make ends meet, but also finding dependable workers that take pride, that’s I think about respect, I am sorry but how I’m supposed to take pride if I do a job well done, then at the first issue the company is just going to lay me off to maximise bonus or dividends?

[Swenrekcah]

For sure, there is also one other thing I forgot to mention which is access to affordable (and not unhealthy) housing. With all those in place people wouldn’t be so dependent on their employer. I see a lot of FI/RE stories focusing on the importance of having fuck-you money in order to be able to stand up to your boss. Well if you live in a decent welfare society you can do that without $4M.

This would in effect force employers to pay better.

[mathw]

I understand many places in the USA you can be legally fired for no reason and with no notice. That is surely harmful to the development of a sense of trust and loyalty towards one's employer.

[ithkuil]

All those things are absolutely necessary to raise to an objectively higher standard like that of western Europe.

However, due to the hedonic treadmill, after people get accustomed to it and take things for granted, people will find reasons to be unhappy and frustrated and claim that they live in the worst possible times etc.

EDIT: just to be clear: I'm not saying that since people will complain there is no point in improving, nor I'm saying that you don't have to listen people's complaints since they just don't know how lucky they are. It's important to keep improving more and more, since there is still room for improvement. What I'm saying is that it's hard to compare the quality of life in different places just by measuring how many people are complaining here or there.

[a-user-you-like]

But you don’t need universal healthcare if people are compensated well with a living wage.

With $50/hr you will have your pick of providers.

[Swenrekcah]

Until you lose your job which is kind of the point.

Besides if 50 dollars an hour becomes minimum wage for everyone you can bet your years salary that healthcare providers are going to raise their prices accordingly.

[imtringued]

People will work for little money or even free if living expenses are low and they enjoy their job.

[justinclift]

Seems like inflation would then jump a fair bunch to match?

[imtringued]

That is actually the primary reason why a minimum wage hike wouldn't be as harmful as many people think. People at the bottom consume their wages which generates more jobs than someone who just dumps more money on their portfolio.

[makomk]

This doesn't work when the economy is already close to full employment, full consumption of available energy, and full capacity on critical parts like ICs which it's hard to expand the production of. Without any excess slack to increase production in order to fill that increase in consumption, it just has to come out of other people's consumption through inflation reducing the value of their wages.

It's also not at all obvious that this is better than someone just investing a bunch of money. After all, the way investments ultimately make money is by supplying people with what they want at low prices, which means that investment money floating around can lead to innovation which supplies people with more stuff using less resources, increasing the amount available for everyone can buy with their wages.

[Chris2048]

This falls foul of the glassmakers fallacy - money invested in a portfolio will still be used for something, so it is generating economic activity.

[Ma8ee]

Some jobs would just disappear. No one is going to pay a greeter at Walmart $50 an hour.

[graftak]

Good because that is very creepy.

[Ma8ee]

I agree. Jobs that isn’t possible to pay a living salary for don’t need to be done.

[danw1979]

Let’s try it and find out

[crooked-v]

Jeff Bezos' daily income is about $175 million. Tax him at a marginal rate of 90% and that's about 1500 $50/hour workers compensated for right there.

[IMTDb]

You are mixing his income with the increase in his net worth. Those are not the same thing. The $175 millions are the increase of the value of his stocks. Until he sells those stocks, he earns a total of $0.

You can't really tax "increase in net worth", because net worth can - and does fluctuate both positively and negatively, As opposed to income which just accumulate more or less linearly.

Imagine Jeff Bezos stock has a perfect seasonal effect: on odds years, he gains $1 billion and on even years, he loses that amount. We can all agree here that Jeff sin't getting any richer, on average and thus should not be taxed since he is not getting any stable income. Yet you would want to tax him, every odd year, on the $1 billion - which is unfair, unless you also give him back that tax money every even year. This means firing those workers and asking them to give back their undue wage - which you can't do of course.

The way we solve this is by not taxing the increase in net worth, until he does actually sell the stock and converts this increase in stock value into what is called realized gains. At that point, his net worth won't fluctuate anymore since he sold the stock for cold hard cash. And we tax him on that cash amount. You might argue that we should tax him more on those realized gains - which is fair discussion point.

But trying to impose a tax on virtual net worth increase is a quite risky path because you would also need to pay billionaires when their stock portfolio decreases. And although everyone wants to tax billionaire when you hear about them having a fantastic month on the stock market (even tho these gains haven't been realized yet), but no one want to send them money when a headline says "$25 billion wiped out in a single day" (and rightfully so).

[dr_dshiv]

In the Netherlands, there is a small wealth tax. It fluctuates based on net value of holdings. Pretty straightforward, actually.

Personally, I wish the income tax for high earners could be deferred for the first year or two. It’s like, right when you are first building wealth, it goes away so fast… but then, once you got wealth, why not plan to pay a percent or two a year in tax?

[jon_adler]

Some people still believe in the fantasy of trickle down economics and the Laffer curve, so they push for lower corporate and marginal tax rates that help the wealthiest. The vast majority of people do not benefit as the money flows upwards and concentrates with the wealthiest over time. Some redistribution is needed to promote equality and fairness. Instead, what we have at the moment is a system where the wealthiest are able to avoid taxes and end up paying a lower marginal rate than the middle classes.

[imtringued]

Capital dividends and interest payments are proportional to how many assets you own. Profit pays interest and dividends. People pay for profits in the form of higher prices.

Consumers who spend a majority of their income on food, energy and housing are paying more in than they get back because the income they receive from assets is smaller than their living expenses aka the income share of labor is less than 100%.

Imagine being so rich that you can live off dividends, there is no reason for your wealth accumulation to ever stop. The amount you pay into the economy is much lower than the income you derive from your assets.

This is the reason why there is a constant flow of money toward the top. When you think about how a market economy worksy the above is completely illogical. The entire point of markets is to trade which means those who have too much give to those who have too little in exchange for monetary compensation.

Why doesn't the same happen with money? Why isn't money flowing from those who have too much to those who have too little in exchange for their labor?

Instead, those who have too much get more and those who have too little get less, this is highly inefficient.

[a-user-you-like]

It’s a start, but really everybody needs their taxes raised a good bit to support a minimum wage for the poorest people.

To get to $50/hr I imagine the middle class will need their federal tax doubled, at least.

But do you want to live in a civilized society or not?

[a-user-you-like]

Why downvoted? Do people not care for the poorest?

[guggle]

> 30 years ago people would have said yes perhaps (American dream)

I can relate to that... in the 80s USA was the dream for us kids. But now... I'm so glad I don't live there. France is indeed extremely generous. I wish more french people would realize this.

[jollybean]

This is hyperbole.

For most people, especially any French person who'd move to the US, all of those indicators are fine, and, income is considerably higher than in France, if not 'free time' and guaranteed access to healthcare.

Yes, the food in many ways is not good, but it's fine. There is no 'security' problem - Manhattan is generally safer than Paris, and US has great educational institutions unless you live in a ghetto.

It hasn't changed that much over 20 years other than what you see on TV.

Attitudes towards work have changed, our material standard of living is considerably higher than it was 2 generations ago, and people are considerably less willing to do manual labour for example. Ironically, wages in semi skilled and skilled labour are actually not that bad.

What we have now is a 'new white collar working class' - large swaths of people who went to college and have expectations they wouldn't be managing restaurants.

[mushbino]

This is what happens in a country overtaken by corporations, unlimited campaign contributions, and profit above all else.

[umanwizard]

The US is better than the median country in the world on all the metrics you list.

Yes, it’s worse than France, which is part of Western Europe, the most developed and best-run part of the entire world.

[doteka]

I guess being better than a random third-world country (yes, that’s what median means here) is seen as a great accomplishment? Not sure why you would choose to comment this, it’s like a grown adult bragging about being able to beat up a toddler.

[umanwizard]

Why is your prior that the US should be doing better than third-world countries?

Where did I claim it should be seen as a great accomplishment?

[pavlov]

The world has a lot of poor countries, so settling for “better than the median” is a very low bar. On the list of GDP per capita, the median countries are South Africa and Peru.

If the US ever gets near the median on these global lists, it would be the result of a collapse worse than the Soviet Union’s.

[imtringued]

You're forgetting Ukraine.

[umanwizard]

All of this is true. What’s your point?

[polypodiopsi]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/news/databl...

The facts are as exhaustive as they are exhausting. There’s one simple conclusion from all of this. We’ve been tricked. We’ve been told that America, like most other majority-white countries, deserves the title “developed economy”. It does not.

A bit polemic but an interesting perspective. Maybe it's just the case that the us IS a "third world' aka >developing county<

[umanwizard]

Yes, that's my point; I'm happy at least someone understood it instead of downvoting me.

People love talking about how the US is the worst developed country across so many categories, without grasping the point that if something is clearly an outlier from everything else in a category, the definition of the category itself is flawed.

The US isn't that bad of a country in that sense that if you knew you were going to be born into the US, and you got one optional re-roll, you shouldn't take it. But for some reason that isn't totally clear to me people (though I have some hypotheses), people seem to think that we should be doing dramatically better than we are, and the fact that we're not in an even higher percentile of best countries to live in is some sort of unconscionable moral failing.

My hypotheses for the source of this idea:

* Pure racism -- people think "the US is a Western country with a European-influenced culture; why shouldn't it be doing as well as all the other countries that fit that description?"

* People confuse wealth with development. They think "of course [country X] is fucked up, because it's poor, but the US doesn't have that excuse". However, they are actually two independent axes (despite being correlated, of course).

* The existence of so much "America #1" propaganda makes people want to hold the US to a higher standard -- if country X has problems, well, at least they're not going around claiming to be the best country in the world.

* The ironclad pop-cultural dominance of the US in the Western world means it's on people's minds way more than random median-quality countries.