Talk:Standard of living in the United States/Archive 1

HOLIDAYS
Ok. you say the USA is the best place to live. ok ok. the USA is an interesting place. interesting people and a beatifull countryside, BUT:

AVERAGE DAYS OF HOLIDAY:

Sweden	 33 Netherlands	 31,5

Danmark	 30

Germany	 29,1

Italy 	 28

Luxemburg	 28

Austria	 25

Suomi	      25

France	 25

Greece      23

Ireland 	 20

Swizerland	 20

Japan	      18

USA	      12

So come one. i live in germany...... and i think: i have a better life than you US boys with average 12 days of holiday!!!!


 * If that is important to you than you may. You may also get more holidays in the US if you have more skills and a better job. Teachers get a lot of holidays in the US, certainly far more than the average in Germany, yet there is a teacher shortage here in the US, indicating that it's not necessarily as important as one might think.--Rotten 14:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

of course it is important how much holidays one have. i work 50-60+ hours a week but i know there is a life beyond work ;-) my only point was: i dont like it when one thinks one nation is better than another. its not. every free nation in this world is a fine and interesting place worth living. a good place cannot be measured by the amount of TVs, PCs, cars or anything else. the only way how to measure how good a standart of living is: how lucky are the people there? and: i know a lot people who are happy without having a car or a tv (they dont want it or dont need it). its not necessary to have material "luxory" things to be happy... but we europeans have sometimes the feeling that most of american citizens dont know that. but its just a feeling.... :-)


 * Standard of living a very concise economic term, generally meaning "per capita income". Quality of life is another, not-so-tangible measure. One person's QOL is not another's.--Rotten 21:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

i know this :-). but for me its measured a bit different....


 * Wow. Standard of living based entirely on number of vacation days.  And they say that Americans are lazy. Jrkarp 21:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This list of "holidays" by country is complete and utter crap. The fact is, U.S. employers aren't required to give ANY holiday/vacation time off to their workers. I know: I worked in the private sector (as a journalist) for 20 years and never had a single vacation. In response to the previous sarcastic poster, I would say that yes, time off from work IS important to one's quality of life. I always find it interesting how Republicans who disagree with this idea worship Bush, who treats himself to 5-week vacations at his Crawford "ranch."

It is often said that, in the US forty or fifty years ago, one working person could support a household; nowadays, it takes two.

Do cars mean a highern standard of living? Sure, lots of people own cars, but they are a bare-bones necessity for some.

Does "standard of living" mean what you have left over after you have done the basic survival stuff?

The United Nations produces a list each year of best countries in the world to live in. I am almost certain the barometer is the standard of living with includes per capital GDP, income, but also health care services, education, environment, etc.

This page is really empty. Standards of living may have subjective factors, but there are pretty "standards" ways of calculating the standards of living. :-) As written above by an unknown contributor, the typical factors include the per capita gdp and income, spending power, cost of living, education and health. Here are the Human Development Reports of the United Nations. For the third consecutive year, Norway is the best country to live in according to this report and not far behind are all the other Nordic countries like Finland, Sweden and Denmark. Odly enough, these nations are all well established social democraties... ;-) -- Mathieugp 14:52, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Which raises the question of whether the report is biased towards social democracies. Here's the funny thing: there are always more people immigrating from the Nordic countries to the United States than the other way around.  Now why would that be?

Whose Standard?
The UN criteria tend to favor "social democracies" and moderately socialist criteria by essentially giving "brownie points" for equality. By any quality-of-life comparison, the vast majority of Americans enjoy a standard of living at least as good as that in Scandanavia. The difference is that in the US one needs to work to attain that standard of living. In Denmark, for example one can (and, reportedly, often does--I have a few articles on this somewhere, but, regardless, it's well documented) stay home, in part because the socialism makes it difficult to "get ahead" by working harder or getting a better job. The problems in the US come for those who either refuse to work (which is their own fault--this grouping doesn't include the disabled, who are taken care of either by society or by the government) or cannot move, due to their living in depressed areas, from WalMart clerk type jobs to something that pays more substantially.

Consider, however, a measure which considers liberty, economic opportunity, and social mobility part of the "standard of living". It's not unreasonable--I'll let the sociologists do their own thing, but it's interesting to consider. My guess is that the US would be closer to the top of the list than it is now. I think economic opportunity (non-Americans might want to check out the Institute for Justice, http://www.ij.org, for examples of what we mean by "economic opportunity" and why we consider it a civil-liberties issue) must be considered in any nuanced article about the American standard of living. The US certainly has its problems, some of which are related to inequalities (some of which, it is interesting to note, are exacerbated by governmental policies), but the standard of living enjoyed by average Americans is not reflected in the crudest of macroeconomic analyses (the numbers are pulled down by pathological cases--rural and inner-urban poverty pockets), nor do such analyses examine what Americans gain by living in a liberal country as opposed to a European "social democracy". It is more than just an abstract increase of liberty; there is an increase in the standard of living that, unfortunately, isn't being quantified.

Any nuanced discussion must also take, into account geographical diversity both between and within the several states. This wouldn't be relevant would the international comparisons not imply a sort of homogenaeity. For example, the standard of living of Chicagoans, for example, is very different from that in some parts of rural IL, with Hopkins Park being the extreme example.

At the very least, a breakdown of data between urban, suburban, and rural, is needed for an adequate analysis. Ideally the data should also be broken down between income brackets, where the income is weighted with respect to cost-of-living in the geographical area. Only then can one begin to get a handle on the American standard of living. --Bkalafut 07:15, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * standard of living is a measure of material well being, which can be measured by how much access people have to cars, TV sets, heathcare and so on. The US is one of the richest countries in the world, and has a high average standard of living.  That's not controversial.  Subjective factors, such as "economic opportunity", or "happiness", do not fall under the usual definition of standard of living (these subjective factors are generally referred to as contributing to the "quality of life").  It would be out of place to discuss them in this article.  The article should focus on material well-being, because that's what standard of living means. Enchanter 21:28, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

agit-prop
This discription sounds like pro-USA prop. Every attempt is made to defend the patria, promote capitalism and smash socialism. Standard of living should probably be related to something like "gross national happiness", not economic factors like who owns the biggest SUV.


 * I think you are misunderstanding what Standard of living means. The ordinary definition of Standard of living is that it means material well being.  Measuring "happiness" would usually be referred to as "quality of life" rather than "standard of living".


 * While socialists would accuse the US of many things, such as having high inequality and social and environmental problems, I don't think there are many that would seriously say that it had a low average standard of living. Even the most ardent critics of the US generally say that it is a rich country with a high standard of living.


 * Perhaps the article could be made clearer on this point.


 * Enchanter 20:32, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

Anti-US nonsense
The US has a lower median income compared to what countries? The US has more TV's, PC's, and automobiles than any other country on earth. This is just as utterly biased as Wikipedia's other US entries.

LOL. are TV PC and Cars REALY a benchmark in this case???? Big LOL... *singing* 21th century digital boy. i dont know how to read but i got a lot of toys.........

I edited the article based on the true definition of standard of living. If you wish to make a quality of life article then do so. This article was mainly written by people who do not know what they're talking about.

The US has more people under the median income than anywhere else on earth, besides Mexico and Russia: Population living below 50% of median income: Mexico  	22% Russia 		20% United States 	17% Average:	10%

comment by nobodyz
Well, let's see, actually LIVING in the United States, and being disabled, I experience some of the worst low income nightmares you could imagine.

For instance, I cannot wash my own hair due to my physical disability. I must pay an enormous amount of money to have this done, yet I am way below the poverty level in income due to the U.S.'s insistance that taxes are just "too high". So, essentially, I have the choice of eating (and thus, continuing to exist) and being a social pariah with filthy hair, or I can forgo eating to be clean. Is this a "good standard of living"?

Supposedly, working people should never have to pay for anything as non-important as the well-being of their fellow man -- even if he is a cripple. Damn him for not working and making his way in the great capitalistic nation. But you don't hear about that, because the United States is currently stealing even MORE money from the poor to pay the rich. It's reverse Robin Hood ethics. I wouldn't call that a "good standard of living". Would you?


 * Could you maybe explain to me what being below the poverty level has to do with the U.S. believing that taxes are too high? Jrkarp 21:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Seems kinda obvious to me. Higher taxes would mean more money going into welfare and social security (disabilities, sickness, parental leave, childcare,...), unless you were to put it into the military. Taxes are used (in Europe) to make the differences in income less and to give a better life to the poor. Somebody has to give, either the rich (money) or the poor (being poorer then they could be).HichamVanborm 21:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

--68.123.153.140 06:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

One of the problems we have here in the U.S. is the widespread belief that the United States is the greatest country in the world. Because of that belief, we don't take advantage of the positive ideas and experience of other countries. We don't try to solve some of our problems by looking at countries that do it better than we do in health, education, social or governmental organization. We worship our constitution and "founding fathers" as if they were gods and because of that we don't recognize some of their failings and find ways to improve. We live in a flawed so called "democracy" which doesn't represent the interests of most of our citizens. Many of our citizens are brainwashed to believe that the less fortunate amongst us are that way because of their own lack of initiative rather than the many possible circumstances that may have held them back. There is also a popular belief that the rich are the most productive and, therefore, deserve to be rich. In fact, many of the ultra rich are the laziest, greediest, most unproductive members of our society and are only rich due to inheritance and good investment lawyers. It seems to me that the commentators that most vigorously defend the U.S. are white males who have never experienced the effects of discrimination, the hectic lives of women with children, or the despair of the sick and the impoverished elderly. There may be a huge portion of our population who are very well off financially, but, I ask, at what cost? Our economic well-being as a country is measured through our GNP. How long can our environment withstand economies based on producing and selling more and more junk--most of which we really don't need? We supposedly want other undeveloped nations to become as "developed" as we are, but what will happen if all nations started consuming at the same rate as the U.S.? We already use 25% of the world's resources. What happens when China, which has 1/5 of the world's population, catches up to us? We should be focused on quality of life, rather than merely standard of living. American's spiritual and emotional lives suffer while they struggle to keep up their "standard of living." We haven't long to last if we keep up our ethnocentric imperialistic attitudes. Already taxpayers spend more on our military than the most powerful countries combined. I guess we need it if we use 25% of the world's resources. As an American, I hate to say it, but I believe the U.S. currently is the greatest threat to the peace and safety of the world.


 * "Ethoncentric imperialistic attidudes"? Are you mad? Imperialism is a focused attempt BY THE STATE to coerce and assimilate other nations. Please, do not confuse capitalism (the free movement of capital) with imperialism. And how is it "ethnocentric"? Please explain.

Left-wing communist countries have NOTORIOUS green records.

And the EU is NOT better than America. I know, I live in the goddamn protectionist racket.

And please, please give a valid alternative, not just whine. Thank you. --Onias 23:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

"As an American, I hate to say it, but I believe the U.S. currently is the greatest threat to the peace and safety of the world." ... I'm sorry, you may have American citizenship, but you're not an American. There are plenty of people with your mindset living in France; maybe you can increase your own quality of life with a one-way ticket to Paris.

Unemployment rate
Wouldn't it be useful to the international reader to mention that the reason behind the US having that low an unemployment rate is that some kind of part-time (or seasonal) workers are included as workers, whereas lots of other nations do not include them? I'll try and bring evidence on that one, but it would seem that if calculated the same way as "other" nations (which ones? I ignore so far) would be around 8%.

Its not America's fault that other countries foolishly do not include part time and seasonal workers, a group of individuals that historically make up a huge percentage of the workforce. After all, they do work... many of them (probably most) pay taxes, thus supporting the infrastructure. I fail to see how this argument is soluble even a little. Furthermore, its deeply troubling how you cite this data with no reference source. Essentially, this is you're opinion, and should be labled as such. And even at 8%, our unemployment rate would still be hands down among the best in the world. (DarthH)

Health
"The standard of living in the United States is one of the highest in the world by almost any measure".

By two fundamental measurements, the standard of living in the US is low compared to other industrialized democracies: life expectancy and infant mortality.
 * But we don't have 6 month waiting lists for health care. And we do provide health care to many of the poor, just not to those who can afford it for themselves.  Pakaran 19:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * And to clarify, I see no reason why the most productive members of society should be taxed to pay for those who cannot afford health care for themselves. The logical extension is to provide fancy cars for those of the poor who are "emotionally injured" by not having them.  Pakaran

Yes, your logic is crystal clear. Anyone who is crippled or disabled through no fault of their own, should just, well, DIE, I guess. I'm not sure why the U.S. seems to believe that all people are lucky and healthy and able. Disabled means "not abled". So, those people should be poor, damn them, and they certainly should not have cars or anything else. And by the way, if you are poor enough in the U.S., you have your baby at home (not because you're wealthy and think it's chic) and maybe your wife lives and maybe she dies, and maybe the baby lives or maybe he dies, but after all, in the land of the capitalist, if you aren't adding to the wealth, you are considered a pariah. It's bad for those who don't have it all: wealth, health and good connections. -nobodyz

The whole health care argument is completely bogus because the US spends more money on healthcare per person than any other country in the world. This is the reason medical care is so much better in the US than in other countries. The reason that health care is pricier here than in other countries is that the US is also the major developer of new drugs in the world which is very expensive. Also, anecdotal evidence is not convincing enough to change an encyclopedia. Another question is if you are so poor you can barely afford to take care of yourself why did you buy a computer and an internet connection? Basically people think they have a right to happiness just for being born, thankfully the framers clearly say that in the US you the right to PURSUE happiness. This article is very biased as anyone would tell you that the US is the best place to live in the world, why not take into consideration the above average suicide rates in the scandinavian country along with their declining population and low inflows of immigration. -anonymous

overall
overall this was a fairly decent and fair entry except for a very derogatory verse in the end. "Some regard this imbalance as a product of the United States' long policy of having a more free market economy, while other countries are more ready to sacrifice net wealth in favor of equality." More us bashing right there. Probably writtten by some socialist pansy.

Just Bitter
From some of comments i've read,I get the impression that the people complaining about this article are just plain bitter.Bitter at the fact that the U.S.A is not the greatest country to live in( Oh heavens!Say it's not so! How dare you!)and the typical response is "You must be a communist" or even better "Anti American"...weak. Now, when i think of "Standard of Living" i also think of quality of life. I'm glad i do not have to live in a country where i have to carry a gun for protection, or worry about taking the wrong exit,ending up in a neighborhood "that dont like whitey". I also enjoy the fact that i can go to any emergency room at a hospital without the worry of "Is my insurance up to date" or see any doctor i want without having to check with my HMO.In addition, prices on prescription drugs are way more affordable in Canada. Heaps of Americans come up to Canada to get these "must have" drugs because they cant afford them in their own country,or even worse,not availiable,such as a flu shot...pathetic. By the way, many of the doctors that emigrated to the U.S. in the 90s'are now returning to Canada.I guess the grass isnt alays greener on the other side after all eh? Canada has all the "stuff" America has,except the high violent crime rate,the ghettos(good recruiting grounds for the military)and a climate of fear. Before there is any whineing about about Canada not contributing to the security of the U.S,Canada has 2000 troops in Afghanistan to free up U.S.troops for Iraq. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.66.121.193 (talk • contribs).


 * Great, but Standard of Living is a defined economic measure. Quality of life is another and is not as clear. What is good quality of life to one person isn't a good quality of life to another person. But one is a very sustinct economic measure and one is not.--Rotten 14:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, contrary to what people from countries with socialized medicine think, even with no insurance, you will get health care in the U.S.; it is illegal for an ER to refuse to serve you due to lack of insurance. So we too can go to an ER and know that our insurance status will not affect our quality of care.  It is amazing how many Canadians and Britons actually believe that in the U.S., if you have no insurance, an ER will kick you out. Jrkarp 21:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's ture the ER will take you, but you won't get braces for your kids and the hospital will only do the bear minimum that's neccesary to keep you alive. Let's face it the health care system is not America's corwn jewel (America ranks number 72). Besdies Standard of Living is a purely economic measure, it is not the same as quality of life. GDP per capita and HDI are the best indicators for Standard of living. This article should not be pro-US propaganda nor should it be a list of what's wrong with the US. Regards,  Signature brendel  22:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * THat's a bullshit study. Notice how Jamaica and Costa Rica rank above Germany? The entire study is flawed.--Rotten 04:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Be that as it may, the health care system of the US is not what it should be, look at the life expetancy, infant moratlity rate, etc... As I have said this article should neither feature proganada nor should it be a "What's wrong with the US" article. Regards,  Signature brendel  06:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Those figures could have nothing to do with the health care system of the US. Infant mortality could be skewed higher because we try to save infants that would otherwise be aborted in other countries for example.--Rotten 05:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)